BRITISH REVOLUTIONS

1603–1707

The 17th century was largely a period of civil war and revolution, marked by the execution of Charles I (1649) and the forced exile of James II (1688). These events were the blunt instruments that formed a constitutional monarchy, a change that was amplified by radical religious, social, and economic forces. The upshot was the transformation of Britain by the most comprehensive revolution Europe had seen.

ORIGINS OF THE CIVIL WAR, 1603–1642

In 1603, when James VI of Scotland traveled south to take the English throne as James I, there was general relief and rejoicing. After all, a Protestant king would assure the safety of the religious settlement. In addition, a king who was dedicated to peace would bring an end to European wars, which in turn would lead to reduced government spending. Yet all of these expectations were crushed, and the next king found himself at war with his own subjects within four decades. Clues to the causes of that war can be found in examining the reign of James I (1603–25) and the reign and character of Charles I (1625–49).

James was born in the early days of the Scottish Reformation, and his tutors included staunch Presbyterians, so many of the English Puritans expected a royal ally. They were soon disappointed, for when James convened the Hampton Court Conference to discuss the settlement of the church in 1604, he made it clear that he wanted no part of advanced Protestantism. In fact he valued the role of the bishops, and he did his utmost to restore them in Presbyterian Scotland. James wanted an episcopal church only slightly more reformed than that of Elizabeth. The king was also fiercely opposed by the more extreme Roman Catholics, a group of whom plotted to blow up the houses of Parliament at the opening session in 1605. The so-called Gunpowder Plot was exposed, and the deliverance of the king and his councillors was praised, while the plotters were tortured and executed. Although they were outside the mainstream, they signaled the depth of difficulty in solving religious disputes. This was ominous, for James was conciliatory, albeit strict in the enforcement of the church settlement.

33

34 Great Britain

James had ambitious plans for the union of his two monarchies. But their different forms of protestantism, their different institutions (parliaments, courts of law, local governments), and their different social and economic conditions did not aid his plans. James immediately proposed that his parliaments undertake the business of unification, but at once many objections arose. The king unilaterally declared his title to be “king of Great Britain,” and he designed a new royal flag and minted new coins. Yet with two discordant and frustrated parliaments, there was no progress on the wider project of union. Subjects on both sides of the border did not lose their ingrained hostility overnight, but as a matter of law, a suit known as Calvin’s Case found that all persons born in Scotland after James’s accession in 1603 were on an equal footing with English subjects.

In the area of foreign policy, James tried to be a moderating influence in European religious affairs, hoping to bring about a reconciliation between Rome and her Protestant enemies. Likewise, he wanted to pursue a pacific foreign policy with European states, in line with his general desire for CatholicProtestant reconciliation. He was able to make peace with Spain in 1604, ending 20 years of warfare. He also negotiated the marriage of his daughter Elizabeth to Frederick V, the Protestant elector Palatine. He wanted a dynastic marriage for his son Charles with Spain, thinking that these ties would support his role as a mediator. In 1609 James helped to arrange a treaty between Spain and the Netherlands. Although peace with Spain frightened Protestants who remembered the Armada, it also pacified English Catholics and profited English merchants who gained some protection from Spanish imperial power. The whole policy was shattered by the outbreak of the Thirty Years’ War (1618–48), which had been, ironically, exacerbated by Frederick’s acceptance of the crown of Bohemia in 1619. After Frederick’s defeat the following year by imperial forces, James was seen as supporting both sides in a war that became especially brutal. His Protestant subjects were outraged by continued overtures to Spain, in particular the sudden trip that Prince Charles and the duke of Buckingham made in 1623 to try to woo the Spanish princess. The escalating conflict in Europe also forced James to seek more financial support from his subjects. But royal finances were in serious jeopardy already.

There was a tradition that the king was supposed to pay for his government out of ordinary revenues. Profits from land, customs, and routine fees had long since ceased to be adequate due to inflation and the sale of Crown lands, to which Elizabeth had frequently resorted. James inherited Elizabeth’s heavy debts, and he himself was a profligate spender. The king resorted to a range of expedients to increase his revenue: raising customs duties (impositions), collecting money from ancient feudal obligations (purveyance—the supply of food at fixed prices; wardships—the guardianship of minor heirs), and even the sale of titles. Older peerages were not sufficient, and in 1611 James created the new rank of baronet, which initially sold for over £1,000. But all of these tactics were not enough; even in peacetime, the king needed more revenue. This meant frequent demands for funds from Parliament, where there was opportunity to question royal policies. James encountered this kind of opposition in 1604,

British Revolutions 35

King James I

(Library of Congress)

1610, 1614, and 1621. On these occasions the fundamental issue was being defined: the Crown demanded the means to conduct government, and Parliament insisted that grievances be addressed before supply. James had to struggle mightily during his reign, but his long experience and his political skills preserved a basic harmony. This was not to be the case for his son.

Charles I was a very different ruler: fastidious where his father was uncouth; rigid in his faith, where his father wanted moderation; youthfully dogmatic regarding his power, where his father was stubborn but also learned and studious. Charles was primarily responsible for the estrangement that brought on civil war. This occurred through a string of poor decisions and attempts to assert his power.

Charles pursued belligerent policies toward France and Spain, but in 1626 Parliament refused to fund his military operations. The king nevertheless continued to collect taxes, and he resorted to a forced loan. There was widespread resistance, and some 70 gentlemen were arrested for their refusal to pay the

36 Great Britain

money demanded from them. Five were tried and convicted in 1627, raising the central questions of whether the king could levy taxes without Parliament’s consent, and whether the Crown had the power to arrest without a specific charge. The following year Parliament passed a “Petition of Right,” which held that the king should have Parliament’s approval for taxation, that subjects should not be arrested arbitrarily, and that billeting of troops and martial law should not be used (as they had been in the recent situation). Charles gave his approval but claimed that the petition merely affirmed traditional rights and that it placed no new limits on his prerogative. If he truly believed this, he was ill-advised. In 1629 Charles ordered Parliament to dissolve. In the heated atmosphere, several members of the Commons held the Speaker in his chair so that he could not dismiss them, while they read a set of resolutions on the rights of Parliament. The king’s next move was to decide to govern without Parliament.

It was entirely lawful for the king to summon or not summon a Parliament. The typical occasion for a parliamentary session was when the Crown needed revenues. Those occasions had become routine by the 1630s, but Charles decided to try executive government. He might have succeeded, as long as there was peace and as long as his financial expedients worked. One particular expedient was called ship money. In the past, coastal towns had been expected to raise funds to operate a ship during a maritime emergency. In 1635 this obligation was extended to all towns regardless of emergency. For a while the income from ship money assessments was substantial, but it fell off after the tax was challenged in court and only narrowly approved in 1638.

The period of personal rule was brought to an end by disputes over the Scottish kirk (church). Charles had continued his father’s efforts to bring the kirk into line with the episcopal church in England. But with less sympathy and understanding, his archbishop, William Laud, ordered the adoption of new church canons (1636) and the introduction of a new prayer book (1637). These touched off a broad campaign of Scottish resistance, the signing of a national covenant against the innovations, and the meeting of a general assembly that abolished the office of bishop. A Scottish army entered England in 1639, but there was no fighting. A treaty made in 1639 was merely a cease-fire, and in 1640 a Scottish army again crossed the border and occupied Newcastle and much of northern England. Charles had summoned Parliament in April, but dissolved this “Short” Parliament in the midst of debate over the rights of subjects. Now he had to summon another, and the “Long” Parliament was about to remake the English constitution.

The leaders of Parliament were determined to achieve their demands, and Charles was forced to accept serious inroads on his power. He surrendered his principal minister, Thomas Wentworth, earl of Strafford, who was tried and executed; the prerogative courts (Star Chamber and High Commission) were abolished; and acts were passed requiring a meeting of Parliament at least every three years, while the current Parliament was not to be dissolved without its consent. When a rebellion broke out in Ireland in October 1641, even more radical demands were made. Now the issue was whether or not an army would be provided to meet the rebels—an army that might also be used to discipline

British Revolutions 37

the king’s English enemies. At this point a split developed in Parliament between those loyal to the king and those determined to oppose him. In January 1642 Charles entered the Commons to arrest five of its radical leaders, but they had been warned and had hidden in London. The contest then became one of securing forces for war. The king withdrew from London, and in August 1642 he declared war on the insurgents.

CIVIL WAR AND REVOLUTION, 1642–1659

The Civil War began with monarchists on both sides, but the fury unleashed across the British Isles produced a revolution that killed the king and brought a decade of turmoil. In England a military dictatorship deepened religious divisions, seized property, and never developed a majority of support. In Scotland and Ireland the period brought English invasion and occupation and a temporary unification, but in the end there was alienation between the areas.

The division of forces for the king and for Parliament cut across county and community lines, but generally the north and west of England stood for Charles and the south and east for Parliament, London in particular. In Wales, Scotland, and Ireland there were no clear regional lines, and there were more complex divisions among Presbyterians and Catholics, Irish settlers and natives, Scottish highlanders and lowlanders. The campaigns went on for four years. No decisive battles came until Marston Moor in 1644 and Naseby in 1645, and those victories for Parliament were due in part to the arrival of allied Scottish forces. There was a plan to bring Irish troops to the king’s aid, but that did not come to pass. The war brought very heavy taxation, confiscation of property, the destruction of many communities, and severe loss of life. The Scottish alliance required the planning for a new English Presbyterian church. Parliament reformed its army on a “new model” in 1645, removing aristocratic leaders and promoting the most skilled soldiers, including one named Oliver Cromwell. The new force was more professional and also more imbued with religious radicalism. This army became a political vehicle once it had defeated the king; for at that point Parliament decided to disband the army without meeting payroll arrears, offering service in Ireland as an alternative. The army demanded payment, and some of its units marched on London in 1647. Meanwhile King Charles, who had surrendered to the Scots in 1646, was taken prisoner by units of the army.

Within the regiments of the new model army, there were agents of the troops known as agitators. Many of them were influenced by the religious doctrines of the anti-episcopal and anti-Catholic Independents, who wanted selfgoverning congregations. The army also included members of the radical Levellers, a group led by John Lilburne, who advocated the end of aristocracy and a wide range of democratic reforms against the tyranny of kings, parliaments, and armies. Army leaders such as Cromwell were determined to suppress such radical ideas, while at the same time they set out to protect themselves from control by Parliament or king.

During his captivity Charles formed an alliance with royalists in England and Scotland, and a brief second civil war in 1648 saw the final defeat of his forces.

38 Great Britain

Now the army was even more determined to secure its position. Parliament was purged of the members who opposed the army, reducing it by half. This “Rump” Parliament joined with the army council to set up a high court of justice to try the king. In January 1649 Charles was tried, convicted of treason, and executed.

The revolution eliminated the Crown, and it was followed by the abolition of the House of Lords and the termination of the episcopal church. Names had to be altered: e.g., the court of “king’s bench” became the “upper bench.” Far more important, however, was the continued role of the army. In 1649 and 1650 English armies under Oliver Cromwell invaded Ireland and then Scotland. In the first case, there were brutal punishments awaiting the Catholic subjects of Ireland (Drogheda, Wexford, 1649). In the latter, Cromwell decisively defeated Scottish armies (Dunbar, Stirling, and Worcester, 1650–51).

In his capacity as the head of the army council, Cromwell established a commonwealth run by the Rump Parliament and the army leadership. Disputes between them led Cromwell to dismiss the Rump in 1653, and a nominated Parliament, a body of 150 Independent ministers, was installed in 1653. It too drew Cromwell’s wrath and was dissolved before the end of the year, upon which a new protectorate was established. Cromwell designated himself as Lord Protector. Several different parliaments (including Scottish and Irish members) sat during this period, and for a time (1654–56) England was ruled by a military regime in which major generals ruled over English districts. None of these expedients was popular, all of them were provisional, and when Cromwell died in 1658, his son Richard was unable to wield power effectively. There was a period of great political instability, and order was restored only when General George Monck, Cromwell’s commander in Scotland, brought his army to London in 1660. The mission of this army was to pave the way for the restoration of the monarchy, in the person of Charles II.

RESTORATION AND REVOLUTION, 1660–1688

Charles II had been proclaimed king by the Scots and the Irish after his father’s death. He had a large following in England as well, where there were unsuccessful rebellions of royalists in the 1650s. When Monck arrived in London with his army, the remnant of the Long Parliament met long enough to call an election for a “Convention” Parliament. Meanwhile Charles presented the Declaration of Breda, in which he promised a general pardon; a settlement of confiscated estates (by Parliament); payment of arrears to the army; and “liberty to tender consciences,” i.e., a vague form of religious toleration. The Convention Parliament invited the king to return, and he reached London in May 1660. This initial Parliament passed an act of indemnity, granted Charles a fixed income (in lieu of feudal dues), and passed acts regarding confiscated lands. The restoration affirmed the acts of the late king prior to 1642, thus accepting the elimination of the prerogative courts and several other measures.

This very promising beginning was soon disturbed by the resurrection of key issues from the 1620s and 1630s: religious uniformity, foreign affairs, and

British Revolutions 39

questions of royal authority once again threatened to disrupt the political scene. The first Parliament elected under Charles II sat from 1661 to 1678. This body was dominated by staunch royalists and was thus labeled the “Cavalier” Parliament, after the nickname for royalists in the Civil War. Such a parliament was not inclined to be moderate, as can be seen in the religious settlement. Charles II had hoped to include Presbyterians in the new church, but the new bishops and members of the Cavalier Parliament would not hear of it. Their policy was embodied in what was called the “Clarendon Code” named after the king’s chancellor, Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon, who in fact did not endorse some of its provisions. The code included a Corporation Act (1661), which applied religious tests to members of local corporations; and an act of

Oliver Cromwell; reproduction of a painting by Robert Walker

(Library of Congress)

40 Great Britain

uniformity (1662), which enjoined the use of a new prayer book. The latter act prompted the king to issue a Declaration of Indulgence in 1662, which dispensed with the law’s operation. Thus religion had very quickly raised a serious constitutional issue. Later parts of the code included a conventicle act (1664), which governed the religious meetings of dissenters; and a Five Mile Act (1665), which restricted the movements of dissenting preachers. The latter acts were in response to outbreaks of unrest, and clearly religious tensions were still strong. They could also still be fanned by fears of foreign powers.

In foreign affairs Charles was both pragmatic and deceitful. His pragmatism was evident in his policy of trade war with the Dutch, designed to strengthen the British merchant navy. This policy, first used during Cromwell’s war in 1652, was revived by the reissue of navigation laws. War broke out in 1665, but the English fleet was both underfunded and embarrassed by a Dutch raid on the fleet anchorage in the Thames in 1667. This was followed by the Treaty of Dover with Louis XIV in 1670. A third Dutch war in 1672–74 was less for commercial than for diplomatic purposes, but its major effects came in related areas. First, in order to finance the fleet, the king stopped payment to creditors in 1672. This “Stop of the Exchequer” was a radical step which helped to assure that government finance would be separated from the personal finances of the king. The second and more telling matter was that the Treaty of Dover had secret clauses in which Charles promised to declare his conversion to Catholicism as part of a plan to bring about a Catholic restoration in England. For this the French promised him a subsidy along with the prospect of dividing the spoils of the Dutch empire. But the king’s policy brought little imperial profit and great domestic hostility.

In 1672 Charles issued another Declaration of Indulgence, allowing private Catholic worship and easing laws against dissenters. The Dutch war did not provide an English victory, and in 1673 Parliament demanded the declaration’s removal. It went on to pass a Test Act, which required all officers and officeholders to take Anglican communion publicly and to take an oath denying transubstantiation. Charles was forced to assent to this in order to obtain parliamentary funding. Even more important, this act forced his brother James to resign as lord high admiral, thus publicly acknowledging his religion. That in turn created a controversy over the royal succession. Charles had no legitimate heirs, but he did have an illegitimate son, the duke of Monmouth, who was a Protestant. His brother James had converted after the death of his first wife, Anne Hyde (who gave him two daughters, Mary and Anne, both raised as Protestants). When she died in 1672, James remarried, taking as his wife the Catholic princess Mary of Modena. Would the throne pass to a Roman Catholic? If so, what would be the fate of the Church of England and of Scotland?

These questions drove the events of the next few years in a continuing drama called the “exclusion crisis.” A dramatic climax was reached in 1678 with reports of an alleged plot to murder Charles and place his brother James on the throne. This “Popish plot” was the product of the frenzied imaginations of Titus Oates and Israel Tonge—both Anglican clergymen and both rabid haters of the Roman church. Oates had made a deposition to a London magistrate, and when

British Revolutions 41

that man was found murdered, the sensational stories acquired credibility. The House of Commons heard testimony from Oates, resulting in numerous trials and 24 executions. Anti-Catholicism exploded, a new Test Act was passed (1678), Catholic peers were sequestered, and the king’s chief minister was impeached. Charles was forced to dissolve his longstanding Parliament in the midst of this hysteria. The issue of excluding James from the succession was presented in bills before the Commons in successive parliaments. During the crisis a political group called the Whigs were prominent advocates for James’s exclusion; a rival group of Tories staunchly supported the succession, with their doctrine of nonresistance claiming that it was illegal to deny the lawful heir to the throne. Three parliaments could not settle the issue, and Charles decided in 1681 not to summon any more. He had returned to the point of his father’s fateful decision in 1629. But in this case, the king was able to govern for four more years, and the atmosphere cooled for several reasons: Oates was proven to have lied; a plot hatched by radicals had led to the execution of several Whig leaders, William, Lord Russell and Algernon Sidney among them; and the panic had brought harsh memories of the 1640s.

James II came to the throne after his brother died in 1685. He was welcomed by a new and pliant Parliament that provided him with ample revenues and with supplements when it was learned that there were rebellions in England and Scotland. Charles II’s son, the duke of Monmouth, led a rebel force in western England, and the earl of Argyll another group in Scotland. Both were easily defeated, and Monmouth was executed in London, while 300 of his followers were executed in the rebel areas and hundreds of others were sentenced to transportation to the West Indies. The major outcome of all this was to strengthen support for James.

Yet in spite of his early popularity, James managed to lose most of his support over the next three years as he took actions that revived all the fears of absolutism, amid a growing certainty that he planned to restore the Catholic religion. Since there was only a minority of some 2 percent who were Catholic, most Anglicans preferred to accept an anointed legitimate ruler in 1685. But that opinion quickly began to change as James exercised his power. He wanted to repeal the Test Acts; appointed Roman Catholics as army officers; opened seminaries in London; sent emissaries to Rome; and began remodeling local corporations, university colleges, and the county commissions of the peace. His zealous conduct turned widespread support into frightened opposition in short order.

BRITAIN AND THE GLORIOUS

REVOLUTION, 1688–1707

A crisis in 1688 precipitated the fall of James II. The previous year he had issued yet another Declaration of Indulgence, and in May 1688 his council ordered the clergy to read it from their pulpits. Seven bishops who petitioned the king to delay his order were arrested and sent to the Tower of London. Their trial for sedition resulted in an acquittal on June 29, which set off rejoicing in London. Meanwhile, on June 10, however, the queen had given birth to a male heir, and

42 Great Britain

it was apparent that a legitimate successor would guarantee the continued advance of the Catholic restoration. With that in mind, on June 30 a group of seven leading Whigs and Tories sent a message to William of Orange, asking him to come to England to protect their church and preserve their liberties. As the main Protestant prince and foe of French king Louis XIV, William had for some time been communicating with English allies and planning such a move. Knowing that King James was in league with France, he had every reason to launch a preemptive assault.

William’s invasion force sailed into the channel and landed in Southwest England on November 5, 1688. James failed to see soon enough that Dutch preparations were directed against him and not France. By the fall he was hard pressed to mount a defense, and he hastily reversed many of his orders, canceling an upcoming Parliament (for which many Catholics would have been seated), restoring Anglican bishops, closing his Commission for Ecclesiastical Causes, and revoking the new borough charters he had created. Meanwhile William issued a declaration of his intent to come as a guardian of liberties, to see that a free Parliament was chosen, and to guarantee the protection of the established church. His fleet of 500 vessels brought an army of 20,000, mainly veterans of continental wars. James would have had a fair chance of defeating the invasion, had he acted with resolve. He failed to do so, and he fled London, only to be captured by Kentish fishermen. A second escape was facilitated by his guards, as William had no desire for a confrontation. By December William was in London proposing that he and his wife Mary (James II’s eldest daughter by Anne Hyde) be declared joint sovereigns. The English eventually accepted this settlement, and they presented the king and queen with a declaration of rights as their part of the bargain. This document itemized James’s errors and set out agreed principles: the Crown’s power to suspend or dispense with laws was denied; the king’s prerogative in judicial matters was also overturned; the standing army in peacetime was banned; Parliament alone was to raise revenue; and free elections, the right to bear arms, and judicial protections were all included. In addition, the declaration set out the line of succession and prohibited a Catholic from taking the throne. The plain consequence of these measures was a constitutional monarchy.

With regard to Scotland, William had to accept the Claim of Right, which was actually more radical than the English declaration. It provided that no Catholic could be king, that royal prerogative could not overrule law, that parliaments should meet frequently and not be subject to the Lords of the Articles, that only Parliament could raise revenues, and that the office of bishop was to be abolished. While William did not immediately accept all of the terms, the Presbyterian structure of the church did become the established model by 1690, and all the remaining terms were eventually accepted.

In Ireland, the Glorious Revolution, as William and Mary’s accession was called, was countered by widespread Catholic resistance. Consequently, James came from France to lead a rebel Catholic government in its fight against an invading Anglo-Dutch force under William. After some early victories, James was defeated at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690. His forces had also failed to con-

British Revolutions 43

quer the besieged Protestants in Londonderry, and that victory became a symbol for Protestant loyalists for centuries to come. The war in Ireland was only concluded in 1691 with a surrender at Limerick. French troops were allowed to depart, and fair terms were promised to the defeated Catholics. But over the next few years, these terms were not honored, and a rigid Protestant regime was established. Strict penal laws were enforced, reducing Catholics to subordinate status.

But there was much more to the outcome of William’s invasion. Foremost was the fact that he had achieved a diplomatic revolution. Instead of England, Scotland and Ireland being allied with France, he had shifted those realms to the Protestant cause, with access to all their resources for his destined struggle with Louis XIV. The Nine Years’ War (1689–97) and the War of the Spanish Succession (1702–13) incurred enormous expenditures, and there was a successful effort to preserve Dutch independence and to strengthen English maritime power. The heavy burden of this effort assured that the king met Parliament annually, and its finances were guaranteed by the establishment of the national debt and the foundation of a Bank of England (and a Bank of Scotland) in 1694–95.

The Nine Years’ War was between France and a Protestant alliance over the division of the faltering Spanish power in Europe and abroad. A series of bloody and inconclusive battles on the Dutch frontier as well as a number of naval engagements brought no clear conclusion. The peace of Ryswick in 1697 saw France returning its conquests and recognizing William as king of Britain, while a set of partition treaties were drawn up in a futile effort to divide the former Spanish territories. This process broke down in 1701 when Louis XIV recognized James “III” (James II’s son with Mary of Modena) as the lawful king of Britain. King William had begun war preparations, but he died suddenly in a riding accident in 1702, to be succeeded by his sister-in-law Anne (1702–14). Nevertheless, the English and allied armies led by John Churchill, later duke of Marlborough, defeated the French and their allies in a stunning series of battles in Europe, while English sailors won a number of naval engagements. The Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 recognized an overwhelming British victory in the War of the Spanish Succession.

A dominant political feature of William’s reign was the emergence of political parties in government. The Whigs and Tories of the exclusion crisis became accepted groupings of politicians, though they were not the only ones or the most important at all times. Whigs tended to represent aggressive foreign policy, mercantile interests, and more liberal religious views. Tories by and large were the party of landowners who opposed heavy government taxation and spending and supported the established church. The labels were far from precise, but the point was that the king found ministers to run his government from groups who could manage Parliament along defined lines of policy. The king still chose the ministers, but they now had a new identity and strength in a party. These were still far from modern organized parties, but they were also no longer the individual royal servants of the early 17th century.

The royal succession dominated the politics of the end of the 17th century. William III had no heirs; his sister-in-law Anne lost her only son, William, in

44 Great Britain

1700; and the son of James II born in 1688 assumed his father’s claim to the throne in 1701. The Jacobites (from Jacobus for “James”) saw a possibility of regaining power. But in 1701 the English Parliament passed an Act of Settlement that provided that the succession should pass to the descendants of James I’s daughter Elizabeth, who had married Frederick V of Bohemia. The successor would be the electress Sophia of Hanover, or her children, who also happened to be Protestants. One other aspect of this law was that it silently presumed to provide for the Scottish succession as well.

The Scots had not accepted the Glorious Revolution without a fight. There was a strong but small Jacobite element that won the Battle of Killiecrankie in July 1689, but the forces of the Crown soon overcame them. The divisions in Scottish society, roughly Highland and Lowland, Gaelic and English-speaking, provided some guide to the state of politics. Support for William and for any English ruler always had limits. The Scots cherished their separate government institutions—church, courts, and parliament. They also saw the Scottish Crown as a separate entity. Thus in 1703–05 Scottish patriots pushed for laws giving the Scottish Parliament an independent voice in deciding the royal succession. This action was spurred by a long list of Scottish grievances over English intervention: control of Scottish affairs from London, complaints about English navigation laws, and the failure of a Scottish colonial company due to English interference.

Challenged by the Scottish Parliament, the English government began to work toward a plan of parliamentary union, and in 1706 Queen Anne appointed commissioners to negotiate the terms. In 1707, after a treaty was signed, acts were passed in both legislatures, and the union of the two parliaments was completed. In 1707 the first Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain convened. Scotland was represented by 45 members of Parliament (MPs) in the Commons and 16 elected peers in the House of Lords. In all other respects it was still the English parliament. The act of union also preserved the Church of Scotland and Scottish courts and laws, and it promised to link the two economies through a complex formula for integration. The act was also meant to assure Scotland’s security from Jacobite rebellion, though the future would show that no law could achieve that.

In 1707 the monarch, Parliament, the Churches of England and Scotland, and communities throughout the British Isles still bore traces of the previous century’s revolutions. At the same time, because of the economic changes of the later 17th century, they were about to build a new society in the 18th.