The debate over the nature of the English revolution has been one of the most contested of all historical issues from the beginning of modern English historiography, and it remains so today. Scholars are unable to agree on what caused it, when precisely it happened, how significant it was in terms of political, social, economic, and intellectual impact, or even whether it merits being described as a ‘revolution’ at all. In the two decades since John Morrill published a volume of his essays reflecting on these themes the debate has only become more complex. Leading historians have grappled with the problem of what is the appropriate geographical context within which to explain English events: England alone, the British Isles, or European post-reformation politics. They have also argued with renewed vigour about the best time frame for a ‘revolutionary’ experience: a martial and republican decade stretching from the outbreak of English conflict in 1642 to Cromwell's acceptance of the title lord protector in 1653; a longer mid-century upheaval running from Scottish rebellion in the late 1630s to the Restoration ‘settlement’ of 1660-2; or a return to older notions of a ‘century of revolution’ spanning the 1600s as a whole.

Twenty years ago John Morrill offered a searching and combative account of the interactions between the state Churches of England, Scotland, and Ireland under the early Stuarts in a festschrift for Patrick Collinson. Conrad Russell was wrong to delineate efforts to achieve English ecclesiastical hegemony across the British Isles: there was simply no court-based, Laudian plan to entrench a ‘British patriarchy’ that would subordinate the Churches of Scotland and Ireland to control from Canterbury. In keeping with Morrill's broader thinking on ‘the British problem’, this was certainly not to deny significant and increasingly controversial interactions between the three kingdoms. James VI & I may not have sought a clear union of the three Churches, but he did become ‘sloppy’ about protecting the autonomy and equality of the state Churches beyond England as he strove for ‘congruity’. Charles I did not aim to impose complete uniformity of religious practice throughout the islands of Britain and Ireland, but he did have a ‘British policy’, one that placed a common stress on the discretionary powers of the crown. In this account, Laud aided and instructed Charles in how best to achieve his goals within each kingdom, but did not covet immediate personal powers over Scottish and Irish clergy. Furthermore, Laud's influence beyond England varied considerably. In Ireland he enjoyed a close personal relationship with Wentworth, and could rely on active support from John Bramhall, bishop of Derry. But in Scotland he had to be ‘far more circumspect’ in his activity.