According to Bishop John Hacket's Scrinia Reserata (1693), after King James I's successful campaign to prod a General Assembly of the Scottish Church to acquiesce to the Five Articles of Perth in 1618, Laud importuned the king to increase his pressure on the Scots to accept “a nearer conjunction with the liturgy and canons” of the Church of England. King James rejected what he called Laud's “frivolous draught,” but said the persistent cleric “assaulted me again with another ill-fangled platform . . . He knows not the stomach of that people.” James also opined that Laud had “a restless spirit, and cannot see when matters are well, but loves to toss and change, and bring things to a pitch of reformation floating in his own brain, which may endanger the steadfastness of that which is in good pass, God be praised” (Hacket, 63-64). After James's death in 1625, Charles I mounted a sumptuous funeral which included a massive procession of Scottish, Irish, and English nobles, churchmen and others as mourners who conveyed the royal corpse from Denmark House where it had lain in state to the funeral ceremony in Westminster Abbey. James Spottiswoode, the archbishop of St. Andrews and primate of Scotland, came to London expecting to march alongside the archbishop of Canterbury. Told that the king insisted that all the clergy wear episcopal vestments of the English type, Spottiswoode refused and thus did not participate in the procession. Clerical vestments proved to be one of the key contended matters in the resistance to the “reform” program that the king and Laud would press upon the Scots in the 1630s and thus one of the causes of the Prayer Book Rebellion that would precipitate the civil wars of the 1640s, the overthrow of the Caroline regime, and the trials and beheadings of Laud in 1645 and Charles himself in 1649.

Leonie James's deeply researched, lively, and valuable book focuses on Laud's ecclesiastical policies vis-à-vis the Scots from 1617 to 1645. Although she concedes that the sources for this topic are relatively thin compared to those available for Ireland and England, she nevertheless presents intriguing evidence from known but underutilized documents and hitherto untapped material to throw a bright light on her subject. Many historians have, of course, treated this subject in varying degrees of detail and from many different angles, and James takes issue with some of their findings. She begins by citing John Morrill's rejection of the claim that the Caroline regime sought to establish uniformity across the three kingdoms. Instead, Morrill argued for an “inconsistency in approach” in which Laud intervened in a “direct and flagrant” manner in Ireland but took a more “circumspect” route in Scotland. James, by contrast, argues that “Laud's modus operandi in Scotland was very similar in character as well as aim, to his approach in England and Ireland.” Moreover, Laud's lack of archiepiscopal authority beyond England “did not render him powerless” in Charles's other kingdoms (1–2). James shows that from 1625-1633, Laud's most important actions north of the border were in such areas as personnel and church property rather than worship. In August or September of 1629, however, Laud (with support from King Charles) decided to “revive the dormant Jacobean project to achieve Scottish liturgical conformity with England. Lacking formal jurisdiction in the northern kingdom, Laud relied on the fact that much decision-making in early modern monarchies “was conducted in private, in personal meetings and not purely through official channels. Laud's ability to act outside formal institutions is a reflection of this arrangement and became characteristic of his intervention in both the Scottish and Irish churches” (35). The firm backing he enjoyed from a monarch who was no less obsessed than his archbishop with ceremonial conformity (including clerical vestments and kneeling to receive communion) strengthened his clout with the Scottish bishops, officials, and courtiers through whom he pursued his goals. By 1636, there were fourteen bishoprics in Scotland, and “seven of the eight ‘new men’ put” into these offices after 1633 “were associated with Laud either before, during or after their appointment, either overtly or indirectly.” Most “were considered Arminian or that way inclined . . . ” (56). As elsewhere in Charles's domains, James demonstrates that in addition to this shift toward Arminianism, the regime energetically worked to expand the secular powers of these bishops.

James next provides a thorough analysis of Laud's part in the drafting and implementation of a new set of canons and a new liturgy for the Scottish church. In May 1634, the king ordered the Scottish bishops to begin work on these projects; the former was published in 1636 and the latter in 1637. Laud's initial preference was for the English Book of Common Prayer, but the king instead allowed the Scots to create it—a decision seen by some historians as a defeat for Laud. Yet James shows that Laud defeated the Scots’ plan to seek approval of the draft for the new canons by synods of the Kirk of Scotland and instead turned it into a prerogative act by Charles I. He also managed to include “several meaningful amendments” to the canons before they were published (92). As for the liturgy, the story is similar. Although the Scottish commissioners’ angry charge made in 1640 that “the prayer book belonged to Laud” is an overstatement, it is also true that “Laud was determined to retain as much control as possible over the project, particularly in making sure that the Scottish bishops were not given too much latitude in deviating from the king's instructions” (96). Historians who have depicted Laud's influence as declining after 1638 are, James effectively argues, mistaken. Her book should be read by anyone seeking a fuller understanding of the onset of the British civil wars of the 1640s.