Transcript for HoS 76

Now then we have come to a most momentous period in Scottish history, as if all periods weren’t momentous, but you know what I mean. The next 25 years will set the direction for Scots in the modern world.

OK? Nothing major then. Let us then return to the reign of James VII. The story of the later Stuarts so far; Charles II had re-established rule in Scotland together with the ruling classes on the basis of a regime that was close to Absolutism, though with parliament left intact; he had imposed a religious settlement on the basis of an established, episcopalian church, and persecuted the more radical presbyterians; the memory of the Covenant has been expurgated, deleted, and generally despised and rejected. The Stuarts both Charles and his successor James, aimed to use their rule in Scotland as an example for their southern and Western neighbours.

James had a residual popularity in parts of Scotland, or particularly in the highlands where he had been sympathetic as Duke of York, to collaboration with the highland clan chiefs. But this had proved temporary on his return as king, and once more replaced by the normal behaviour of lowland Scots towards their highland neighbours – one of suspicion, misunderstanding, and harsh rule that frequently led to violence, though particularly focussed on the lands of the ex-rebel, Argyll. This ignored the fundamental changes going on in Highland society that was making clan based violence more and more rare outside Lochaber.

James sought to re-establish Catholicism in Scotland, and was strongly suspected of having longer term objectives of its complete imposition as the state religion, and to harden and embed absolutist rule. He faced growing resistance, and a parliament that had indulged in a number of cliches without permission, along the lines of digging its heels in, drawing a line, going thus far and no further – you know the sort of thing. Desperate to build support for his regime, we left things with James having been pushed down the road, progressively, towards complete religious toleration, even for Covenanters. He had been made aware of how unhappy the political nation was by the complete failure of the Black Rainy parliament, so he had ridden roughshod over their feelings, and implemented toleration by the royal prerogative, and absolutism was confirmed.

On the plus side, all but the most extreme Presbyterians had accepted the royal policy, and started rebuilding their communities and churches, and Catholics were of course cock a hoop – and individual now in control of many key positions on state, including the two top dogs Perth and Melfort. Episcopalians were a different matter; James’ policy had essentially split their unity; some were willing to follow the monarch come what may, but a substantial part saw indulgences for dissenters as a basic breach of the unwritten contract they held with a monarch – who was supposed to uphold a Protestant established church in return for obedience to absolutist rule. So – that’s where we are, let’s see what happens next shall we?




Well before we do, it’s worth noting that even where resistance was strongest, there had always been a backstop for the unhappy subject; because James II and VII was what I think they call a declining asset. Do they call it that? Depreciating asset maybe? Anyway instead of trying to be clever let me just say it – the point is that the only certain thing, as well as taxes, was that James was going to die; he was in his 50s so it might take a while, but you know he had a sell by date. And he and Mary of Modena had been married for 14 years and patter of tiny feet there was none. And it wasn’t that James wasn’t sexually active; apparently he was a bit of a looker, and had plenty of mistresses – seen as a good thing at the time by the way, or maybe an inevitable thing at the time. In fact the joke was, I am sure you have heard it before, that his brother Charles had laughed at him by teasing him that his

‘mistresses were so ugly they must have been imposed upon him by his confessor’

Which is rude, and I’d like to distance myself from such comments. And meanwhile his heir was Mary, his daughter by his first marriage to Anne Hyde – and Mary was reassuringly protestant, and even more reassuringly, married to the hero of Protestant Europe, William of Orange, Stadholder of the Dutch republic. So you know – take a chill pill, it’ll all come out in the wash. Anyone for the last few choc ices now?

But – have you heard the news! In October 1987 the Palace announced that Queen Mary was pregnant. The sound of eggs emerging from the bottoms of Whig politician was heard around the Palace of Westminster, and the slap slap of plots being laid. In June 1688, it was confirmed to be a son, and therefore his heir – and since he was called the Old Pretender, everyone knew this was trouble. Well he was called James first of course – James VIII and III to be. Old Pretender would come later – plot spoiler. So the take a chill pill and sit it out policy was a busted flush. And so seven traitors wrote to the king of a foreign power asking him to invade their home country. Oops, did I say traitors? Hush my mouth. I mean, of course, seven brave patriots, known to history as the Immortal Seven. On 5th November in the largest invasion of England since 1066, William tipped up at Torbay with 15,000 of his closest friends and companions, armed to the teeth. It might be said that he came to rescue English liberties from the cruel grasp of a tyrant, and I would respect that, of course. The fact that England was a protestant nation that might hold the key to continued survival of William’s homeland in the face of French aggression might also, maybe possibly perhaps have been a factor. Facing the forces of liberation and invasion, was a well rested and supplied Army of 40,000 under James II and VII.

Now everyone had been expecting this – it had been on the cards for a while, although no one had the actual date in the diary. But things had been buzzing, and there were Scots in William’s camp in the Hague. James Dalrymple of Stair was one – and his son John, handily, was on the Scottish PC so that was helpful in terms of illegal information flow; and William Carstares, the man who’d been tortured in the  Rye House plot was with William too. Plus a few others – the next Earl of Argyll was also in Holland pledging his support. No prizes for guessing his first name. Oh go on, it’s Archibald. I know you knew that.

William made a Declaration of Reasons for Scotland; it blamed evil counsellors rather than James, which was nice, but accused them of tyranny and oppression, especially in the Killing Times. But is wasn’t a Presbysterian announcement – it made that ubiquitous commitment to be a king for everyone, Presbyterian or Episcopalian. The Earl of Leven even raised a regiment in Holland for William, commanded by a Scotsman, Hugh MacKay. Game on.


Back at home, when the bones were thrown, it was difficult to read in which quadrant they’d fallen – Williamite or Jacobite. The news of the birth of James’ son for example had been rather poorly received; in the staged royal events of celebration rather a lot of the nobility failed to turn up, and James was worried – he made sure the army was on hand for possible disturbances. A few weeks later, the rumours about a fake birth, the so called Bed Pan plot reached Scotland, and some episcopalian ministers stopped praying for the little mite. On the other hand, In October, the Bishops gathered together and sent James a nice letter with congratulations for the lad, and agreeing that William was a bad man. As the crisis gathered in October 1688 and everyone waited for the forthcoming storm to break, some areas did express support for James – the Burgh of Glasgow for example raised a militia and Fife a regiment of 400 men; others were conspicuously silent – most of the Magnates appeared to be considering which way to jump – the earl of Annandale would change sides 5 times – and almost no burghs came out for James – including Aberdeen, normally a royalist bastion. Support for William in Galloway and the South West seemed to be strong – despite the apparent acceptance of the Indulgence.

John Graham of Claverhouse had no doubts though. Just to remind you, Claverhouse had been a relentless and loyal servant of the state in suppressing the Presbyterian conventicles, albeit generally with a rigorous application of his commission, though accusations of brutality are thought to be overstated by Presbyterian historians. Claverhouse had been called to visit James in London during the reign, James had promoted him to Major General and encouraged him in London society – he was a common sight in Bath, I am told.

So when crisis loomed, Claverhouse was down to James side like a rat up a drain, with his regiment of 357 men. James was pleased to see him and ennobled him, to Viscount Dundee for his

‘good and eminent services … together with his constant loyalty and firm adherence to the true interests of the Crown’






At James’ side also were other Scots, notably Lord Breadalbane, and the Earl of Arran, the son of the Duke of Hamilton. But Edinburgh was becoming a bit of a haven for the disaffected; presbyterians and the radical Society People held public meetings discussing what should be done; including various peers, and even the PC began to look uncertain as a faction appeared in opposition to Perth. On 30th November university students burned effigies of Archbishops – and nobody saw fit to stop them. Then they marched on parliament house shouting ‘no pope, no papists’, and carried out a mock trial of his Holiness.

Down south then, William advanced from Torbay Londonwards, where James awaited him at Salisbury with his army. Well, with his steadily decreasing army actually; it appears quite a few had checked the bilges of the ship of state, and decided that said ship might be sinking, and therefore in the manner of all rats, found themselves a convenient hawser to shore and deserted. A powerful contingent of three regiments was sent forward to test William’s nerve. Now I’ve never been quite sure how many men that is, but looking at various snippets, I reckon that could be about 3,000 men or more. But when danger reared its ugly head, they bravely turned their tails and fled. Actually worse than that – they joined William. Which is not what you want as a general. Back at camp most people were telling James he needed to run away. Retreat I mean, withdraw in good order, to London, call a parliament, re-establish support and negotiate – after all apparently William was saying he’d had come only to restore good rule, and not replace him, and had promised no one would get hurt. But our new Viscount Dundee though nothing of these arguments, and was made of sterner stuff. He was adamant that James must stand and fight.

Well to cut a long story short, James ignored the bullish Dundee, lost his nerve, and ran away to London. Not the last time he’ll do that as it happens; though he was to prove as bad at running away as he’d been at being king. Dundee apparently burst into tears at the news. On 9th December 1688 James ran away properly aiming for France, dropping the seal of state in the Thames on the understanding that this would prevent the calling of parliament – I mean, as if. ‘Sorry everyone we can’t have a revolution we haven’t got the right paperwork’. Anyway, a fisherman clocked him, and he was banged up in a pub for a while before being dragged back to London. Everyone cursed the fisherman, who apparently hadn’t been able to catch so much as a sprat for years, and now here he was catching escaping kings whose presence would be profoundly embarrassing. 3 weeks later James followed a carefully laid trail of open doors and ‘this way, to France’ signs and finally made it to France. I’m being sarky, wit is unworthy of me – sorry. Anyway, James had finally managed to bravely run away.

Before he’d gone, Charles ministers of State for Scotland, the Drummond Brothers Perth and Melfort also tried to split. Lord Melfort made a decent fist of it and made his way to France with his wife and seven kids. Perth decided also to head for France. He manged to get on a boat but again someone spotted him, chased him and caught his boat. Perth was found dressed in Women’s clothing in the hold of the boat, dragged back to Scotland and would remain banged up until 1693.

Dundee remained in London with other Scots trying to work out a plan to restore their king. Just a reminder – John Graham of Claverhouse = Dundee. But in Scotland the earl of Athol essentially headed a new government with the PC now that Perth had gone and they declared there’d be a free parliament and wrote a letter of thanks to William.

So far so sensible – James had fled, time to play it carefully. Time would tell how the parliament would react when it did meet – not until then could James or William know how the cards were falling. In England they would fall in support of William of course, in Ireland they’d fall very differently. So, a group of Scots met William in London on Christmas Day, to find out how the land lay. At their backs, Edinburgh was going seriously wild against James; a riot of 3,000 strong were fired on by troops, they stormed Holyrood palace, burnt any evidence of Catholic worship, and proceeded to attack the residences of known Catholics, like the Earl of Traquhair.

Violence also erupted in Dumfriesshire and Aberdeen, and the chaos spread. Most of the trouble were couched in religious terms – such as the notorious rabblings for example. Rabbling was where the congregation mobbed and removed Episcopalian ministers. Some were overtly Williamite – William was proclaimed king at Irvine and Ayr – which is radical presbyterian territory; others were loyalist, such as at Aberdeen. It was very confused. But it seems clear that among presbyterians at very least, these were revolutionary acts, a reaction to the oppressions of the restored Stuart monarchy; and it was widespread; something like 200 ministers were removed, in a country of 900 parishes.




Ok, events dear boys and girls. On 7th January, William asked all the Scots in London what they advised for the way forward to achieve peace. To be clear, at this point William is not king of Scotland, and everything is conducted on that basis. I mean Ok, he’s a strong candidate …but due process is required, and we can hear no fat ladies at this moment.

There were quite a lot of Scots in London – 30 peers and 80 gentlemen assembled and chewed the cud. I’m going to introduce you to a couple of the chewers for a little colour, but also to show how difficult it is to discern loyalties at this stage. And indeed that many at the time were also unsure.

The first is John Campbell, earl of Breadalbane, he’s in his fifties, and he’s an interesting illustration of the problem that faces us in trying to understand the mood of the country. Breadalbane has been an active part of the Restoration regime; despite being a Campbell, he was at the head of the repression of the Campbell clan when Argyll’s rebellion failed in 1685; his detractors claimed he was trying to take over leadership of the Campbells in their entirety. However, as a good presbyterian he supported the riots that attacked Holyrood; and at this meeting now he would sign the address asking William to rule until a Convention had taken place; and so you might think he is a presbyterian and William’s man. But in fact he would not even go to the following convention; and he would stay in contact with Viscount Dundee, a known James Loyalist – let us call them Jacobites now shall we? For such is what they are. Supporters of Jacobus.  Basically – who’s side was Breadalbane on? Probably his own. He would follow where he felt the victor would lead.

So that’s Breadalbane. Now James Hamilton, the Earl of Arran, a mere stripling of 30, son of the Duke of Hamilton. A rather attractive but wild sort of man – he’d been on the Grand Tour of Europe, been smiled on by the Sun King Louise XIV himself in Paris, and spent vast amounts of money – which will be a theme I have to tell you. He was artistic, articulate, charming. He had been an item at Charles II’s court – until he had an affair with one of Charles II’s illegitimate daughters and was told to leave. Affairs will be something of a theme also. On the other hand, he was also under enormous pressure from Mum and dad to be sober and build the fortunes of the Hamilton.

A little cameo might demonstrate the sort conflicting pressures Arran was under. He’d been loyal to James until his flight, but his father then pushed him into greeting William in London in December 1688. Arran didn’t produce the oily performance expected of him when he met – instead he loudly said he was here to meet William at his master’s command – his master being James of course. He was duly carted off to cool down in the Tower – because his very own dad tipped the wink to William to do so. You now, give the lad a short, sharp, shock. Thanks Dad.

Arran was sprung from the comforts of the Tower in time to join the others at the meeting with William Whitehall to make an interesting but ever so slightly naïve suggestion; he suggested that they thank William for saving then from Popery and all – good job on that one – but that plenty thanks, now let’s have James return and call a free parliament and we can take it from there. Thanks William. The suggestion was greeted by tumbleweed. Arran great talents, he was charismatic, patriotic, and very much part of the protestant majority. But he could be erratic in his judgement, not necessarily the most reliable leader to follow. This would surface very much during the debate about the treat of Union.





Anyway, after chewing the cud, the assembly agreed to ask William to take over government – but only temporarily at this stage, let’s not get ahead of ourselves. They would organise a Convention of the Scottish Estates in Edinburgh for March 1689, and decide what to do next, to decide who was born to rule over us, and on what terms.

Ok so this is the crucial meeting for Scotland’s future – the convention of Estates, March 1689, the one to define the future. Now I have a confession to make. I find the history of Scotland between 1640 and 1690 dizzying. From being a Covenanter state, deeply restricting royal power in 1640, to a Restoration state that was as near to Absolutism as we achieve on the island. And now things are going to change again. There seems little rhyme or reason. But maybe what it reflects is that the Covenanter state, superbly successful at mobilising public support as it was, always created fissures in religion and governance which were difficult to repair. The Convention was to struggle to establish a unity of purpose and consensus as a result. Very crudely – and please any proper historians close your ears – it seems that in 1640 Scotland rushed to one side of the boat; when said boat tipped alarmingly and looked set to sink, they rushed over to the other side. By 1688 it was looking to capsize the other way, so now they rushed all the way back and hung off the opposite gunwales. Because the 1689 Convention of estates was to turn out be once more come to some extreme conclusions.

There were many colours of opinion that assembled in Edinburgh that March – there were 188 representatives, by the way so you can visualise the scale. I think I’m going to tackle this one by resisting putting individuals in boxes straight away. I mean – its’ so dehumanising isn’t it, pigeon holing people? I mean, jolly handy though, so we’ll do that in just a minute but first let’s talk about the threads of the cat’s cradle that will be the influences on the individuals, before they settle neatly into their pigeon holes.

Firstly, many believed in the divinely ordained hereditary principle. You don’t get to mess about with selecting your king, you have to put up with what you get because that is God’s providence working through. And that’s James. So, you know, William, if you wouldn’t mind awfully – jog on. If that’s Ok with you that is.

Secondly religion, oh good lord religion would you believe. The king must uphold the one true religion. Ah – what is that again? Well Protestant clearly – well now actually, we do have some Catholics. And anyway even if it is Protestant, what flavour? Should we have bishops or not? Or Presbyteries and consistory courts? In general, Episcopalians, although deeply divided by James’ policy, would lean toward James, but not always; while Presbyterians were strongly Williamite – he’s a good Prod, and let’s kick out all that Royal Supremacy over the church stuff while we are at it.

Then there were personal circumstances. There were an awful lot of trimmers in the convention; if I pick the winner my family will flourish if I pick the wrong one it’ll be gruel for supper, choose well for the good of the family.

So now that pigeonholing and dehumanising. First of all there are the out and out Jacobites. The Duke of Gordon, a Catholic like his forebears of course, the greatest power in the North East, and governor of Edinburgh castle, and refusing to give it up to Atholl’s interim Williamite regime. The Protestant Earl of Balcarres and Viscount Dundee were also out and out Jacobites – and responded to the News that the English had made William their king in February by

Drinking to King William’s confusion and king James’ restoration

Among the Episcopalians there were 9 clergy – and they were firmly for James. They knew that Presbyterians were their out and out enemies and would destroy them. Lay Episcopalians were much more accommodating, men like the Duke of Queensberry for example; they were encouraged by William’s attitudes, who held no strong objections to an Episcopalian church – and they simply wanted the most solid and lasting political settlement to assure peace and stability.



Then there were your convinced Williamites. Many were fiercely Presbyterian, men such as Argyll – yes the latest iteration is back – Crawford, Sutherland, Hume, and James Dalrymple; these men sought a radical new settlement of state and church. Other Williamites were effectively backing the right horse – trimmers – who held no strong views, but thought the William star was irrevocably in the ascendant.

Well a range then; still leaves us with the question of why this Revolution Settlement would turn out to be rather one sided; despite all the shades of opinion, it turns out this was a one horse race. I think I can explain.

Firstly – let’s look at the situation coldly, and assume your fortune depended on whether you put your money on Red or Black. Who’s the best bet? The bloke who’s just run away and is sitting angrily in France? Or the guy at a head of a 15,000 strong army just elected king of England? I mean I hate to be cynical but you know what I’m just saying? No one would get fired for choosing William.

Secondly there’s James record towards specific interest groups;  James had trampled all over the rights of the burghs in how they elected their corporations; so the representatives  of the Burghs were dominated by Presbyterians supporters of William.

Thirdly – the atmosphere surrounding the Convention in Edinburgh. While various members of the nobility had been messing about in London or with James, the Presbyterians and Cameronians had organised in Scotland. They’d already had two years under James to restore their structure and organisation – For James, this was an unwanted and unforeseen consequence of religious indulgence. You see, tyrants out there, if you’re going to be a tyrant don’t try to make nice  – there’s no redemption in politics. Just keep stamping, rebels are like Japanese knotweed. Give em an inch and they’ll be all over your garden. So, during the convention the streets were crowded with thousands of presbyterian petitioners; in fact the interim government had agreed that 2,000 militia, mainly radical presbyterians, would be deployed around the Convention to provide security. So Bishops and lay supporters of James often found themselves shouted at by angry crowds whenever they turned up.

Which was one reason, then, why many did not turn up. The notes of the Convention show that 6 Bishops, 7 lords and 10 gentlemen, so 35 of the 188 did not turn up. In practice the no shows were even higher– because on key votes, some felt staying away would be in their best interests. There were other reasons too; future Jacobites such as Breadalbane simply didn’t turn up for fear of showing their hand publicly.

There’s one more reason, which is that James chose this moment to demonstrate his sparkling political and diplomatic skills. At the start of the convention, once everyone was sitting comfortably, two letters were read out to th representatives, sort of bid documents from the two candidates. William’s letter was all sweet reasonableness and did little more that invite them all to

Enter upon such consultations as are most probable to settle you on sure and lasting foundations

Well that’s nice isn’t it?

Now Jimmy. Well it noted that they were sitting there due to

The usurped authority of the Prince of Orange

So that was awkward. He demanded that they support his, James’  interests and any who did not he would

Punish with the rigor of our law

Nervous glances. Many immediately though it a good job James was sitting in a foreign country without two beans to rub together and unable to carry out his threats then. And after mature consideration felt it was probably better make sure it stayed that.

The result of all of this is that the Convention would be dominated by people who wanted rid of the episcopy and to reform the nature of the Restoration state, and would frame their demands in that way, and select the king most likely to support their aims

The output of the Convention was therefore revolutionary. It came in a document prepared to lay out the basis on which they would accept a king – although more on that later. The document was called the Claim of Right. In the historiography of an imported revolution, an English affair rather than a genuinely Scottish revolution, the Claim of Right tends to be presented as a sort of version of the English Declaration of Right made in January. And while it shares some of the influences of Locke and a political elite increasing integrated across Britain it really wasn’t just a copy. The Claim of Right reflected Scottish issues and traditions. And the Scots also attached to it a further document, the Articles of Grievances.





First of all though, it was decision time. There was kinging to be done; who was going to do it? The decision, of course was a forgone conclusion. On the 4th April, it was declared that James had forfaulted the crown, since he’d ‘invaded the fundamental constitution of the kingdom’; he’d done other bad things too, but we needn’t go into it. The Word forfault was a technical word chosen instead of forfeit consciously, but the distinction is lost really; the decision reached back to Buchanan and the idea of a contract between king and his people – and James had broken it. Straightforward – Kings were subject to an agreement of the people and could be held to account. The decision was that neither James nor his direct heirs could succeed…Unless their name was Mary or Anne of course; the crown was offered to Mary and William jointly, with William holding sole regal power. It was passed by an overwhelming majority. It was much more straightforward than the shapes being cut in England where it was decided the King had vacated the crown, he’d looked into his own rule, decided that ‘hmm, I did some terrible things’.. And abdicated. A laughable fiction, but it had some advantages; in England, Jacobites could hide behind a fiction that James had abdicated, given up his right himself – the Scottish Jacobites had no such salve to apply to delicate consciences of loyalty and duty.

In a little wrinkle I rather enjoyed by the way, before the vote the Trimmers of course were laying eggs. What to do? Because if they voted, and then James made a comeback in the second half, levelled the scores and won on penalties in extra time, they could be for the chop. So bravely, and in a deeply principled move, they just didn’t turn up for the vote. But then they worried what would William think or their absence? Maybe he’d question their loyalty and not dish out plum jobs to them? Ach. Ok OK – so they hedged. They claimed William not to have voted since they were

Not fully convinced of their right in declaring the crown vacant

But went on to say look since Convention has awarded the throne while they were away, never mind,

None deserved so well to fill it as the Prince of Orange

Politics can on occasion make you proud to be British.

So the Claim of Right then; it’s been described quite neatly as a composite document which owed its content to some healthy pragmatism, an element of Whiggism, a return to the constitution of 1641, and a payoff for the Presbyterians who were at this moment in time in the ascendancy again.

The Claim of Right made it illegal to be at the same time a Catholic and a Scottish monarch; it was established that the royal prerogative could not override law, and that the king was subject to law. It also stipulated incidentally that the monarch would only rule once they’d taken a coronation oath – until they signed the contract basically. Parliament should be convened frequently and the consent of parliament was required before the Crown could raise any revenue. And the Episcopy was condemned as an

Insupportable grievance and trouble to his nation

The Claim of Right also laid out the various crimes of James VII – and also Charles II incidentally; and claimed, as is traditional, that it was doing no more than re-asserting ancient rights. This was demonstrable tripe; the Claim of Right was far more revolutionary than that. James and Charles had established through the courts that there were certain taxes they could raise, no king in Scottish history since William the Lion would ever have agreed to the idea of a contract with the people. Such is the way of your Early Modern Revolution. Revolution was a four letter word you had to pretend there was no real change.

The Articles of Grievances are interesting. There were 13 of them – existing things the convention wanted changed, but which they couldn’t pretend weren’t legal as it stood. The Lords of the Articles should be deleted, the Supremacy Act should be rescinded because it was against the presbyterian form of government, standing armies should be banned without parliamentary consent.

Finally on 18th April, the Convention wrote a new oath for the new king and Queen – there was a lot about maintaining the true religion and an uncompromising line for those hoping for a religious settlement that balanced the various groups, to

Root out all heretics and enemies to the true worship of God that shall be convicted by the true kirk of God.

In London, three Commissioners arrived from the Convention to offer William and Mary the throne on behalf of three estates – Argyll, Montgomery, and John Dalrymple. It’s a contentious moment, because William would later claim he never signed up to the Articles of Grievances; actually both were read to him before he took the oath, but William would claim he only promised to address grievances generally; though fair dos he did address many of them, including the deletion of the Lords of the Articles. He also objected to the line about ‘rooting out heretics’, refusing, in his words

To become a persecutor

But it was explained to him that by the

‘Law of Scotland no man was to be persecuted for his private opinion’

And he went with that. He appointed a government led by Lord Melville, but with a range of officers and Privy Councillors across the political and religious spectrum, rewarding the Dalrymples, James and his son John, and making the secretary of State Melville. It was an indication that he at least aimed at accommodation and balance.

The following year, in the spring of 1690, many of the grievances were implemented, removing the Lords of the Articles and oath of supremacy. Remarkably, the Bishops were abolished, and 1643 confession of faith and the Directory of Worship of 1646 re introduced. Also came the re-appearance of the General Assembly of the kirk with powers to remove ministers they did not like.

Now then, shall we finish with some general reflections on the Revolution Settlement? First of all, if you started your Scottish history in 1660 and knew nothing whatsoever of history before that, you would …be very confused. But you’d also think ‘by ‘eck, this is revolutionary!’ because you would not have 1641 against which to compare it. So it doesn’t have all the revolutionary aspects of 1641 – no National Covenant, no attempt to put ministers under control of parliament, no attempt to control armed forces, no attempt to control the appointment of judges. But it had very much rebalanced the constitution away from the absolutist ambitions of Charles and James, and was certainly revolutionary in the context of 1660.

Its approach to religion reflected revenge for the Scottish experience of the Restoration and persecution of Presbyterians, and it would affect the stability of William’s government and affect Anglo Scottish relations into the future. In England, the religious settlement, within reason, ended the religious wars; the established church remained largely as it was, protestant dissenters and Catholics would be free to practice as they wished – albeit they would have to live under disadvantages as regards public office. In Scotland, this was payback time for the Presbyterians, a chance to turn the clock back – and to a large degree that’s what they did. It was not a religious settlement based on compromise, one side won; It meant that there were many left outside the settlement, unwilling to accept the new status quo.

I say it would affects Anglo Scottish relations, because the Kirk would be unwilling to join a Union wherein the established church included Bishops.

As a side note to finish on, the convention parliament did consider the idea of Union with England. At the time it had advantages; it could have delayed decisions about the religious settlement until the new joint parliament was assembled; it might address the problem where Scotland had been more vulnerable to the imposition of arbitrary government, and its main advocate, Lord Tweeddale, felt it might prevent either of the extremists taking control of the settlement – and since that’s exactly what happened in the Claim of Right, that was a realistic idea. Both Dalrymples also supported the idea of Union. But it failed; the Jacobites had no interest, since it would inevitably be ruled by William; the Presbyterians wanted nothing that would prevent a radical religious settlement in Scotland. And the English parliament lost interest. And so it failed – and the Kirk would remain opposed to the idea of Union if it were to come up again, maybe possibly perhaps.

Leave a Reply