Perthshire

Perthshire straddled central Scotland, the northern two-thirds forming part of the highlands and the southern third part of the lowlands. This division gave the shire a strategic importance as a frontier zone. Its main town, Perth (also known as St Johnston) lay at the confluence of the valleys of the Rivers Tay and Earn, which formed the major routes into the highlands through the glens, towards the endemically violent and unstable areas of Invernessshire and Argyllshire to the north and west respectively. Perth also acted as the first line of defence against invasion from the highlands into the lowlands of Fife and Stirling and thence to Edinburgh, a mere 30 miles to the south. The importance of area was underlined in the mid-1640s by the activities of James Graham, 1st marquess of Montrose, whose ‘circuits’ around the eastern highlands, incursions into the lowlands, and ‘ravaging’ of Argyllshire all began at Blair Atholl – the seat of the Drummond earls of Atholl – in northern Perthshire. Atlas of Scot. Hist. to 1707, 141. When the Cromwellian army overran Perthshire in the winter of 1651-2, the priority was to build a new citadel at Perth, to provide a fortified garrison for the troops needed to secure the southern highlands. The citadel was started in 1653, and building was mostly complete by the end of 1655. Scot. and Commonwealth ed. Firth, 199; Scot. and Protectorate ed. Firth, 303. In a letter to Oliver Cromwell* of October 1657, General George Monck* told how the Perth citadel (under the command of Colonel William Daniell) along with garrisons at Blair and Finlarig, were essential for the security of Scotland.

These garrisons being so laid will not only keep footing for us in the hills northwards beyond St Johnston, in case we should have occasion to come in again, but those places being not to be taken without cannon (if the officers be careful) will be able to destroy any clan that should draw out. Scot. and Protectorate, 368.

Strong garrisons were only part of the Cromwellian strategy to keep order in Perthshire. Far more important was the attempt to win over the landowners and clan chiefs who might otherwise be encouraged to rebel against the government. After the instability of the 1640s it was not difficult to secure the support of such men with offers of protection. As one modern historian puts it, ‘all landholders on the highland/lowland line had overwhelming reasons for voluntarily helping the army to maintain the peace of the shires’. Dow, Cromwellian Scot. 89. Thus, when the earl of Glencairn rebelled in 1653-4, he was able to gain the tacit support of the earl of Atholl, but not of the gentry, who had too much to lose by provoking the English regime. Their reluctance became all the greater after witnessing the fate of the laird of the McNabs, who was killed, with many of his clansmen, for refusing to pay assessments to the Cromwellian forces. Dow, Cromwellian Scot. 88-9, 154. The refusal of landowners to join the royalist rebellion encouraged the government to grant them important concessions in its aftermath. The first sign of this was the willingness of successive commanders-in-chief, Robert Lilburne* and George Monck, to allow tax abatements to prominent landowners in 1654-5, such as the earl of Linlithgow (George Livingston*), Sir John Campbell of Glenorchy and Sir James Campbell of Lawers. Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke l, f. 9v; 3/5, xliii, ff. 22, 31v, 36. By the summer of 1655 these concessions had been granted more widely, with former royalists, including the earl of Atholl, being relieved of some of their tax burden. Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke xlvii, unfol.: 25 May, 15 July, 3 and 16 Oct. 1655. There were also moves to put some elements of local security into gentry hands: in October 1654 the laird of Glenorchy was paid to retain 12 men to defend his castle, and in December of that year he was given the right to extract ‘satisfaction’ for his losses from the McNab clan. Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke xlvi, unfol.: 13-14 Oct., 18 Dec. 1654. In later years, similar rights to raise bands of men were extended to other trustworthy lairds. Dow, Cromwellian Scotland, 236, 254.

Communication between centre and localities was also becoming easier. In April 1655 Monck accepted a petition from the ‘overvalued heritors’ of Perthshire, and in September allowed them more time to bring in evidence concerning the ‘rents’ of the shire. Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke xlvi, unfol.: 6 Apr. 1655; xlvii, unfol.: 14 Sept. 1655. There are even indications that the Perthshire landowners had a say in the appointment of local officials: in November 1655 Monck wrote to the nobles and gentry in support of the assessment collector for the shire, Robert Andrew, adding that he ‘recommends it to them to continue him in the same’. Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke xlvii, unfol.: 6 Nov. 1655. The appointment of justices of the peace for the shire in 1656 in theory brought the major families, including the earls of Wemyss, Tullibardine and Linlithgow, Lord Drummond and the various branches of the Campbell clan, into direct collaboration with the garrison commanders, although in practice most of the work was done by a small group led by Glenorchy, including Colonel James Menzies of Culdare, James Menzies of Comryes and Alexander Menzies of that ilk and Wemyss, assisted by the governor of Wemyss Castle, Captain James Dennis. Scot. and Protectorate, ed. Firth, 314-5; NRS, JC26/20, ‘Bundle 6’; JC26/22, ‘Bundle 2’; JC26/24, ‘Bundle 15’; JC26/25, unfol. Local lairds were also appointed as assessment commissioners in 1655, 1657 and 1660, reinforcing the impression that ‘for purely practical reasons the interests of the Scots and the English in Perthshire coincided’. Acts Parl. Scot. vi, pt 2, 841; A. and O. ii. 1153, 1393; Dow, Cromwellian Scotland, 89. Glenorchy was a particular favourite of George Monck, who commended his ‘peaceable living and acting for the present government’, and protected his estates from claims made by former royalists ‘for things done in relation to the war in Montrose’s time’; and his Anglophile stance was taken a stage further by his eldest son, who travelled to London in 1657, where he married a daughter of the 1st earl of Holland, apparently without his father’s consent. Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke xlviii, unfol.: 17 Nov. 1656; NRS, GD112/39/100/5; GD112/39/102/4, 5, 7, 8.

The rapidly improving relationship between the Cromwellian government and the landowners of Perthshire in the mid-1650s can be seen in the elections to the first two protectorate Parliaments. Under the ordinance for distributing elections in Scotland, Perthshire was allocated one MP to be elected ‘in the same shire’ – in practice at the burgh of Perth. A. and O.; Scot. and Protectorate ed. Firth, 331. The number of gentlemen and heritors involved in these elections was relatively large: in 1654 the indenture contains at least 29 signatures, and in 1656 28 are recorded, but the closeness of these totals disguises the fact that the two electorates were radically different. C219/44, unfol.; C219/45, unfol.; SCL, Crewe Muniments, CM 1572. In the election of 1 August 1654, Colonel William Daniell presided over a meeting of lairds headed by Sir Peter Hay of Kirkland of Megginch and his son Sir George Hay, but most of those named in the indenture were lesser landowners and figures of no great importance. P. Little, ‘Scottish Representation in the Protectorate Parliaments: the case of the Shires’, PH xxxi. 325. It seems that the big beasts of Perthshire were choosing to stay away, perhaps reluctant to give their backing to the chosen candidate, the former royalist George Livingston, earl of Linlithgow. C219/44, unfol.

The election held on 20 August 1656 proved to be a very different occasion. Although Colonel Daniell continued to oversee the return, only one of the 1654 electors reappeared as a signatory; instead the list was dominated by the important lairds who had recently been brought back into the local government. Fifteen of the 28 named electors were men who had been or would be appointed as assessment commissioners or magistrates, including Sir John Moncreif of that ilk, Hew Mitchell of Kintorrochie, Peter Hay of Leyes, Sir William Auchinleck of Balmanno, James Campbell of Knockhill and William Blair of Kilfauns. The election of Sir Edward Rodes, a Scottish councillor and ally of the president, Lord Broghill (Roger Boyle*), could thus be seen as an endorsement of the Cromwellian government by the Perthshire gentry. C219/45, unfol. But, despite this strong showing, not all the important lairds had attended the election. In particular, the group associated with the laird of Glenorchy, including Culdare, Comryes, Baron Reid and Menzies and Wemyss, was conspicuous by its absence. In his report of proceedings, the local assessment collector, Robert Andrew, hinted at underlying tensions: although ‘a considerable number of gentlemen from all quarters of the shire’ had gathered for the vote, and the return was ‘unanimous’ and unopposed, he was relieved that all had gone smoothly, for ‘many had expected that we should have run the same course that Fife did’. Scot. and Protectorate ed. Firth, 331-2; Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke xxviii, f. 65. As in Fife, the reasons for the boycott were probably religious as well as political, for Glenorchy had close kinship links with the marquess of Argyll (Archibald Campbell*), and sympathies with the ‘Protester’ faction in the Kirk, both of which were opposed to the agenda promoted by Broghill and his allies in the Scottish council. Little, ‘Scottish Representation’, 326, 328.

Such tensions came to the surface during the election for the third protectorate Parliament in January 1659, when the attempt to re-elect Rodes was openly challenged. No election indenture survives, but a report to Glenorchy by the pro-Protester Henry Christie of Head outlined what had happened. A group of more than 40 local lairds, led by the laird of Culdare, had supported the candidacy of John Campbell, fiar of Glenorchy, who despite his English wife became the figurehead for a challenge to the Cromwellian government. At the meeting the shire gentry were split, and ‘the sheriff and those that were for Sir Edward Rodes, finding by appearance that the voices of the meeting’ supported Campbell, ‘did break up the meeting and appoint a new day’. This led to ‘protestations against it’ and a self-appointed commission went ahead with a provisional election which was immediately overridden by the government’s supporters; and ‘the next day the others chose Sir Edward Rodes, against which there was also a protestation, but what the effect of it will be I cannot tell, I fear rather that it shall prove ineffectual’. NRS, GD112/39/104/1. Glenorchy’s challenge was part of a nationwide attempt, championed by Argyll and supported by the Protesters, to get suitable candidates elected for Scottish seats, and the chaotic scenes witnessed at Perth were but the most extreme example of the government’s determination to prevent their opponents subverting the elections. Little, ‘Scottish Representation’, 330. Local support for Rodes suggests that underlying this factionalism were long-standing local differences within the gentry community of Perthshire, and this mirrors the situation in 1654 and 1656, although on those occasions abstention rather than confrontation was the weapon of choice.