Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 July 2014
That complex problems like the causes of the English civil war are constantly subject to reinterpretation is an obvious truism. Twenty years ago we were all embroiled in the gentry controversy; now it is the fashion to lay more stress on the blunders and failures of the government of Charles I. Lawrence Stone's recent survey is a case in point. Though his title, The Causes of the English Revolution 1529-1642, promises a long running start, this quondam disciple of R. H. Tawney places a surprising amount of emphasis on what he calls precipitants and triggers, which, it turns out, are the blunders and failures of the government of Charles I. Among these is the mishandling of the situation in Scotland. It is well known, of course, that the attempt to impose the new service book in 1637 touched off the chain of events which led to the Long Parliament, but historians have pointed out that this was by no means the first of Charles's errors there. At the very beginning of his reign came the act of revocation, which among other things rescinded “all grants made of crown property since 1540, … all disposition of ecclesiastical property and the erections of such property into temporal lordships.” No such sweeping change came about, of course, but in the view of most scholars this act, though in some sense successful, since it achieved the purpose both of increasing clerical stipends and of providing a machinery for their continuing adjustment, made the Scottish landed classes so mistrustful and fearful for their property that Charles could never gain their confidence. The comment of Sir James Balfour is always quoted: the act “in effect was the ground stone of all the mischief that followed after.”
1 Donaldson, Gordon, Scotland: James V—James VII (Edinburgh, 1965) p. 296.Google Scholar
2 Haig, James, ed., The Historical Works of Sir James Balfour, 4 vols. (Edinburgh, 1824), 2:128 (hereafter cited as Balfour).Google Scholar
3 Trevor-Roper, Hugh R., “The General Crisis of the Seventeenth Century,” in Aston, Trevor, ed., Crisis in Europe 1560-1660 (New York, 1965), pp. 59–95Google Scholar, and his comment in a symposium on his article, ibid., p. 116. For a withering exposure of the wrongheadedness of Trevor-Roper's views on Scottish history see Ferguson, William, Scotland's Relations with England: A Survey to 1707 (Edinburgh, 1977), pp. 77, 110, 118-19, 123.Google Scholar
4 Donaldson, , Scotland, pp. 299–300.Google ScholarPubMed
5 On this point see Stevenson, David, The Scottish Revolution 1637-44 (Newton Abbot, 1973), p. 321.Google Scholar
6 Ibid., p. 324. It should be added that Stevenson is skeptical about the validity of Trevor-Roper's theory.
7 For James's reign see Lee, Maurice Jr., John Maitlandof Thirlestane (Princeton, 1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Government by Pen: The Scotland of James VI and I (Urbana, 1980).Google Scholar
8 Mitchison, Rosalind, “The Making of the Old Scottish Poor Law,” Past and Present 63 (1974): 65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 Masson, David, ed., Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, 2nd ser. 1 (Edinburgh, 1899): 160–62Google Scholar (hereafter cited as RPCS). Italics mine.
10 Balfour 2: 147.Google ScholarPubMed
11 March 17, 1625, Charles, to the council, RPCS, 13: 720–21Google Scholar. McGrail, Thomas H., Sir William Alexander (Edinburgh, 1940) p. 48.Google Scholar
12 RPCS, 13:558-63, 716-18. January 24, 1625, the earl of Kellie to Mar, Historical Manuscripts Commission (hereafter cited as HMC), Report on the Manuscripts of the Earl of Mar and Kellie, Supplement, ed. Paton, Henry (London, 1930), p. 218Google Scholar (hereafter cited as M&K Supp).
13 April 14, 1625, the earl of Rothes to SirKer, Robert, in Laing, David, ed., Correspondence of Sir Robert Kerr, first Earl of Ancrum, and his son William, third Earl of Lothian, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1875), 1:35–38.Google Scholar
14 SirFraser, William, Memorials of the Earls of Haddington, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1889), 2:88–89.Google Scholar
15 RPCS, 2nd ser. 1:10-11, 13-16, 649-51.
16 May 21, 1625, Gilbert Primrose to James Primrose, ibid., pp. 654-55.
17 Ibid., pp. 649-51.
18 May 17, 1625, G. Primrose to J. Primrose, ibid., pp. 651-53.
19 The revocation is dated July 14, 1625, ibid., pp. 81-82.
20 Ibid., pp. 132-33. A convention of estates was a less formal version of parliament, with the same categories of membership and much the same legislative powers.
21 October 28, 1625, the council to Charles, ibid., pp. 151-53.
22 For the proceedings of the estates see ibid., pp. xxv-xxxiii, 150-80. The official text of their acts is in Thomson, Thomas, ed., The Acts of the Parliament of Scotland, 5 (London, 1817), pp. 166–88.Google Scholar
23 RPCS, 2nd ser. 1:182-85.
24 The date is given in the parliamentary record for 1633, Acts of the Parliament of Scotland, 5:23Google Scholar. No trace of the document has been found in the privy seal register, and the keeper of the privy seal, Sir Richard Cockburn of Clerkington, seems to have been in Edinburgh in October. Whether or not a text was read in council at this time is not clear. On January 7, 1626, Mar said that he had heard the document read once there, HMC, Report on the Manuscripts of the Earl of Mar and Kellie, ed. Paton, Henry (London, 1904), p. 135Google Scholar (hereafter cited as M&K). The council's letter of November 17, however, says that “none as yet has seen the same,” which seems plain enough.
25 Ibid., pp. 137-38. RPCS, 2nd ser. 1:193-95.
26 M&K, pp. 132-33.
27 RPCS, 2nd ser. 1:187-88.
28 October 5, 1625, Kellie to Mar, M&K Supp., p. 234. October 22, J. Douglas to Lord Erskine, M&K, pp. 132-33.
29 Balfour, 2:131.Google Scholar
30 October 22, 1625, Charles to Hay, M&K, pp. 131-32.
31 November 18, 1625, Mar to Charles, ibid., p. 133. November 7, Kellie to Mar, M&K Supp., pp. 235-36.
32 November 13, 1625, Kellie to Mar, ibid., p. 238.
33 On this point see M&K, p. 146.
34 November 28, 1625, Nithsdale to Annandale, in Maidment, James, ed., State Papers and Miscellaneous Correspondence of Thomas, Earl of Metros, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1837), 2:593–94.Google Scholar
35 See, on this point, McNeill, Peter G. B., “The Independence of the Scottish Judiciary,” Judicial Review n.s. 3 (1958): 140.Google Scholar
36 See the council's letter to him on March 15, 1625, on the affairs of the Principality, RPCS, 13:716-18.
37 September 27, 1625, the council to Charles, ibid., 2nd ser. 1:144.
38 Ibid., pp. 185-87, 191-92. December 7, 1625, Patrick Home of Polwarth to SirKer, Robert, Ancrum and Lothian Con., 2:481–82.Google Scholar
39 Hinds, Allen B., ed., Calendar of State Papers relating to English Affairs existing in the Archives and Collections of Venice …, 19 (London, 1913), p. 335Google Scholar. The Venetian reports must be used with caution; the remarks about Scotland are occasionally very inaccurate.
40 The sources on which the following paragraphs are based are the notes made at the time by Mar, M&K, pp. 133-46, 153-55, and an account written thirty-five years later by Scotstarvet, dealing mostly with his controversy with Melrose over the tenure of the members of the session, printed in Scottish Historical Review 11 (1914): 164–91Google Scholar. The king's interviews with Mar in February 1626 (M&K, pp. 144-46), show how little his mind had changed; he repeatea many of the allegations his councillors had been at pains to refute. For Spottiswoode's views see his letter of November 14, 1625, to Ann an dale, in Sir Fraser, William, The Book of Caer-laverock, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1873) 2:72–73.Google Scholar
41 M&K, pp. 133-34.
42 Ibid., p. 139.
43 Ibid., p. 140.
44 In 1612 Melrose, then lord advocate, had prevented Skene from succeeding his father as clerk register and briefly occupied the office himself.
45 M&K, p. 143.
46 Ibid., p. 142.
47 October 25, 1625, Douglas, J. to Erskine, Lord, M&K Supp., pp. 132–33Google Scholar. Extraordinary lords of session, now four in number, were royal nominees who possessed no legal qualifications, received no pay, and sat with the court when they pleased. They were almost always privy councillors, and often high officials. There were fifteen ordinary lords, who were supposed to have professional legal training.
48 RPCS, 2nd ser. 1:220-21, 234-36. Rogers, Charles, ed., The Earl of Stirling's Register of Royal Letters … 1615-1635, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1885), 1:13, 15–16Google Scholar. McNeill, , “The Independence of the Scottish Judiciary,” pp. 143–44.Google Scholar
49 RPCS, 2nd ser. 1:227-29.
50 See, e. g., March 25, 1626, Charles, to Mar, , Stirling's Register 1:31.Google Scholar
51 RPCS, 2nd ser. 1:351-53.
52 Stirling's Register, 1:57-58, 72.Google Scholar
53 Ibid., pp. 86-87, 103. M&K, pp. 151-53.
54 On December 27, 1626, Charles made him a privy councillor; RPCS, 2nd ser. 1:495-96. For Menteith's part in this incident see ibid., pp. clxxvii-clxxviii, citing Forbes's Treatise of Church Lands and Tithes. The Venetian ambassador mentions the intervention of a Scottish nobleman, unnamed; the context suggests Menteith. Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, 20:78.Google Scholar
55 March 26, 1627, Charles to the commissioners, Stirling's Register, 1:145.Google Scholar
56 The text of Charles's proclamation appointing the commission is in RPCS, 2nd ser. 1:509-16. For a good brief account of the revocation see Stevenson, , Scottish Revolution, pp. 35–42.Google Scholar
57 February 12, July 28, 1626, Charles, to the council, Stirling's Register, 1:18-19, 68–69Google Scholar. July 13, the council to Charles, , RPCS, 2nd ser. 1:343–44.Google Scholar
58 Ibid., pp. 241-43. M&K, p. 141.
59 RPCS, 2nd ser. 1:265-67.
60 Ibid., pp. 248-51.
61 Ibid., pp. 337-38. Charles further jolted his councillors by absent-mindedly sending instructions to the council of war before naming it. Ibid., pp. 333-35.
62 July 28, 1626, Charles, to the council, Stirling's Register, 1:67.Google Scholar
63 RPCS, 2nd ser 1:386-89.
64 Ibid., pp. 233-34.
65 Stirling's Register, 1:17, 84–85Google Scholar. RPCS, 2nd ser. 1:517-18.
66 Fraser, , Caerlaverock, 2:73–74.Google Scholar
67 See Alexander's letters to Melrose in March, 1626 (Fraser, , Haddington 2:145–47Google Scholar), and to the earl of Morton, October 6, 1630 (National Library of Scotland, MSS 80, no. 40).
68 See, e.g., his letter of February 26, 1627, in Bruce, John, ed., Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, Charles I, 1627-28, (London, 1858), p. 52.Google Scholar
69 March 6, 1627, Melrose to the earl of Roxburgh, in Fraser, , Haddington 2: 148–51Google Scholar. This letter to a man who had the king's ear, was written a few weeks after Nithsdale was replaced as collector of the taxation.
70 September 16, 1627, Lady Melrose to the laird of Polwarth, HMC, 14th Report, pt. 3 (London, 1894), p. 108. She said this was her guess; Melrose had not told her, “nor I did not sper (ask).”
71 See his letters of March 14, April 4, August 12, 1626, to Nithsdale, in Fraser, , Caerlaverock, 2:73–76.Google Scholar
72 HMC, Report on the Laing Manuscripts, 1, ed. Paton, Henry (London, 1914), pp. 173–74Google Scholar. See also the correspondence of the Venetian ambassadors, Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, 19:559, 577, 594Google Scholar; 20:24.
73 February 2/12, 1627, Contarini to the Doge and Senate, ibid., 20:119-20.
74 Napier, Mark, ed., Memorial of Montrose and his Times, 1 (Edinburgh, 1848), pp. 25–27.Google Scholar
75 M&K, p. 144.
76 Ibid., p. 146.
77 RPCS, 2nd ser. 1:678-79.
78 Stevenson, , Scottish Revolution, p. 40.Google Scholar
79 Stirling's Register, 1:62–63Google Scholar. Balfour, 2:144Google ScholarPubMed. McGrail, , Alexander, pp. 172–73.Google Scholar
80 See Stone's, Lawrence summary in The Causes of the English Revolution 1529-1642 (New York, 1972), pp. 114–17.Google Scholar
