It seems that due to the fact the Church of Scotland was Presbyterian and that they shared a monarch and later a country with the Church of England, that English Presbyterians would have been offered some sort of special status. Why were they relegated to a second-class Citizenship status in England when the official religion of a good chunk of the country was Presbyterianism?
Also why was there never legal protection for them like there was for the Scottish Episcopalians?
Thank you.
While the Scottish church was Presbyterian when James I inherited the English throne, his personal sympathies lent more towards episcopacy.
Whereas the English Reformation generally served to consolidate royal authority, the Scottish Reformation had centred more around the aristocracy and had produced a body of 'Resistance theory' from Presbyterian writers like John Knox and George Buchanan. This was reflected in the ecclesiological structures of Bishops, which were seen to mirror and support royalty, compared to Presbyteries, which were often conceived of in an almost proto-democratic way.
Therefore, James favoured episcopacy for political reasons, which he famously summarised with the phrase 'no bishop, no king'. So paradoxically, his ascent to the throne saw Presbyterians in England have their influence reduced compared to in Elizabeth's time, and also saw James attempt to roll back Presbyterianism with mixed success in Scotland.
His son Charles shared these views, and tried to impose episcopacy in Scotland, which the Scots resisted, drawing up a 'National Covenant', which would essentially serve as the constitution for a Presbyterian Scottish regime which would exist in various forms until Cromwell defeated it in 1651. In 1643 this regime would agree a 'Solemn League and Covenant' with the English Parliament, which mandated for the expansion of Presbyterianiam to England, and invaded England to fight Charles. However, later both Charles and his son Charles II would agree to the SLC to secure the support of the Scots, but lost to Cromwell anyway.
When the monarchy was restored in 1660, therefore, many Presbyterians hoped for either a fulfilment of the Solemn League and Covenant or at least some kind of accomodation for Presbyterians. There was a lot of discussion of some sort of 'moderate episcopacy' or compromise with Presbyterians, but in the end the Episocopalians came out on top and Presbyterianism and the SLC were excluded from the Restoration settlement. Again, it was primarily the issue of the political implications of Presbyterianism that proved the sticking point, as the feeling in Charles II's government was that Presbyterianism was dangerous and the SLC a charter for rebellion.
Despite this, there were actually several attempts at extending toleration to Presbyterians and other dissenters in the Restoration period, but these failed, partly due to opposition from Anglicans and partly because Presbyterians felt that they couldn't accept toleration offered by the king, as to do so would be to acknowledge he had the right to dictate in matters of religion, which they didn't accept.