and Melville Papers, Preface, p. xiii). He succeeded his father in 1643, and in the following year parliament ratified in his favour a charter granted to his father erecting the lands of Monimail and Raith into one barony. After the death of Charles I he seems to have given his support to his son. On 3 Jan. 1654 he was taken prisoner by a party of English horse at St. Andrews and brought to Burntisland (Lamont, Diary, p. 65). In May 1660 he went to London to welcome the king on his restoration (ib. p. 145). He seems also to have taken an active part in the sports and pastimes which marked the overthrow of the Cromwellian régime in Scotland as well as in England. Several notices of races in which he had horses running at Cupar Muir occur in Lamont's ‘Diary,’ pp. 145, 160, 161, 187.
Having paid a visit to the king in London in 1679, Melville was commissioned by him to join the army under Monmouth against the covenanters, which he did a little before the battle of Bothwell Bridge. As his sympathies were presbyterian, he was anxious that a conflict should be avoided, and at the instance of Monmouth, or with his sanction, endeavoured to induce the covenanters to lay down their arms, on the ground that their demands would receive much more favourable consideration than would otherwise be possible. That Melville had at least been consulted in regard to the insurrection schemes connected with the Rye House plot in 1683 can scarcely be doubted, but he was said to ‘have thought everything hazardous,’ and to have been ‘positive in nothing’ (Ferguson, Ferguson the Plotter, p. 162; cf. Macaulay, Hist. ed. 1883, ii. 11). On discovery of the plot it was decided to apprehend him, but he escaped from Melville House, and taking boat at Kinghorn to Berwick, went to London. There he endeavoured to obtain an interview with the king, in order to exculpate himself, but without success, and after some dragoons had been sent to his lodgings to apprehend him, he made his escape by aid of a page to Wapping, and thence took boat to Hamburg. According to the letter from a spy to Lord Preston, he arrived there in the same ship as Robert Ferguson, Sir Thomas Armstrong, and others concerned in the plot, and sailed again towards Mecklenburg, without making any stay (ib. p. 179). He joined the expatriated gentlemen and nobles at the court of the Prince of Orange, and doubtless was consulted in regard to the expeditions of Argyll and Monmouth, although he does not seem to have accompanied either expedition. On 13 June 1685 his estates were forfeited by parliament.
On account of illness Melville remained in Holland for some time after the Prince of Orange set out on his expedition to England, but arrived in London in time to be sent to represent his interests at the convention of estates in Edinburgh on 14 March 1689. Although he possessed little force of character and only mediocre talents, he was, chiefly on account of his mild disposition and moderate opinions, appointed by William III on 13 May secretary of state for Scotland. The appointment on the whole gave satisfaction even to the episcopalians, for in any case the selection of a presbyterian was inevitable, and the choice seemed to lie between him and Sir James Montgomery (fl. 1690) [q. v.], a rabid covenanter. The extremists were of course dissatisfied, and in a pamphlet on the ‘Scots Grievance,’ the joint work of Montgomery and Ferguson, Melville was ridiculed as ‘but a puny in politics,’ while it was also asserted that he was ‘wholly employed how to engross the considerable places of the kingdom for enriching his family.’ The disappointment of Montgomery and others led to the formation of the plot which Montgomery himself revealed to Melville [see Montgomery, Sir James]. In the difficult crisis of Scottish affairs Melville manifested a prudence and discretion which amply justified his appointment. In February 1690 he was appointed commissioner to the Scottish parliament, which established the ecclesiastical constitution of Scotland on a presbyterian basis, and recognised the Calvinism of the Westminster confession as the standard of orthodoxy. The king seems to have hinted to Melville to make such arrangements as he deemed necessary to secure the good will of the presbyterians. So far as the king himself was concerned the questions of chief difficulty were those regarding patronage and the royal supremacy. According to Burnet the king insisted that both should be maintained; but Melville found their abrogation ‘so much insisted on’ by the presbyterians that he had to write for fresh instructions to the king, who thereupon enlarged them, but ‘not such as to warrant what Melville did, for he gave them both up’ (Own Time, ed. 1838, p. 560). It is undoubtedly true that the king was extremely hostile even to the abolition of patronage, and this on the ground of the vested rights of the proprietors; but Melville met this difficulty by awarding a small compensation to them. Burnet states that the king was so offended by Melville's conduct ‘that he lost all the credit he had with him, though the king did not think fit to disown him, or to call him to an account for going beyond his instructions’ (ib.); but it does
