Scholars of early modern Britain are fortunate in inhabiting a landscape shaped by some great minds. The words of Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon, Samuel Rawson Gardiner, Hugh Trevor-Roper, Christopher Hill, David Stevenson, Conrad Russell and John Morrill, inter alia, have sculpted an impressive legacy: it is rare to find oneself in such prestigious company. When faced with predecessors of this calibre, the temptation for less well-known scholars might be to view their every word as molten gold. Timor reverentialis must not, however, halt the critical interrogation of arguments put forward by our eminent forerunners. Sometimes, small statements by big names can open up avenues of investigation that might otherwise appear to be blind alleys or dead ends. This book is based on one such statement, by one such name.

In 1994, in an influential essay on ‘ecclesiastical imperialism’, Professor John Morrill considered the relationship between the British churches within the early Stuart composite monarchy. Morrill's argument was that, across their dominions, both James VI…I and Charles I sought religious ‘congruity’ rather than uniformity. In this, they were motivated less by a drive to anglicise, or ‘anglicanise’, than by sheer authoritarianism. Responding to Conrad Russell's contention that Charles I and William Laud had sought to ‘construct a new programme of British uniformity’, based on English hegemony– with Laud acting as ‘a sort of secretary for ecclesiastical affairs for all three kingdoms’ – Morrill viewed Laud's ostensible reticence in Scotland and the minor policy variations across the kingdoms as weakening the case for the existence of a ‘British programme’ aimed at anglocentric integration. While claiming that there was no formal attempt to extend the archbishop of Canterbury's jurisdiction beyond England, Morrill also highlighted the apparent inconsistency in approach, in all three kingdoms, of Archbishop William Laud, Charles I's chief ecclesiastical adviser. Laud's continuous, direct and flagrant ‘interference’ in the Irish church was juxtaposed with his more ‘circumspect’ engagement in Scottish ecclesiastical affairs. It is this small statement, by a big name, that lies at the heart of this book.