No CrossRef data available.
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.
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
The perspective of time has allowed most British historians to declare the English phase of the British Revolution of 1688-1689 “glorious” whereas the Scottish developments largely have been ignored as inconsequential. Although Scotland was included in Macaulay's History of England, for the past century it has been mentioned only briefly in historical treatments of the Revolution. Yet the Scottish Convention Parliament of 1689 not only followed and fulfilled the English Parliament's revolutionary initiative, but in an independent process paved the way for a more fundamental, uncompromising, and far-reaching constitutional settlement.
Lacking foresight to know that their best efforts would be amalgamated in the Union of 1707, Scottish politicians in 1689 forged ahead with a radical revolution that terminated Stuart absolutism and provided a fleeting chance for national independence under a constitutional monarchy. The event which opened the way for a revolutionary constitutional settlement was the forfeiture of the throne by James II & VII and the subsequent conditional offering of the same to William and Mary by the Scottish Estates in the spring of 1689.
In January 1689 following the final flight of James VII from Britain and the simultaneous collapse of his Scottish administration, the leaders of the Scottish aristocracy assembled at Whitehall and temporarily placed the government of their realm in the hands of Prince William of Orange pending a Convention Parliament.
1 See my article “Scotland and the Glorious Revolution of 1688,” published in Albion III (Fall, 1971): 116–127.Google Scholar
2 State Tracts…Collection of Several Choice Treatices Relating to the Government From the Year 1660 to 1689 (London, 1692), pp. 444–445Google Scholar; The History of the Affairs of Scotland From the Restauration of King Charles the 2d…and the Transactions of the Convention and Parliament to Midsomer 1690 (London, 1690), p. 40–43Google Scholar; Colin Earl of Balcarres, Memoirs Touching the Revolution in Scotland, Lindsay, Lord, ed. (Edinburgh, 1841), pp. 21–22Google Scholar; SirDalrymple, John, Memoirs of Great Gritain and Ireland (second edition; London, 1771–1773), I, Part I, pp. 189–190Google Scholar. The Scottish assemblage and address followed closely the pattern of the concurrent meeting and advice of the two houses of the English Parliament.
3 Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland (London, 1822), IXGoogle Scholar; Register of the Privy Council of Scotland (third series: Edinburgh, 1932), XIII.Google Scholar
4 These terms can be used interchangeably in Scotland in 1688-1689, “Presbyterian” probably reflects more a political interest than ecclesiastical.
5 Balcarres, p. 20; Dalrymple, I, Part I, 215-216. Some thirty nobles and eighty gentlemen participated in these deliberations. Unfortunately no voting record survives.
6 History of the Affairs of Scotland, pp. 40-43.
7 State Tracts, 1660-1689, pp. 444-445; History of the Affairs of Scotland, pp. 44-45.
8 Balcarres, p. 22; Dalrymple, I, Part I, 190; State Tracts, 1660-1689, p. 445; History of the Affairs of Scotland, pp. 46-47.
9 Balcarres, pp. 22-23.
10 This meant all Protestant property holders residing within the particular burgh.
11 Carstares, William, State Papers and Letters Addressed to William Carstares, McCormick, Joseph. ed. (Edinburgh. 1774), p. 37Google Scholar, Dalrymple, I, Part I, 218. Dalrymple, now a confirmed supporter of William, was one of a host of former se officials ruined by James' Roman Catholic policies.
12 Graham, J. Murray, Annals and Correspondence of the Viscount and the First and Second Earls of Stair (Edinburgh, 1875), I, 130Google Scholar; Rait, Robert S., The Parliaments of Scotland (Glasgow, 1924), p. 307nGoogle Scholar. For example, in Selkirk 183 burgesses out of a total roll of 228 were present at the election and in Linlithgow 362 out of 368.
13 Rait, p. 95.
14 Ibid.
15 Leven and Melville Papers, 1689-1691, Melville, William Leslie, ed. (Edinburgh, 1843), p. 125.Google Scholar
16 Mathieson, William Law, Politics and Religion in Scotland, 1550-1695 (Glasgow, 1902), II, 350Google Scholar; Balcarres, p. 25; Rait, p. 96. The minutes of the Estates do not as a rule contain division lists until the eighteenth century. Such was the case in this crucial vote for president.
17 Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, IX, 6Google Scholar. The lords and bishops nominated the Marquis of Atholl, the Earl of Mar, Lords Ross and Carmichael, and the Archbishop of Glasgow; the shires chose Sir James Montgomery of Skelmorlie, Sir John Maxwell of Pollock Sir Thomas Burnet of Leyes, Thomas Drummond of Riccartoune, and the Laird of Brodie; the burghs selected Sir John Hall, Sir Charles Halket, James Fletcher, William Hamilton, and John Murray.
18 Rait, p. 96; Dalrymple, I, Part I, 218; Balcarres, p. 25.
19 Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, IX, 3–6.Google Scholar
20 Ibid., pp. 8-9. Under the circumstances this was an excellent political statement.
21 Ibid., Rait, pp. 158, 96; Terry, Charles S., The Scottish Parliament: Its Constitution and Procedure, 1603-1707 (Glasgow, 1905), p. 159Google Scholar. There is no record of who among the Williamites proposed this subscribing requirement. The act was signed by nearly all present. The names of those refraining are not given in the minutes.
22 Balcarres, p. 28.
23 This characterization is consistent with Gilbert Hurnet's assessment of James as one who could not tolerate half submissions but regarded everyone as a rebel who opposed the King in Parliament on any measure.
24 Turner, F. C., James II (London, 1948, pp. 366–367Google Scholar. Similar to Sunderland, Melfort had a passion for power and was quite shameless in his intrigues against his colleagues. He had no capacity for administration at all, but thought of himself us infallible.
25 Ibid.: Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, IX, 9; Mackintosh, John, The History of Civilization in Scotland (new edition; London. 1895), III, 175.Google Scholar
26 Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, IX, 20Google Scholar; Rait, p. 159; Dalrymple, I, Part I, 219. In a continuing effort to underwrite the legitimacy of the Convention, the representatives again subscribed their names to their legislation. The notable addition to the previous list was the Duke of Queensberry while the chief deletion was the bishops.
27 Balcarres, p. 26; Dalrymple, I, Part I, 220.
28 Mathieson, II, 350; Balcarres, pp. 29-30; Lang, Andrew, A History of Scotland (Edinburgh. 1900–1907), III,420–421.Google Scholar
29 According to the popular ballad by Sir Walter Scott:
To the Lords of Convention 'twas
Claver'se who spoke,
'Ere the King's Crown shall tall there
are crowns to be broke.
So let each Cavalier who loves honor
and me,
Come follow the bonnet of Bonny Dundee.
30 Mackay, Major-General Hugh, Memoirs of the War Carried on in Scotland and Ireland, 1689-1691 (Edinburgh, 1833), p. 4Google Scholar; Brown, P. Hume, History of Scotland (Cambridge, 1899–1909), II, 441–442Google Scholar; Dalrymple, I, Part I, 221-222; Mackintosh, III, 175.
31 Balcarres, pp. 30-32; Dalrymple, I, Part I, 222.
32 Hamilton MSS (London, 1887), pp. 176–179Google Scholar; Buccleuch MSS (London, 1903), II, 38–39Google Scholar; Dalrymple, I, Part I, 219-220.
33 Buccleuch, II, 38-39.
34 Hamilton, pp. 178-179.
35 Queensberry was another former minister who, after obsequious service, was ruined by James' religious fanaticism.
36 Balcarres, p. 34.
37 Ibid.; Leven and Melville Papers, p. 372. William's suspicions of Dunmore were now confirmed. Before the Estates rose, Dunmore and Balcarres were both arrested for suspected intrigues against the Government.
38 Carstates, p. 35.
39 Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, IX, 22Google Scholar. The members of this committee were: for the nobility, the Marquis of Atholl, the Earls of Argyll, Crawford, Sutherland, and Lothian, the Viscount of Tarbat, Lord Melville, and Lord Cardross; for the shires, Sir Patrick Hume of Polwarth, Sir William Scott of Harden, Sir James Montgomery of Skelmorlie, Thomas Dunbar of Grange, and the Lairds of Ormiston, Grant, Blair, and Pitliver; for the burghs. Sir John Dalrymple, Sir John Hall, Sir Charles Halket, William Hamilton, James Fletcher, John Anderson, Robert Smith, and John Muir (Murray).
40 The enumerated crimes of James VII were included in the Claim of Right passed by the Convention on 11 April.
41 Graham, I, 131. This line of reasoning, strangely enough, closely followed the terms of the Cameronians' 1680 Sanquhar Declaration, previously discounted by all other parties.
42 Rait, Robert S., “The Scottish Parliament Before the Union of the Crown,” English Historical Review, LIX (July, 1900:440.Google Scholar
43 Buccleuch MSS, II, 44.
44 Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, IX, 37Google Scholar; Balcarres, p. 35; Graham, I, 131.
45 Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, IX, 33.Google Scholar
46 Balcarres, p. 36: Dalrymple, I, Part I, 224: Lang, III, 422.
47 Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, IX, 37–40Google Scholar. No voting list is given on this measure.
48 Ibid., pp. 43-45.