The Earl of Portland and Scotland (1689–1699): a re-evaluation of Williamite policy

Abstract

The 1690s have often been seen as a period of troubles in Scotland, dominated by disasters such as the Glencoe massacre and the Darien debacle. Neither has King William III enjoyed a good reputation; he is rather regarded as an uninterested monarch at best or a tyrant at worst. Still, there are two problems with such an interpretation. Firstly, it is doubtful whether a narrative solely based on political incidents can do justice to this decade which, secondly, is often studied in isolation. This article therefore aims to study the structure of politics rather than survey the sequence of disasters. Moreover, it will try to move away from an introspective interpretation by studying the role of the Earl of Portland, the King's favourite, who de facto governed Scotland from London, although he was primarily interested in the Nine Years War on the Continent. The article will argue that Scottish politics in the 1690s cannot be understood without referring to the dominant role played by Portland and without placing Scottish affairs in a wider international context. It will do so by first analysing the position of the favourite and the manner in which he delegated responsibilities to his Scottish associates. According to one pamphleteer, he ‘Assumed the whole Superintendency of the Kingdom of Scotland & Governs it intirely by his Creatures’. Secondly, his involvement in Scottish politics will be analysed against the background of international events. On a higher level, this article serves as a call for a reinterpretation of the 1690s in Scotland as a transformative period of political experimentation rather than a sequence of political disasters.

Defending the Revolution: The Church of Scotland and the Scottish Parliament, 1689–95

“…An accommodation had considerable political support and it was recommended to William, who was favourably disposed to the idea, as something to be 'entertained'. 67 75 However, there is little evidence to suggest that Carstares was able to extend his influence and management to the church. If anything, sharing, as he did, William's religious policy on issues such as a moderate church settlement and church union, Carstares seemed out of step with many of his brethren and unable to divert them from their course of action.…”