Available from Boydell and Brewer
Perth (1708); Dundee (1710), Forfarshire; St. Andrews (1713), Fifeshire; Cupar, Fifeshire; Forfar
|26 May 1708||JOSEPH AUSTIN|
|28 Oct. 1710||GEORGE YEAMAN||3|
|3 Oct. 1713||GEORGE YEAMAN|
The openness of the Perth Burghs was indicated by the presence of four candidates in the field during the prelude to the 1708 election. Previously there had been spirited competition in some of the individual burghs for the choice of commissioners to the Scottish parliament. This was a product of the Court-Country rivalry which featured prominently in the 1702 election. Moreover, each town could lay claim to significance in its own right. Forfar and Cupar were the head burghs of their respective shires. St. Andrews, though much decayed from its former glory as the archbishop’s see, remained a university town. In economic terms, Perth and Dundee were the most important, and their natural rivalry had political repercussions once they were included within the same electoral district.1
In 1702 Alexander Robertson of Craig was returned for Perth. Despite being connected with the 1st Marquess of Atholl, he successfully opposed the candidacy of his son Lord James Murray* on the grounds that Murray was not a resident burgess. Robertson’s conduct prompted the Marchioness to comment that ‘I little thought that any Atholl man should stand in competition with a son of mine’. In the Scottish parliament Robertson acted with the Country opposition: Perth addressed against the Union and he himself voted against the treaty. This burgh, according to one observer in 1702, was already ‘distracted and divided in parties’. The divisions were religious as much as political. One of Robertson’s chief opponents was Joseph Austin of Kilspindie, a leading light in the Presbyterian interest within the town. Municipal politics in Dundee, just as in Perth, became factionalized on politico-religious grounds. In 1702 Dundee had returned a Court supporter, John Scrymgeour of Tealing, a Presbyterian courtier in the ‘Revolution’ interest. Scrymgeour voted for the Union, but thereby lost further ground to the rising influence of an enthusiastic episcopalian and future Tory, George Yeaman. Forfar, at the heart of a notably Jacobite region, had inevitably returned a cavalier in 1702: John Lyon, a local merchant and sheriff-clerk of the burgh. He voted, and the town addressed, against the Union. St. Andrews likewise opposed the treaty, but its commissioner was a bon viveur, sympathetic to the opposition but only spasmodically interested in politics. Alexander Watson of Aithernie voted against the first article, but attended infrequently thereafter, even neglecting to register a vote upon ratification. Patrick Bruce of Bunzion was returned on a Country platform for Cupar in 1702. A client of the Earl of Rothes, he followed his patron’s lead and supported the ‘New Party’ experiment of 1704, subsequently voting as a member of the Squadrone in qualified support of the Union. The Rothes interest at Cupar was subjected to various attacks by the Court, but proved resilient. Of the above-mentioned commissioners, Scrymgeour and Bruce, despite voting for the Union, possessed insufficient influence to secure nomination to the first British Parliament; the other representatives were necessarily excluded for having opposed the measure.2
In March 1708 the strongest candidate appeared to be Mungo Graham* of Gorthy, a client of the Duke of Montrose. Graham’s leading role on behalf of the Squadrone as commissioner for Perthshire in the Scottish parliament had earned him a seat at Westminster in 1707. With no chance of retaining the now single-Member county seat, however, he fell back on the burghs district. The prospects here for a Squadrone Whig seemed hopeful: both Perth and Dundee transmitted loyal addresses on the Jacobite invasion attempt, and Cupar, under the influence of Rothes, would undoubtedly support Graham (Cupar’s delegate was Bruce, the former parliamentary commissioner and Graham’s Squadrone colleague). Writing to Montrose on 22 May 1708, Rothes confidently predicted a victory for Graham. This view was shared by the Earl of Kinnoull’s son, Lord Dupplin (George Hay*), who travelled to Perth on the eve of the election in order to thwart the Squadrone on behalf of the Scottish Court party. Of the three other candidates who had initially come forward, one (the brother of a local worthy) had already dropped out. The other two were Provost Yeaman, who had secured the delegacy of Dundee, and David Erskine, sheriff-depute of Forfarshire, who had achieved the same at Forfar. Erskine held office under the hereditary sheriff Lord Northesk and was connected with Lord Mar, a leading Court peer. He had already rejected Mar’s suggestion of standing for Aberdeen Burghs, believing his interest at Forfar provided better prospects. ‘I made myself sure of being chosen deputy for the town of Forfar’, Erskine informed Mar, ‘and had probable ground to think I would carry the two . . . and it is vain for [Graham of] Gorthy to set up . . . for if I do not, Provost Yeaman will be the man.’ Dupplin did not, however, share Erskine’s optimism:
I found everybody was of opinion that Gorthy would carry it. But at last after I got Mr Erskine, when I found there was no expectation of his prevailing, I did advise him to go into any measure to prevent Gorthy’s being chosen, which I found depended on his giving assurance of his assisting Joseph Austin, who was [delegate] for Perth, if need were against Yeaman of Dundee, otherwise Austin would have given his vote to prevent Yeaman’s being chosen, there being some difference and animosity betwixt the town[s] of Perth and Dundee, by which means Gorthy lost the cause, and Austin was chosen, who I’m persuaded will do very well, and would have been my choice next to Mr Erskine of all the competitors.
Erskine, who had already admitted that he was ‘not very fond of being a Parliament-man’, suffered no great disappointment, and Mar was simply delighted that Graham had been defeated. An irate Yeaman, however, reported the election to his council:
This is to be remembered: that the Viscount of Dupplin was within the town of Perth [at] the time of the election, and had several of the electors with him before the said election, which is judged to be contrary to the constitution of elections to the British Parliament.
This complaint provided insufficient grounds for a petition, Yeaman preferring to bide his time until the next election when Dundee’s role as presiding burgh would give him a better chance of victory. According to later reports, improprieties at the 1708 election extended to outright bribery. One of Mar’s supporters, apparently referring to Graham’s canvass at St. Andrews, believed that at least 100 guineas had been spent there.3
The 1710 election saw a Whig candidate, enjoying Presbyterian support, confront an episcopalian Tory challenger assisted by leading figures in the Scottish campaign for religious toleration. Austin did not stand himself but gave his interest to John Haldane* of Gleneagles, a member of the Squadrone. Austin’s lacklustre performance at Westminster had provoked criticism at Perth. The Robertson party was only too pleased to exploit this dissatisfaction. One petition to the town council accused the ruling clique under Provost William Austin (the Member’s brother) of arbitrary and monopolistic practices. Various allegations of peculation were made, and the petition concluded with a plea for the appointment of officers ‘of weight and experience, who have formerly behaved themselves as men not affecting their own interest but that of the town’:
We should not omit to represent the vigorous attempt made by that party of the council, who endeavoured to procure [Austin of] Kilspindy his expenses for serving the town so honourably in Parliament by being absent when the duty on coal was laid on, which so very apparently threatens the ruin of both town and country, and all the while neglected to consider that Kilspindy was bound up from taking any reward by the express terms of his election at Perth.
It was certainly true that, despite the controversy at the previous election, it had been unanimously decided that the Member should serve at his own expense.4
The campaign against Austin’s re-election was endorsed by an alliance of Scottish Tory peers, including Mar, Kinnoull, Stormont and Nairne, all former supporters of the Scottish Court party who had thrown in their lot with Robert Harley’s* ministry. Particularly active in the Tory cause was the Lord Lyon (Sir Alexander Areskine*), who gained Fifeshire at this election on a groundswell of party spirit among the smaller lairds. In the current climate Austin could not hope to retain the backing that had secured his earlier victory. Not only was Austin deemed an unsuitable candidate, but it was also hoped that his supporters might be prevented from choosing the commissioner to the district election. It was rumoured in mid-September that Perth intended to support the candidacy of one ‘Mr Pringle’, who may be identified as the Whig, Robert Pringle (under-secretary of state, 1709-10, 1714-17), rather than his Court Tory namesake, John. Kinnoull was urged by Areskine ‘to work hard at Perth’ to frustrate this design. At about the same time, Mar’s brother, Lord Grange (Hon. James Erskine†) was notified of Haldane’s candidacy. Efforts were also made by one of Lord Stormont’s sons (probably his eldest rather than his second son, Hon. James Murray*) to defeat the ‘Whig set’ in the magistracy elections of early October. Further assistance was given by Nairne, but to no avail. Lady Nairne reported that
my lord went to Perth today upon [Murray of] Glencarse’s desires, to see what could be done about the new magistracy. He found several other gentlemen there, but all so afraid of doing the least thing [that] might be called illegal, that nothing was done to the purpose, so William Austin is chosen provost.5
Having failed to obtain a favourable magistracy, the Tory campaign fell back upon local grievances in an attempt to prevent the election of a non-merchant. By this time, unfounded fears about Pringle had been superseded by serious concern over Haldane. On 24 Oct. 1710 Robert Robertson presented a petition on behalf of the merchants, traders and other inhabitants, complaining of ‘hardships and many difficulties . . . by reason of the duties and taxes upon all goods imported into this kingdom, and the daily vexations . . . from the officers of the customs’. In order to combat ‘the heavy and burdensome taxes lately laid upon water-borne coals’ it was suggested that the prospective Member for the district should fulfill the following criteria: first, he should be well-affected to Her Majesty’s government; second, ‘a trading merchant knowing the burdens and inconveniences that lies upon trade, and capable to represent the same’; and third, ‘one who is in favour with the present ministry, and by whose assistance only we can have such a favourable explanation upon the Coal Act as may relieve this poor place of that weighty taxation’. The petition was signed by 32 individuals, including a former provost and several former bailies. It was given extra force by reference to an act of the convention of royal burghs of 1708, which expressly encouraged the election to Parliament of ‘honest, knowing, trading men’ as a means of reversing the decline in the Scottish urban economy. These efforts proved vain. At the district election Perth voted for Haldane, indicating the triumph of the Austin party. The conduct of the burgh led directly to a punitive tax assessment in the convention of royal burghs in 1711 (see GLASGOW BURGHS).6
Meanwhile at the other burghs, episcopalian Tories were enjoying greater success. Without apparent difficulty, Yeaman secured the delegacy of Dundee. In contrast to Austin’s diffidence over the coal duty, Yeaman had already proved his worth as a diligent lobbyist on this issue. His willingness to exert himself on behalf of local economic interests strengthened his claim to the seat. At least three other candidates briefly canvassed the district, but all withdrew before the election. Although it proved abortive, the candidacy of John Drummond† was perhaps the most serious threat to Yeaman from within the Tory camp. Drummond, a Scottish merchant resident in Amsterdam, had held the government agency for tin mines from 1704, but lost favour with Lord Treasurer Godolphin (Sidney*) for being too loyal to Harley. In September 1710 one of Drummond’s supporters asserted that ‘he stands or falls with respect to his English concerns by Mr Harley’. Drummond, it was also reported, ‘stands fairest for Forfar’, and could also expect support from the Atholl and Kinnoull interest at Perth. Moreover, by virtue of an unspecified obligation owed by Rothes to one of Drummond’s supporters, he even had ‘pretensions to the old Squadrone interest’ at Cupar. Crucially, Drummond failed to secure the support of either Mar or Areskine, and it may be inferred that his Tory supporters persuaded him to withdraw, as one of them predicted, so that ‘right men . . . may not clash’. Therefore, with Forfar and Dundee supporting Yeaman but Cupar and Perth favouring Haldane, the outcome of the election turned upon the vote of St. Andrews.7
Areskine had recognized the importance of this burgh, reporting to Grange on 17 Sept. that ‘I have been at St. Andrews doing all I could there, and we have hopes of it’. These expectations turned upon Watson of Aithernie, the former commissioner to the Scottish parliament. He did not enjoy a reputation for tenacity, but his very diffidence rendered him manageable. The ploy was to secure his election as provost, and to provide sufficient support by adjusting the magistracy to return him as delegate to the district election. Haldane, however, enjoyed the support of the sitting provost, the Earl of Crawford. Crawford himself was not a member of the Squadrone. His political connexion with Haldane arose from the need to employ deputies at St. Andrews during lengthy absences caused by military service (Haldane’s sons acting as Crawford’s ‘regents’). A colonel of the Horse Guards since 1704, Crawford had risen to the rank of lieutenant-general by 1710. As a Court peer he had voted for the Union, and he sat as a representative peer in the first Parliament of Great Britain. But he was dropped from the Queen’s list for the 1710 election, which may have influenced him against Mar. This slight was of minor importance compared with the challenge to Crawford’s local interest. The struggle between Crawford and Aithernie for the provostship is recorded in a letter from Patrick Wilson, clerk of St. Andrews, to Northesk, who as sheriff of Forfarshire was the returning officer for Perth Burghs in 1710:
Upon Tuesday morning [17 Oct.] about eight, the laird of Aithernie came to this place (which was four hours before my lord [Crawford] came) and having called his dean of guild and bailies with those who party him [sic], I went to them and told that my lord Crawford was upon the road . . . which did, as I conceive, delay the calling of a council. And so soon as my lord came the laird of Aithernie went to him and after a private communing Aithernie told my lord that out of kindness to his lordship and family he should renounce any pretensions to the office of provost . . . and never meddle or interest any more. All that afternoon there were great heats amongst those who stood up for Aithernie and a mob was expected every moment, and at night there were orders given by the convenors and deacons to warn the whole seven trades against Wednesday morning to meet in the church yard (which is not their ordinary place of meeting), which we judged was done to fright the honest party who stand upon the Revolution foot and if possible to have got the council book from me when coming to council.
Wilson explained that he was summoned to the church that evening by Aithernie and his supporters ‘and desired in hot terms to deliver up the book’. His refusal ‘galled them’ into threats of violence. The following morning ‘the trades met and upon many places of the streets the disaffected people met in companies, which made many think that then there should be an uproar’. Crawford wrote to Aithernie to inquire if he intended to keep his promise. He refused to discuss matters through intermediaries, not least because he wished to get Aithernie away from his supporters. Aithernie’s first message stated that he intended to keep his promise, but ‘was sorry he could not wait on his lordship by reason those with him would not allow him’. Eventually a meeting took place and Aithernie repeated his promise not to stand for the provostship.
During all this transaction the appearance of a mob continued so that it was thought advisable to send an express to Edinburgh with letters to his majesty’s advocate, Sir James Stewart, and others for the obtaining of a suspension of Aithernie, his dean of guild, and bailies their election . . . Upon Thursday morning . . . the storm having a little blown over . . . my lord went to church with his bailies and council and went to the magistrates’ seat, and after sermon was ended his lordship with the bailies and councillors qualified went to the council-house door, and having ordered the tolling of the bell after the usual manner, upon which the four bailies who were elected with Aithernie by the persons not qualified in the terms of law came to my lord and protested against his lordship and me which protestations were answered and then they went off. Thereafter the council met and my lord accepted of his office as provost gave his oath de fidele, and took the oath of abjuration. Then Mr Patrick Haldane and some other guildbrethren who were called to fill up the council . . . and were qualified in the terms of law.
Haldane was elected delegate and departed that evening for Perth. He carried with him two commissions: ‘one subscribed by the provost, bailies and councillors and the clerk and sealed, the other signed by me [Wilson] and sealed as is usual’. This was a precaution against disqualification on a technicality at the district election. On 27 Oct. the delegates assembled at Dundee, with Yeaman as commissioner for the presiding burgh taking the role of praeses. In this capacity he disallowed Haldane’s commission, preferring another sent by the Aithernie party, which, being cast in his own favour, decided the election. The pertinacity of Aithernie, who maintained a rival claim to the provostship, was attributed to the influence of Areskine. ‘If he had not meddled’, it was later reported, ‘Crawford would have bullied Aithernie out of it.’ On 28 Oct. Northesk signed the return of Yeaman without demur.8
Haldane petitioned against the ‘irregular manner’ in which Yeaman had ‘presumed to judge the legality’ of his commission, but no report was forthcoming from the committee of elections. Haldane may have permitted the petition to fall by default, recognizing the slender chance of success in a Tory-dominated House. Yet it is possible that Scottish Tory interests were responsible for deliberate procrastination because of legal ramifications in the court of session. In addition to being mentioned in Haldane’s petition, the dispute over the magistracy was brought before the Scottish civil court in November. Crawford’s case, reported Lord Ilay, ‘depends upon this, that his antagonists had not qualified themselves according to law when they chose their magistrates’. Ilay believed that this apparently strong case could be faulted on technicalities. The session judge Lord Royston, however, wished to avoid coming to any decision which might ‘interfere with that of the House of Commons’ and ‘pressed to delay the consideration of it, both to prevent that dangerous clashing with that House, and as being a matter of government, which is a question whether comporable [sic] by the session or not’. Royston was overruled and a hearing appointed in December. Despite fears that Crawford might exacerbate the controversy by appealing to the Lords, the issue was quietly shelved. Aithernie retained the provostship de facto, and Crawford’s claim was finally resolved by his death in 1714.9
Yeaman was a hardworking Member who gained the confidence of his constituents. He complied with the instructions of his own burgh to press for exemption from the coal duty, and was not only complimented for his ‘care and diligence’ by the corporation of Perth, but also received payment of his expenses. Furthermore, Yeaman was able, at the second attempt in 1712, to secure an Act to regulate and promote Scottish linen manufacture, an industry which was particularly important both to Dundee and Perth. He kept up a regular correspondence with both councils and was active in various measures affecting trade. Yeaman also embraced the parliamentary campaign for episcopalian toleration.10
In a region described as ‘mostly episcopal’, there were meeting houses at Perth, Dundee, Cupar and St. Andrews. At Forfar, the Presbyterian revolution had been so far resisted that an episcopalian minister was still in place. At Dundee, prosecutions on behalf of the established Kirk had been brought in 1711 against the use of the book of common prayer, and the following year a process against Henry Murray for ‘intruding’ was cited in Parliament by Sir Simeon Stewart, 2nd Bt.*, as a typical case of Presbyterian oppression. In October 1712 the provost and council of Dundee attended services in full regalia, and also took possession of the ‘cross kirk’. During the Queen’s birthday celebrations in February 1713 the magistrates and council, ‘who are all of the episcopalian persuasion’, met at the town-house and then marched in procession to drink loyal toasts at the cross. Murray was prosecuted for having occupied the little Kirk, an action which was ‘nothing but malice and calumny’, according to Yeaman, since the building in question, far from being a former place of Presbyterian worship, ‘was always used for slaters, masons, and wrights to work in and the inhabitants kept timber of old houses in the same’.11
The strength of Tory sentiment in the district was reflected in addresses upon the peace. That from Dundee in July 1712 lamented the ‘long and expensive war’ and praised the Queen for her persistence in frustrating ‘the designs of those who delight in war’. In September Forfar transmitted an address which linked gratitude for the peace with thanks for the Toleration Act, making specific reference to unanimity of worship in the town. The address noted that the old episcopalian minister had been permitted to retain his living without a single ‘dissenter’ from the congregation. An address in January 1713 from ‘the ancient inhabitants and chief burghers’ of Perth was even more strident. It condemned ‘those hellish emissaries, whose spirits can never rest but with the downfall of the crown and mitre’. This address attracted widespread notice because it was presented by Dupplin, who was introduced by his father-in-law Lord Treasurer Oxford. Since the address was overtly Jacobite, observers speculated whether this augured a shift in ministerial policy on the succession. The address referred not only to Perth’s ‘constant loyalty and firm adherence to the royal line . . . in the ancient and illustrious family of Stuart’, but also praised ‘the true and solid principle of passive obedience and non-resistance’. ‘May your royal diadem’, it concluded, ‘peaceably fall upon their head who by the laws of God and the nation have right to inherit it.’ The Flying Post criticized the address, pointing out that it was only from the inhabitants rather than the council (a fact which may indicate the continuing dominance of the Austin party there). The historical claim of Perth’s unswerving loyalty was ridiculed by reference to the murder of James I of Scotland, who had been killed near the town
at the instigation of his uncle Walter Stewart, Earl of Atholl, who was a false pretender to the crown. This one would think should have been the instance in all the world which these addressers ought to have avoided taking notice of, if they meant this address in favour of the St Germain Pretender, who so lately came to invade this country with a purpose to dethrone and destroy her Majesty.
The fallacy of Perth’s claim to have always adhered to the doctrine of non-resistance was also exposed. A brief history was given of the town’s leading role in the Scottish Reformation.
In what sense can these gentlemen say their ancestors never stretched out their hands against the lords anointed? ’Tis well enough known that they not only resisted the . . . Queen Regent, but joined with the rest who dethroned her daughter, Queen Mary for her tyranny.
It was further argued that the Glorious Revolution and the parliamentary censure on Dr Sacheverell had negated the doctrine of passive obedience. The very manner in which episcopalianism was promoted in this address was deemed objectionable.
’Tis very odd and gives no small umbrage here that such addresses which reflect upon our established ecclesiastical constitution should be so much countenanced! Certainly addresses of the like nature would be very ill taken from the Dissenters in England . . . Have not we then as good a right to our church establishment as you, and has not the Union made it equally unalterable with yours? . . . ’Tis well enough known that our faction’s pretended zeal for the mitre is only to cover the design to set the royal diadem of Great Britain upon the head of a papist.12
Yeaman retained the seat in 1713, apparently without a contest. He again voted for himself as Dundee’s delegate, and (given the satisfactory working relationship which he had established) perhaps even managed to overcome the traditional rivalry that had previously denied him Perth’s vote. He could, in any case, rely on the support of St. Andrews and Forfar because of the influence of Areskine and Mar. The Hanoverian succession and the Jacobite rebellion brought about a reversal of electoral fortunes in this district. The accession of George I had been greeted unenthusiastically. There were some celebrations at Cupar in August, but the conduct of the magistrates and council of Dundee, as reported in the English press, appeared deliberately insulting. The proclamation was made by a minor functionary ‘in such a low voice that scarce anyone in the street knew what he said’, and afterwards a small body of dignitaries ‘went to the town-house and drank some health or other . . . there were no bells rung, nor orders for bonfires and illuminations’. A rebuttal by Dundee council in the Scottish press nevertheless conceded the smallness of the gathering, arguing lamely that ‘some of the eminent burghers’ had been invited, but ‘they refused . . . upon what account we know not’. Greater care was taken at the coronation to put on a show of loyalty. Three times as much money (over £78) was spent on celebrations than previously. An address was sent to the King, and favourable accounts printed in the newspapers. The council’s instructions for these celebrations, however, are revealing. The ‘fencible’ inhabitants were ordered to assemble under arms at the church yard, under pain of a £5 Scots fine. This company was to march to the cross, fire three volleys and immediately disperse. Any citizen appearing armed thereafter would be fined £40 Scots. A strict curfew was also imposed. The true sympathy of the citizens of Dundee was indicated in reports by Haldane in November 1714 that the magistrates had publicly drunk the Pretender’s health.13
On the rising tide of Whig fortunes nationally, Haldane’s son Patrick captured the seat in 1715. Support from Whig interests in Perth, St. Andrews and Cupar was sufficient to deter competition. The following year he consolidated his position by securing the provostship of St. Andrews. Haldane’s success should not disguise the continuing strength of Jacobitism in the district. During the Fifteen, Dundee became a Jacobite stronghold, and Perth provided Mar’s headquarters prior to the battle of Sheriffmuir. During this episode, the magistracy of Perth was dissolved, and a new one chosen by popular election; all who refused to conform to the new regime were ordered to be expelled. A Whiggish magistracy was restored, however, after the re-occupation of the town by government forces. In the ensuing period, elections in the district remained open but became conspicuously venal, with rivalry between Whig factions superseding the party conflict of Queen Anne’s reign.14
Author: David Wilkinson
- 1. R. Sibbald, Hist. of Fife and Kinross (1710), 134-6; Calamy, Life, ii. 194; J. Macky, Journey through GB, 83-84, 96, 141-2.
- 2. Hist. Scot. Parl. 76, 590, 623-4, 718; P. W. J. Riley, Union, 332-4; Atholl mss at Blair Atholl, box 45, bdle. II, nos. 179, 186, 194-5, 203, John Flemyng to [Tullibardine], 11 Sept. 1702, Lady Tullibardine to same 20, 24, 26 Sept. 1702, Lady Atholl to Ld. Murray, 23 Sept. 1702; box 43, bdle. I, no. 31, ‘An Acct. of the Town Council’ ; Buccleuch mss at Drumlanrig Castle, Seafield to Queensberry, 17 Sept. 1702; SRO, Hamilton mss GD406/1/4953, Daniel Hamilton to Duke of Hamilton, 24 Oct. 1702; Orig. Pprs. ed. Macpherson, ii. 16; Misc. Gen. et Her. 5 ser. vii. 269-71; NLS, ms 14415, ff. 67-68; Lockhart Mems. ed. Szechi, 150; Boyer, Anne Annals, v. 413.
- 3. SRO, Mar and Kellie mss GD124/15/862, George Erskine to Ld. Grange, 25 Mar. 1708, David Erskine to Mar, n.d. [May 1708]; GD124/15/859/1, Dupplin to Mar, 27 May 1708; GD124/15/868/1, Mar to Stair, 20 June 1708; GD124/15/992/2, William Nairne to Grange, 12 Sept. 1710; Sandeman Lib. Perth, Perth burgh recs. B59/33/5; B59/34/18, 19, 22; Dundee City Archives, Dundee burgh recs., vol. 7, council bk. 1704-15, ff. 94, 98-99; SRO, Montrose mss GD220/5/159/5, Rothes to Montrose, [22 May 1708]; SRO, Breadalbane mss GD112/39/216/16, Murray of Glencarse to Ld. Nairne, 20 May 1708; Edinburgh Courant, 28-31 May 1708.
- 4. Perth burgh recs. B59/34/22; B59/24/2/12.1.
- 5. Mar and Kellie mss GD124/15/991/2, Dupplin to Grange, 13 Aug. ; GD124/15/1011/1, Areskine to same, 17 Sept. 1710; GD124/15/992/2, William Nairne to same, 12 Sept. 1710; Mansfield mss at Scone Palace, bdle. 1248, Lady Stormont to Alexander Barclay, 2 Oct. ; Breadalbane mss GD112/39/245/1, Lady Nairne to [Breadalbane], 2 Oct. 1710.
- 6. Perth burgh recs. B59/34/22; B59/27/13; Case of the Royal Burghs ; Extracts Glasgow Recs. 461, 466; T. Pagan, Convention of R. Burghs, 64-65.
- 7. Dundee burgh recs. vol. 7, council bk. ff. 135-8, 153; Mar and Kellie mss GD124/15/992/2, William Nairne to Grange, 12 Sept. 1710.
- 8. Mar and Kellie mss GD124/15/1011/1, Areskine to Grange, 17 Sept. 1710; GD124/15/992/2, William Nairne to Grange, 12 Sept. 1710; D. Szechi, Jacobitism and Tory Pol. 204; Montrose mss GD220/5/250, Wilson to [Northesk], 20 Oct. 1710; Scots Courant, 27-30 Oct. 1710; SRO, Cromartie mss GD305 addit./bdle. 14, Royston to [Cromarty], 7 Dec. 1710.
- 9. HMC Portland, x. 159; Mar and Kellie mss GD124/15/1004/2, Ilay to Grange, 14 Nov. 1710; Cromartie mss GD305 addit./bdle. 14, Royston to [Cromarty], 21 Nov., 7 Dec. 1710; Hist. Scot. Parl. 718.
- 10. Dundee burgh recs. GD/GRW/G1/2, guild ct. sederunt bk. 1696-1742 (unfol.), 2 Nov. 1710, 3 Feb. 1711, 3 Feb. 1713; council bk. vol. 7, 1704-15, ff. 162, 165; Perth burgh recs. B59/24/8/4, Perth magistrates to Yeaman, 2 Apr. 1711, n.d. ; B59/34/25, Yeaman to William Austin, 1 Mar. 1712; B59/24/8/5/2, Yeaman to Robert Robertson, 30 June 1713.
- 11. Christ Church, Oxf. Wake mss 5, f. 13; Clarke thesis, 283-4, 293, 357-8; Scots Courant, 9-11 Feb. 1713; SRO, Seafield mss GD248/591/2/297, Yeaman to [Findlater], 13 Oct. 1713.
- 12. London Gazette, 26-29 July 1712, 27-31 Jan. 1712[-13]; Scots Courant, 5-8 Sept. 1712, 4-6 Feb. 1713; Montrose mss GD220/5/298/5, John Cockburn* to [Montrose], 8 Feb. 1713; Orig. Pprs. 479; NSA, Kreienberg’s despatch 3 Feb. 1713; Flying Post, 5-7 Feb. 1712[-13].
- 13. Dundee burgh recs. vol. 7, council bk. ff. 228, 231-2, 250; treasurer’s accts. 1713-14, expenditure on celebrations; Scots Courant, 11-13 Aug., 15-17 Sept., 1-4 Oct. 1714; Flying Post, 2-4 Sept., 25-28 Sept., 30 Sept.-2 Oct. 1714; Montrose mss GD220/5/357/4, Haldane to Montrose, 1 Nov. 1714.
- 14. Culloden Pprs. 222-35; SP 54/7/28, 31, 34; SP54/10/117; R. Chambers, Hist. Rebellions in Scot. 1689-1715, pp. 203-8.