Inverness-shire, the largest in Scotland, extended from the Moray Firth on the east coast to the Atlantic. It included Skye and over 40 other inhabited islands, notably Barra, Canna, Eigg, Harris, Muck, Rum and Uist. Besides its limited, backward and chiefly pastoral agriculture, its main sources of employment were distilling, fishing and kelp manufacture. New roads and the Caledonian Canal project (1822) began a slow process of improvement in this period. Inverness was the county’s only royal burgh.1 After a great multiplication of nominal votes in the second half of the eighteenth century as the Gordons and Frasers competed for supremacy, the number of enrolled freeholders had dwindled markedly between 1790 and 1810. In 1802 the Evangelical Charles Grant, a low-born native of the county who had prospered in India and become a powerful figure at East India House and a close friend of Henry Dundas†, had won the seat, with the support of the leading lairds of the Grant clan. He had bought an estate at Waternish on Skye and consolidated his position before retiring in 1818 in favour of his eldest son and namesake, a talented but indolent junior member of the Liverpool ministry and supporter of Catholic claims, who had sat for Inverness Burghs since 1811 and had just been appointed Irish secretary.2 In 1830 the Whig duke of Bedford (then sympathetic to Grant) commented that ‘he and his father have peopled India with Grants and Invernessmen’, but ‘au reste, they have no natural interest in the county beyond what they have acquired through the East India direction and government’.3 Yet the interest, while it did not go unchallenged and was sometimes neglected, proved durable enough to provide Grant with a seat for as long as he wanted it.

At a county meeting called to vote a loyal address to the regent in the context of Peterloo and chaired by Alastair McDonnell of Glengarry, 25 Nov. 1819, Alexander Fraser of Torbreck proposed an alternative advocating ‘prudent and conciliatory measures’ to allay unrest in the distressed manufacturing districts, but failed to find a seconder.4 In early January 1820 Charles Grant junior suggested to Lord Liverpool the notion of ‘marking with some distinction the few chieftain families or heads of Highland clans who are still without any title’: he had specifically in mind a baronetcy for John Norman Macleod* of Dunvegan Castle, head of his clan since 1801 and the son of a former county Member, who had waived his own pretensions and proposed Grant in 1818.5 Nothing came of this, but Macleod, who was wrongly supposed to be suffering from terminal cancer, made no move at the 1820 general election. Warned by James Grant of Bught, a leading figure in Inverness local politics, who looked after the Grants’ local interests, that ‘the leaven of discontent’ was at work, old Charles Grant observed that although his son’s attendance had been ‘professedly dispensed with by the great body of the freeholders’ at the last election, when his Irish duties had taken priority

there is no giving satisfaction at all times and to all parties ... There is but one course in this case, which is as far as possible so to obviate all occasion, that it may at length be visible to the great body of the constituents that there is on our part both a conviction of the duty and an inclination to manifest habitual attention.

As it turned out, he was too unwell to attend himself, but he advised Bught to remain ‘vigilant’, for ‘it is the want of an ostensible opposition and the serenity in which the generality of the freeholders rest, that create danger’.6 Charles Grant the Member made a point of attending the election, when he was nominated by McDonnell, seconded by James Murray Grant of Glenmoriston and returned unopposed. He disclaimed any intention of damaging Scottish fisheries through his Act regulating Irish ones, but promised to reconsider the problem.7

A county meeting chaired by Macleod subsequently decided to co-operate with Sutherland in working for equalization of the British and Irish fishing bounties, petitioned Parliament for repeal of the additional malt duty and resolved to draw Grant’s attention to a threat to local interests from Lowland distilleries.8 Charles Grant senior chaired the 1820 Michaelmas head court, when minor adjustments were made to the roll. (The revised total of 70 freeholders represented an increase of 43 per cent since 1811.)9 William Fraser of Culbokie, Donald Fraser of Fingask, John Fraser of Auchnagairn, Thomas Fraser of Newton and Edward Satchwell Fraser of Reelig requisitioned a county meeting to send a loyal address to George IV in defiance for the popular campaign in support of Queen Caroline. When it convened, 4 Jan. 1821, with 33 freeholders present, Culbokie and Newton proposed the address. An amendment omitting reference to blasphemy and sedition was moved by the Whig John Peter Grant* of Rothiemurchus and seconded by Torbreck. A largely amicable discussion ended with the amended address being unanimously adopted.10 A meeting of only eight freeholders, 8 Mar. 1821, petitioned both Houses for relief from the effects on agriculture of the malt tax and heavy duties on spirits.11 On his way to the 1821 Michaelmas head court old Charles Grant informed Culbokie:

Some symptoms of a hostile spirit have appeared ... It is desirable that every gentleman who has at heart the credit of the county, as well as his own, should attend. I might perhaps add some consideration also for the credit of one who served the county zealously for 16 years ... My son’s attendance I long reckoned on. The king’s visit to Ireland, however, has produced so many novelties there that I know not how far it may interfere with our plan, for there was no business done whilst he was there.

In the event Charles Grant the Member presided over the meeting, which added four freeholders to the roll and struck off five, producing a revised total of 67.12 At the end of the year Grant was recalled from Ireland in disgrace and became a backbencher. He chaired the 1822 Michaelmas head court, when seven names were added to the roll. He explained his conduct on the government’s decision to reduce the barilla duties, the effects of which he had vainly tried to mitigate by persuading ministers to grant a temporary bounty on kelp, and promised to continue to liaise with the central committee in Edinburgh, though he declined to pledge himself in advance. A local committee was set up to consider the problem. Grant’s father argued successfully against premature involvement in Sir John Sinclair’s† scheme for Scottish counties to send delegates to Edinburgh to co-ordinate agitation for relief from agricultural distress.13 In March 1823 Grant was made vice-president of the board of trade. Pressure of business prevented him from attending his re-election, 11 Apr., when his father, who had urged ‘great vigilance’ on Bught in case of an admittedly ‘unlikely’ surprise challenge, stood in for him. Eighteen freeholders attended and Rothiemurchus, who was elected praeses, nominated and praised Charles Grant, despite their political differences ‘on some points’. The aged Evan Baillie† of Dochfour seconded him and he was unanimously returned.14 Soon afterwards the freeholders petitioned both Houses for relief from agricultural distress; and they petitioned the Commons for repeal of the 1822 Barilla Duties Act, 16 July, following the example of the inhabitants of North Uist, 4 June.15 Grant took ‘pains’ to keep the conveners informed on this and other issues of local concern, including the duty on spirits; and at a meeting on 24 July, when he took the chair, he was thanked for his efforts.16 A month after the 1823 Michaelmas head court, when adjustments to the roll left the number of freeholders unchanged, Grant’s father died. Grant tried to sell Waternish, but was unable to do so until late in 1831, and bought an estate at Glenelg on the west coast of the mainland.17 In 1824 he decided not to take the chair of the Commons select committee on salmon fisheries in order to avoid becoming ‘involved in situations of delicacy with my constituents’. He kept the conveners informed of the proposed reductions in the wool duties and hemp bounties.18 Changes to the roll at Michaelmas 1824 reduced it to 66. Soon afterwards Macleod declared his intention of standing at the next election. So too did Colonel John Baillie of Leys, pro-Catholic Tory Member for Hedon and a director of the East India Company, and the Irish peer Godfrey Bosville Macdonald, 3rd Baron Macdonald of Armadale Castle, Skye, a Peninsular veteran who had recently succeeded his brother to the title and extensive family estates. Grant confirmed his own determination to stand and solicited continued support. Bught’s son Duncan Grant reported in December 1824 that the Member

has really been active, to a degree indeed that I did not think him capable of. I sincerely hope he is secure for the first election ... It is whispered about currently here [Edinburgh] that the other three candidates are likely to coalesce against him; but ... there cannot be any foundation for this ... If Col. Baillie was to unite so unblushingly against Mr. Grant after his very spontaneous avowals [of respect], it would rid him effectually of his friends. Macleod I take it means to take the field in earnest.

In April 1825 Duncan Grant reckoned that Baillie and Macleod ‘seem in concert’, while it was reported ‘confidently’ that Macdonald had ‘transferred his vote to Macleod’; but Charles Grant, who was boosted by a promise of backing from the influential Donald Cameron of Locheil, considered Macdonald a ‘formidable’ opponent, as he was ‘very active in making votes’. On the strong advice of Bught, who thought Macdonald would ‘still require to get great acquisition of strength before he can possibly attain his object’, he made a point of attending the county’s annual general meeting, 29, 30 Apr. He managed to prevent any declaration of opinion on the corn laws, a source of potential embarrassment in view of his association with his chief Huskisson in the removal of commercial restrictions.19 When the dissolution was postponed in late September 1825, he concluded that it would ‘make little difference to me’; and he chaired the Michaelmas head court, where four new names were placed on the roll, which now numbered 68.20 In late November 1825 Macleod, Fingask, Newton and four others requisitioned a county meeting to address the government on the corn laws, which was fixed for 13 Dec. Grant thought it ‘obvious’ that ‘the object, at least one main object, is to annoy me and to bring me into difficulties with my constituents’. Through Bught he urged his supporters to muster to thwart any protectionist pronouncement, which, leaving electoral considerations aside, would be ‘premature and unwise’ before the ministry’s plans were known. Macleod chaired the meeting, at which Lachlan Mackintosh of Raigmore moved and Newton seconded a series of resolutions expressing alarm at free trade agitation and stating the peculiar burdens of agriculture, but leaving the government to decide the appropriate amount of protecting duty. Culbokie, arguing that such a declaration was premature, especially as the county was mainly pastoral, moved to adjourn, and was seconded by Provost Robertson of Inverness. Macleod said he would support the resolutions, but thought the petition to the Commons should be entrusted to Grant rather than Baillie, as proposed. Mackintosh deemed this inappropriate, as Grant was notoriously ‘inimical’ to protection. Bught forced a vote and carried the amendment by 32-7; the minority consisted of Macleod, Newton, Mackintosh of Raigmore, Alexander Mackintosh of Mackintosh, Hugh Duff of Muirtown, Major Fraser of Flemington and Fraser of Abertarff. Grant considered the outcome ‘a triumph’ and ‘matter of thankfulness’, but reckoned that ‘Newton’s conduct stamps him as a decided enemy’.21 Soon afterwards he heard that Macleod had ‘withdrawn from the coalition, being offended with Lord Macdonald’s conduct’.22 He remained convinced that every requisition for a meeting on the corn laws should be resisted, but saw no harm in that of 8 Mar. 1826 which, under Macleod’s chairmanship, resolved to petition against interference with the Scottish banking system. Grant prudently kept quiet on the issue, but the county’s Farming Society petitioned on it in April. A threat to raise the corn question at the 8 Mar. meeting was frustrated by the supporters of Grant, who gave no credit in mid-March to London ‘talk ... that I am not to be opposed at all’.23 He was unable to attend the annual county meeting on 1 May 1826, but nothing untoward occurred.24

Grant planned to issue his election circulars ‘immediately on the dissolution’ and to ‘write privately to each of my voters’, not considering it necessary to ‘visit all my voters at their homes’, which would ‘seem too bustling and troublesome’. (In truth he was too idle to bother.) He intended to spend some time in Edinburgh with his brother Robert Grant* to discuss with their lawyers ‘all the new votes against us and decide on the mode of dealing with each’. In the event his plans were ‘deranged’ and he was unable to get to Inverness as early as hoped, but he urged Bught to rally his friends.25 Robertson reported from Inverness, 13 June 1826, that all was ‘quiet’, but that it was ‘the general opinion that Lord Macdonald will certainly stand’, while Baillie was contesting Hedon and Macleod’s intentions were unclear: ‘if there is no uniform coalition against him, there can be no doubt of ... Grant’s success’.26 On 16 June Macdonald announced his candidature as a supporter of the ‘Protestant ascendancy’ and agricultural protection. Macleod denounced him privately as ‘a stupid idiot’ for doing so ‘without consulting a soul’ and, as he told his wife, 21 June, ‘flew to him to try to stop him, but without success’, as ‘he says he wants to try if he can succeed and if not he will join me’. Macleod hoped ‘it may yet end well’, but admitted that ‘it has a most unfortunate appearance’. He withdrew from the contest on 6 July 1826, the day before the election, following the example of Baillie, who was re-elected for Hedon.27 About 50 freeholders and 30 new claimants attended the election meeting, which had to be adjourned from the crowded courthouse to the church. Colonel Francis William Grant, ministerialist Member for Elginshire, was chosen as praeses. The proceedings for adjustment of the roll were protracted by abstruse legal arguments and lasted from two o’clock in the afternoon until nine the following morning. Written objections were lodged against all Macdonald’s claimants. He did not resist Grant’s, but reserved his right to do so later. Rothiemurchus took the lead in this business. Seventeen of Macdonald’s claimants were rejected, along with three of Macleod’s. Sir Ewan Cameron of Fasifern, Argyllshire, and Alexander Norman Macleod sponsored Grant. Macleod of Dunvegan nominated Macdonald, explaining that he had withdrawn in order to give him a clear run, and Alexander Mackintosh seconded him. Evidently, little was said of politics, and Macdonald declared that had he realised how popular Grant was he would not have persevered. He and Grant declined to vote, but in a poll of 59 freeholders Grant secured a majority of 39. The minority included Newton, Fingask, Abertarff, Macleod, Raigmore and Alexander Mackintosh, while among Grant’s supporters were his brother, Rothiemurchus, McDonnell, Culbokie, Colonel Grant and Duncan Forbes of Culloden. Fifteen men, including Macdonald’s brother and two of his sons, tendered for him under protest. The evening dinners were marked by a mutual exchange of delegations.28

Macdonald said he would ‘try his votes again’ at the 1826 Michaelmas head court. Grant wrote to Bught, 9 Sept., of the need for

some exertion on our part to secure a decisive majority. Nothing could be more unfortunate for us than to admit a single vote of his Lordship’s. I am of course anxious to have a full attendance of our friends ... My brother and I fully intend to be there.

At the meeting, which Grant chaired, 3 Oct. 1826, the publicly advertised claims of 20 men, including Macdonald himself and two of his sons, Sir James Macdonald*, George Sinclair* of Ulbster, Caithness, Matthew Babington, banker, of Leicester and Duncan Davidson* of Tulloch, Ross-shire, were considered. The same legal arguments as those used at the general election were deployed for eight hours, and all Macdonald’s claimants were either rejected or withdrawn. His legal representative said that the matter would be taken to the court of session, but he had no joy there.29 Grant was mildly vexed by a requisition, signed by Macleod, Fingask, Newton and others, for a county meeting on the corn laws in January 1827, but decided not to interfere. The meeting, chaired by Macleod, 23 Jan., resolved to appoint a committee to investigate the problem. Bught expected them to ‘differ in opinion and perhaps do nothing’. The county meeting fixed for 21 Feb. was postponed until 8 Mar., after the ministerial proposals had been revealed. This meeting decided to petition against relaxation of the laws and to submit resolutions to another meeting, 20 Mar., when, under Macleod’s chairmanship, it was resolved that a protected price of 60s. per quarter was inadequate. The county’s farmers also petitioned for more protection. Bught’s son felt that as conveners William Fraser Tytler of Sanquhar and Culbokie had acted in a fashion ‘directly and unnecessarily hostile’ to Grant’s ‘interests and feelings’, giving ‘a most provoking triumph to his worst enemies’. He also feared that Rothiemurchus’s appointment as an Indian judge, which he owed to the Grants, would prove to be ‘a loss to his patrons greater perhaps than that of any other individual in the county’, as ‘their most efficient friend at all public meetings’.30 Bught evidently thwarted what Grant called Macdonald’s ‘renewed and ill-advised attempt’ to cause trouble at the annual meeting at the end of April.31 Grant remained in office under Canning and became president of the board of trade in Lord Goderich’s brief administration. At the 1827 Michaelmas head court Babington and two other freeholders in Macdonald’s interest were enrolled.32 On the formation of the duke of Wellington’s ministry in January 1828 Grant, one of the Huskissonite group, was given cabinet office as president of the board of trade. He professed keenness to attend his re-election on 28 Feb. if the demands of his office permitted, but when Bught and others assured him that his attendance was not essential he deputed his brother William to stand in for him and urged Bught to resist ‘attempts to bring in new votes’. The proceedings were uneventful.33 Grant came close to resignation in March over the ministry’s corn bill and went out with Huskisson in May. Inverness-shire freeholders, landholders and sheep farmers petitioned both Houses for protection against foreign wool imports in June and July.34 Grant chaired the 1828 Michaelmas head court, when adjustments, including the admission of Duncan Grant of Bught, created a new roll of 78.35 He supported the government’s concession of Catholic emancipation in 1829 and was burnt in effigy by some disgruntled ‘Invernessians’, but Bught assured him that the only ‘show of opposition’ was ‘manifested by some deluded and extremely ignorant persons’.36 Three new freeholders were enrolled at Michaelmas 1829.37

In the 1830 session Grant went into independent opposition to government with Huskisson. In mid-June Bught’s son reported that Macleod was expected to start at the anticipated general election, but when the king’s death later in the month made this a reality, Grant initially had hopes of an unopposed return, especially as Macdonald was unwell.38 Macdonald duly waived his pretensions, but Colonel Grant withdrew his support from Charles Grant on account of his altered political line and recruited support for Macleod, Member for Sudbury since 1828, who on 9 July challenged Grant and sought to make the election a test of confidence in the ministry.39 The government exerted every possible influence they could muster against Grant, but he secured an assurance of continued support from Bught and his son, on the understanding that he had ‘no intention of embarking in a systematic opposition to administration’, despite Colonel Grant’s efforts to seduce them as acting head of their clan.40 The Whig James Abercromby* feared that Grant would lose and surmised that the government must have ‘given a good price’ to Colonel Grant to entice him to intervene; but Charles Grant, who canvassed with uncharacteristic vigour in July, remained optimistic, as he told Huskisson on the 22nd:

My canvass has on the whole been very successful, and my only regret is that the day of election is so remote [27 Aug.] ... It is astonishing what use is made by my opponent of the name of the duke of Wellington. But it has had the effect of revolting people and throwing discredit on his assertions. I can scarcely believe that government should so commit itself as it would if it had authorized all that is said. My chief Colonel Grant will have the pleasure at the election of seeing all the Grants on the roll to a man against him.

Duncan Grant, who considered it essential that Grant should ‘carry his election by a considerable majority, as some of his votes are under challenge’, was privately critical of his ‘inexplicable’ negligence in allowing potential votes to slip away.41 Macleod received a setback when it turned out that contrary to first impressions, the 5th duke of Gordon was not prepared actively to oppose Grant and that Baillie of Leys would not vote for Macleod, with whom Lord Melville, the ministry’s Scottish manager, had had an ‘unfortunate misunderstanding’.42 At the election (the last to be held in the kingdom), Grant took the chair as parliamentary praeses. Two freeholders were debarred from voting as fiars. Grant’s supporter George Macpherson Grant* of Invereshie was proposed as praeses of the election meeting by Affleck Fraser of Culduthel and John Stewart* of Belladrum. Macdonald and Ranald Macdonald of Clanranald put up Colonel Francis Grant. Macpherson Grant was elected by 34-25. After several hours of legal argument one of the minority, a London voter, was expunged from the roll by a vote of 33-24. Macleod declared that if the hostile majority had been seven or less he would have persevered and petitioned against Grant’s return, but in the circumstances he conceded defeat. He criticized Grant’s conduct in national politics and neglect of county interests on barilla, wool and corn. Grant skilfully defended himself and complained that he had been ‘singled out’ as an object of ministerial vindictiveness. Before his formal nomination by Sir Duncan Cameron and Culbokie, three new freeholders were enrolled. It was reckoned that if Macleod had gone to a poll he would have lost by 38-26. There was continued criticism of Grant’s conduct at Macleod’s election dinner.43 Grant’s success was hailed by both Huskissonites and Whigs.44 Macleod was at pains to explain his behaviour to Planta, the patronage secretary, while Raigmore subsequently informed Wellington that the defeat had been occasioned by the conduct of local officials, especially his bete noir Tytler, divisions among the lairds and Macleod’s own blunders.45 At the 1830 Michaelmas head court, chaired by Grant, four claimants in Macleod’s interest, who were evidently put forward merely to comply with the forms required for an appeal to the court of session, were rejected.46

Grant’s political career took another twist when he was appointed president of the board of control in the Grey ministry in November 1830. Macleod made soundings among Grant’s leading friends, including Bught, arguing that his acceptance of office ‘under a Whig ministry ... must dissolve all ties between him and his former supporters’. He got ‘little encouragement’ and Grant was quietly re-elected in absentia by a meeting of 17 freeholders, 30 Dec. 1830, when three more Macleod claimants were rejected.47 The inhabitants of Skye, Uist, Benbecula and Harris petitioned the Commons, 16 Mar., and the Lords, 18 Mar. 1831, for continuance of the duty on foreign barilla and reduction of that on soap.48 Thomas Alexander Fraser of Lovat, Culbokie, Torbreck, Thomas Fraser of Balnain, Glenmoriston and Arthur Robertson of Inches were among the requisitionists (21 Mar.) for a county meeting to consider the ministerial reform scheme. Lovat chaired it, 6 Apr., when letters expressing ‘unconditional’ support were received from Torbreck and Clanranald. Resolutions, moved by Tytler and Glenmoriston, approving the general principle of reform were carried by acclamation. A resolution against the disfranchisement of burghs merely to reduce the membership of the Commons was defeated by 8-7, but one for a £40 landowner qualification in Scottish counties was carried by 9-8 against Abertarff’s amendment in favour of the £10 franchise proposed in the bill. Tytler and Culbokie argued that enfranchising £50 tenants would enhance the power of landlords, and a resolution calling for their exclusion was carried by 10-8. It was later alleged that some of the resolutions were so ambiguously worded that several freeholders thought they were hostile to reform; but Tytler insisted that they were essentially in favour of it.49 The projected petitions did not reach Parliament before the dissolution two weeks later. Baillie, who as Member for Inverness Burghs since 1830 had voted against the English reform bill but approved the principle of the Scottish, initially started against Grant as ‘a friend of moderate reform’. His intervention deterred Macleod, but after a discouraging canvass and a family bereavement he withdrew a fortnight before the election, conceding that Grant had a convincing majority. At the same time, Macpherson Grant’s son John commented that the Grants were ‘most remiss and I would almost say deserve to lose the county’.50 Grant’s support for reform cost him the active backing of Bught, who stayed neutral, as did his son, though he was ‘reconciled to the reform bill, merely to avert national convulsion’. Only 18 freeholders attended the election meeting, when four claimants were admitted and Grant’s lawyer announced that all the decisions against Macdonald’s and Macleod’s claimants in 1826 and 1830 had been confirmed by the court of session. Glenmoriston and Alexander William Chisholm of Erchless Castle sponsored Grant, who portrayed the reform bills as restorative rather than revolutionary.51 Lovat and Chisholm headed the requisition for a county meeting to address the king after the rejection of the English reform bill by the Lords, 15 Nov. 1831, when heavy snowfall reduced the attendance. According to a newspaper report, there was disagreement at a preliminary meeting, where some heritors unsuccessfully opposed any allusion to that bill; but in public all went smoothly, and the address, moved by Chisholm and Stewart and calling for effective reform while deploring mob violence, was unanimously adopted.52 The commissioners and heritors petitioned Parliament for relief of the West India interest, 17 May 1832.53

At the 1832 general election, when Inverness-shire, with a population of about 94,000, had a registered electorate of 546, Grant beat Macleod by 47 votes in a poll of 467.54 He prevailed by seven votes out of 513 in 1835, but when he was made a peer later that year Chisholm easily won the seat for the Conservatives, in whose hands it remained for 50 years.55