The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith: Estate Management and Improvement in Enlightenment Scotland 9780748694693

Citation preview

THE THIRD DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND ADAM SMITH

SCOTTISH HISTORICAL REVIEW MONOGRAPHS SERIES No. 23

Scottish Historical Review Monographs are major works of scholarly research covering all aspects of Scottish history. They are selected and sponsored by the Scottish Historical Review Trust Editorial Board. The Trustees of the SHR Trust are: Dr Alex Woolf (Convenor); Dr Alison Cathcart (Secretary); Dr E. V. Macleod (Minutes Secretary); Dr Catriona M. M. Macdonald; Dr David Ditchburn; Mrs Patricia Whatley; Dr Karly Kehoe; Dr Jackson Armstrong; Dr Martin Macgregor; Mr Brian Smith; Dr James E. Fraser; Dr Andrew Mackillop. CURRENT AND FORTHCOMING VOLUMES   1  Helen M. Dingwall

Physicians, Surgeons and Apothecaries: Medicine in Seventeenth-Century Edinburgh   2  Ewen A. Cameron Land for the People? The British Government and the Scottish Highlands, c. 1880–1923  3 Richard Anthony Herds and Hinds: Farm Labour in Lowland Scotland, 1900–1939   4  R. Andrew McDonald The Kingdom of the Isles: Scotland’s Western Seaboard, c. 1100–1336   5  John R. McIntosh Church and Theology in Enlightenment Scotland: The Evangelical Party, 1740–1800  6 Graeme Morton Unionist-Nationalism: Governing Urban Scotland, 1830–1860   7  Catriona M. M. Macdonald  The Radical Thread: Political Change in Scotland. Paisley Politics, 1885–1924   8  James L. MacLeod The Second Disruption: The Free Church in Victorian Scotland and the Origins of the Free Presbyterian Church  9 John Finlay Men of Law in Pre-Reformation Scotland 10  William Kenefick ‘Rebellious and Contrary’: The Glasgow Dockers, c. 1853–1932 11  J. J. Smyth Labour in Glasgow, 1896–1936, Socialism, Suffrage, Sectarianism 12  Roland Tanner The Late Medieval Scottish Parliament: Politics and the Three Estates, 1424–1488 13  Ginny Gardner ‘Shaken Together in the Bag of Affliction’: Scottish Exiles in the Netherlands, 1660–1690 14  Allan W. MacColl Land, Faith and the Crofting Community: Christianity and Social Criticism in the Highlands of Scotland, 1843–1893 15  Andrew G. Newby Ireland, Radicalism and the Scottish Highlands, c. 1870–1912 16  Karen J. Cullen Famine in Scotland: The ‘Ill Years’ of the 1690s Gender and Political Identities in Scotland, 1919–1939 17  Annemarie Hughes 18  Annie Tindley The Sutherland Estate, 1850–1920: Aristocratic Decline, Estate Management and Land Reform 19  Tanja Bueltmann Scottish Ethnicity and the Making of New Zealand Society, 1850–1930 20  Edda Frankot ‘Of Laws of Ships and Shipmen’: Medieval Maritime Law and its Practice in Urban Northern Europe 21  Kyle Hughes The Scots in Victorian and Edwardian Belfast: A Study in Elite Migration 22  Rosalind Carr Gender and Enlightenment Culture in Eighteenth-Century Scotland 23  Brian Bonnyman The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith: Estate Management and Improvement in Enlightenment Scotland

www.euppublishing.com/series/shrm

THE THIRD DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND ADAM SMITH Estate Management and Improvement in Enlightenment Scotland

BRIAN BONNYMAN

© Brian Bonnyman, 2014 Edinburgh University Press Ltd The Tun – Holyrood Road 12 (2f) Jackson’s Entry Edinburgh EH8 8PJ www.euppublishing.com Typeset in 10/12 ITC New Baskerville by Servis Filmsetting Ltd, Stockport, Cheshire, and printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon CR0 4YY A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978 0 7486 4200 7 (hardback) ISBN 978 0 7486 9469 3 (webready PDF) The right of Brian Bonnyman to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 (SI No. 2498).

Contents Figuresvi Acknowledgementsvii Abbreviationsviii Glossary of Termsix Map of the Buccleuch Estatesx Introduction 1 Inheritance (1750–66) 2 Education (1746–66) 3 Majority (1767–70) 4 Improvement I: The Lowland Estates (1767–1800) 5 Improvement II: The Upland Estates (1767–1812) 6 Interest (1767–1812) Conclusion

1 9 34 53 82 116 149 194

Bibliography198 Index211

Figures 2.1 3.1 4.1 4.2

Henry, 3rd Duke of Buccleuch by Catherine Read 38 Dalkeith Palace and Park and River by George Barret, RA 58 Canonbie: Detail from William Roy’s Military Survey of Scotland 88 Canonbie: Detail from William Crawford’s Map of Dumfriesshire114 5.1 Photograph of Eskdale 117 5.2 Photograph of the river White Esk at Nether Cassock, Eskdalemuir145 6.1 Henry, 3rd Duke of Buccleuch, on horseback in the uniform of the South Fencibles, Martin Ferdinand Quadal 174

Acknowledgements This book has been a long time in the making and I have incurred many debts along the way. My first thanks must go to Alex Murdoch who originally suggested the 3rd Duke and Adam Smith as a possible area of research and went on to be such an exemplary supervisor of the resulting doctoral thesis. I also owe a great debt to my second supervisor, Nick Phillipson, whose enthusiasm and intellectual generosity greatly enhanced my understanding of Smith and his relationship with the Duke. The examiners of my thesis, Chris Smout and Harry Dickinson, provided insightful suggestions and encouragement, as did, at various stages, Chris Whatley, Stana Nenadic, and Fredrik Albritton Jonsson. My particular thanks are due to Andrew Mackillop for his unstinting help over a number of years in getting this book finally into print. The vast majority of the archival research for this book was drawn from the remarkable Buccleuch Muniments and I would like to thank the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, not only for his kind permission to consult his family papers, but also for his warm hospitality at Drumlanrig and his enthusiasm for the project. My thanks are also due to the staff at the various archives and libraries consulted during my research for their help and generous assistance, and to Cameron Manson of Buccleuch Estates for kindly taking the time to show me round Dalkeith House and estate. I would also like to gratefully acknowledge the scholarship from the Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland which funded my initial research, and also to thank the Scottish Historical Review Trust and everyone at Edinburgh University Press for their assistance in publishing this book. Finally, my deepest debt is to my family: to my parents for their continued support and encouragement; to my children, Katie, Sandy, Jennifer, and Rebecca, for helping to keep everything in perspective; and, most of all, to my wife Louise, for her patience, love and support, and without whom none of this would have been possible – this is for you.

Abbreviations For reasons of historical context measurements of distance and height are given in imperial units. Measurements of area are in English acres (= 0.4 hectares) rather than the larger Scots acre (=1.26 English acres). All references to currency are in pounds, shillings, and pence sterling (£ s d), unless otherwise stated. Original spellings, punctuation, and capitalisation have been retained in all quotations and references. NA NLS NRS NSA ODNB OSA

National Archives National Library of Scotland National Records of Scotland The New Statistical Account of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1834–45) Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online edn, 2004) The Statistical Account of Scotland, 21 vols, ed. J. Sinclair (Edinburgh, 1791–9)

Works of Adam Smith This book uses the standard abbreviations for the Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith (Oxford, 1976–87): Corr. EPS

Correspondence, ed. E. C. Mossner and I. S. Ross (Oxford, 1987) Essays on Philosophical Subjects, ed. W. P. D. Wightman, J. C. Bryce, and I. S. Ross (Oxford, 1980) (which includes:) Stewart Duguld Stewart, ‘Account of the Life and Writings of Adam Smith, LL.D’ LJ Lectures on Jurisprudence, ed. R. L. Meek, D. D. Raphael, and P. G. Stein (Oxford, 1978) (A) Report of 1762–3 (B) Report dated 1766 TMS Theory of Moral Sentiments, ed. D. D. Raphael and A. L. Macfie (Oxford, 1976) WN An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, ed. R. H. Campbell and A. S. Skinner (Oxford, 1976) This book also uses the Glasgow Edition reference system. For example: TMS I.iii.2.2 – Theory of Moral Sentiments, part I, section iii, chapter 2, ­paragraph 2 WN I.x.b.1 – Wealth of Nations, book I, chapter x, section b, paragraph 1 References to Corr. give letter numbers.

Glossary of Terms Baillie – an estate officer who presided over the baron court. Commonty – rough pasture land possessed jointly by different proprietors. Curator – those appointed by a minor on reaching the age of fourteen to look after their estate until reaching ‘majority’ at the age of twenty-one. Factor loco tutoris – a person appointed to manage the affairs of a ‘pupil’ (i.e. a minor under the age of fourteen) without a tutor. Led farm – an additional, often remote farm rented by a tenant and upon which he or she is not normally resident. Marl (marle) – alkaline subsoil used to lower the acidity of the surface soil. Rental – a document listing the farms, tenants, and rents due on an estate. Runrig – arable land held in fragmented and intermingled strips. Stell – an open enclosure of dry stone walling used as a shelter for sheep. Tack – a lease of property. Tailzie – an entail. Tutrix – a female ‘tutor’, i.e. the guardian of an heir or heiress. Wedder lamb – a castrated male lamb. Whitsunday – 15 May, a Scottish quarter day.

Map of the Buccleuch Estates

Introduction In early September 1767, Henry Scott, the twenty-year-old 3rd Duke of Buccleuch, arrived in Scotland to celebrate his coming of age and the full inheritance of his estates. The Duke, together with his new wife, Lady Elizabeth Montagu, and his younger sister, Lady Frances Scott, crossed the border at Scotch Dyke before travelling on to nearby Langholm Castle in Eskdale. Here they were joined by John Craigie of Kilgraston, the advocate who had been responsible for the administration of his Scottish estates during much of his minority and whose role now was to guide the Duke on his journey north through his estates. It was the Duke’s first visit to Scotland, and although he had been kept relatively well informed about the management of his estates, it was only now, as the party progressed through them, that the sheer scale of his Scottish inheritance must have become fully apparent. Following the new turnpike road that had been largely funded at his expense, the Duke’s journey took him through the heart of his vast Border holdings, known collectively as the ‘South Country estates’. From the moment they had crossed the border into Scotland until they reached the estate of Yair in northern Selkirkshire, a distance of over forty miles, the party would travel almost entirely through lands belonging to the Duke. From the low-lying arable estates of Canonbie and lower Eskdale they passed through the centre of the Southern Uplands, the road climbing between the high green hills of Ewesdale to the watershed at Mosspaul before descending into Teviotdale. En route, according to one source, the Duke’s sheep-farming tenants had herded their flocks down to line the roadside, so that the Duke and Duchess ‘might see wherein the Riches of the Land consisted’.1 After leaving Hawick, where they were entertained by local dignitaries, they travelled on along the eastern edge of the sprawling Ettrick Forest estate before finally leaving the last of the South Country estates. Eventually, several days after crossing the border, the party reached the Duke’s Midlothian estates and the family’s principal seat of Dalkeith House, four miles south of Edinburgh.2 After a sixteen-year minority preceded by generations of absentee rule, there were high expectations for the young Duke, not only from his nine 1 2

A. Carlyle, Anecdotes and Characters of the Times, ed. J. Kinsley (London, 1973), 246. NRS, Buccleuch MSS, GD224/268/12, Mr Craigie’s Accounts and Vouchers, 20 Feb.– 13 Sep. 1767; J. Wilson, Annals of Hawick, 1214–1814 (Edinburgh, 1850), 154; G. Taylor and A. Skinner, Survey and Maps of the Roads of North Britain or Scotland (Edinburgh, 1776).

2

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

hundred or so tenants and their numerous dependants, but from other interested areas of Scottish society. The seniority of his title, the size of his estates and his extensive political ‘interest’, coupled with his connections with the Argyll family, all suggested the possibility of his taking a prominent role in Scottish affairs at a time when other leading members of the Scottish aristocracy had withdrawn themselves from public life. Shortly before his birthday, the Duke was reunited at Dalkeith with his tutor, the philosopher Adam Smith. Smith, who had spent almost three years abroad with the Duke on their Grand Tour, remained at Dalkeith for the next two months until the Duke’s departure south in mid-November. Interest in Smith’s time as a tutor has understandably tended to focus on the influences that were brought to bear on his thinking during his travels abroad. Beyond the fact that Buccleuch’s patronage supported Smith for the rest of his life, the ­relationship between Smith and his pupil has been largely passed over.3 And yet Smith’s pupil would go on to play a central role in Scottish public life throughout the period of Enlightenment and Improvement. Rejecting the role of British Statesman that his step-father, the English MP Charles Townshend, had been assiduously preparing him for, Duke Henry based himself in Scotland, the first of his family to do so since 1714, set about improving his estates, and soon established a reputation as Scotland’s foremost ‘patriotic peer’. Early in his career, Buccleuch became a prominent backer of a number of high-profile initiatives to promote Scottish economic growth, and was a leading figure in the group of ‘independent peers’ that rebelled over government interference in the election of Scottish representative peers. Around the same time he formed a political alliance and close friendship with his Midlothian neighbour, the ambitious young advocate Henry Dundas. It was on the back of the Duke’s patronage and extensive political ‘interest’ that Dundas was first elected to Parliament and, in a partnership that came to dominate Scottish politics, the two continued to act in concert for the next forty years. Instrumental in the introduction of voluntary fencible regiments north of the border, he was hailed in the Scottish press as the ‘great’ or ‘universal chief’ and lauded as an exemplar of patriotic nobility and civic responsibility. Over the same period, he would emerge as one of the leading patrons of Enlightenment Edinburgh and a key supporter of the moderate literati, a fact acknowledged by his appointment as the first president of the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1783.4 Alexander Carlyle described him as ‘the most respected, and the 3

In their seminal essay on the rise of Henry Dundas, Alex Murdoch and John Dwyer, after noting the Duke’s time with Smith, posed the question: ‘One wonders how much this influenced his decision to come to Scotland and reside on his estates there after coming of age and marrying in 1767.’ J. Dwyer and A. Murdoch, ‘Paradigms and Politics: Manners, Morals and the Rise of Henry Dundas, 1770–1784’, in J. Dwyer, A. Murdoch, and R. Mason (eds), New Perspectives on the Politics and Culture of Early Modern Scotland (Edinburgh, 1982), 212. 4 For details of the Duke’s career, see Chapter 6.

­

Introduction 3

most deservedly popular of any nobleman in Scotland’, while Sir Walter Scott would later eulogise him as ‘one of the best patriots and most worthy men’ that Scotland had ever given birth to.5 The Duke’s arrival in Scotland and rise to prominence came at a remarkable moment in the country’s economic and cultural history. By 1767 Scotland’s economy was rapidly expanding, the rising ambition and optimism of the country symbolised by the commencement that year of schemes to build the Forth–Clyde Canal and the New Town of Edinburgh.6 Hand in hand with these large-scale civic improvement schemes was the remarkable cultural flourishing of that we now know as the Scottish Enlightenment. By the time of Buccleuch’s visit Scotland’s international reputation as a centre ‘of learning and letters’ was already well established, and that very year saw the publication of two of its seminal works, Adam Ferguson’s An Essay on the History of Civil Society and Sir James Steuart’s Principles of Political Oeconomy, works which sought to understand the processes of economic and social change.7 But of even more significance from the perspective of this study, the Duke’s arrival also coincided with the early stages of what would become arguably the fastest and most far-reaching agricultural revolution in western Europe. Within the course of a few decades, lowland Scotland’s agrarian economy, society and landscape would be dramatically transformed.8 Aside from its rapidity, another notable feature of Scottish agrarian change during this period was the leading role played by its landed classes, particularly in its early stages. To a significant extent this was to be a revolution that was instigated, bankrolled, and implemented from above.9 And this seems to have been particularly true of the great landed 5

Carlyle, Anecdotes, 179; The Edinburgh Magazine and Literary Miscellany, vol. 5 (Edinburgh, 1819), 287. 6 Subscriptions to the canal had opened earlier that year, with the Duke’s great uncle, the Duke of Queensberry, as chairman, and Buccleuch had already become one of its largest backers. It was during the Duke’s first visit that the foundations of the first house of the New Town were laid. H. Hamilton, ‘The Failure of the Ayr Bank, 1772’, The Economic History Review, 8, 3 (1956), 405–17; T. C. Smout, ‘Where Had the Scottish Economy Got to by the Third Quarter of the Eighteenth Century?’, in I. Hont and M. Ignatieff (eds), Wealth and Virtue: The Shaping of Political Economy in the Scottish Enlightenment (Cambridge, 1983), 45–72; C. A. Whatley, Scottish Society, 1707–1830: Beyond Jacobitism, Towards Industrialisation (Manchester, 2000), 48–86. 7 N. T. Phillipson, ‘The Scottish Enlightenment’, in R. Porter and M. Teich (eds), The Enlightenment in National Context (Cambridge, 1981), 19–40. 8 T. M. Devine’s research, although acknowledging the gradual improvements that had taken place since the later seventeenth century, has reaffirmed the 1760s and 1770s as a significant watershed in terms of the rapidity, scale, and extent of agrarian change. T. M. Devine, The Transformation of Rural Scotland: Social Change and the Agrarian Economy, 1660–1815 (Edinburgh, 1994), 41–4, 61. 9 Devine, Transformation of Rural Scotland, 60–1; T. C. Smout, ‘Scottish Landowners and Economic Growth, 1650–1850’, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 9, 3 (1962), 218–34; T. C. Smout, ‘Landowners in Scotland, Ireland and Denmark in the Age of Improvement’, Scandinavian Journal of History, 12, 1–2 (1987), 79–97; T. C. Smout, ‘A New Look at the

4

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

estates which by 1770 accounted for around half the total land by value in Scotland.10 That the landlords were able to push through such a transformation was largely due to their unrivalled dominance of Scottish society and the remarkable concentration of power – political, social, economic, and legal – that was at their disposal.11 In a cash-poor country, landowners had access to the capital required to invest in the modernisation of agriculture and the infrastructure required to support it. However, explaining their ability to instigate such changes does not necessarily explain why they chose to do so. Given their central role, the motivations and attitudes of the landowning classes become an important element in understanding the particular nature of Scottish agrarian change. Most accounts of the Scottish landed classes’ enthusiastic adoption of agricultural improvement have tended understandably to focus on an economic explanation, with the demand for higher rents and increased profits the overriding motivation behind their reforming zeal.12 From this perspective, traditional conceptions of landholding were quickly replaced by more commercial attitudes, with the landed estate becoming little more than a money-making machine.13 However, it can be argued that in pursuing a narrowly economic explanation there is a danger of falling into the trap of economic determinism, where agricultural improvement is seen to flow automatically from market opportunities.14 Rising demand for Scottish Improvers’, Scottish Historical Review, 91, 1 (2012), 125–49. For a more sceptical view, see R. H. Campbell, ‘The Scottish Improvers and the Course of Agrarian Change in the Eighteenth Century’, in L. M. Cullen and T. C. Smout (eds), Comparative Aspects of Scottish and Irish Economic and Social History, 1600–1900 (Edinburgh, 1977), 209; G. Whittington, ‘Agriculture and Society in Lowland Scotland, 1750–1870’, in G. Whittington and I. D. Whyte (eds), An Historical Geography of Scotland (London, 1983), 146–7. 10 Great estates being defined as those with a valued rent of over £2,000 Scots. L. Timperley, ‘The Pattern of Landholding in Eighteenth-Century Scotland’, in M. L. Parry and T. R. Slater (eds), The Making of the Scottish Countryside (London, 1980), 142, 151. The comparative figure for England and Wales at the end of the eighteenth century was around 20%. S. Wade Martins, Farmers, Landlords and Landscapes: Rural Britain, 1720 to 1870 (Macclesfield, 2004), 26–7. For the important role of the ‘great landlords’, see M. L. Parry, ‘Introduction: The Course of Rural Change in Scotland’, in M. L. Parry and T. R. Slater (eds), The Making of the Scottish Countryside (London, 1980), 17; T. M. Devine, ‘The Great Landlords of Lowland Scotland and Agrarian Change in the Eighteenth Century’, in T. M. Devine (ed.), Clearance and Improvement: Land, Power and People in Scotland, 1700–1900 (Edinburgh, 2006), 42–53. 11 Devine, ‘Great Landlords’, 42; R. H. Campbell, ‘The Landed Classes’, in T. M. Devine and R. Mitchison (eds), People and Society in Scotland, Volume 1: 1760–1830 (Edinburgh, 1988), 91–108. 12 Devine, ‘Great Landlords’, 45–6; R. H. Campbell, ‘The Enlightenment and the Economy’, in R. H. Campbell and A. S. Skinner (eds), The Origins and Nature of the Scottish Enlightenment (Edinburgh, 1982), 16; I. H. Adams, ‘The Agents of Agricultural Change’, in M. L. Parry and T. R. Slater (eds), The Making of the Scottish Countryside (London, 1980), 173. 13 Campbell, ‘Scottish Improvers’, 206–7; Devine, ‘Great Landlords’, 45–6. 14 S. Tarlow, The Archaeology of Improvement in Britain, 1750–1850 (Cambridge, 2007), 39–41;

­

Introduction 5

agricultural produce and buoyant prices were undoubtedly the essential preconditions for the reforms to succeed, but also important were the attitudes, beliefs, and mentalities of the landed classes, and their adoption of a set of values which made them particularly receptive to change. And it is in this respect that Scotland’s distinctive culture of improvement becomes of crucial importance. With its roots in the economic and social crises of the last decade of the seventeenth century and spurred on by the failure of the Union to deliver the expected economic dividends, by the 1720s Scottish elites were turning increasingly towards the encouragement of agriculture as the key element in the drive for modernisation, a move epitomised by the foundation of the Honourable the Society of Improvers in 1723.15 Whereas historians have argued that from the late seventeenth century the focus of English political economy was shifting decisively away from agriculture towards trade, from the early decades of the eighteenth century, Scottish economic thought seems to have been moving in the opposite direction.16 From the outset, there was also an important patriotic element to the pursuit of agrarian improvement in Scotland, where catching up with England became seen as both a matter of national pride and an economic necessity. This became even more marked in the aftermath of the 1745 Jacobite rebellion when economic improvement became central to the county’s political rehabilitation.17 Driven by a potent mixture of ‘shame’ and ‘pride’, the Scottish Improvers set out to improve Scotland literally from the ground up.18 The result was a distinct strain of ‘agrarian patriotism’ in which improvement came to be seen as a particular duty of the landed classes, a broad-based consensus that linked aristocratic peer with country gentleman and which cut across political or party lines.19 This political consensus also helped M. Overton, Agricultural Revolution in England: The Transformation of the Agrarian Economy 1500–1850 (Cambridge, 1996), 199–202, 206. 15 B. Bonnyman, ‘Agrarian Patriotism and the Landed Interest: The Scottish “Society of Improvers in the Knowledge of Agriculture”, 1723–1746’, in K. Stapelbroek and J. Marjanen (eds), The Rise of Economic Societies in the Eighteenth Century: Patriotic Reform in Europe and North America (Basingstoke, 2012), 26–32; Smout, ‘Scottish Improvers’, 125–33. 16 S. C. A. Pincus, 1688: The First Modern Revolution (New Haven, 2009), 393; G. Seki, ‘Policy Debate on Economic Development in Scotland: The 1720s to the 1730s’, in T. Sakamoto and H. Tanaka (eds), The Rise of Political Economy in the Scottish Enlightenment (London, 2003), 25–6; C. Kidd, ‘North Britishness and the Nature of Eighteenth-Century British Patriotisms’, The Historical Journal, 39, 2 (1996), 361–82. 17 C. A. Bayly, Imperial Meridian: The British Empire and the World 1780–1830 (London, 1989), 156; B. Harris, Politics and the Nation: Britain in the Mid-Eighteenth Century (Oxford, 2002), 186–7; A. Mackillop, ‘More Fruitful Than the Soil’: Army, Empire and the Scottish Highlands, 1715–1815 (East Linton, 2000), 78–100. 18 Smout, ‘Scottish Improvers’, 125–6; R. Mitchison, ‘Patriotism and National Identity in Eighteenth-Century Scotland’, in T. W. Moody (ed.), Historical Studies 11: Nationality and the Pursuit of National Independence (Belfast, 1978), 77–80. 19 Bayly, Imperial Meridian, 85; Smout, ‘Scottish Landowners and Economic Growth, 1650– 1850’, 230; Bonnyman, ‘Agrarian Patriotism’, 35; J. Hoppit, ‘The Landed Interest and

6

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

shape Scotland’s distinctive institutional approach to improvement, epitomised in the range of semi-official public bodies, voluntary societies, and educational innovations.20 In all of this, the intellectual activity of the Scottish Enlightenment played an important role. Indeed, the relationship between enlightenment theory and improvement practice was arguably closer in Scotland than anywhere else.21 The theorists of the Scottish Enlightenment, many of whom were improvers in their own right, not only provided a powerful ideological justification for change, but were also committed to the practical application of their ideas.22 This in turn produced a particularly philosophic and scientific approach to improvement, an approach which sought to apply the insights of political economy and natural knowledge to the practical problems of Scottish agriculture.23 Within a movement as broad as the Scottish Enlightenment, there were of course competing and conflicting ideas over the costs and benefits of commercialisation and the balance between conthe National Interest, 1660–1800’, in J. Hoppit (ed.), Parliaments, Nations and Identities in Britain and Ireland, 1660–1850 (Manchester, 2003), 95, 97; N. Davidson, ‘The Scottish Path to Capitalist Agriculture 3: The Enlightenment as the Theory and Practice of Improvement’, Journal of Agrarian Change, 5, 1 (2005), 1–72; Mitchison, ‘Patriotism’, 75–7. 20 R. L. Emerson, ‘The Contexts of the Scottish Enlightenment’, in A. Broadie (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Scottish Enlightenment (Cambridge, 2003), 19–20; Bonnyman, ‘Agrarian Patriotism’, 49–50; R. C. Boud, ‘Scottish Agricultural Improvement Societies, 1723–1835’, Review of Scottish Culture, 1 (1984), 74–7. 21 Whatley, Scottish Society, 116–24; Davidson, ‘Scottish Path’, 21–36; M. Glendinning and S.  Wade Martins, Buildings of the Land: Scotland’s Farms 1750–2000 (Edinburgh, 2008), 12–14. For an earlier more sceptical view, see Campbell, ‘Enlightenment and the Economy’, 8–25. For the impact of enlightenment ideas on British economic growth, see J. Mokyr, The Enlightened Economy: An Economic History of Britain 1700–1850 (New Haven, 2009). Interestingly, agriculture is one sector of the economy where Mokyr is sceptical about the influence of the Enlightenment. His conclusions, however, are largely drawn from a view of agrarian change that stresses its gradual and evolutionary nature, something still debatable in the English context and certainly very different from the Scottish experience. Ibid., chapter 9. See also M. Overton, ‘Re-establishing the English Agricultural Revolution’, The Agricultural History Review (1996), 1–20; T. Williamson, The Transformation of Rural England: Farming and the Landscape, 1700–1870 (Exeter, 2002), 1–27. 22 R. L. Emerson, An Enlightened Duke: The Life of Archibald Campbell (1682–1761), Earl of Ilay, 3rd Duke of Argyll (Kilkerran, 2013); I. S. Ross, Lord Kames and the Scotland of His Day (Oxford, 1972); R. Mitchison, Agricultural Sir John: The Life of Sir John Sinclair of Ulbster, 1754–1835 (London, 1962); C. W. J. Withers, ‘On Georgics and Geology: James Hutton’s “Elements of Agriculture” and Agricultural Science in Eighteenth-Century Scotland’, Agricultural History Review, 42 (1994), 38–48. 23 See C. W. J. Withers, ‘A Neglected Scottish Agriculturalist: The “Georgical Lectures” and Agricultural Writings of the Rev Dr. John Walker (1731–1803)’, Agricultural History Review, 33, 2 (1985), 132–46; C. W. J. Withers, ‘William Cullen’s Agricultural Lectures and Writings and the Development of Agricultural Science in Eighteenth-Century Scotland’, Agricultural History Review, 37 (1989), 144–56; Withers, ‘Georgics and Geology’; C. D. Waterston, ‘Late Enlightenment Science and Generalism: The Case of Sir George Steuart Mackenzie of Coul, 1780–1848’, in C. W. J. Withers and P. Wood (eds), Science and Medicine in the Scottish Enlightenment (East Linton, 2002), 301–26.

­

Introduction 7

cepts such as ‘wealth’ and ‘virtue’.24 But there was also a remarkable degree of consensus, both over the shortcomings of Scottish agriculture and on the best ways to improve it.25 Although the practical impact of Scottish institutions of improvement can be debated, they undoubtedly served to foster the networks of people and ideas, which, along with a distinctive literary and educational culture, helped disseminate the ideas and practices of improvement. This in turn helped prepare the ground for rapid improvement in the more favourable market conditions of the final three decades of the eighteenth century.26 Indeed, by the end of the eighteenth century Scotland was not only sending its farmers south but was also exporting its distinctive improving ideology, which, through its institutionalisation in such bodies as the Board of Agriculture, was impacting on wider British and, indeed, Imperial policy.27 One final consideration – and one often overlooked by economic historians – is that by the middle of the century, agricultural improvement itself was part of a much broader ‘ideology of Improvement’ that encompassed a whole range of activities and attitudes, ranging from the personal to the political. In this respect, ‘improvement’ has to be considered as much a cultural concept as an economic one, one which embodies important moral, philosophic, and even aesthetic values.28 24

I. Hont and M. Ignatieff, ‘Needs and Justice in the Wealth of Nations: An Introductory Essay’, in Hont and Ignatieff (eds), Wealth and Virtue, 1–44; F. A. Jonsson, Enlightenment’s Frontier: The Scottish Highlands and the Origins of Environmentalism (New Haven, 2013), 11–42. 25 E. J. Hobsbawm, ‘Scottish Reformers of the Eighteenth Century and Capitalist Agriculture’, in E. J. Hobsbawm (ed.), Peasants in History: Essays in Honour of Daniel Thorner (Calcutta, 1981), 3–29; Davidson, ‘Scottish Path’, 1–72. 26 Adams, ‘Agents’, 155–76; H. Holmes, ‘The Circulation of Scottish Agricultural Books During the Eighteenth Century’, The Agricultural History Review (2006), 45–78; Boud, ‘Agricultural Societies’, 74–7; Smout, ‘Scottish Improvers’, 146. 27 J. Gascoigne, Joseph Banks and the English Enlightenment: Useful Knowledge and Polite Culture (Cambridge, 1994), 185–96; Bayly, Imperial Meridian, 123, 125–6, 136; R. Drayton, Nature’s Government: Science, Imperial Britain and the ‘Improvement’ of the World (New Haven, 2000), chapter 5; N. Leask, Robert Burns and Pastoral: Poetry and Improvement in Late EighteenthCentury Scotland (Oxford, 2010), 40. 28 The place of agricultural improvement within this wider culture of improvement has been most fully explored by writers approaching the subject from other disciplines. For example, see N. Everett, The Tory View of Landscape (New Haven, 1994); S. Daniels, ‘The Political Iconography of Woodland in Later Georgian England’, in D. Cosgrove and S. Daniels (eds), The Iconography of Landscape (Cambridge, 1988), 43–82; S. Daniels, S. Seymour and C. Watkins, ‘Enlightenment, Improvement, and the Geographies of Horticulture in Later Georgian England’, in D. N. Livingstone and C. W. J. Withers (eds), Geography and Enlightenment (Chicago, 1999), 345–71; Tarlow, Archaeology of Improvement, 35; Drayton, Nature’s Government; T. C. Barnard, Improving Ireland? Projectors, Prophets and Profiteers, 1641–1786 (Dublin, 2008). In the Scottish context there has been a tendency to see the improvement of agriculture in more strictly economic terms, but see T. C. Smout, A History of the Scottish People, 1560–1830 (London, [1969] 1985), 277; Smout, ‘Scottish Improvers’, 125–49; Leask, Burns and Pastoral, 23–42; Glendinning and Wade Martins, Buildings of the Land, 12–14; P. Womack, Improvement and Romance: Constructing the Myth of the Highlands (Basingstoke, 1989).

8

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

The core of this book is the detailed reconstruction of the management of one of Scotland’s largest estates during this crucial period of agricultural change. It will argue that the Buccleuch estate under the 3rd Duke’s administration provides an important example of ‘improvement from above’, one in which the entire resources of the estate were marshalled towards the goal of agricultural improvement. But it is also concerned with the ways in which the intellectual concerns of the Scottish Enlightenment and its associated culture of improvement impacted on the management of a great landed estate. One key element of this is the role of Adam Smith, as both tutor and advisor to the Duke, and it will be argued that his ideas had an important impact both on the Duke’s choice of career and on his initial attempts to improve his estates. But of even more importance in terms of the influence of ideology over practice is the career of the Duke’s ‘overseer of improvements’, William Keir, one of Scotland’s most remarkable improvers and the architect of the modernisation of the Buccleuch estates. Strongly influenced by the ideas of Smith and his contemporaries, Keir set out to apply the insights of political economy to the management and improvement of a great landed estate. But what makes Keir’s vision of improvement particularly fascinating is that he was also acutely aware of the limits of this approach and of the potential social and moral dangers of applying a strictly commercial attitude towards estate management. These concerns relate to another central argument of this book, that just as agricultural improvement cannot be isolated from the wider culture of improvement, the management of a great estate cannot be divorced from the other aspects of the landowner’s interests. Despite the commercialisation of agriculture and the weakening of feudal and paternal bonds, a great landed estate continued to be more than just an economic entity and this book will argue that a fuller understanding of its management has to take into account a range of concerns and relationships. Indeed, a key theme of this study is the incipient tension caused by the conflicting demands of the new agriculture and other aspects of the Duke’s wider ‘interest’. On one level, then, the story of the improvement of the Buccleuch estates is about the systematic application of the improving ideology to a great landed estate, of how the ideas of the Scottish Enlightenment directly impacted on the economy and society of this part of rural Scotland. But it is also about the attempts to reconcile improvement and the commercial imperatives of the market economy with the maintenance of traditional aristocratic ‘interest’ and other extra-economic concerns.

Chapter One

Inheritance (1750–66) On 1 April 1750, after a brief illness, Francis, Earl of Dalkeith, the son and heir to the 2nd Duke of Buccleuch, died of smallpox at Adderbury House, Oxfordshire. In a hastily dictated will he appointed his pregnant wife, Lady Caroline, the eldest daughter of the 2nd Duke of Argyll, as ‘tutrix and guardian’ to his four young children: Caroline, Henry, Campbell, and James. As the eldest son, Henry inherited the courtesy title of Earl of Dalkeith along with those parts of the Buccleuch estates settled on his father in his marriage contract. Barely a year later his grandfather, Francis, 2nd Duke of Buccleuch, died, and Henry, at the age of four, inherited the ducal title and the remainder of the family’s estates. According to the Duke’s cousin and family biographer Lady Louisa Stuart, the Buccleuch family had by this point been in decline for some time, ‘resting in comparative obscurity for two or three generations past’. Apart from a short period at the beginning of the eighteenth century, the family had not resided in Scotland since the 1660s, and the 2nd Duke had shown little interest in his Scottish estates other than as a source of income for his increasingly dissolute life. Characterised by Lady Louisa as ‘a man of mean understanding and meaner habits’, after the death of his first wife, Lady Jane Douglas, Duke Francis had ‘plunged into such low amours, and lived so entirely with the lowest company’, that although he ‘resided constantly in the neighbourhood of London, his person was scarcely known to his equals, and his character fell into utter contempt’.1 In addition to fathering a number of illegitimate children and secretly marrying a Windsor washerwoman, the Duke had racked up substantial debts. The year before his death, the Earl of Dalkeith had agreed to sell off the family’s Lincolnshire estates to raise £80,000 to go towards paying these off.2 Less than a fortnight after the 2nd Duke’s death, the remaining lease of his house in Grosvenor Square together with its entire contents were auctioned off, and litigation over his remaining debt continued for years.3 Despite the loss of the family’s 1

Lady M. Coke, The Letters and Journals of Lady Mary Coke: 1756–1774, vol. 1 (Bath, 1970), xxxiv–xxxv. 2 NRS GD224/903/17/14; NRS GD224/623/1 p. 102, Kenneth Mackenzie to John Grant, 12 Apr. 1755. 3 NRS GD224/903/17/14; General Advertiser, 6 May 1751; NA C 12/1859/20 Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Pleadings 1758 to 1800, Cotes v. Buccleuch, Mitford and Hamner Division 1756; NRS GD224/584/11/6, Note of Money Funds belong to His Grace the Duke of Buccleugh, Jul. 1759.

10

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

English estates, Duke Henry’s Scottish inheritance remained vast by any standard. The family’s principal seat in Scotland was Dalkeith House, lying four miles south of Edinburgh. The house had been commissioned by the 3rd Duke’s great great grandmother, Anne, 1st Duchess of Buccleuch, during her residency in Scotland from around 1701 to 1714. Designed by James Smith and modelled on William III’s palace of Het Loo, the existing castle was refashioned and renamed ‘Dalkeith Palace’, creating one of the earliest and grandest neo-classical houses in Scotland, its lavish marble interiors and palatial styling alluding to the family’s royal connections.4 Duchess Anne had played a pivotal role in the survival of the Buccleuch inheritance. It was only her successful pleading to James II after the disastrous rebellion and subsequent execution of her husband, the deceased king’s illegitimate son, John Scott, Duke of Monmouth and Buccleuch, that had allowed her to pass on her title and Scottish estates intact to her heirs while the other Monmouth lands and titles were forfeited.5 In addition to the deer parks, pleasure grounds and ‘wilderness’ surrounding the Palace, the Dalkeith estate extended to around 2,620 acres of arable farm land.6 By the time of the 3rd Duke’s accession the estate brought in an annual rental of around £1,800; its real value, however, lay in its proximity to Edinburgh and the influence it gave the family over the city and the surrounding area.7 The vast majority of the Buccleuch estates, however, lay in their expansive Border holdings in the counties of Roxburghshire, Selkirkshire and Dumfriesshire, known collectively as the ‘South Country’ estates. These Border estates had been amassed over several centuries, as the Scott family benefited from the lawlessness of the region, first as warlords and revivers, and then as enforcers of the King’s law. By 1550 the head of the family had been given his first Royal appointment, as Warden of the Middle Marches and the Keeper of Liddesdale, and over the next hundred years their holdings expanded substantially from their ancestral stronghold of Teviotdale. The family inherited much of Melrose Abbey’s upland estates after its dissolution and also benefited greatly from a number of Royal grants of forfeited estates.8 In the first half of the seventeenth century, Sir 4

When in Scotland, the Duchess styled herself as ‘Mighty Princess’, and was served on bended knee. J. Thomas, Midlothian: An Illustrated Architectural Guide (Edinburgh, 1995), 9–10; M. Lee, The Heiresses of Buccleuch: Marriage, Money, and Politics in Seventeenth-Century Britain (East Linton, 1996), 122. 5 Although the Dukedom of Monmouth remained forfeited, his other relinquished titles of Earl of Doncaster and Baron Tindall were restored to the family in March 1743. Lee, Heiresses, 2–3, 119; W. Fraser, The Scotts of Buccleuch, vol. 1 (Edinburgh, 1878), 486. 6 NRS RHP9629, Estate Survey, 1718. 7 NRS GD224/284/23, Rentals 1751–1766. 8 The family had been hereditary bailies of the Melrose Abbey lands since 1523. When Thomas, Earl of Melrose, afterwards Earl of Haddington, acquired the regality of Melrose after the Reformation, the 1st Earl of Buccleuch retained ownership of substantial properties, including those in upper Teviotdale, upper Eskdale and Ettrickhead. The granting of

­

Inheritance (1750–66) 11

Walter Scott (1587–1633), ennobled as the first Earl of Buccleuch in 1619, added considerably to the estate, spending over £20,000 on properties in Eskdale, Ettrick Forest, Liddesdale, and Roxburghshire.9 Earl Walter’s son, Francis, the 2nd Earl, added the Dalkeith estate and castle in 1642 for the then huge sum of £26,666 and also purchased the Barony of Langholm in Dumfriesshire for just over £6,565. By the time of his death in 1651 the rent roll of the entire estate had risen to over £8,300.10 Despite being subjected to huge fines by Cromwell’s Protectorate, and the subsequent uncertainty of inheritance that followed the 2nd Earl’s early death, the estates continued intact and survived the possible forfeiture following the attainder of the Duke of Monmouth and Buccleuch in 1686.11 In the first half of the eighteenth century, the formidable Anne, 1st Duchess of Buccleuch, expanded the South Country estates even further, with significant purchases that included the Lordship and Abbey of Melrose and the Barony of Hawick.12 By the time the first detailed survey of the estate was conducted in 1718, the South Country estates were measured at 193,530 acres. From Canonbie in the south to Melrose in the north, the estate covered vast tracts of eastern Dumfriesshire, southern Roxburghshire and south-west Selkirkshire, much of it contiguous, with the core centred around the uplands of the river valleys of the Esk, Liddel, and Teviot, and the upper reaches of the Ettrick and Yarrow Waters.13 At Duke Henry’s accession in 1751, the South Country estates generally consisted of two types of holding: in the upland areas, large-scale sheep farms dominated; lower down the valleys where the dales widened, the holdings became smaller and predominantly arable or ‘corn’ farms. The distinction was one of degree rather than kind, however; although much larger than the arable holdings and, since the end of the seventeenth century, run on increasingly commercial footings, the sheep farms still maintained a sizeable element of subsistence farming, with most farms still raising cereal crops on the lower hill slopes and flatter valley bottoms where their ‘croft’ land lay. Lower down the valleys and on the predominantly arable estates such as Canonbie and Eckford, the holdings were organised in the infield-outfield system, with unenclosed fields for much of the Earl of Bothwell’s forfeited estates to Sir Walter Scott (1565–1611) by James VI was in recognition of his ‘good, faithful, and thankful service’ in ‘pacifying the Borders and middle regions of the Marches of this our Kingdom’. Fraser, Scotts, 69, 92, 113–14, 174–5, 251. R. A. Dodgshon, ‘Agricultural Change and Its Social Consequences in the Southern Uplands of Scotland, 1600–1780’, in T. M. Devine and D. Dickson (eds), Ireland and Scotland, 1600–1850 (Edinburgh, 1983), 48. 9 Fraser, Scotts, 252. 10 Fraser, Scotts, 252–3, 279; Lee, Heiresses, 8, 13. 11 Lee, Heiresses, 16–17, 28. 12 Fraser, Scotts, 23, 477; NRS GD224/324/7/3, Opinion upon the case respecting of ­settlements of the estate of Buccleugh, Alexander Lockhart, 17 Mar. 1767. 13 NRS RHP9629, Estate Survey, 1718.

12

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

the most part held in runrig by multiple tenants, but relying heavily on the manure of animals grazed in the outfields and on common grazings.14 For administrative purposes the South Country estates were divided into five separate collections, each overseen by a ‘chamberlain’.15 These part-time officials combined the traditional duties of a chamberlain, such as attending landsettings, collecting rents, keeping accounts and rentals, with the more general role of estate factors, overseeing their collections and supervising the various estate officers beneath them, such as deputy chamberlains, baron officers and foresters. In addition to their wages, each chamberlain held a farm from the estate and was entitled to various feudal servitudes from the tenants, such as the fetching of coals or the harvesting of their crops.16 The tenants generally held their farms by annual leases, issued each year by the chamberlain at the ‘landsetting’ that took place on each estate.17 These leases tended to be renewed automatically, and, on the death of a tenant, the farm would usually pass on to his or her heir, and it was not unusual for farms to be held in the same family for generations.18 Once collected, the rents from the five South Country chamberlains, along with that of the Dalkeith estate, which was administered separately by its own chamberlain, were passed on to the family’s chief legal agent, or ‘sole commissioner’, in Edinburgh, who acted as ‘cashier and receiver’ for the whole estate and was responsible for its overall administration. This was the system in place when Lady Dalkeith officially took over the management of the estates in the spring of 1751 in her capacity as the Duke’s ‘tutrix’ or legal guardian. It was, however, not until December 1753 and the death of the incumbent sole commissioner, Ronald Dunbar, WS, that any attempt was made by Lady Dalkeith to alter the existing management arrangements to take into account the administration of a minor. A review of the situation at Dunbar’s death revealed that the estate’s accounts were in a state of disarray, with the chamberlains’ accounts having remained unsettled for a number of years. As a result, a number of changes were introduced to the Duke’s Scottish administration with the specific aim that ‘the Duke’s affairs be managed with greater care and exactness’, an acknowledgement that a minority regime required, as a later summary 14

Dodgshon, ‘Agricultural Change’, 50. These were Melrose and Ettrick Forest; Eskdale and Canonbie; Ettrick Forest and Eckford; Teviotdalehead; and Liddesdale. NRS GD224/248/23, State of the Management and Administration of His Grace Henry Duke of Buccleugh’s Estate, Aug. 1768 [hereafter, State of Management 1768]. 16 NRS GD224/83/6/1, Concerning the reorganisation of the Duke’s chamberlains, Mar./ Apr. 1764. For the traditional role of chamberlains, see I. D. Whyte, Agriculture and Society in Seventeenth-Century Scotland (Edinburgh, 1979), 47–8. 17 NRS GD224/392/14, Printed petition from John Craigie of Kilgraston [1757]; NRS GD224/83/6/1, Concerning the reorganisation of the Duke’s chamberlains, Mar./Apr. 1764. 18 Whyte, Agriculture and Society, 158. 15

­

Inheritance (1750–66) 13

explained, ‘a more exact and perfect administration than formerly’.19 A new sole commissioner, John Grant of Elchies, advocate, was appointed in early January 1755, with orders to settle the chamberlains’ accounts and to submit a quarterly journal of his accounts to Lady Dalkeith, including a general abstract that would set out the various ‘encumbrances’ the estate was subject to so that its annual ‘neat produce’ could be calculated.20 Grant was also asked to examine the application of the rent of the estate since the death of the Earl of Dalkeith, noting the securities for any sums that had been lent out, and to prepare a summary of all the law suits involving the Duke pending before the Court of Session.21 A month after Grant’s appointment, the position of legal agent to the Duke in Scotland, previously held by a single lawyer, was divided into two ‘conjunct’ posts. Alexander McMillan, WS, was to be responsible for the management of the legal matters relating to the Duke’s ‘country affairs’ – that is, assisting in the ‘set’ or letting of farms, auditing the chamberlains’ accounts, attending the landsettings, and drawing up leases and precepts of warning. Archibald Campbell of Succoth, WS, was to be responsible for all other legal affairs concerning the family in Scotland.22 Similarly, the position of accountant or ‘Clerk of Accompts’, traditionally held by one of the chamberlains, was also divided into two distinct posts; William Laing, the chamberlain for the Ettrick Forest and Eckford estates, retained responsibility for accounting duties pertaining to the landsettings, while Francis Farquharson, accountant in Edinburgh, was hired for auditing the chamberlains’ and receivers’ accounts, and instructed to prepare them in such a way ‘as they might be understood by [the Duke] when he should become of age’.23 Despite these efforts to introduce a more precise administration it was not until October 1756, some twenty-one months after Grant’s appointment, that Lady Dalkeith became aware that there remained arrears of some £20,000 outstanding from the tenants.24 Nevertheless, the administrative reforms introduced in 1754 remained in place until the Duke came of age in 1767. Although Lady Dalkeith was legally responsible for the Duke and the management of his affairs, evidence suggests she had little interest in the running of the estate. It was not until five years after the death of the 2nd Duke that she made her first and only visit to Scotland as the Duke’s tutrix, 19

NRS GD224/623/1 p.  5, Commission to Archibald and Alexander Mackmillian; NRS GD224/388/16/12, John Craigie’s account of position of accountant. 20 NRS GD224/623/1 pp.  3–4, Commission to Mr. John Grant, 4 Jan. 1754; NRS GD224/388/16/1, Letter from the Countess of Dalkeith appointing John Grant of Elchies, 4 Jan. [copy]. 21 NRS GD224/623/1 p. 7, Instructions for John Grant, 5 Mar. 1754. 22 NRS GD224/623/1 p. 5, Commission to Archibald Campbell and Alexander Mackmillian; NRS GD224/584/11/11, Memorial, queries and answers, his Grace Henry Duke of Buccleugh, 30 Jul. 1760 [hereafter, Memorial 1760]. 23 NRS GD224/388/16/12, John Craigie’s account of position of accountant; NRS GD224/85/4/1, Instructions for John Grant, 1754; Memorial 1760. 24 NRS GD224/623/1 p. 124, [Mackenzie] to Craigie, 23 Oct. 1756.

14

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

during which she seemed more concerned with coaxing her reluctant commissioner to take a part in the tragedy she was staging than in overseeing the management of the estate.25 In fact the key figure behind the administrative reforms and, indeed, most other aspects of estate policy during this period was her uncle, Archibald Campbell, 3rd Duke of Argyll. A keen agricultural improver with long experience of managing his own Scottish estates, Argyll advised Lady Dalkeith on matters ranging from the estate’s general letting strategy and the Duke’s financial affairs, down to the specific planting scheme for the parks at Dalkeith Palace;26 as one agent commented, ‘when her Ladyship is in one country and the Duke of Argyll in another, their orders cannot be so easily received or executed’.27 Argyll’s influence was particularly evident in the appointments made by Lady Dalkeith at this time: John Grant of Elchies was the son-in-law of Lord Milton, Argyll’s sub-minister in Scotland, and the son of Patrick Grant of Elchies, a Lord of Session judge and a close Argyll ally; the letter appointing Grant was written by one of Argyll’s servants and witnessed by Argyll himself.28 Similarly, the Duke’s new legal agent, Archibald Campbell of Succouth, was already employed by Argyll and would go on to become Receiver General for his Scottish estates.29 When Kenneth Mackenzie – another agent who worked for both the Buccleuch and Campbell families – wrote to congratulate Campbell of Succouth on his appointment and noted that ‘Her Ladyship is abundantly sensible of the obligations she owes to my Lord Duke of Argyll, and equally satisfied with our attachment to the interest of her family’, it is hard to distinguish which ‘family’ he was referring to.30 For all intents and purposes, the Buccleuch estate was being run as part of the wider Argyll interest, something that was very apparent in the appointment of Lady Dalkeith’s successor as guardian, the advocate John Craigie of Kilgraston. On her marriage to Charles Townshend in September 1755, Lady Dalkeith was required by Scots law to relinquish her position as tutrix and

25

A. Carlyle, Anecdotes and Characters of the Times, ed. J. Kinsley (London, 1973), 150–1. NRS GD224/623/1 pp.  87, 103, [Mackenzie] to John Grant, 31 Jan., 19 Apr. 1754; NRS GD224/623/1 p.  90, Directions to the gardener at Dalkeith, 5 Mar. 1754; NRS GD224/295/3/17 [old catalogue], Andrew Fletcher to [?], 11 Nov. 1759. For Argyll’s role as an improver and in the management of his Scottish estates, see R. L. Emerson, An Enlightened Duke: The Life of Archibald Campbell (1682–1761), Earl of Ilay, 3rd Duke of Argyll (Kilkerran, 2013), 239, 275–81. 27 NRS GD224/623/1 p. 103, [Mackenzie] to John Grant, 26 Apr. 1755. 28 John Grant had previously been appointed as sheriff depute of Perthshire. J. S. Shaw, The Management of Scottish Society 1707–1764: Power, Nobles, Lawyers, Edinburgh Agents and English Influences (Edinburgh, 1983), 170; NRS GD224/388/16/1, Letter from the Countess of Dalkeith appointing John Grant of Elchies, 4 Jan. 1754; NRS GD224/388/16/3, Commission appointing a salary to John Grant, 4 Jan. 1754. 29 E. R. Cregeen (ed.), Argyll Estate Instructions, 1771–1805 (Edinburgh, 1964), xxxvi. 30 NRS GD224/623/1 pp. 88–9, 28 Feb. 1754. 26

­

Inheritance (1750–66) 15

guardian.31 According to a later summary of events, as the ‘tutor at law’ (unnamed, but presumably the Duke’s cousin, John Hay, fourth Marquis of Tweeddale) declined to take up the post, it was decided that Lady Dalkeith, Tweeddale and ‘other friends of the family’ would petition the Court of Session to appoint a guardian or ‘factor loco tutoris’. The following February the court appointed the advocate John Craigie of Kilgraston.32 Craigie’s appointment, however, seems to have been orchestrated by Argyll largely as a means of bringing Kilgraston’s father-in-law, President of the Court of Session, Robert Craigie of Glendoick, into his interest.33 Although Craigie, who also replaced John Grant (recently appointed through Argyll’s interest as a Baron of the Court of Exchequer) as ‘commissioner and cashier’ to the Buccleuch estates, managed directly by the authority of the Court of Session, management decisions seem to have been made by a commission consisting of himself, Tweeddale and Robert Craigie, acting as President of the Court of Session. Despite the political nature of his appointment, Craigie was to prove an able and conscientious administrator. Above all, however, the guiding principle of his administration was to be one of continuity: as a number of memoranda pointed out, his primary instruction was to ‘continue the former plan of management’.34 By far the most significant aspect of this plan was the continued expansion of the estate. Beginning in 1754 and accelerating under Craigie, this policy was actively pursued using the savings in expenditure made since the deaths of Lord Dalkeith and the 2nd Duke and the profits arising from the estates.35 Any surplus income from the estate after expenses was placed in a Bank of Scotland account until ‘an opportunity should offer of employing [it] better’.36 These opportunities for investment took one of two forms; it was either ‘employed on interest’, that is, lent out, or used to purchase land.37 Although during the first eight years of the Duke’s minority over £15,000 was lent out, by 1757 it was reported that Lady Dalkeith’s preference was now for either smaller loans to be made or for the money to be used to buy up freehold estates in the counties where the Duke’s existing estate lay.38 Between August 1754 and May 1759 over £32,000 was spent on the purchase of sixteen estates bought in thirteen separate transactions, two under Lady Dalkeith’s administration 31

State of Management 1768. Tweeddale had been a leading figure of the Squadrone party that had opposed the Argyll interest, but from 1754 relations between the two grandees had considerably improved. Emerson, Enlightened Duke, 325; State of Management 1768. 33 Shaw, Management of Scottish Society, 79–80. 34 Memorial 1760; NRS GD224/388/8/2, Memorial concerning the expedience of Granting Tacks, Mar. 1757. 35 NRS GD224/584/11/7, Abstract of Rental, 1754. 36 Memorial 1760. 37 NRS GD224/584/11/7, Abstract of Rental, 1754. 38 NRS GD224/584/11/6, Note of Money funds, Jul. 1759; NRS GD224/623/1 p.  134, [Mackenzie] to Craigie, 14 Apr. 1757. 32

16

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

and eleven under Craigie’s curatorship. By May 1759, these purchases were yielding an annual rent of £1,182 6s. 8d., representing an increase of just over 7% to the overall rental value of the Scottish estates.39 This expansion corresponds with what seems to have been a general trend in landowning in the Borders where evidence suggests the number of landowners was gradually declining in the century leading up to 1770.40 Several criteria were considered for the purchase of these estates. Price was an obvious consideration, the land being purchased in the expectation of a return on the capital at least as high as if it had been lent out on interest. The Duke’s agents were also aware that the price of land could easily become inflated if the Duke was identified as the potential buyer, and it was considered prudent to avoid ‘public routs’ or auctions wherever possible.41 Of even more importance, however, was the location of the estate relative to the other Buccleuch holdings. Almost all of the purchases made in Scotland during the Duke’s minority were contiguous with existing Buccleuch properties in the South Country estates, a memorial of 1760 noting that all of the purchases made during the Duke’s minority ‘lye adjacent to or intermixed with his Graces other estate’.42 But the location of the purchase was also closely tied to a further consideration: the extent to which the purchase could enhance the family’s political interest. And it was in this regard that the influence of the Duke of Argyll was particularly evident. The most commonly used qualification for gaining the right to vote in a Scottish county was the possession of the superiority of a property valued in the county land tax, or ‘cess’, books at £400 Scots. As the right to vote rested in the possession of the superiority rather than in the ownership of the land itself, it was possible for a large landowner to legally separate the two, retaining the ownership of the land while passing on the superiority to supporters of his political interest.43 As the majority of the Duke’s estate was placed under strict entail, such vote creation was not possible on most of the existing estate, but this restriction did not apply to the newly purchased land.44 As early as 1753, a ‘project’ had been proposed to purchase 39

NRS GD224/584/11/4, Note of purchases made for his Grace the Duke of Buccleugh, Jul. 1759; NRS GD224/248/23, Abstract of Rental, 1751–67. 40 L. Timperley, ‘The Pattern of Landholding in Eighteenth-Century Scotland’, in M. L. Parry and T. R. Slater (eds), The Making of the Scottish Countryside (London, 1980), 148. 41 NRS GD224/623/1 p. 101, [Mackenzie] to John Grant, 29 Mar. 1755; NRS GD224/91/1 pp. 3–5, Mr Scott to Charles Townshend, n.d. [Dec. 1760], and Charles Townshend to Mr Scott, n.d. [Dec. 1760]. 42 46% (by purchase price) were in Roxburghshire, 36% in Selkirkshire, 14% in Dumfriesshire, 4% in Peebleshire. The only other purchase was £110 spent on land adjoining the Dalkeith estate. NRS GD224/584/11/4, Note of purchases made for his Grace the Duke of Buccleugh, Jul. 1759; Memorial 1760. 43 D. J. Brown, ‘“Nothing but Strugalls and Coruption”: The Commons’ Elections for Scotland in 1774’, Parliamentary History, 15, 1 (1996), 100–19. 44 See Chapter 3.

­

Inheritance (1750–66) 17

a superiority in one of the counties ‘where the greatest part of the Duke of Buccleugh’s estate lyes’ for the use of one of the Duke’s younger brothers, a plan said to be ‘greatly approved of’ by the Duke of Argyll.45 The instructions issued to John Grant the following year included an order to ‘enquire for freeholds to purchase in the different counties where his Grace the Duke of Buccleughs lands ly which entittle the proprietor to a vote in the election of a member of parliament’. The same orders also instructed him to conclude a purchase in Ettrick and to examine in particular the manner in which its valued rent was ascertained and ‘the right it gives to a vote’.46 The extent to which this was a conscious consideration is borne out in a memorandum of 1759. In addition to summarising the purchases made during this period, the number of potential votes each new estate would entitle its holder to was listed and, in one case, further advice noted on how best to maximise the number of votes available.47 As a later report noted, all the land purchased in the counties of Roxburgh and Selkirk – the two counties where the Duke’s electoral influence was strongest – were held in trust for the Duke in John Craigie’s name ‘with a view of creating freeholds and votes’. By 1759, the new purchases had given the Duke the potential to create six new votes in Selkirkshire and two in Roxburghshire, a significant number, when the total electorate of Selkirkshire stood at only thirty-one votes.48 The connection between the promotion of the family’s political interest and the management of the estates was also explicit in the expectation that those employed by the estate should follow the family’s lead in electoral matters; for the period up to around 1760, this meant following the Argyll interest. In March 1754, letters were written to the Duke’s two legal agents, Alexander McMillan and Archibald Campbell, and his commissioner, John Grant, instructing them to give all possible assistance ‘in the name of Lady Dalkeith’ to the election of Gilbert Elliot, Argyll’s chosen candidate for the shire of Selkirk at the forthcoming general election.49 Likewise, in the summer of 1759 Craigie was instructed to write to all the ‘vassals and factors who have votes in the different countys in which the Duke is concerned’ and instruct them ‘not to engage themselves to any candidate whatever 45

NRS GD224/623/1 p. 91, [Mackenzie] to John Grant, 26 Mar. 1754. NRS GD224/85/4/1, Instructions for John Grant, 1754. 47 The entry for the estate of Deuchar and Kershope in Selkirkshire, purchased in July 1755, notes that they are ‘near £1200 scots of valued rent so with a small addition would make three votes’. NRS GD224/584/11/4, Note of purchases, Jul. 1759. 48 NRS GD224/273/1, Archibald Campbell’s Accompts, 1768–1769; NRS GD224/324/14, Exact Disposition Mr John Craigie to his Grace the Duke of Buccleugh, 10 and 12 Sep.  1768; NRS GD224/584/11/4, Note of purchases, Jul. 1759. The total number of voters in Roxburghshire by 1768 was around sixty-eight. L. B. Namier and J. Brooke, The House of Commons, 1754–1790, vol. 1 (London, [1964] 1985), 495. 49 NRS GD224/623/1 p. 89, [Mackenzie] to McMillan, Campbell, and Grant, 5 Mar. 1754. For Argyll’s patronage of Elliot, see Namier and Brooke, House of Commons, vol. 2, 391. 46

18

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

without her Ladyships knowledge’.50 A further example of the degree to which the management of the estate and the family’s political interest were closely connected is found in the debate that surrounded the appointment of a new chamberlain to the Melrose and Forest estate. In March 1757 Craigie, supported by Lord President Craigie and the Marquis of Tweeddale, had recommended that the vacant position should be filled by a Mr John Craigie. Mackenzie replied that, although Lady Dalkeith would ‘at all times be very glad to oblige’ Craigie and the other commissioners, in this case she was ‘very desireous’ that the vacancy should be filled by ‘some Gent[leman] of Estate’ in either Selkirkshire or Roxburghshire, ‘who may be desirous of the employment and capable of it’, and would be ‘by such favour . . . attach’d to the Interest of the Duke her son and his family at the same time that he is employed to the benefit of the estate’. Mackenzie concluded that Lady Dalkeith was sure that the Lord President and Tweeddale would agree with her in thinking that ‘these two points should be made to concur as often as they can’, and that ‘her Ladyship therefore cannot byt wish for the Interest of her son and his weight in Scotland, that these points may allways be consulted and promoted together upon every opportunity’. In the end, the commissioners acquiesced and Lady Dalkeith’s preferred candidate, William Ogilvie of Hartwoodmyre, a Selkirkshire landowner considered not only capable for the job but as potentially a useful ‘friend’ to the Duke’s ‘genl. interest’ in Selkirkshire, was appointed.51 There were clear parallels in these preoccupations with Argyll’s own linking of estate management with political interest upon his Scottish estates, although his promotion of political loyalty through tenancy policy in the Western Highlands in the 1740s had been much more comprehensive.52 Despite a number of general statements issued during Lady Dalkeith’s curatorship encouraging the Duke’s commissioners to do all in their power to improve the estates, there were few initiatives that suggested that improvement was an actively pursued goal rather than a general and rather vague aspiration.53 Grant’s instructions, issued on his appointment in 1754, included an order that those tenants of ‘grass-grounds’ – that is, grazing farms – who wished to have any of their land enclosed should apply in writing, specifying the terms in which they proposed this should be done, but there is no evidence of this proposal being put into action.54 50

NRS GD224/623/1 p. 153, [Mackenzie] to Craigie, 9 Jun. 1759. NRS GD224/623/1 p. 133, [Mackenzie] to Craigie, 26 Mar. 1757. For the general use of estate positions as a source of patronage, see R. M. Sunter, Patronage and Politics in Scotland, 1707–1832 (Edinburgh, [1986] 2003), 8. 52 E. Cregeen, ‘The Changing Role of the House of Argyll in the Scottish Highlands’, in N.  T.  Phillipson and R. Mitchison (eds), Scotland in the Age of Improvement (Edinburgh, 1970), 15–17. 53 NRS GD224/85/4/1, Instructions for John Grant, 1754; NRS GD224/623/1/ pp.  124, 153. [Mackenzie] to Craigie, 23 Oct. 1756, 9 Jun. 1759. 54 NRS GD224/85/4/1, Instructions for John Grant, 1754. 51

­

Inheritance (1750–66) 19

A second initiative also proposed at the time of Grant’s appointment concerning the repair of tenants’ houses was, however, carried out. Prior to this point, the practice regarding the building and repair of tenants’ houses on the Buccleuch estates had followed the general ‘customs of the country’; the proprietor provided the timber and paid the wages of the tradesmen while the tenant was responsible for supplying ‘meat and service’ and the carriage of materials. Under the new scheme the tenants would still be allowed timber from the Duke’s woods free of charge, but to prevent ‘embezzlements’, houses would be inspected first and reported on before permission was given for their improvement. In the cases where houses were ‘entirely ruinous’, they were to be rebuilt at the Duke’s expense, but the tenants would be charged 7.5% of the cost as an addition to their rent.55 The new rules on repairs went hand in hand with a number of initiatives to improve the management of the Duke’s woods and plantations. The active management of the Buccleuch woods dated back to the first half of the seventeenth century, and seems to have intensified during the first quarter of the eighteenth century with the development of enclosed plantations and even nurseries in several parts of the estates.56 By the time of the 3rd Duke’s minority, however, this level of attention seems to have declined markedly. In 1756 Lady Dalkeith ordered that ‘proper persons’ should be immediately appointed for managing the woods, and by the beginning of the following year a forester had been appointed for Eskdale, with permission granted for further appointments if required.57 Despite these initiatives, it was reported in early 1760 that the woods in Ettrick Forest were still ‘indifferently look’d after’, and that the tenants ‘have a liberty to cut young & old trees where they please when any timber is wanted or pretended to be wanting for their necessary repairs without any forrester or other officer to attend them’.58 It was only when a survey made the same year revealed the woods and plantations of Eskdale and Canonbie to be more valuable than was expected that a renewed effort was made to preserve the existing trees and to encourage plantations in other parts of the estate where ‘natural wood does not grow’.59 Another area of land management policy that would come to play a central role in the later improvement of the estate was its letting policy. During the minority, however, the overriding concern of the commissioners was that in no circumstances should rent levels be reduced from their current level. This stipulation was explicitly listed as one of the limitations to the commissioners’ authority to grant leases, and the determination to 55

NRS GD224/85/4/1, Instructions for John Grant, 1754; NRS GD224/459 p. 57, Memorial Concerning the Repairs of Tenant’s Houses, [William Ogilvie] Jun. 1769. 56 A. H. H. Smith, ‘A History of Two Border Woodlands’, in T. C. Smout (ed.), Scottish Woodland History (Edinburgh, 1997), 152–4. 57 NRS GD224/623/1 pp. 124, 125, [Mackenzie] to Craigie, 23 Oct. 1756, 15 Jan. 1757. 58 NRS GD224/623/1 p. 159, [Mackenzie] to Craigie, 31 Jan. 1760. 59 NRS GD224/623/1 p. 163, [Mackenzie] to Craigie, 14 Jun. 1760.

20

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

enforce it was revealed during 1754, when what was described as a ‘rebellion amongst the tenants’ occurred. At the landsetting of that year, a number of tenants had given up their farms with a view to securing them at a lower price at a later public auction, where their bids would be unopposed by the other local tenants. Again and again in the correspondence surrounding the affair, it was argued that it would be preferable that the farms in question be left to ‘lye waste for a year’ than to lower the rent, as this would set a precedent which ‘might be attended with dangerous consequences every year over all the estate’. The outcome of the ‘rebellion’ is unclear: one report noted that, while ‘severity may not be properly used at all times’, in this case ‘it ought to be threaten[ed]’. After five months it was still not resolved, although it was noted that the Duke of Argyll was still adamant that ‘the rent ought not to be diminished’.60 Conversely, there is no indication of any attempt by the estate to significantly raise the rental levels until June 1761, a fact borne out by the gross rental levels during this period.61 Under John Craigie’s curatorship, however, there was one significant initiative in letting policy, and one which aimed at least in part to create the conditions that would encourage improvement. One of the conditions of the strict entail set on the inherited estates was that ‘tacks’ or leases could only be set for a maximum of the heir of entail’s lifetime.62 In practice, however, as one petition noted, ‘even this liberty had been very little made use of’, with the result that ‘this great estate has been generally let by annual sets’.63 This inability to grant long leases was considered as disadvantageous for the estate for two main reasons; first, the expense of the several annual landsettings, with the attendance of the legal agent, accountant, chamberlain, and tenants, had been rising throughout the Duke’s minority, due in part to the cost of providing provisions and ‘entertaining not only the gentlemen who dine with the commissioners’ but also ‘the lower class of tenants’.64 And second – and more importantly – the insecurity of tenure of an annual lease was seen as acting as a disincentive to the tenants to improve their holdings; as one petition stated, ‘no improvement can be expected by inclosing or otherwise, while the possession of the tenant is so precarious’, another noting that this insecurity was ‘a great discouragement to agriculture’.65 This insecurity was further heightened 60

NRS GD224/623/1 p.  97, [Mackenzie] to Grant, 28 Dec. [1754]; NRS GD224/623/1 p. 103, [Mackenzie] to Grant, 19 Apr. 1755. 61 NRS GD224/91/1 p.  11, [Mackenzie] to Craigie, 9 Jun. 1761; NRS GD224/284/23, Abstract of Rental, 1751–66. 62 See Chapter 3. 63 NRS GD224/392/14, Printed petition from John Craigie, n.d. [1757]. 64 By the end of the Duke’s minority the annual cost of landsetting was around £400. NRS GD224/248/23 pp.  14–15, ‘Observations’ on the abstract of rental, 1750–66; NRS GD224/584/11/3, Abstract of Rental, 1766. 65 NRS GD224/392/14, Printed petition from John Craigie, n.d. [1757]; NRS GD224/388/8/2, Memoriall concerning the expediency of granting leases, Mar. 1757.

­

Inheritance (1750–66) 21

by the estate’s right to revoke any tack on the appointment of a new tutor or curator.66 The plan to enable the estate to grant longer leases seems to have originated with Craigie and the Scottish commissioners during 1756.67 The following year, Craigie successfully petitioned the Lords of Council and Session, and a Judicial Act of 9 March gave him the authority to grant tacks on the Duke’s behalf up until one year into the Duke’s majority.68 This newly obtained power was put into practice the following year, with a number of ten-year leases being granted to farms on the low-lying, predominantly arable estates of Dalkeith, and Canonbie in Dumfriesshire. However, these were few in number, affecting only a handful of farms; and although they did give increased security of tenure to the tenants, ten years still remained a relatively short lease. Furthermore, unlike the improving leases that would go on to play such an important role in spreading improved husbandry, the tacks contained very basic husbandry clauses that were limited to a requirement to maintain existing enclosures and to ‘labour and manure’ their lands ‘regularly . . . according to the practice of the best husbandmen of the country’.69 Nevertheless, the attempt did recognise the need for altering the current leasing practice so as to encourage the tenants to improve. And although its actual impact was to be limited, it was the first indication of a management policy aimed directly at encouraging the improvement of the estate. It was, however, not until the final phase of the Duke’s minority and the curatorship of his stepfather, Charles Townshend, that the improvement of the estates began to move to the centre of estate management strategy. In many respects Charles Townshend’s marriage to the Countess of Dalkeith in September 1755 was a turning point for the management of the Duke’s affairs. For Townshend, an ambitious, talented but notoriously unreliable and unprincipled parliamentarian, the marriage was a strategic coup, which bolstered his political connections while providing him with the financial independence he had previously lacked.70 Despite a strained relationship with Lady Dalkeith, from the outset Townshend took a seemingly genuine interest in the welfare of his stepchildren, and within a few years was beginning to take an active role in the management of the Duke’s affairs.71 Indeed, this interest may even have predated his marriage to Lady 66

NRS GD224/623/1 pp. 114–15, [Mackenzie] to Craigie, 24 Apr. 1756; NRS GD224/91/1 p. 11, [Mackenzie] to Craigie, 9 Jun. 1761. 67 NRS GD224/623/1 p. 124, [Mackenzie] to Craigie, 23 Oct. 1756. 68 NRS GD224/392/14, Printed petition from John Craigie, n.d. [1757]; NRS GD224/388/8/2, Memoriall concerning the expediency of granting leases, Mar. 1757. 69 NRS GD224/388/8/3, 4, 5, Canonbie Tacks, 1758; NRS GD224/114/2, 3, 4, Dalkeith Tacks, 1758. 70 L. B. Namier and J. Brooke, Charles Townshend (London, 1964), 34–6. 71 Lady L. Stuart, Memoire of Frances, Lady Douglas, ed. J. Rubenstein (Edinburgh, 1985), 38–40.

22

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

Dalkeith: notes for his speeches on the Marriage Act of 1753 included a paper concerning the legalities of appointing guardians to administer a minor’s affairs according to Scots law.72 Townshend certainly lost no time in ingratiating himself to the young Duke, his correspondence flattering to the point of obsequiousness, and as the Duke approached his fourteenth birthday – the age at which he would be legally empowered to appoint his own curator – Townshend was only too keen to put himself forward for the position. On 10 September 1760, three days before the Duke’s birthday, Townshend wrote to him at Eton offering his services as curator. Unless a guardian was nominated, Townshend explained, the Duke’s affairs would continue to be directed by ‘a Court of law’ and thereby ‘neglected & hurt’. Although Lady Dalkeith was forbidden by law to take up the position, Townshend was willing to take on the burden: If your opinion of me inclines you that I should have this charge upon me, to oblige you, I will not decline any trouble or withdraw from any trust you wish to commit to me. I need not add how infinite the business is in the management of so large an estate at such a distance, and I hope I need still less assure you that I have not, nor can have any motive for engaging in so delicate an office, but a sincere & ­affectionate attachment to your interest & happiness.73 The following week, Townshend visited Buccleuch at Eton, where the Duke accepted his offer, and on 15 September Townshend was nominated as his ‘sole curator’. Townshend accepted, writing to the Duke of Argyll and the Marquis of Tweeddale to inform them of the Duke’s decision, and was confirmed in the position by an Act of Curatory issued by the Court of Session in March of the following year.74 Beyond Townshend’s appointment, the rest of the Duke’s Scottish administration was to remain unaltered, and in February 1761 John Craigie was granted a new commission as Commissioner and Cashier, empowered to manage all of the Duke’s affairs during the remainder of his minority.75 In fact, Craigie had been reassured by Townshend as early as June 1759 that he would continue in his role in the Duke’s administration after a new curator had been chosen, highlighting the fact that Townshend had already been active in the Duke’s affairs well before his legal appointment as curator.76 Indeed, two months after Townshend’s marriage to Lady Dalkeith, Mackenzie had informed Grant that there would be no new instructions until the Duke of Argyll and Townshend met together for ‘an interview’, presumably to delineate each 72

Namier and Brooke, Townshend, 33–4. NRS GD224/296/1 [old catalogue], Townshend to Duke, 10 Sep. 1760. 74 NRS GD224/623/1 p. 165, [Mackenzie] to Archibald Campbell, 1760; NRS GD224/91/1 p. 1, [Mackenzie] to Archibald Campbell, 23 Oct. 1760; State of Management 1768. 75 NRS GD224/623/1 p. 166, [Mackenzie] to Craigie, 23 Oct. 1760; State of Management 1768. 76 NRS GD224/623/1 p. 153, [Mackenzie] to Craigie, 9 Jun. 1759. 73

­

Inheritance (1750–66) 23

man’s role in the future management of the estate.77 Argyll seems to have disapproved of Townshend’s involvement, writing to Tweeddale around the same time that Townshend’s involvement in the management of the estate was ‘absolutely impractable’.78 Whether or not he was warned off by Argyll, Townshend certainly remained in the background at first, and only gradually became more obviously involved in estate matters, his involvement also subject to the ebb and flow of his political career. In the autumn of 1757, he was behind an attempt to purchase land adjacent to the Duke’s grandmother’s estate of Adderbury in Oxfordshire – a residence used by Townshend and the Countess – on behalf of the Duke. By the following summer he was corresponding directly with the Duke’s Scottish commissioners, and shortly after this point orders began to be issued jointly in his and Lady Dalkeith’s names.79 But it was Townshend’s visit to Scotland in the summer of 1759 that really marked the beginning of his active engagement with the management of the Duke’s Scottish estates. The visit, which would last from mid-June until mid-August, was Townshend’s first to Scotland and only Lady Dalkeith’s second since the death of the 2nd Duke.80 During their stay at Dalkeith the couple kept a ‘public day’ once a week and Townshend enthusiastically entered into local society, recording his favourable impressions in a letter to his mother. We see an infinite variety of company here. The whole neighbourhood have dined with us . . . All the lords of session, all the resident gentle men of estate, the gentlemen of law, the presbytery, and every order of men have been to see us, and continual as the hurry has been, I own it has nevertheless been agreeable to me. The women are lively, the men are learned, and both are well bred. Curiosity too has had some merit in my amusement, and the face of this part of the kingdom, so very new to me, independently of the very great civility and personal favour I have met with.81 In turn, Townshend seems to have made a great, if rather short-lived, impression on polite Edinburgh society, particularly by his strong advocacy of a Scottish militia. He was elected as a member of the influential Select Society, presented with the freedom of Edinburgh, and seems to have seriously considered using his Buccleuch and Campbell connections to stand for the soon to be contested parliamentary seat of Edinburgh. There were even suggestions that he should attempt to succeed the Duke of Argyll

77

NRS GD224/623/1 p. 110, [Mackenzie] to Grant, 11 Nov. 1755. Emerson, Enlightened Duke, 457n. 79 NRS GD224/623/1 p.  143, [Mackenzie] to Craigie, 13 Sep.  1757; NRS GD224/623/1 p.  142, Townshend to Marquis of Tweeddale, 10 Jun. 1758; NRS GD224/623/1 p.  153, [Mackenzie] to Craigie, 9 Jun. 1759. 80 NRS GD224/377/10/4, Abstract of Family Accounts at Dalkeith, 1759. 81 Quoted in Namier and Brooke, Townshend, 57. 78

24

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

as political manager for Scotland.82 In the event these designs came to nothing: Argyll quickly put paid to his Scottish political ambitions and, once back in London, Townshend’s interest in the Scottish militia soon evaporated. As Alexander Carlyle observed, ‘Like a meteor Charles dazzled for a moment, but the brilliancy soon faded away, and left no very strong impression.’83 Townshend’s visit would, however, have a more lasting impact upon the Duke’s affairs. It was during his stay that he first met with Adam Smith to discuss his possible involvement in the Duke’s education, but his visit would also have important repercussions for the future management of the estates. During his time at Dalkeith he gave orders for a number of improvements to be instigated around the house and its parks, which included commissioning Robert Adams to design a bridge over the river Esk, and in the following weeks he would go on to correspond with the improver Henry Home, Lord Kames, on the possibility of introducing lace manufacturing to the Buccleuch estates.84 Although nothing seems to have come of this scheme, Townshend did persist with another initiative that he seems to have set in motion during his visit: a plan to send two Norfolk farmers to Dalkeith, to farm part of the parks there and act as an example for the Duke’s tenants.85 Although Townshend himself had no experience of farming or estate management, he came from a Norfolk family that had a history of combining high politics with agricultural improvement, most notably his grandfather, ‘Turnip Townshend’, who had won renown as an agricultural innovator.86 Norfolk was regarded as one of the most advanced agricultural areas of England, the county giving its name to the famous four-course rotation which, with its use of sown grasses and turnips between each year of grain, was seen as an essential element of progressive agriculture.87 It was little wonder, then, that Townshend turned to his home county for improving farmers to spread the new agriculture to the Duke’s Scottish estates.88 82

Namier and Brooke, Townshend, 57–8; Carlyle, Anecdotes, 197–9, 203; R. L. Emerson, ‘The Social Composition of Enlightened Scotland: The Select Society of Edinburgh, 1754– 1764’, Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century, 114 (1973), 291–329; J. Robertson, The Scottish Enlightenment and the Militia Issue (Edinburgh, 1985), 107–10. 83 Carlyle, Anecdotes, 199. 84 NRS GD224/377/10/7 [2], Note of Disbursement by Kenneth Mackenzie; NRS GD224/295/3/15 [old catalogue], Gilbert Grierson to Charles Townshend, 6 Oct. 1759; NRS GD224/295/3/17 [old catalogue], Andrew Fletcher [of Saltoun] to [?], 11 Nov. 1759; NRS GD224/295/3/37 [old catalogue], John Dalrymple to Townshend, 16 Oct. 1759; NRS GD224/295/3/16 [old catalogue], Henry Home to Townshend, 23 Feb. 1760. 85 NRS GD224/377/10/7 [2], Note of Disbursement by Kenneth Mackenzie. 86 S. Wade Martins, ‘Turnip’ Townshend: Statesman and Farmer (North Walsham, 1990). 87 S. Wade Martins, Farmers, Landlords and Landscapes: Rural Britain, 1720 to 1870 (Macclesfield, 2004), 120. 88 For other examples of attempts to bring English farmers to Scottish estates, particularly from Norfolk, see M. Glendinning and S. Wade Martins, Buildings of the Land: Scotland’s

­

Inheritance (1750–66) 25

The first mention of the scheme came two months after Townshend’s return to London, with a letter from the Dalkeith chamberlain informing him that preparations were well under way for the ‘bailiff’ that Townshend was proposing to send the following February.89 On 29 January, the two farmers, Phillip Buskall and his partner James Edgar, set out from London for Dalkeith. Described by the Duke’s London agent as ‘men of character & substance’, they were to manage the parks at Dalkeith and be paid a salary of £50 a year together with weekly expenses of around £1 and 8s.90 Housed in what had been the gardener’s house, Buskall and Edgar were to have the use of the stables, barn, and outhouses, and were to be supplied with all the tools and utensils they required. In addition to draining, enclosing, and improving ‘all the parks beyond the deer park’ as they saw fit, the farmers were to build a dairy and extend the ‘offices’ or farm buildings.91 In all of this, the Dalkeith chamberlain was directed to ‘take care nothing shall be wanting to enable them to pursue the undertaking’ although the farmers were to be required to keep a careful account of all their ‘charges & profits’.92 At the end of February, Townshend signalled his approval of the farmers’ initial proposals and ordered them to begin their ‘operations’ as soon as possible, particularly the division and enclosure of the parks.93 According to Townshend’s agent George Campbell, the farmers’ impact was almost immediate. Barely a month after their arrival, Campbell wrote to Townshend suggesting that the farmers were already ‘a greater acquisition to this country than it has made for many years’. Campbell went on to make a suggestion he believed would ‘render their influence in the Duke of Buccleugh’s estate more universal’: each of the Duke’s chamberlains should be required to ‘dress’ at least one acre of ground a year according to the farmers’ directions; doing so, he argued, would ‘diffuse their practice in agriculture to every corner of the estate’.94 Although Campbell’s suggestion was not taken up, it soon became apparent that the farmers’ role was to involve more than just managing the Duke’s home farm at Dalkeith. That summer, instructions issued in Lady Dalkeith’s and Townshend’s names stated that they were ‘mighty desireous’ that, where suitable, enclosures Farms 1750–2000 (Edinburgh, 2008), 22–3; J. E. Handley, The Agricultural Revolution in Scotland (Glasgow, 1963), 2–3, 9, 203; T. C. Smout, A History of the Scottish People, 1560–1830 (London, [1969] 1985), 274. 89 NRS GD224/295/15 [old catalogue], Gilbert Grierson to Townshend, 6 Oct. 1759; State of Management 1768, p. 14. 90 NRS GD224/623/1 p.  159, [Mackenzie] to Craigie, 31 Jan. 1760; NRS GD224/623/1 p. 164, [Mackenzie] to Gilbert Grierson, 14 Jun. 1760. 91 NRS GD224/623/1 p.  158, [Mackenzie] to Gilbert Grierson, 29 Jan. 1760. NRS GD224/623/1 p. 161, [Mackenzie] to Buskall, 28 Feb. 1760. 92 NRS GD224/623/1. p. 158, [Mackenzie] to Gilbert Grierson, 29 Jan. 1760. 93 NRS GD224/623/1 p. 161, [Mackenzie] to Buskall, 28 Feb. 1760. 94 NRS GD224/295/3/3 [old catalogue], George Campbell to Townshend, 6 Mar. 1760.

26

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

should be made upon the estate at the Duke’s expense.95 Eight months later, in February 1761, Mackenzie wrote to Buskall, informing him of Townshend’s satisfaction with his work so far and requesting that he should ride to Canonbie ‘and some other parts of the Duke’s estate near the border’, to make observations on what improvements might be made to the farms there. Furthermore, if any farm suitable for improvement could be ‘conveniently got’ for Mr Elgar, Townshend would ‘not only give it him, but assist him with money towards the improvement’.96 Mackenzie also passed on the suggestion to John Craigie, who in turn suggested he should take Buskall along with him to the next landsetting. At the same time Craigie also suggested a plan that would come to be known as the ‘five per cent scheme’, whereby, at the tenant’s request, the estate would meet the cost of enclosing their farm, with the tenant paying an additional annual rent of 5% of the total outlay. Mackenzie replied that Townshend had no objections to the scheme but ordered that no money should be given out to the tenants until Buskall had made an assessment of each farm, including the extent of improvements possible and the best manner in which they could be made, along with an estimate of the cost.97 Townshend’s suggested role for Buskall was the first step towards the evolution of a new position on the estate and one which would have far-­ reaching consequences for the future management of the estates – the post of ‘overseer of improvements’. The extent to which Buskall actually took on, or was even capable of, these duties is, however, unclear. According to one well-informed account, Buskall had in fact been ‘bred an exciseman’ and ‘had little knowledge of farming’.98 Perhaps in acknowledgement of this, three years later, in March 1764, Townshend hired another Norfolk man, John Church, to act as ‘steward’ on the estate. Church was an experienced farmer, having managed several large farms in the vicinity of Norwich, with practical knowledge of both arable husbandry and stock rearing, but his initial assignment was to oversee the Duke’s woods in Eskdale and Canonbie.99 By the following year, however, he was operating under the title of Overseer of Improvements and Plantations, and in 1766 he replaced Buskall as the manager of the farm and parks at Dalkeith. Church split his time between Dalkeith and his farm in Canonbie, which he had been given by Townshend, fulfilling his earlier plan of using the English farmers to encourage improvement by example.100 95

NRS GD224/621/1 p. 163, Mackenzie to Craigie, 14 Jun. 1760. NRS GD224/91/1 p. 7, [Mackenzie] to Buskall, 28 Feb. 1761. 97 NRS GD224/248/23 pp.  14–15, General review of Duke’s affairs, Apr. 1750 to 13 Sep. 1767; NRS GD224/91/1 p. 8, [Mackenzie] to Craigie, 26 Mar. 1761. 98 NRS GD1/975/8, Life of James Church of Moss Tower, [Dec 1814] [hereafter, Life of James Church [1814]]. 99 Life of James Church [1814]; NRS GD224/459 p.  102, Memorandum from Mr. Farquharson, [n.d.]. 100 Buskall, by this time an old man, had returned to Norfolk, where he received an annuity 96

­

Inheritance (1750–66) 27

Townshend’s personal involvement in these attempts to introduce improved husbandry, not only to the home farm at Dalkeith but to the wider estate, is indicative of a general shift in priorities that can be discerned during his administration. In 1760 there was a further attempt made, albeit unsuccessfully, to grant longer leases. The following year, a thorough reorganisation of the role and duties of the estate’s chamberlains began, marking the first steps in their development from part-time officials to full-time professionals. Their ‘chamberlain farms’ and the feudal services due from the tenants were relinquished, while their salaries were raised and their collections rationalised to give a more equitable distribution of the rental.101 Townshend also used the Duke’s money to pass a Turnpike Bill through Parliament to build the Scots Dyke to Haremoss road, while in 1766 a survey of the estate was commissioned with a view to ascertaining its improvement potential.102 Not all of these initiatives came from Townshend himself: indeed, the majority of the detailed proposals seem to have originated from Craigie and the Scottish commissioners. But all of the reforms required Townshend’s (and, at least in theory, the young Duke’s) approval, and there is no doubt that he was instrumental in ­promoting a new attitude towards the management of the estate. This change of approach was particularly evident in the estate’s developing policy towards land purchases. As early as January 1761 it was reported by Mackenzie that Townshend seemed ‘rather more desirous to improve the estates already in possession, than to purchase any more’.103 The previous year, Townshend had ordered that a report should be made into the ‘circumstances’ of an estate that the Scottish commissioners had recommended for purchase, specifying that this should include an assessment of the extent to which it was ‘improvable’ – the first time this criterion had been raised regarding the purchase of land during the Duke’s minority.104 The following year, after Townshend reluctantly approved the purchase of a further estate, it was reported that this should not be considered as a precedent as he believed the Duke’s estate required ‘more improvement than enlargement’.105 Although over £20,000 was still spent on new land in Scotland during Townshend’s administration, this still worked out at less than half the annual average of the earlier period of the minority, and of the five significant purchases made during his administration, two were

from the Duke of £42. State of Management 1768, pp. 18, 34, 39; Life of James Church [1814]; NRS GD224/268/11, John Craigie Accounts and vouchers, Mar. 1766−20 Feb. 1767. 101 NRS GD224/83/6/10, Plan for distributing the collecting of rents . . ., [n.d.]. 102 I. S. Ross, ‘Educating an Eighteenth-Century Duke’, in G. W. S. Barrow (ed.), The Scottish Tradition: Essays in Honour of R. G. Cant (Edinburgh, 1974), 197. 103 NRS GD224/91/1 p. 6, [Mackenzie] to Craigie, 8 Jan. 1761. 104 NRS GD224/623/1 p. 163, [Mackenzie] to Craigie, 14 Jun. 1760. 105 NRS GD224/91/1 p. 23, [Mackenzie] to Craigie, 16 Mar. 1762.

28

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

already under way before he became curator, albeit with his consent.106 There also seems to have been less political motivation behind the new purchases than during the earlier period, although Townshend did actively manage the Duke’s electoral interest and the practice of vote creation ­continued under his orders.107 There were other reasons, however, behind the decrease in purchases under Townshend. The rationale behind the earlier expansion of the estate was partly to find the best means of employing the surplus revenue during the minority, particularly the savings made in expenditure since the death of the Earl of Dalkeith and the 2nd Duke. Although Lady Dalkeith had not claimed any money from the estate for the Duke’s education and maintenance until early 1756, from that point onwards the Duke’s personal expenses had risen from £600 to £1,000 per annum after 1761, with an additional £5,000 set aside for use by the Duke during his tour abroad, from 1764 to 1766.108 An even greater factor in the reduction of money available for new purchases in Scotland, however, was Townshend’s own preoccupation with the expansion and improvement of the Adderbury estate in Oxfordshire.109 From the beginning of Duke Henry’s minority, his funds had been used to purchase additional land in and around the Adderbury estate, with a view to enhancing and consolidating the grounds there, with £774 worth of land being purchased there between 1750 and 1755.110 In 1756 a further £1,100 of the Duke’s money had been agreed for the purchase of some meadows and cottages which lay in the middle of the garden there, described as ‘extremely necessary for the owner of that seat’.111 The first mention of Townshend’s involvement came the following year, when Craigie and the Court of Session expressed their reluctance to authorise any further purchases for the Adderbury estate. In response, Townshend proposed to purchase the land there himself and later pass it on to the Duke at the same price.112 In the following years Adderbury became something of an obsession for Townshend, with it becoming his 106

State of Management 1768; NRS GD224/584/11/4, Note of Purchases, Jul. 1759; NRS GD224/324/7/10, Abstract of the Rental . . . 1763, 16 Mar. 1767; NRS GD224/91/1 pp. 6–23, [Mackenzie] to Craigie, 8 Jan. 1761, 16 Mar. 1762. 107 NRS GD224/295/2/19, 39, Archibald Campbell to Mackenzie, 6 Aug., 24 Sep. 1763; NRS GD224/83/7/1–11, Various papers on vote creation, Archibald Campbell, 1763–4; NRS GD224/925/4/9, Townshend to Gilbert Elliot, 28 Oct. 1764. 108 NRS GD224/623/1 p.  113, [Mackenzie] to Craigie, 20 Feb. 1756; NRS GD224/623/1 pp.  136–7, [Mackenzie] to Archibald Campbell, 14 May 1757; NRS GD224/91/1 pp. 17–18 [Mackenzie] to Craigie, 28 Nov. 1761; NRS GD224/91/1 [no page number], [Mackenzie] to Craigie, 27 Nov. 1764. 109 N. Allen, Adderbury: A Thousand Years of History (Chichester, 1995), 97. 110 NRS GD224/86/1/1, Legal Papers between the Duke of Buccleuch and Lady Greenwich, 1768. 111 NRS GD224/623/1 pp. 115–16, 120, [Mackenzie] to Craigie, 26 Apr., 17 Jul. 1756. 112 NRS GD224/623/1 p. 143, [Mackenzie] to Craigie, 13 Sep. 1757; NRS GD224/86/1/1, Legal Papers between the Duke of Buccleuch and Lady Greenwich, 1768.

­

Inheritance (1750–66) 29

favourite residence and the place to which he retreated when he fell out of favour at Westminster.113 Over the next eight years he spent just under £20,000 of the Duke’s money on additions to the manor and further improvements to the parks and pleasure grounds there, including the hiring of Capability Brown to remodel the grounds and the funding of a Parliamentary Enclosure Act.114 The improvements Townshend made there were primarily ornamental, designed, in his own words, ‘to give the place extent, variety, & chearfulness’, and by 1766 he could boast to the Duke that he had made it ‘beautiful & magnificent’ and ‘the prettiest place in England’.115 As late as February 1767 it was noted that very nearly £7,000 would soon be required for Adderbury purchases and that Townshend was ‘greatly in advance’. In fact, he had already borrowed over £20,300 from Pay Office funds, seemingly to lend to Buccleuch, which were used to finance the Adderbury improvements.116 According to Mackenzie the Duke was well aware of the purchases at Adderbury, at least up to the end of 1761: in November of that year he noted that ‘there has not been a cottage bought, for these two years, but his Grace knows as well as any of his servants who have the direction of the inclosures’, and certainly the Duke was a frequent visitor to Adderbury, spending part of his school holidays there. Townshend’s correspondence with the Duke during his Grand Tour also suggests that he was kept much more informed about Adderbury than his Scottish estates, with Adderbury being mentioned in six of the eight surviving letters.117 But, more than any other aspect of his administration, it seems to have been Townshend’s carelessness regarding Adderbury that would later lead the Duke to characterise his curatorship as one of ‘mismanagement’. Despite claims that necessary transfers of titles had been taken care of, most of the purchases were conveyed to Townshend and his heirs without any declaration of trust that they were being held for the Duke.118 Although Lady Dalkeith would inherit the Manor of Adderbury from her mother in 1767, and then almost immediately gift it to the Duke as a wedding present, Townshend’s oversight was not discovered until later that year, when he died suddenly without having made a will, with his affairs in great confusion.119 113

Namier and Brooke, Townshend, 53–5. Apart from the introduction of a lake, Brown’s plans were never realised. Allen, Adderbury, 90, 99; NRS RHP13771, Plan for a garden at [Adderbury House?]: [18th century]; Oxfordshire Record Office, M1/1/F1/14, Adderbury Chief rent roll 1764. 115 Townshend to Buccleuch, 13 May, 16 Oct. 1766, in Ross, ‘Educating’, 194, 197. 116 For this and Townshend’s other ‘financial ventures’, see Namier and Brooke, House of Commons, vol. 3, 546. 117 Ross, ‘Educating’, 180–97. 118 NRS GD224/86/1/1, Legal Papers between the Duke of Buccleuch and Lady Greenwich, 1768. 119 NRS GD224/324/7/25, Lady Dalkeith to Archibald Campbell, 5 Jun. 1767; NRS GD224/91/1 pp.  16–17, [Mackenzie] to Craigie, 14 Nov. 1761; NRS GD224/86/1/1, Legal Papers between the Duke of Buccleuch and Lady Greenwich, 1768. The Duke’s 114

30

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

Taken as a whole, the Duke’s minority had seen a number of important developments to the administration of the estate. The early administrative reforms under the supervision of the Duke of Argyll brought a more exacting standard to the supervision of the legal and financial aspects of the estate’s management, producing the ‘more regularity and exactness’ that had been intended, and formed the institutional basis for the later administration of the estate. In at least one area, the reforms also had implications for the development of professional estate management in Scotland as a whole. Alexander Farquharson, who replaced his uncle Francis Farquharson in the role of estate accountant in 1767, would go on to play a central role in the development of specialised estate accountancy throughout Scotland, with his pupils going on to audit virtually all of the country’s great estates.120 There was also a gradual but discernible shift towards a more conscious policy of encouraging improvement, firstly under Craigie’s administration but more particularly under Townshend’s curatorship.  Despite his mismanagement of the Duke’s funds – which does, on the whole, appear to be due to negligence rather than fraud – there is no doubt that his administration introduced a more improvement-orientated approach to the management of the Buccleuch estates, and a general shift away from expansion and towards improvement. His promotion of new husbandry methods through the introduction of the Norfolk farmers eventually led to the creation of the position of overseer of improvements, a post which would go on to play a central role in estate policy under the 3rd Duke. The reorganisation of the estate’s chamberlains also marked the beginning of their development from part-time officials to full-time professional estate administrators. These initiatives were further supported by the allocation of an extra £1,000 a year to be used for ‘improvements and plantations’ on the estate, and overall improvement expenditure rose markedly from an average of £781 per annum in the first part of the minority to around £1,757 per year under Townshend’s administration.121 That said, it is important not to overstate either the shift towards improvement or Townshend’s own role. Townshend’s personal involvement was sporadic at best, depending in part on the ebb and flow of his ministerial career. Beyond the initial burst of activity following his visit of 1759, most of the suggestions regarding the reform of the estate originated with his Scottish commissioners, with the actual day-to-day management of the estate remaining in John Craigie’s hands. The increased spending on improvement has also to be qualified. Improvement expenditure covered aunt, Lady Mary Coke, described the ‘perplexed & intricate’ nature of Townshend’s affairs, concluding, ‘Never was there a man that left his affairs in such disorder.’ Coke, Journals, vol. 2, 126, 130–1. 120 NRS GD224/388/16/12; I. H. Adams, ‘The Agents of Agricultural Change’, in M. L. Parry and T. R. Slater (eds), The Making of the Scottish Countryside (London, 1980), 166. 121 NRS GD224/284/23, Abstract of Repairs, 1751–1766.

­

Inheritance (1750–66) 31

a broad range of outlays, including the repair and maintenance of the estate’s mansion houses and mills, as well as the estate’s contribution to the repair of tenants’ houses. Furthermore, the Dalkeith estate accounted for a disproportionate amount of improvement expenditure, taking up more than half of the total budget while representing less than 10% of the landed estate by rental value, suggesting that the lion’s share of this investment went towards the improvement of Dalkeith House, its home farm and policies rather than the other estates.122 A series of memoranda and reports drawn up around the time of the Duke’s coming of age also point towards the limited effects of the minority reforms on the actual condition of the estate. A report investigating the estate’s policy on repairing tenants’ houses and the management of the estate’s woods stated that the reforms introduced during the minority would ‘not admit of being often repeated’, and that ‘experience had evinced, that this method had been [as] lyable to trick and imposition’ as the earlier system. The report concluded that ‘the ruinous state in which the generality of the tenants houses are at present’ meant that a new system was urgently required.123 Another memorial described the general state of the Duke’s mills in similar terms: of the South Country estates’ twenty-two mills, seventeen were classed as in need of thorough repair in consequence of their dilapidated state.124 Despite the various initiatives introduced during the minority to improve the management of the Duke’s woods, a report of 1769 revealed that sustained and heavy harvesting of timber by the tenants for repairs, combined with the poor management of the remaining trees, had left many parts of the woods ‘exhausted’ with ‘nothing left but gleanings at best, for no one but the fire’. ‘Such in time must be the fare of all the woods’, the report warned, ‘if not timeously prevented’. Indeed, it was noted that there was now no timber fit for building left on the Teviotdalehead estate and ‘none at all’ upon the estate of Eckford. The one exception were the woods of Canonbie and Eskdale, which had been put under the management of John Church: there, the situation was markedly better, with the proper enclosure of plantations leading to young trees being ‘preserved and in a thriving way’. The report concluded that only the extension of such a system of careful management could preserve the woods from what it described as ‘the gradual waste in which they have been languishing for ages past, that has extinguished them in part and if not prevented will in time totally anighilate them’.125 Although there is some evidence of individual farmers beginning to improve their holdings during the minority, this seems to have been very limited, with little evidence of enclosure or the use of new husbandry 122

NRS GD224/284/23, Abstract of Repairs, 1751–66. NRS GD224/459 p. 57, Memorial concerning the repairs, Jun. 1769. 124 NRS GD224/459 p. 115, Memorial concerning the corn milns, n.d. [ca. 1770–1]. 125 NRS GD224/459 pp. 58–61, Memorial concerning the repairs, Jun. 1769. 123

32

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

methods. On the whole, multiple tenancies still dominated the lowland arable estates, with land held in runrig, and organised around the traditional infield-outfield system, making improvements almost impossible to implement by individual farmers. And although single tenancies were much more widespread on the stock-rearing farms of the upland estates, accounting for two-thirds of all such tenancies by 1766, the general consensus was that these farms could not generally be ‘improved’ by the new husbandry methods advocated by improvers.126 Although the overall rental of the estate did rise during the minority – by 1766 the gross rental had risen to just over £19,074, a rise of £1,660 since 1759 – once the increase from the new purchases is allowed for, the rise was modest and took place mostly in the latter stages, when Townshend began to make moves towards raising the rents.127 In a letter to the Duke in 1766, summarising the findings of a survey he had commissioned, Townshend described the estate as ‘ill tenanted & under let’. By the outlay of a ‘moderate annual sum’, however, he argued the rents might be doubled, adding that although it would be unpopular he would happily face the ‘odium’ for the Duke.128 An important mitigating factor in all this was the limitations of managing the estate of a minor. While these constraints actually led to many of the earlier reforms, particularly the attempt to introduce a ‘more exact’ administration, there were limits to the reforms that could be implemented even if the managers of the estate had wanted: the tutors or curator were unable, for example, to instigate the division of ‘commonties’, or to grant leases that could not be revoked by the Duke when he came of age.129 And as that date neared, there was an increasing reluctance on the part of the Duke’s commissioners to embark on any new initiatives or reforms. This, then, was the estate that Duke Henry inherited when he came of age on 13 September 1767. There had been some important administrative reforms made during the minority, and, particularly under Townshend, there were the beginnings of a shift towards a more improvement-minded approach to the management of the estate. On the ground, however, there was little discernible change, and the Duke himself would later describe 126

NRS GD224/389/2/1, Hints for improving the Duke of Buccleugh’s Estate, [William Ogilvie] Apr. 1767. For details of the condition of the estate in 1767, see Chapters 4 and 5 below. 127 In April 1761 orders were given from Townshend to see ‘how far some particular farms can bear an additional rent, and act accordingly for the benefit of the land lord without overstraining the tenants’. NRS GD224/91/1 p. 9, [Mackenzie] to Craigie, 18 Apr. 1761; NRS GD224/324/7/10, Abstract of Rental, 1763; NRS GD224/284/23, Abstract of Rental, 1751–66. 128 Ross, ‘Educating’, 197. 129 A number of commonties partly owned by the Duke were divided during his minority, but these were instigated by other landowners. NRS GD224/325, Division of Commonties, 1755–65; I. H. Adams, ‘Division of the Commonty of Hassendean 1761–1763’, The Stair Society, Miscellany 1 (1971), 171–92. For the Duke’s inability to instigate a division, see NRS GD224/91/1 p. 6, [Mackenzie] to Craigie, 24 Jan. 1761.

­

Inheritance (1750–66) 33 himself as ‘little obliged’ to his stepfather for the management of his affairs. He did, however, admit to one ‘service’ that his stepfather had done him, which ‘amply made up for every future inattention to my affairs’: namely, his pivotal role in the Duke’s education.130

130

NRS GD224/295/2/35 [old catalogue], Duke to Lord Advocate [Henry Dundas], 29 Oct. 1779.

Chapter Two

Education (1746–66) In later life, the 3rd Duke of Buccleuch would look back on his early childhood as a profoundly unhappy one, characterised above all by a sense of neglect. Lady Dalkeith, herself the product of an unorthodox upbringing, seems to have been a distant and at times vindictive mother whose parenting style was described by one observer as little short of ‘domestic tyranny’.1 She had no qualms in sending Henry off at ‘a very young age’ to a private boarding school, Dr Fountaine’s of Marylebone, where, he would later recall, he languished ‘almost neglected by my mother, neglected in every respect as to my learning by the masters of the school unknown to my family and connections’.2 Although presenting itself as an exclusive seminary for gentlemen of rank, Fountaine’s was in reality, as one of the Duke’s fellow-pupils there would later remark, ‘more of a nursery than a school’. Boys were admitted as soon as they had ‘breeched’ (usually between the ages of three and seven) and left around the age of twelve or thirteen.3 Despite him being taught very little there – he later recalled spending most of his time ‘living with, and indulged by’ the school’s servants – the one thing the teachers did instil in the young Duke was an acute awareness of his aristocratic standing. Indeed, as the highest-ranking boy in the school he was often paraded in front of visitors to bolster the school’s credentials; as he later recalled, Though I knew I was the last boy in the school as a scholar I felt no shame on that account. But I know I was the first in rank, for they had not been negligent to instruct me upon that point. With that idea and with such an education Mr. Townshend found me when he married my mother.4

1

P.  Dickson, Red John of the Battles: John, 2nd Duke of Argyll and 1st Duke of Greenwich, 1680–1743 (London, 1973), 204; I. G. Lindsay and M. Cosh, Inveraray and the Dukes of Argyll (Edinburgh, 1973), 5; A. Carlyle, Anecdotes and Characters of the Times, ed. J. Kinsley (London, 1973), 201, 249, 251; Lady L. Stuart, Memoire of Frances, Lady Douglas, ed. J. Rubenstein (Edinburgh, 1985), 32–4. 2 NRS GD224/295/2/35 [old catalogue], Duke to Lord Advocate [Henry Dundas], 29 Oct. 1779; R. A. Austen-Leigh, The Eton College Register, 1753–1790 (Eton, 1921), 76. 3 J. Trusler, Memoirs of the Life of the Rev. Dr. Trusler (Bath, 1806), 36. 4 NRS GD224/295/2/35 [old catalogue], Duke to Lord Advocate [Henry Dundas], 29 Oct. 1779; NRS GD224/295/2/36; P.  Langford, A Polite and Commercial People: England 1727–1783 (Oxford, 1989), 88.

­

Education (1746–66) 35

The marriage of Charles Townshend to Lady Dalkeith in September 1755, shortly after the Duke’s ninth birthday, did indeed mark a turning point in young Henry’s life. Although it seems to have been largely a strategic marriage Townshend did take a genuine and active interest in the upbringing of all four of his stepchildren, and, most significantly for the Duke, in the direction of their education. His first act in this respect was to insist that Henry be removed from Fountaine’s school and sent to Eton College. In February 1756 the first legal arrangements were made to secure an allowance from the Duke’s estate to pay for the increased cost of his education and upkeep, and on 14 May of the following year it was confirmed that £600 per annum had been settled for this purpose.5 Two weeks prior to this, on 1 May 1757, the ten-year-old Duke and his two younger brothers, Campbell, aged nine, and eight-year-old James, were enrolled at Eton College. The boys boarded with the Graham sisters, whose lodgings were in the northern half of the Corner House, a short walk across the churchyard to the College Chapel and the school itself.6 Around the same time Townshend secured the services of a private tutor, Dr John Hallam, to supplement the Duke’s public lessons in the school.7 Buccleuch had strong family connections to the college: both his father and his maternal grandfather had been pupils there, as had his paternal grandfather, the 2nd Duke of Buccleuch, who had been buried in the school chapel in 1751.8 However, as Duke Henry later made clear, the decision to send him and his brothers to Eton came from his stepfather rather than his mother or other relatives.9 Although Townshend himself had not studied at Eton, his elder brother George had, and his family had a number of links to the school, particularly to the current headmaster, Dr Edward Barnard, who had previously acted as a tutor to Townshend’s cousins and seems to have owed his appointment to the influence of Townshend’s uncle, Thomas Townshend MP.10 Perhaps more important to Townshend, a man keenly aware of the importance of social and political connections, was the increasing popularity of the school among the British aristocracy. 5

This was backdated to the couple’s marriage. NRS GD224/623/1 p. 113, [Mackenzie] to Craigie, 20 Feb. 1756; NRS GD224/623/1 pp. 136–7, [Mackenzie] to John Craigie, 14 May 1757. 6 Francis and Mary Graham were daughters of Dr Andrew Graham, a private tutor at Eton. The sisters boarded a number of boys, including, from 1763, James George DouglasHamilton, the 7th Duke of Hamilton, and his younger brother (and later 8th Duke) Lord Douglas-Hamilton. Austen-Leigh, Eton College, xxix, 76, 242, 244, 466. 7 Austen-Leigh, Eton College, 76; J. Rae, Life of Adam Smith (London, 1895), 252. 8 W. Fraser, The Scotts of Buccleuch, vol. 1 (Edinburgh, 1878), 555. 9 NRS GD224/295/2/35 [old catalogue], Buccleuch to Lord Advocate [Henry Dundas], 29 Oct. 1779. 10 L. B. Namier and J. Brooke, Charles Townshend (London, 1964), 3; H. C. Maxwell-Lyte, A History of Eton College (1440–1910) (London, 1911), 330–1. Thomas Townshend, younger brother of Charles Townshend’s father, was MP for Cambridge University from 1727 to 1774. Namier and Brooke, Townshend, 9n.

36

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

The first half of the eighteenth century had seen the preferences of the nobility begin to shift away from private tuition at home towards public education, with the number of peers attending the four major public schools in England more than doubling during the course of the century.11 Eton was no exception to this wider trend: indeed, Dr Barnard, later described by Horace Walpole as ‘the Pitt of masters’ who ‘raised the school to the most flourishing state it ever knew’, was credited not only with the college’s substantial growth during this period, but also with attracting a growing number of aristocrats.12 The rank and wealth of his students was of particular concern to a headmaster, who derived much of his income from the entrance fees and leaving money paid by non-resident fee-paying students such as Buccleuch.13 By 1761, when the school’s roll reached 500 for the first time, the Duke was one of twenty-three sons of peers attending. Five years later, fifty of the 483 pupils were identified as noblemen, noblemen’s sons, or baronets, the school’s aristocratic credentials having been further bolstered by the royal endorsement of George III’s visit in 1762.14 Despite this growing popularity, many remained critical of the quality of education provided at Eton and the other major public schools. Although Dr Barnard was praised for his administrative reforms and the relative good order of his regime, the curriculum at Eton remained essentially unchanged and continued to be based almost exclusively on the study of the classics. After a grounding in Latin grammar supplemented with a few hours a week of basic writing and arithmetic, the pupils would then move on to the translating, composing, construing, and parsing in Latin that would be the main focus of their studies. This would continue as the boys progressed through the school, where they would move on to Greek and a wider range of more sophisticated classical authors. In their later years there might be some study of elementary algebra, geometry, and geography, but there was no attempt to include any modern authors in the curriculum.15 In addition to the narrowness of the curriculum, contemporaries also criticised the overall quality of teaching and supervision available at large public schools compared with that given by private tutors at home, and expressed concerns over the detrimental effect that such indiscipline might have on the morals of those attending.16 Buccleuch himself 11

J. V. Beckett, The Aristocracy in England, 1660–1914 (Oxford, 1986), 99; M. A. Henry, ‘The Making of Elite Culture’, in H. T. Dickinson (ed.), A Companion to Eighteenth-Century Britain (Oxford, 2002), 316. 12 Quoted in T. Card, Eton Established: A History from 1440 to 1860 (London, 2001), 87–9. 13 P.  Quarrie, ‘The Eton Leaving Portraits’, in Leaving Portraits from Eton College (London, 1991), 7. 14 Card, Eton Established, 87–9; Austen-Leigh, Eton College, xxi; Maxwell-Lyte, Eton College, 326–7; Langford, Polite and Commercial People, 83–4. 15 Maxwell-Lyte, Eton College, 310–14; Card, Eton Established, 89–92. 16 Langford, Polite and Commercial People, 87–8; J. Cannon, Aristocratic Century: The Peerage of Eighteenth-Century England (Cambridge, 1984), 34.

­

Education (1746–66) 37

would later admit to the ‘many defects’ of a public education, doubting in particular the ability of the masters to give ‘that minute attention to young men in the point of learning’ that he thought was necessary. However, he still believed that it remained the best ‘plan of education’ available for a young nobleman in Britain, particularly if the public classes were supplemented by a private tutor.17 Although he seems to have remained a shy and introverted boy, somewhat in the shadow of his more confident and outgoing younger brother Campbell, and despite the death of his youngest brother James less than a year after their enrolment there, Henry seems to have thrived at Eton.18 Certainly in later life he was in no doubt of the benefit of his time there. Writing in 1779 in what was a candid and at times emotional letter to his close friend Henry Dundas, Buccleuch explained his decision to send his own eldest son to Eton, declaring that ‘no person ever derived so much advantage from a public education as I did’. Although he admitted arriving at Eton with ‘many disadvantages’, some of which he had ‘never got the better of’, the Duke concluded that ‘I am very sure I derived many very solid advantages and those most material for a person of my rank and ­situation in life’.19 The ‘solid advantages’ that Buccleuch was so conscious of manifested themselves on a number of levels, all of which had a bearing on the perceived appropriateness of a public education for those intending to participate in public life.20 The very ‘roughness’ of public school life that many critics deplored was believed by others to encourage the kind of physical robustness and ‘manly’ values needed to take part in the cut and thrust of eighteenth-century political life. At the same time, the social networks forged amongst members of what was still a relatively small elite were crucial for participating in a system where personal connections rather than party loyalties still underpinned political life. It was, however, in the shaping of a shared set of values and beliefs that public education came to be seen as the most befitting form of preparation for the ‘natural leaders’ of the nation. It was here that the immersion in the classics, with their stress on patriotism and civic leadership, helped to engender a common culture centred around ideas of duty, public service, and ‘the rightness of patrician rule’.21 Indeed, it was during the Duke’s time at Eton that these very values were becoming increasingly emphasised through a number of ceremonies

17

NRS GD224/295/2/35 [old catalogue], Duke to Lord Advocate [Henry Dundas], 29 Oct. 1779. 18 Carlyle, Anecdotes, 179; Austen-Leigh, Eton College, 466. 19 NRS GD224/295/2/35 [old catalogue], Duke to Lord Advocate [Henry Dundas], 29 Oct. 1779. 20 Cannon, Aristocratic Century, 34. 21 Cannon, Aristocratic Century, 34; L. Colley, Britons: Forging the Nation 1707–1837 (Yale, 1992), 170.

38

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

Figure 2.1:  Henry, 3rd Duke of Buccleuch, a portrait of the Duke while a pupil at Eton College, by Catherine Read. After the neglect of his early years, the Duke thrived at Eton, later describing how ‘no person ever derived so much advantage from a public education as I did’. Reproduced by courtesy of His Grace the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.

and ‘traditions’ instigated under Barnard.22 And it was this ‘fitness’ of the Duke’s education to prepare him for a future career in public life that was central to Townshend’s plan of education for his stepson. Writing in February 1761, Townshend congratulated the fourteen-year-old Duke on his ‘application, improvement, and conduct’, adding that his ‘daily progress in every excellence of mind is the pride of your friends & family’. When I tell you how sincerely you will in the future course of your life rejoice in the use of every talent & degree of knowledge you now acquire, I mean not to encourage, but to congratulate you, and to speak of your future figure in public life with a pleasing confidence which you have already given me.23 22 23

Colley, Britons, 167–70. NRS GD224/296/1 [old catalogue], Townshend to Duke, 24 Feb. 1761.

­

Education (1746–66) 39 And it was with the Duke’s ‘future figure in public life’ very much in mind that Townshend fixed on the idea of employing the philosopher Adam Smith to finish his education by way of a Grand Tour of Europe.

The first indication that Townshend was considering Smith as a possible tutor for the Duke came in April 1759, two years after Henry had started at Eton. Townshend was among a number of prominent politicians to be sent a presentation copy of Smith’s first major work, his Theory of Moral Sentiments.24 Soon after, Smith’s close friend and fellow philosopher David Hume, then in London, informed him that ‘Charles Townshend, who passes for the cleverest fellow in England, is so taken with the performance, that he said . . . he wou’d put the Duke of Buccleugh under the author’s care, & woud endeavour to make it worth his while to accept of that charge’. Hume had called twice on Townshend hoping to pursue the matter, but had missed him, and, in a wry reference to his political vacillations, cautioned that ‘Mr Townshend passes for being a little uncertain in his resolutions; so perhaps you need not build much on this sally’.25 Despite Hume’s reservations, Townshend did, however, pursue the matter further when, later that year, he accompanied Lady Dalkeith on their two-month visit to Scotland.26 During his stay, Townshend travelled to Glasgow to meet with Smith, who at this point held the chair of Moral Philosophy at the university there. It seems likely that it was at this point that Smith agreed in principle to act as tutor and travelling companion to the Duke once his studies at Eton had been completed.27 As a first step in this relationship, Townshend commissioned Smith to purchase a number of books for the Duke from the Foulis Press in Glasgow. Although it is unclear whether Smith actually chose the titles or was merely passing on Townshend’s order, the forty-six books, all by Latin or Greek authors, contained several of Smith’s favourite Stoic authors whom he would have thought particularly suitable for the education of a young man.28 Four years later, in October 1763, with Buccleuch approaching his final term at Eton, Townshend renewed contact with Smith. According to Townshend, the Duke had recently made ‘great progress’ in his ‘knowledge of ancient languages and in his general taste for composition’ with the result that his ‘amusement from reading and his love of instruction have naturally increased’. 24

Smith’s friends David Hume and Alexander Wedderburn sent presentation copies on Smith’s behalf to a number of politicians including Buccleuch’s uncle, the 3rd Duke of Argyll, his cousin, Lord Bute, and Edmund Burke. Corr. no. 31, David Hume to Smith, 12 Apr. 1759; Corr. no. 33, Andrew Millar to Smith, 26 Apr. 1759. 25 Corr. no. 31, David Hume to Smith, 12 Apr. 1759. 26 See Chapter 1. 27 Corr. no. 76, Charles Townshend to Smith, 25 Oct. 1763; Corr. no. 78, Smith to David Hume, 12 Dec. 1763. 28 N. T. Phillipson, Adam Smith: An Enlightened Life (London, 2010), 181.

40

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

He has sufficient talents: a very manly temper, and an integrity of heart and reverence for truth, which in a person of his rank and fortune are the firmest foundation of weight in life and uniform greatness. If it should be agreeable to you to finish his education, and mould these excellent materials into a settled character, I make no doubts but he will return to his family and country the very man our fondest hopes have fancied.29 Smith accepted, giving notice to the University of Glasgow on 8 November that he intended to resign his chair, although he informed Townshend that due to teaching commitments it might prove difficult for him to leave his position before the following April.30 In the event, however, Smith managed to organise a replacement to take the remainder of his classes, and in January 1764 he travelled to London to meet the Duke and take up his new post.31 With the final administrative preparations for the Duke’s tour put in place, the Duke spent Christmas at Eton before travelling to London to be presented to Court, in order that, as Townshend put it, he would ‘not pass instantaneously from school to a foreign country’. Nonetheless, Townshend was keen that the Duke should not stay long in London in case he was exposed to the ‘habits and companions’ of the city before ‘his mind has been more formed and better guarded by education and experience’.32 The Duke and Smith set out from London on 2 February, and arrived in Paris eleven days later, with Smith writing to the Lord Rector of Glasgow University, formally resigning his chair of Moral Philosophy, the following day.33 A number of motives have been ascribed to Smith’s decision to accept Townshend’s offer and end his time at Glasgow University, a thirteen-year period that he would later describe as ‘by far the most useful, and, therefore, as by far the happiest and most honourable’ of his life’.34 When he had first informed Smith of Townshend’s interest, Hume had assumed that the Duke would have to study with Smith at Glasgow, as he believed that Townshend could not offer ‘any terms’ which would tempt Smith to renounce his professorship.35 At the time he received Hume’s letter, this was precisely the arrangement Smith had in place with his private tutoring of another Eton-educated young nobleman, the Hon. Thomas Petty 29

Corr. no. 76, Townshend to Smith, 25 Oct. 1763. I. S. Ross, The Life of Adam Smith (Oxford, 1995), 196; Corr. no. 78, Smith to Hume, 12 Dec. 1763. 31 LJ, ‘Introduction’, 2n. 32 Corr. no. 76, Townshend to Smith, 25 Oct. 1763; Namier and Brooke, Townshend, 112. For the administrative preparations, see NRS GD224/295/2/14, Mackenzie to Archibald Campbell, 31 Dec. 1763; NRS GD224/388/16/9, Draft of a commission for John Craigie, 1764; NRS GD224/248/23, State of the Management and Administration of His Grace Henry Duke of Buccleugh’s Estate, Aug. 1768. 33 NRS GD224/930/9, John Craigie’s Vouchers of Accompt 1764; Ross, Life of Smith, 196. 34 Corr. no. 274, Smith to Dr Archibald Davidson, 16 Nov. 1787. 35 Corr. no. 31, Hume to Smith, 12 Apr. 1759. 30

­

Education (1746–66) 41

Fitzmaurice, second son of the 1st Earl of Shelburne, and hopes had been expressed that this example might draw other ‘young men of rank’ to the university.36 The most important factor in Smith’s decision to leave Glasgow and take up the post of tutor to Buccleuch must have been the financial security and personal independence that such an appointment offered, and Townshend had promised Smith that he would make the ‘connection’ with Buccleuch ‘as satisfactory and advantageous to you as I am persuaded it will be essentially beneficial to him’. For the duration of the tour he was to be paid an annual salary of £500, followed by an annuity for life of £300, a sum which compared favourably to his income as a professor, which varied between £150 and £300 a year.37 Besides the financial incentive, Smith would have been well aware that a close association with the Buccleuch family would offer many other advantages, not least in terms of future patronage. Beyond this, the tour would give Smith the opportunity to travel abroad and, in particular, meet with the many ‘men of letters’ in France whom he greatly admired and among whom his reputation was beginning to grow.38 The remarkable reception received in Paris by David Hume, who had been resident there since 1763 as secretary to the British Ambassador, may also have informed his decision. Writing to Hume the month before he left, Smith had made a point of asking him to give his compliments to ‘all the men of Genius in France who do me the honour to know anything about me’.39 Although his reputation as a philosopher was well established by this time, in some respects Smith seems a far from obvious choice as tutor and travelling companion for a young aristocrat embarking on the Grand Tour. Although an accomplished and popular lecturer, as a forty-year-old bachelor who, apart from six years as a student at Oxford, had spent his whole life in Scotland, mostly living with his mother, Smith lacked Hume’s easy charm and sociability. Hume himself admitted that perhaps Smith’s ‘sedentary recluse life may have hurt his air and appearance, as a man of the world’.40 This social awkwardness and his poor ear for languages led Sir David Dalrymple to comment that he was ‘afraid Mr Charles Townshend will make a very indifferent compagnon de voyage out of a very able professor of ethics’.41 36

Corr. no. 27, Gilbert Elliot to Smith, 14 Nov. 1758. I am indebted to Nick Phillipson for this point. 37 Corr. no. 79, Townshend to Smith, 25 Oct. 1763; Ross, Life of Smith, 116, 156. 38 For Smith’s views of French intellectuals see his 1756 letter to the Edinburgh Review, in EPS, 242–54. For his growing reputation in France, see D. Dawson, ‘Is Sympathy So Surprising? Adam Smith and French Fictions of Sympathy’, in R. B. Sher and J. A. Dwyer (eds), Sociability and Society in Eighteenth-Century Scotland (Edinburgh, 1993), 147–62. 39 Corr. Appendix E, a. Smith to Hume, 12 Dec. 1763. For Hume’s reception in Paris, see I. G. Brown, ‘Hume in Paris: Le Bon David and Guid Auld Uncle Davie’, Folio, 6 (2003), 6–9. 40 Quoted in Ross, Life of Smith, 212–13. 41 Quoted in Ross, Life of Smith, 196. On the poor state of Smith’s spoken French, see also Corr. no. 142, Adam Ferguson to Smith, 1 Jun. 1774.

42

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

According to Alexander Carlyle, who knew Townshend well from their student days in Leiden, Townshend’s choice of Smith was made purely for the prestige of having such an eminent philosopher connected to the young Duke.42 Taking Townshend’s renowned vanity into account, there may well be something to this claim; certainly Townshend believed that Smith’s standing as a philosopher would allow the Duke to gain easy access to intellectual circles abroad.43 However, there does seem to be more to Townshend’s choice than this. Smith was chosen in preference to Dr John Hallam, who had been the Duke’s private tutor at Eton for six years and was the most obvious candidate for the job. Indeed, when Townshend suggested that Hallam be given a £100 pension, the Duke, who was very fond of Hallam, insisted that it should be raised to £300 to equal Smith’s and to compensate for the slight of not being chosen.44 Similarly, when the Duke and Smith were later granted the freedom of Edinburgh in 1770, Buccleuch made sure that Hallam was also given the honour.45 This, together with Townshend’s uncharacteristic perseverance in the matter, suggests that there were more substantial reasons behind Smith’s appointment. Townshend thought carefully about the education and future careers of all his stepchildren, but particularly that of the Duke, for whom he had very definite ambitions. Writing to Buccleuch during his tour, Townshend summarised what he saw as Smith’s particular qualities and his ability to provide the kind of education he wished Buccleuch to receive. In particular he stressed Smith’s constitutional knowledge, and his ‘notions of our Government’, of which he argued he was ‘ingenious, without being [overre]fin’d’ and ‘general, without being too systematical’. ‘From Him’, he continued, you will grow to be a grounded politician in a short course of study. When I say a Politician, I do not use the word in the common acceptance, but rather as a phrase less sever, [and] for that reason more proper to your age, than statesman, tho’ the one is the beginning of the other, and they differ chiefly as this is the work of study, & that the same work finish’d by experience & a course of office. Mr Smith will make you a politician, and time afterwards, in your example, ­demonstrate the truth of my opinion.46

42

Carlyle, Anecdotes, 142. Townshend to Duke, 22 Apr. [1765], in I. S. Ross, ‘Educating an Eighteenth-Century Duke’, in G. W. S. Barrow (ed.), The Scottish Tradition: Essays in Honour of R. G. Cant (Edinburgh, 1974), 183. 44 Carlyle described it as a ‘great mortification’ to Hallam that he was not chosen to accompany the Duke. Hallam, who would remain close to the Duke and his family, would later go on to become Canon of Windsor and then Dean of Bristol. Carlyle, Anecdotes, 142n; T. Lang, ‘Hallam, Henry’, in ODNB. 45 Rae, Life of Smith, 251–2. 46 Townshend to Duke, 10 Jun. 1765, in Ross, ‘Educating’, 185. 43

­

Education (1746–66) 43

As this and Townshend’s other correspondence makes clear, this was to be above all an education that would prepare the Duke for the role of statesman and the duties of high office and it seems to have been with this specific role in mind that Townshend hired Smith. The weight that Townshend attached to his choice of tutor is further emphasised by the importance he placed on this part of the Duke’s education. Townshend, who had himself studied briefly abroad until his hopes of further travel were frustrated by lack of support from his father, wrote to the Duke at the outset of his tour that his ‘future figure & happiness depends upon the use of the next few years’.47 ‘I have often told you’, he noted on another occasion, ‘that almost every man’s mind, & indeed his life, takes it’s color from his manner of passing & employing the few important years between his leaving school & entering into the world, and I have never thought of this part of your education, without much solicitude’. He continued: My own experience in business convince me that, in this age, any person of rank & fortune may, with tolerable discretion, competent knowledge, & integrity be as great as even this country can make him, and therefore I wished to see you placed, with your own approbation, in a foreign country, for some time, where you might give to the necessary exercises of the body, to the improvement of your mind, and to the amusements of your youth, their proper & alternate influence.48 This was to be a practical political education, achieved through Smith’s particular expertise, with the ultimate aim of producing a ‘grounded politician’ capable of assuming a high role in British public life. And for Townshend, the Grand Tour was the most appropriate way for this ­education to be achieved. By the time of the Duke’s travels, the Grand Tour was entering into what would be later regarded as its final ‘golden age’, a period lasting roughly from the end of the Seven Years War in 1763 until Napoleon’s invasion of Italy in the spring of 1796.49 From its early small-scale aristocratic origins in the 1660s, the tour as an educational institution had undergone a number of significant changes during the course of the eighteenth century. Guided by a growing number of published accounts and travelling to increasingly rigid itineraries, a greater number of tourists drawn from a wider range of backgrounds were now participating in the tour.50 These changes were 47

Namier and Brooke, Townshend, 13–15; Townshend to Duke, 10 Apr. 1764, in Ross, ‘Educating’, 182. 48 Townshend to Duke, 10 Jun. 1765, in Ross, ‘Educating’, 185. 49 I. Bignamini, ‘The Grand Tour: Open Issues’, in A. Wilton and I. Bignamini (eds), The Grand Tour: The Lure of Italy in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1996), 33. 50 J. Brewer, The Pleasures of the Imagination: English Culture in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1997), 206–8, 632; C. de Seta, ‘Grand Tour: The Lure of Italy in the Eighteenth Century’, in Wilton and Bignamini (eds), The Grand Tour, 14.

44

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

accompanied by a shift of emphasis in the overall purpose of the tour, with the educational element being increasingly superseded by the travelling itself. This was accompanied by a growing focus on antiquities and the historical past at the expense of contemporary European culture, with the active cultivation of ‘connoisseurship’ becoming an ever more conscious goal of the tourist.51 Despite these changing trends, the Duke’s travels seem to have conformed more closely to the conventions and ideals of the earlier aristocratic tour, with education remaining the most important concern. After spending ten days in Paris, where they met Hume and two of Buccleuch’s school friends, Lord Beauchamp and Sir James Macdonald of Sleat, Smith and the Duke travelled south to the provincial capital of Toulouse, where they would base themselves for the next eighteen months. Toulouse was chosen on Townshend’s instructions, primarily it seems to keep the Duke away from the temptations of Paris while he began his ‘plan of improvement’ under Smith and familiarised himself with the French language.52 Despite one positive report from Hume’s cousin, the Abbé Colbert, that the Duke’s French was improving and his studies progressing well, the early part of the tour seems to have been far from successful. Writing to Hume in July, almost five months after their arrival in Toulouse, Smith complained that Townshend’s promised introductions to ‘all the people of fashion here and every where else in France’ had failed to materialise. The progress, indeed, we have made is not very great. The Duke is acquainted with no french man whatever. I cannot bring them to our house and am not always at liberty to go to theirs. The Life which I led in Glasgow was a pleasurable, dissipated life in comparison of that which I lead here at Present. I have begun to write a book in order to pass the time. You may believe that I have very little to do.53 By October, however, Smith and the Duke had entered into local aristocratic society, and Smith could report that their excursions to Bordeaux and the Pyrenees had made ‘a great change upon the duke’. He also believed that the imminent arrival of the Duke’s younger brother, the Hon. Campbell Scott, would be ‘both useful and agreeable’ to the Duke, adding that ‘he begins now to familiarize himself to French company and I flatter myself I shall spend the rest of time we are to live together, not only 51

Brewer, Pleasures of the Imagination, 257–9, 632; F. Haskell, ‘Preface’, in Wilton and Bignamini (eds), The Grand Tour, 11–12; J. Black, The British Abroad: The Grand Tour in the Eighteenth Century (Sutton, 2003), 331–2. 52 Phillipson argues that the city was probably chosen on Hume’s advice. Phillipson, Adam Smith, 185. 53 Corr. no. 82, Smith to Hume, 5 Jul. 1764. The book may have been a continuation of the early draft of the Wealth of Nations that he had begun before he left Glasgow. See Ross, Life of Smith, 202–3.

­

Education (1746–66) 45

in peace and contentment but in gayety and amusement’.54 Despite being given permission by Townshend to return to Paris in the April of the following year, albeit with another warning regarding the dangers of any ‘female attachment’, Smith and his pupil remained based in Toulouse until the autumn of 1765, with Smith reporting to Hume that summer that he would find the Duke ‘very much improved’.55 Sometime in the autumn of that year, the party, which now included the Duke’s younger brother, travelled to Geneva. Here Smith was able to gain access to intellectual circles, including that of Voltaire at nearby Ferney, through his acquaintance with the physician and writer Dr Theodore Tronchin, whose son had been sent to study with Smith in Glasgow in 1761.56 In early 1766 they returned to Paris, where they would base themselves for the remainder of their tour. Although no detailed record survives of what Townshend variously termed the Duke’s ‘plan of improvement’ or ‘system of application’ under Smith, it is possible from the remaining evidence to piece together certain elements of the Duke’s studies.57 An important aspect of Smith’s role as a tutor, and one that gives insight into his approach to tutoring the Duke, is his general attitude towards tutoring itself. Writing in the Wealth of Nations, published a decade after his return from his tour, Smith gave a highly critical account of the Grand Tour as a form of education for a young man. Arguing that only the decline of the English universities could have given rise to such an ‘absurd practice’, Smith averred that, beyond gaining a superficial knowledge of one or two foreign languages, the tourist ‘commonly returns home more conceited, more unprincipled, more dissipated, and more incapable of any serious business, than he could well have become in so short a time, had he lived at home’. By travelling so very young, by spending in the most frivolous dissipation the most precious years of his life, at a distance from the inspection and controul of his parents and relations, every useful habit, which the earlier parts of his education might have had some tendency to form in him, instead of being rivetted and confirmed, is almost ­necessarily either weakened or effaced.58 At the core of Smith’s critique of the tour as a serious means of education – and, indeed, of his earlier criticism of sending aristocratic children off to public schools – was the potential lack of supervision and guidance over the pupil, a situation which he believed could lead to the student spending 54

Corr. no. 83, Smith to Hume, 21 Oct. 1764. Corr. no. 86, Smith to Hume, [Aug. 1765]. 56 Ross, Life of Smith, 131, 208. For more details, see B. Bonnyman, ‘Adam Smith in Geneva’, in V. Cossy, B. Kapossy, and R. Whatmore (eds), Geneva, an English Enclave 1725–1814 (Geneva, 2009), 153–67. 57 Townshend to Duke, 22 Apr. [1765]; Townshend to Duke, 23 Jul. 1765, in Ross, ‘Educating’, 83, 189. 58 WN. V.i.f.36. 55

46

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

their time ‘unemployed’ and ‘neglected’.59 This belief in the importance of ‘inspection and controul’ is very evident in Smith’s approach to tutoring his earlier pupil, the Hon. Thomas Petty Fitzmaurice. As mentioned above, Fitzmaurice, the second son of the 1st Earl of Shelburne and younger brother of the future prime minister, boarded with, and was privately tutored by, Smith at Glasgow University between 1759 and 1761.60 In a series of letters to Fitzmaurice’s father Smith went into great detail regarding the boy’s studies and behaviour, providing a number of insights into both the rigour of Smith’s approach and the subjects he considered suitable for the education of a young noble.61 During his first winter under Smith’s tutelage, Fitzmaurice attended six hours a day of lectures: one hour of Logic, two hours of Smith’s lectures on Moral Philosophy, and one hour each of Greek, Latin, and Mathematics. In addition to this, Fitzmaurice would spend two to three hours a day with Smith going over ‘very regularly’ the subjects he had covered in his lecture, and spend time each day reading by himself, doing a ‘good deal’ of reading at the weekends. During the summer holidays, Smith planned that Fitzmaurice would spend two or three hours every morning reading with him ‘the best greek, latin and french authors on Moral Philosophy’, in addition to studying Euclid with the professor of Mathematics, and learning French, dancing, and fencing. Fitzmaurice would then complete his philosophical studies the following winter, after which he would move on to study law and history while also ‘perfecting himselfe in philosophy and languages’.62 During the summer break of the following year, Smith reported that his pupil was spending the mornings reading ‘the best English authors’, the afternoons going through Montesquieu’s De l’Esprit des Lois with Smith, and the evenings ‘in exercises, in dancing or in learning the exercise of an officer and a soldier’.63 It’s clear from Smith’s correspondence that the overall rigour and intensity of this schedule was an important part of his approach to teaching: as he wrote to Fitzmaurice’s father, he chose ‘rather to oppress him with business for this first winter’ as it kept him ‘constantly employed and leaves no time for idleness’.64 This approach was reinforced by a high degree of supervision and scrutiny. When Gilbert Elliot had written to Smith proposing that he take on Fitzmaurice as a pupil, he had made a point of stressing that Smith would have ‘total charge and direction’ of his 59

WN. V.i.f.36; TMS VI.ii.1.10. Ross, Life of Smith, 116, 134–6. 61 Smith’s published correspondence contains eleven letters to Lord Shelburne written between 10 March 1759 and 11 November 1760 (Corr. nos. 29, 30, 42, 43, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53), one letter from Lord Shelburne (no. 32), and one letter to Fitzmaurice’s brother, Viscount Fitzmaurice (no. 28). 62 Corr. nos. 29, 30, Smith to Lord Shelburne, 10 Mar., 4 Apr. 1759. 63 Corr. no. 51, Smith to Lord Shelburne, 15 Jul. 1760. 64 Corr. no. 30, Smith to Lord Shelburne, 4 Apr. 1759. 60

­

Education (1746–66) 47 student’s education without any interference, a condition that Elliot must have believed was important for Smith.65 On his arrival in Glasgow, Smith placed Fitzmaurice directly into his own Moral Philosophy class, by-passing the Logic class which would normally have been completed first, in order to ‘have him immediately under my own eye’.66 And, as has already been noted, a significant part of Fitzmaurice’s studies involved reading and going over lessons with Smith. In this respect, Fitzmaurice’s father’s reasons for sending him to Glasgow to be taught by Smith are also relevant. The problem with Oxford and Cambridge, Shelburne wrote to Smith, was that ‘boys sent thither instead of being the governed, become the governors of the Colleges, and that birth and fortune there are more respected than literary merit’. He continued, I flatter’d myself that it was not so at Glasgow, and your commendation of my son’s conformity to the discipline of the place he is in, persuades me that you think as I do, that no greater service can be done in leading to manhood, than to confirm youth, by long practice, in the habit of obedience; a power of adopting the will of another, will make one master of one’s own.67

Although this conformed with Smith’s own belief that nothing was equal to ‘established authority for the government of young people’, his letters also reveal the warmth of the personal relationship he built up with his pupil, something that would later be evident in his tutoring of Buccleuch and his brother.68 This rapport with his student was the background to Smith’s careful ongoing assessment of his pupil’s strengths and weaknesses, not only in his academic ability, but also in his general character and developing moral demeanour – what Lord Shelburne commended as his ‘power of looking into him’.69 In both its rigour and conscientiousness, Smith’s tutoring of Fitzmaurice was consistent with his self-proclaimed commitment to teaching at Glasgow, which he described as a ‘sacred’ engagement by which he was ‘bound’ to ‘do every[thing] in my power to serve the young people who are sent here to study, such especially as are particularly recommended to my care’.70 It also gives an indication as to the kind of approach Smith would employ with the Duke on his tour, a situation that by his own later account would require an even greater degree of ‘inspection and controul’. Smith’s only specific reference to the Duke’s course of studies is in a 65

Corr. no. 27, Gilbert Elliot to Smith, 14 Nov. 1758. Corr. no. 30, Smith to Lord Shelburne, 4 Apr. 1759. 67 Corr. no. 32, Lord Shelburne to Smith, 26 Apr. 1759. 68 See Corr. nos. 29, 37, 45, 46, 48, 49, Smith to Lord Shelburne, 10 Mar. 1759, 31 Aug. 1759, 10, 12, 17, 19 Mar. 1760, and no. 64, Hon. Thomas Fitzmaurice to Smith, 26 Feb. 1762. 69 Corr. no. 29, Smith to Lord Shelburne, 10 Mar. 1759; Corr. no. 32, Lord Shelburne to Smith, 26 Apr. 1759. 70 Corr. no. 37, Smith to Lord Shelburne, 31 Aug. 1759. 66

48

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

letter to David Hume of August 1765, where he mentions the Duke had read ‘almost all’ of Hume’s works ‘several times over’, adding wryly that ‘was it not for the more wholesome doctrine which I take care to instill into him, I am afraid he might be in danger of adopting some of your wicked principles’.71 That Smith should have included Hume in Buccleuch’s programme of study is hardly surprising: philosophy would have been at the core of Smith’s teaching and Hume’s thought was of the utmost importance to his own ideas; and Smith would certainly have considered Hume among the best of ‘English’ authors.72 More detailed information regarding not only the specific nature of the Duke’s studies but also his stepfather’s expectations comes from the eight surviving letters written by Townshend to the Duke during his tour.73 Although Townshend made a point of stressing he would leave the Duke’s course of study up to Smith, he did make a number of specific suggestions to Buccleuch regarding particular aspects of his studies, most of which related to his general aim that the Duke’s education should combine that of ‘a man of letters’ with that of ‘a man of the world’.74 Writing in April 1765, for example, Townshend asked the Duke to analyse the development of the French monarchy and government from feudal times (most probably alluding to Montesquieu’s De l’Esprit des Lois which he would have been studying with Smith), and the progress of its commerce and trade, particularly under Colbert. By contrasting France’s rapid expansion in trade during the seventeenth century with England’s relatively lacklustre performance during the same period, and then assessing the contemporary state of the French economy, Townshend wanted the Duke to consider the circumstances which had led to France’s recent defeat in the Seven Years War. ‘I think I can explain this’,  Townshend concluded, ‘but I had rather hear your observations first, & together we shall assist our speculations.’75 On hearing that the Duke was currently reading a history of England (almost certainly Hume’s History of England, published between 1754 and 1762), Townshend advised him to be ‘very attentive’ to ‘every event & character’ in the reign of Charles I, particularly the ‘remonstrances of the Parliament’ and the responses from the crown, where, he argued, ‘you will see almost all the original excellencys & defects of our Constitution eloquently argued & learnedly disscust’.76 In all his requests to the Duke, Townshend never lost sight of the practical political uses that he believed the Duke’s studies would later be applied to and the underlying rationale of his education under Smith. ‘My heart is fixed on your success,’ Townshend wrote to the Duke in April 1765. ‘I must 71

Corr. no. 86, Smith to Hume, [Aug. 1765]. On the importance of Hume’s thought to Smith, see Phillipson, Adam Smith, 64–71. 73 The letters are reproduced in Ross, ‘Educating’, 178–97. 74 Townshend to Duke, 22 Apr. [1765], in Ross, ‘Educating’, 183. 75 Townshend to Duke, 22 Apr. [1765], in Ross, ‘Educating’, 183–4. 76 Townshend to Duke, 10 Jun. 1765, in Ross, ‘Educating’, 185–7. 72

­

Education (1746–66) 49

have you active, ambitious, capable.’ He continued, describing the Duke’s integrity as ‘a rock’, which ‘no place, no temptation, no example can shake, & it is this which makes me so earnestly wish to see you fit those stations which such integrity should fill’.77 On receiving the Duke’s responses to his questions on the French constitution and progress of trade, Townshend wrote approvingly of his conclusions, adding that they had given him ‘the most satisfactory contemplation’ of what in the future would be the ‘personal lustre & the public utility of the same talents & the same mind, when, from the study of forein states, it shall be exercised in the administration of our own country’. ‘The age,’ he continued, ‘. . . is idle, ignorant, extravagant, & vain: your own country is, & will be for some time, in distress, confusion & danger: these circumstances afford a great theatre for a young man of your rank, fortune & abilities.’78 Townshend’s description of public life as ‘a great theatre’ was particularly apt given his own abilities as a skilled orator, and he was particularly keen that the Duke should acquire an appropriate style of rhetoric for public debate. To this end, Townshend recommended that the Duke follow his own practice of translating relevant passages from classical authors and ‘preparing short speeches upon such incidents in history as have struck me & seemed analogous to events likely to occur in our kingdom’.79 These practical concerns for how the Duke’s studies would relate to his future public career were reinforced in the same letters by Townshend’s detailed accounts of his own political fortunes and concerns, culminating with his acceptance of the chancellorship of the Exchequer in August 1766. Townshend described these at some length, even sending a parcel of ‘American papers’, a subject of particular interest to him, for use in the Duke’s studies.80 Again, in his accounts of his political manoeuvring, Townshend was not slow to highlight their relevance to the Duke’s future career. In relating what he perceived as a lack of ministerial support for his attempts to secure a commission for Buccleuch’s younger brother, Townshend concluded, ‘I say again to you, remember this, for the hour will come when, if you remember, you may resent.’81 Taken as a whole, Townshend’s letters not only reveal the practical political ends that he hoped the Duke’s studies would prepare him for, but also suggest the way in which the areas of Smith’s own expertise would be considered as particularly appropriate for this kind of an education. A significant part of Smith’s lectures on Moral Philosophy at Glasgow had been concerned with jurisprudence, dealing directly with ‘the theory of the rule 77

Townshend to Duke, 22 Apr. [1765], in Ross, ‘Educating’, 184. Townshend to Duke, 23 Jul. 1765, in Ross, ‘Educating’, 188–9. 79 Townshend to Duke, 23 Jul. 1765, in Ross, ‘Educating’, 188–90. 80 Townshend to Duke, 16 Oct. 1766, in Ross, ‘Educating’, 197. On Townshend’s American interests, see Namier and Brooke, Townshend, 143–4, 146, 153, 172–9. 81 Townshend to Duke, 10 Jun. 1766, in Ross, ‘Educating’, 195. 78

50

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

by which civil governments ought to be directed’.82 This broad conception of the subject included not only the historical progress of jurisprudence and the way in which this related to the development of the institutions of law and government, but also the practical regulations of government intended to ‘increase the riches, the power, and the prosperity of the state’ – what he would later term ‘political economy’.83 Given Townshend’s general emphasis and specific requests together with Smith’s own interests, it is clear that these subjects would have formed an important part of his teaching. Indeed, it was during this very period that Smith was engaging deeply with the French économistes and their developing system of political economy. Smith would become close to Quesnay and his circle during his time in Paris, and, although he would be highly critical of their physiocratic system as a whole, he did share their belief in the fundamental importance of an efficient and productive agricultural sector to the development of the wider economy.84 Elements of this surely must have informed his conversations with Buccleuch as they discussed the role of the nobility in a modern, commercial polity. As Nicholas Phillipson concludes: It was out of discussions like these that the Duke must have begun to develop a more modest, less party-political conception of his future role as a great territorial magnate, one which was based upon an appreciation of the economic and moral importance of the territorial nobility and their role as agents of improvement.85 The influence of Smith’s ideas on the Duke will be returned to in the following chapter. At this point, however, it is worth noting that the theoretical elements of Buccleuch’s education under Smith were also to be supplemented by the practical experience of the different systems of government and commerce that he encountered during his tour. Indeed, the desire to experience such different systems may well have been one of the reasons that their route diverged from the more usual tour itinerary which tended to culminate in an extended tour of Italy.86 Although, as noted above, their initial stay in Toulouse was hampered by a lack of introductions, they did eventually become familiar with some of the ‘principal persons’ of the Parlement together with the leading members of the local nobility, some of whom were already embarking upon ambitious estate improvements.87 In Geneva they encountered the very different political system of a republican 82

LJ(A) i.1. From John Millar’s account of Smith’s lectures in EPS Stewart, I.18–20. 84 D. McNally, Political Economy and the Rise of Capitalism (Berkeley, 1988), 234–50. 85 Phillipson, Adam Smith, 188. 86 Bonnyman, ‘Smith in Geneva’, 162–3. 87 Corr. no. 83, Smith to Hume, 21 Oct. 1764; EPS Stewart, III.7. For Buccleuch’s association with the local improvement-minded nobility I am indebted to Philippe Massot-Bordenave of the University of Toulouse. 83

­

Education (1746–66) 51

city-state, famous for both its commerce and Calvinist religion, and here again they mixed in high political circles.88 During their second stay in Paris Townshend made a point of directing the Duke and his brother to fix their accommodation near to the British Embassy so they could spend as much time as possible with the ambassador, Charles Lennox, 3rd Duke of Richmond, who in turn introduced the Duke to the French Court and diplomatic society.89 It also seems that Smith had planned to take his charges on a tour of Germany in the summer of 1766, and it may be that a trip to Italy was indeed originally intended as the climax of the tour, had ­circumstances not intervened.90 Despite the uncertain start to the tour and Smith’s own initial reservations, Townshend seems to have been pleased with the Duke’s progress under Smith. Shortly before the end of their tour Townshend wrote to congratulate Buccleuch on the glowing accounts he had received of his conduct and character: I, who have known you from your earlier years, had no doubt of this, but it was a great satisfaction to see my prophecy proved & my opinion become general. You have nothing to think of, but the care of your health, for you have secured the world, & added the best of characters to the most ample advantage of birth & fortune.91 The Duke himself was in no doubt of the benefits arising from his time abroad with Smith. He would recall in later life that they had spent ‘near three years together, without the slightest disagreement or coolness’ and that he had derived ‘every advantage that could be expected from the society of such a man’. Indeed, it was a friendship that Buccleuch would describe as continuing ‘till the hour of his death; and I shall always remain with the impression of having lost a friend whom I loved and respected, not only for his great talents, but for every private virtue’.92 The closeness of the bond that had formed between Smith and his pupils became particularly evident in the final months of their tour, and in the tragic events that would lead to its premature conclusion. At the end of August 1766, while hunting with King Louis XV and his courtiers at Compiègne, the Duke was taken ill with a fever. Smith wrote a detailed account of the Duke’s symptoms to Townshend, noting that ‘I never stir from his room eight in the morning till ten at night, and watch for the smallest change that happens to him’.93 The Duke made a full recovery, 88

Bonnyman, ‘Smith in Geneva’, 163–4. Rae, Life of Smith, 191; Corr. nos. 94, 95; Townshend to Duke, 22 Apr. [1765], in Ross, ‘Educating’, 183. 90 NRS GD224/268/11, Mackenzie to Craigie, 22 Jul. 1766. 91 Townshend to Duke, 16 Oct. 1766, in Ross, ‘Educating’, 195–6. 92 EPS, 306–7. 93 Corr. nos. 94, 95. 89

52

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

but two months later his younger brother succumbed to a similar illness with much more serious results. Writing to the Duke’s sister on 15 October, Smith gave a full description of his pupil’s ‘terrible disorder’, preparing her for the worst while asking her to excuse the confused state of his letter. Despite securing the services of three eminent doctors, including the King’s physician Quesnay, four days later Smith informed Lady Frances of ‘the most terrible calamity that has befallen us’. Smith had left Campbell’s bedside to inform the Duke that his brother was near death: I returned in less than half an hour to do the last duty to my best friend. He had expired about five minutes before I could get back and I had not the satisfaction of closing his eyes with my own hands. I have no force to continue this letter; the Duke, tho’ in very great affliction, is otherwise in perfect health.94 It was agreed immediately that they should return to England. Shortly before Campbell’s illness Smith had confided to his friend Andrew Millar that, although very happy in Paris, he ‘longed passionately’ to see his old friends, and that, ‘if I had once got fairly to your side of the water, I think I should never cross it again’. True to his word, despite two further offers of travelling tutorships, Smith would never travel abroad again.95 Smith and the Duke accompanied Campbell Scott’s body back to England, arriving at Dover on 1 November 1766.96 On their arrival they were met by Kenneth Mackenzie, the Duke’s London agent, who wrote a brief but telling account of the meeting and the Duke’s immediate concerns: Upon my arrival, I found the accounts too true of the death of Mr Scott, an ornament to any family or country, tho’ at the same time, I was greatly pleased to find, that the Duke was arrived six hours before me – and I thank God in perfect good health and Scotland the object of his attention.97

94

Corr. nos. 97, 98. Corr. no. 99, Smith to Andrew Millar, Oct. 1766; Ross, Life of Smith, 248, 253. 96 NRS GD224/268/11, Mackenzie to Craigie, 8 Nov. 1766. 97 NRS GD224/377/7/17, Mackenzie to Archibald Campbell, 11 Nov. 1766. My emphasis. 95

Chapter Three

Majority (1767–70) On 21 September 1767, around fifty of the neighbouring ‘Noblemen and Gentlemen’ were invited to Dalkeith House to mark the formal celebration of the Duke’s coming of age and beginning of his personal administration of his estates. In what was described as ‘one of the most elegant [entertainments] that has, at any time, been given in this country’, the Incorporations of Dalkeith marched round the house with their banners flying, before making their ‘obeisance’ to the Duke and his new Duchess. The celebrations continued on into the night, with the inhabitants of the town being entertained at the family’s expense at two public houses, the entertainments culminating with ‘illuminations and very grand fireworks’.1 In contrast, the formal dinner itself, described as ‘two courses of about fifty dishes each, and a most sumptuous desert, in the most fashionable taste’, was a lavish but staid affair. One guest later described the company as ‘formal and dull’, noting the Duke’s and Duchess’s inexperience and commenting on the Duke’s reluctance to ‘set himself forward’ at this time, revealing ‘a coldness and a reserve which often in our superiors [is] thought to be pride’.2 Despite this rather inauspicious start, the Duke’s two-and-a-half-month visit was to prove an eventful one which, in several important respects, would set the tenor for much of his future career. Indeed, in the ten months since his return from France with Smith the main impression given by the Duke was that of a young man in a hurry, keen to take on the responsibilities of his position and to assert his independence. Within four months of his arrival in London, he had met, fallen for, and proposed to Lady Elizabeth Montagu, the eldest daughter of George, 4th Earl of Cardigan, recently created Duke of Montagu. Beautiful, intelligent, and strong-willed, Lady Elizabeth was three years older than Henry, and, although she came from a wealthy and politically well-connected family, it was not to be a strategic marriage or one negotiated by their families. Shortly before the Duke proposed, his aunt, Lady Mary Coke, noted that he ‘was his own master’, and that she believed that none of his relations would interfere in his choice of a wife. On her part, although Lady Elizabeth’s parents greatly approved of the match, they had already made it clear that the decision to accept would 1 2

The London Chronicle, 26–9 Sep. 1767. The London Chronicle, 26–9 Sep. 1767; A. Carlyle, Anecdotes and Characters of the Times, ed. J. Kinsley (London, 1973), 250.

54

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

be Elizabeth’s alone, and prior to Duke Henry’s proposal she had already turned down several offers.3 Furthermore, it was not until the death of her elder brother, John, Marquis of Monthermer, three years later that she would become the Montagu heiress, and the Duke was reported at the time to be ‘indifferent’ to her fortune.4 It seems to have been an engagement based on mutual attraction and genuine affection and was to prove a long and, by all accounts, happy marriage.5 Although the couple wished to marry as soon as possible, the Duke, still being a minor, needed the approval of an Act of Parliament to make the necessary wedding settlement. This, and the death of the Duke’s grandmother, the Dowager Duchess of Argyll, in April, delayed the wedding until 2 May.6 That evening, in a private ceremony at Montagu House, overlooking the Thames at Whitehall, as his London agent later recounted, ‘His Grace was married to the prettiest Dutchess in all England’.7 After the wedding they travelled to Lady Dalkeith’s newly inherited house at Sudbrook near Petersham, before returning to town a week later and being presented to the King and Queen at St James’s Palace on 7 May. At the beginning of June, the Duke and Duchess travelled to Adderbury, to take possession of the house and estate which Lady Dalkeith had given the couple as a wedding present. From there the first servants were dispatched to Scotland, to begin the preparations for the Duke’s visit and the celebration of his majority. By the time the young couple journeyed north at the end of August, Lady Elizabeth was already pregnant with her first child.8 Although Lady Elizabeth’s dowery was large – £30,000 paid immediately to the Duke – Buccleuch’s expenses during the latter part of his minority had also been considerable: the day before the wedding, Lady Mary Coke recorded her surprise on hearing from the Duke’s younger sister, Lady Frances, that the Duke had ‘no ready money left’ and that Lady Elizabeth’s 3

Lady M. Coke, The Letters and Journals of Lady Mary Coke: 1756–1774, vol. 1 (Bath, 1970), 123–4, 154, 158. 4 According to Lady Mary Coke, the Duke had ‘desired the Duke of Montagu to name whatever jointure he pleased, without ever asking whether she had any fortune’. In the event, it was decided that Lady Elizabeth would have a jointure from the Duke of £4,000 per annum, plus £1,000 per annum ‘pin money’. Coke, Journals, vol. 1, 160, 162–3; NRS GD224/324/7/16, Mackenzie to Archibald Campbell, 4 Apr. 1767; H. M. Chichester, rev. M. J. Mercer, ‘Montagu, George Brudenell, duke of Montagu’, in ODNB. 5 Lady L. Stuart, Memoire of Frances, Lady Douglas, ed. J. Rubenstein (Edinburgh, 1985), 48. For the changing attitudes towards the family’s role in aristocratic marriage, see K. Barclay, Love, Intimacy and Power: Marriage and Patriarchy in Scotland, 1650–1850 (Mancester, 2011), 77–80. 6 NRS GD224/324/7/19, Mackenzie to Archibald Campbell, 7 Mar. 1767; Public Advertiser, 20 Apr. 1767. 7 NRS GD224/324/7/29, Mackenzie to Archibald Campbell, 5 May 1767; Coke, Journals, vol. 1, 224. 8 NRS GD224/324/7/29, Mackenzie to Archibald Campbell, 5 May 1767; Lloyd’s Evening Post, 8 May 1767; NRS GD224/324/7/25, Lady Dalkeith to Archibald Campbell, 5 Jun. 1767.

­

Majority (1767–70) 55

fortune would ‘just clear his expenses’.9 During the Duke’s time abroad his allowance had remained at £1,000 a year, but an additional £5,000 had been deposited with Coutts, his London bank, to answer the Duke’s drafts. In June 1766 additional money had been required, Mackenzie noting that ‘the princely dignity’ which the Duke supported in Paris ‘requires a constant expence’, and in November 1766 a further £3,000 was sent to cover his expenses.10 His expenditure was to grow even greater in the weeks following his engagement. On 8 April the Duke bought at auction the lease of a ‘magnificent’ house at 20 Grosvenor Square for £11,000, and commissioned the King’s architect, Sir William Chambers, to carry out large-scale alterations and to remodel the interior.11 The total cost of the renovations and furnishings came to £3,000, while a further £10,000 was spent on jewels and plate for the Duchess. On top of this was the unspecified cost of what were described as ‘the most brilliant equipages of coaches, chariots, chairs & liveries, that have been seen in England for ages’, including a chair that was described as ‘finer than any that had yet been made’ that attracted the attention of the King and Queen.12 It was a level of expenditure that the  Duke must have known was unsustainable. Any savings made during the minority had been ploughed back into new purchases at Adderbury or in Scotland. Although his Scottish estates were producing an annual gross rental of almost £19,000 a year, after the deduction of ‘annual burdens’, including management costs, the stipends of twenty ministers and twentythree schoolmasters, repairs, land and window taxes, annuities and jointures, less than £9,000 remained, and even this was subject to arrears and the annual outlay for improvements.13 When, in March 1767, a further £2,000 was remitted to the Duke in London, only £1,288, 9s. and 8d. was left in the Duke’s cash account in Edinburgh, leaving the Duke’s London agent hoping that his Scottish commissioner would have no need of funds until the next collection of rent.14 Despite these prodigious levels of conspicuous consumption, the Duke had already impressed those close to him with his maturity and his diligent approach to his affairs, his London agent remarking in early 1767 that the Duke ‘promises more regularity & exactness, than all the young men 9

NRS GD224/324/7/16, Mackenzie to Archibald Campbell, 4 Apr. 1767; Coke, Journals, vol. 1, 228. 10 NRS GD224/91/1, [Mackenzie] to Craigie, 27 Nov. 1764; NRS GD224/268/11, Mackenzie to Craigie, 10 Jun. 1766; NRS GD224/268/11, Mackenzie to Craigie, 19 Dec. 1766. 11 London Evening News, 9 Apr. 1767. Around the same time, the Duke commissioned Chambers to draw up plans for alterations at Adderbury House, although it is unclear whether they were ever executed. J. Harris, J. M. Crook, and E. Harris, Sir William Chambers, Knight of the Polar Star (London, 1970), 54, 74, 196, 222. 12 NRS GD224/324/7/17, Mackenzie to Archibald Campbell, 14 Apr. 1767; Coke, Journals, vol. 1, 228. 13 This had been set at £1,000 a year since 1760. NRS GD224/584/11/3, Abstract of Rental, Sep. 1767. 14 NRS GD224/268/11, Craigie’s Accompts, 1766–7.

56

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

I ever had the honor to know’.15 It was a side of his character that would become even more apparent during his first visit to Scotland, a visit that was given even more significance by the news that, only days before the Duke’s majority, his stepfather, Charles Townshend, had died. While the Duke’s sister, Lady Frances, was distraught, Alexander Carlyle recorded that the Duke seemed much less affected, and was heard remarking that, although he sincerely regretted Townshend’s death, ‘yet to him it was attended with the consolation that it left him at liberty to chuse his own [line] of life, for had Mr Td. surviv’d, he might have been drawn into the vortex of politicks much against his will’.16 Just exactly what this line of life would be was not completely clear at this point. But the Duke must have been well aware of the expectations that surrounded his much anticipated arrival in Scotland. According to Carlyle, Townshend had intentionally ‘withheld’ the Duke from visiting his estates before his majority in case he became ‘too fond of Scotland’, and it was on this first visit, ‘on his journey through his own great estate’, that the Duke had discovered ‘from the mark’d attention of the people, that he would be a much greater [man] in this country . . . than he could possibly have been in the South where his own estates were small’.17 The Duke’s arrival in Scotland also coincided with an interesting period in Scottish political affairs. The Duke’s great uncle, the 3rd Duke of Argyll, had died in 1761, ending the family’s long era of political dominance. The role of political manager had subsequently been filled by Buccleuch’s cousin (and uncle through marriage), James Stuart Mackenzie, who had managed Scotland until 1765, firstly for his brother, Lord Bute, and then for the Grenville ministry. Since then, there had been no dominant Scottish manager either to dispense patronage and organise elections for the government, or to represent Scottish interests in Whitehall.18 With Buccleuch’s status and family connections came expectations that the young peer might fill this role and take a lead in Scottish affairs. One indication of this came in the anonymous poem delivered to the Duke at Dalkeith on the morning of his birthday. ‘Verses on His Grace the Duke of Buccleuch’s Birthday’ begins with ‘Old Father Tweed’ being awoken by the rejoicing of his sons, Ettrick, Yarrow, Teviot, and Esk – the 15

On a later occasion he noted that ‘if ever I could judge, or observe regularity, in any young man, I think his Grace (at the same time with proper dignity) has the greatest tendency to it’. NRS GD224/268/11, Mackenzie to Craigie, 7 Feb. 1767; NRS GD224/324/7/17, Mackenzie to Archibald Campbell, 14 Apr. 1767. 16 Carlyle, Anecdotes, 249. 17 Carlyle, Anecdotes, 249. 18 For the political management of Scotland during this period, see J. M. Simpson, ‘Who Steered the Gravy Train, 1707–1766?’, in N. T. Phillipson and R. Mitchison (eds), Scotland in the Age of Improvement (Edinburgh, 1970), 47–72; A. Murdoch, ‘The People Above’: Politics and Administration in Mid-Eighteenth-Century Scotland (Edinburgh, 1980). For the vacuum in political management following Mackenzie’s retirement, see Murdoch, ‘The People Above’, 124–6; D. J. Brown, ‘“Nothing but Strugalls and Coruption”: The Commons’ Elections for Scotland in 1774’, Parliamentary History, 15, 1 (1996), 100–19.

­

Majority (1767–70) 57

rivers which lay at the heart of the Duke’s Border estates – at the approach of the young Duke. The poem presents Scotland as a ‘dark and long deserted land’ that has suffered from its nobility’s neglect and indifference. The Duke is urged to draw on the virtues of his noble ancestors – Monmouth, Scott, Douglas, and Campbell – to return to Scotland and take an active role in her affairs: ‘be this thy country! thou her pride and boast! / And full repay her the long years she’s lost’.19 The poem, later published in The Scots Magazine and eventually discovered to be the work of the leading moderate minister Alexander Carlyle, outlined the hopes that the Duke would play a leading role in Scottish affairs, hopes to do not only with steering the ‘gravy train’ of government patronage, but also with the kind of enlightened cultural patronage that the 3rd Duke of Argyll and Lord Bute had promoted in Scotland.20 In time, Buccleuch’s career would fulfil many of Carlyle’s hopes and expectations, although the nature of his involvement in Scottish affairs and the country’s political management would be in a very different vein from that of his uncle, Argyll. Although it would be some time before Buccleuch would, as one contemporary would later put it, begin to take ‘a lead in Scotch affairs’, the Duke seems to have already decided by the time of his first visit that, as his cousin Lady Louisa Stuart would later describe it, he would be ‘a Scotchman’ and reside ‘much at a place which had been deserted for almost a century’.21 Shortly after this initial visit the Duke had indicated that the family’s Eskdale property of Langholm Castle would be used as a summer residence, while the repair and refurbishment of Dalkeith House and grounds began later that year.22 This renewed connection with the family’s ancestral home was to be commemorated the following year in a series of four large oil paintings commissioned by the Duke from the Irish landscape artist George Barret.23 The paintings portrayed Dalkeith House and its parks, emphasising its picturesque setting overlooking the dramatic wooded gorge of the river 19

The verses seem to have been inspired by an earlier poem which also tempered its adulation with a critique of absenteeism, ‘Forth Feasting: A Panegyricke to the Kings Most Excellent Majestie’, written in 1617 by William Drummond of Hawthornden to celebrate James VI’s first visit to Scotland since the regal union of 1603. R. D. S. Jack and P. A. T. Rozendaal, The Mercat Anthology of Early Scottish Literature, 1375–1707 (Edinburgh, 1997), 386–7. 20 For the cultural role of the Scottish political managers, see R. L. Emerson, Academic Patronage in the Scottish Enlightenment: Glasgow, Edinburgh and St Andrews Universities (Edinburgh, 2008), especially chapters 4, 5, and 6. 21 George Home to Patrick Home, 14 Mar. 1774, quoted in Brown, ‘Strugalls and Coruption’, 116; Stuart, Memoire, 50. 22 NRS GD224/91/2 pp. 24–7, Letterbook on management of Scottish Estates, 1768–9; NRS GD224/268/13, Mackenzie to Craigie, 18 Feb. 1768. 23 The Duke paid Barret £1,171 16s. for the paintings, two of which were later exhibited at the Royal Academy. NRS GD224/628/1, Letters and Vouchers relating to payments made to George Barret, 1768–74; Arnold’s Magazine of the Fine Arts, vol. 2 (London, 1831), 309, 312, 318.

58

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

Figure 3.1:  Dalkeith Palace and Park and River by George Barret, RA. Reproduced by courtesy of His Grace the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.

Esk. Notably, however, one of the paintings makes the point of including labourers busy at work laying out new paths and walkways, recording the improvements already under way and drawing attention to the fact that this landscape was a work in progress. By doing so it also gestured towards the Duke’s wider improving intentions, intentions which had become apparent during his first visit to Scotland, and which would go far beyond the house and pleasure grounds of Dalkeith. Within days of his arrival, the Duke had set in motion an ambitious attempt to reorganise and improve his estates, a process in which Adam Smith would play a key role. On his return to England with the Duke, Smith had continued on in London for five months, before travelling back to Scotland in the spring of 1767. During this period he was consulted on Treasury business by Townshend, who had recently been appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer, but his role within the Duke’s establishment at this point remains unclear.24 On his 24

N. T. Phillipson, Adam Smith: An Enlightened Life (London, 2010), 200.

­

Majority (1767–70) 59 return to Scotland, Smith had moved back to his home town of Kirkcaldy, where he had begun work on what would become the Wealth of Nations. By the Duke’s birthday, on 13 September, Smith had joined him at Dalkeith House, from where he wrote to David Hume: The Duke and Duchess of Buccleugh have been here now for almost a fortnight. They begin to open their house on Monday next and I flatter myself will both be very agreeable to the people of this country. I am not sure that I have ever seen a more agreeable woman than the Dutchess. I am sorry you are not here because I am sure you would be perfectly in love with her. I shall probably be here some weeks.25

In the event, Smith remained at Dalkeith House for the next two months until the Duke’s departure for London in mid-November. During this time, according to Carlyle, Smith was responsible for guiding the young couple into local society – a role he suggested Smith was singularly unsuited for.26 Earlier that year, Smith had received his first instalment of the £300 annuity that Buccleuch would pay him for the rest of his life.27 No details survive of what, if any, role was expected of Smith in return for this substantial pension. But in a letter of January 1768, Smith refers to advice he had received and followed from Colonel Robert Clerk, advising him to make a change to his ‘original contract’ with the Duke, while suggesting that certain ongoing contractual obligations remained.28 Although the details of these obligations are unknown, it is clear that Smith’s role in the Duke’s affairs during this crucial transitional period went far beyond guiding the young couple into society. Over the following two months, the Duke began to instigate a number of important changes to the management of his Scottish estates and Smith seems to have been directly involved in each of them. The first reforms to take place during Smith’s stay at Dalkeith concerned the alteration to the estate’s administration. In November 1767, the Duke appointed William Ogilvie of Hartwoodmyres as ‘sole-chamberlain’ for the entire South Country estates, replacing the five existing chamberlains’ posts.29 Ogilvie, who had been appointed as chamberlain of the Melrose and Ettrick Forest estates during the Duke’s minority, had proved himself an able administrator with strong ideas on the improvement of the Buccleuch patrimony. Although his promotion was the culmination 25

Corr. no. 109, Smith to Hume, 13 Sep. 1767. Carlyle, Anecdotes, 250. 27 Corr. no. 106, Smith to Craigie, 26 Jun. 1767. 28 Corr. no. 113, Smith to Lord Shelburne, 27 Jan. 1768. Smith asks Shelburne to tell Colonel Robert Clerk (?1724–97) ‘that I have followed his advice exactly with regard to a change which he proposed I should make in the original contract I made with the Duke of Buccleugh. I am very much obliged to him for his counsel and I feel the good effects of it every day.’ 29 NRS GD224/257/1, William Ogilvie’s Accounts, 1767. 26

60

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

of a process dating back to proposals first made by John Craigie and the Scottish commissioners six years earlier, the amalgamation of the chamberlains’ positions into a single post was more radical than the earlier proposal, which had recommended that the five positions be reduced to three.30 The change also had knock-on effects elsewhere in the administration, where the ‘conjunct’ positions of accountants and legal agents that had been introduced during the minority were also abolished, as the sole chamberlain took on the accounting and legal responsibilities relating to landsettings and other ‘country affairs’.31 The following year, Archibald Campbell, the Duke’s joint legal agent since 1754, replaced John Craigie as Commissioner and Cashier, a position he held until 1770, when he was appointed as one of the principal clerks to the Court of Session.32 We know that Smith was closely involved in these changes from a letter of the following year, which refers to him passing on the Duke’s instructions regarding the alterations and also being consulted on other aspects of the reforms.33 Correspondence dating from Smith’s stay at Dalkeith also places him at the centre of the other reforms taking place at this time and at the heart of the debate surrounding the future management of the estate. On 29 October, the Duke’s legal agent Archibald Campbell wrote to Smith discussing the proposed reforms, noting, It does not at present occur to me that any definitive resolution can be taken upon the plan or manner of letting his Graces estate. This I think must depend in a great measure on the proposals that shall be made in consequence of the advertisements in the publick papers and the enquiries upon these proposalls and like ways on the success of the act of parliament which is now projected. So that it may probably be the month of March or April next before any proper plan can be formed.34 This letter highlights what were to be the two main elements of the Duke’s initial improvement strategy: the re-letting of the entire estate on improving leases by way of advertisements in the press, and the attempt to obtain an Act of Parliament to alter the estate’s strict entail in such a way as to allow such leases to be granted. The ‘entailing’ of a landed estate limited its succession to a specified series of heirs, while stipulating that the proprietor could neither sell any part of the land nor contract debts that might endanger the survival of the 30

See Chapter 1. NRS GD224/338/16/12/1. 32 In 1770 John Davidson of Haltree took over as Commissioner, a position he held until 1796, when he was replaced by his former clerk and subsequent partner Hugh Warrender. NRS GD224/273/2, Archibald Campbell’s Accounts & Vouchers, 1769–70; NRS GD224/451/1, Hugh Warrender’s Accounts, 1796. 33 NRS GD224/295/2/43, Archibald Campbell to Mackenzie, 7 Sep. 1768. 34 NRS GD224/389/2/20, Archibald Campbell to Smith [draft], 29 Oct. 1767. 31

­

Majority (1767–70) 61

estate. By an Act of 1685 the Scottish Parliament had established a register of entails, ostensibly to prevent the fraudulent raising of loans by heirs of secretly entailed estates. In practice, however, the legislation was widely seen from the outset ‘as a device to protect the estates of an impoverished landed class from forfeiture, debt or profligate heirs’.35 Despite the continuing increase of entailed estates (by 1765 there were 500 deeds registered, covering perhaps as much as 20% of Scotland’s land by valuation), from the middle of the 1740s there was an increasing awareness of the negative effects of the Act, culminating in 1764 in the unsuccessful attempt by the Faculty of Advocates to instigate a campaign to abolish entails entirely.36 The problems surrounding the Buccleuch estate entails had been brought to the Duke’s attention during the drafting of his marriage settlement earlier that year. During that process it had been decided to settle Lady Elizabeth’s £4,000 jointure, together with the provision for any subsequent children, on parts of the Duke’s entailed estates in Scotland, so that the purchases made in the Duke’s name during his minority could be left free of burdens and so ‘in his power to dispose of as he may think proper’.37 As part of the entailed estate was already charged with the jointure of the Duke’s mother, Lady Dalkeith, the Duke’s Scottish legal agents drew up a new abstract of rental, detailing which entails applied to which lands, and Alexander Lockhart of Craighouse, who had been contracted to ‘revise and direct’ the marriage settlement, summarised the position of the various entails.38 Since 14 June 1650, the Buccleuch estate had been placed under what Lockhart described as ‘the strictest prohibitions’ of entail by Francis, Earl of Buccleuch. The Earl’s daughter and successor, Anne, Duchess of Buccleuch and Monmouth, added considerably to the estate during her long life and had entailed her purchases in three further acts, all with the same restrictions as the original 1650 deed. These restrictions prohibited the heirs of entail from altering the course of the estate’s succession or from alienating any part by charging them to debts. However, Lockhart highlighted two further inconveniences of the Buccleuch entail: firstly, a ‘singular and remarkable’ feature of these settlements was the omission of any suitable provision for husbands or wives, or for children; secondly, all the deeds contained ‘one most irritant and hurtfull restraint’ upon the heirs of entail, by which they were forbidden to grant leases for longer than the lifetime of the granters. For Lockhart, this second restriction had 35

N. T. Phillipson, ‘Lawyers, Landowners and the Civic Leadership of Post-Union Scotland’, Juridical Review, 21 (1976), 97–120. For the background and development of the law of entail in Scotland, see E. D. Sandford, A Treatise on the History and Law of Entails in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1822), 30–40. 36 Phillipson, ‘Lawyers’, 113–14. 37 NRS GD224/324/7/19, Mackenzie to Archibald Campbell, 7 Mar. 1767. 38 NRS GD224/268/12, Legal Accounts 1766–7; NRS GD224/324/7/10, Abstract of Rental, 1763; NRS GD224/324/7/3, copy of ‘Opinion upon the case respecting of settlements of the estate of Buccleugh’, Alexander Lockhart, 17 Mar. 1767.

62

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

particularly pernicious effects on the management of the Duke’s estates: ‘nothing can be more hurtfull to an estate itself as no tenant can venture to lay out their money in improving their farms when they hold you under so precarious a lease’. As an Act of Parliament was proposed to allow the Duke to make a settlement upon his future wife and children, Lockhart recommended that it would be ‘highly expedient’ if the Act could include a clause that would allow him to grant longer leases to his tenants.39 Lockhart was particularly sensitive to the problems arising from such strict entails; it had been at his instigation, as the newly appointed Dean, that the Faculty of Advocates had led the campaign to abolish entails three years earlier, when he had argued that the ‘pernicious consequences’ of such entails, if left unchecked, would soon ‘overwhelm the whole nation, and withdraw the bulk of the lands of Scotland from being the subject of commerce’.40 Although the marriage settlement and Lockhart’s criticisms brought the disadvantages of the Buccleuch entails to the fore, the problems arising from the restrictions on leasing had been apparent to those managing the Buccleuch estates during the Duke’s minority.41 Further weight was added to the argument for reform the month after Lockhart’s comments, when in April 1767 William Ogilvie submitted his suggestions for the improvement of the Duke’s Scottish estates. Ogilvie argued that improvements depended to a great extent on the ability of the Duke to grant longer leases. Unless the Duke was empowered by an Act of Parliament allowing him to grant leases ‘for a number of years certain’, Ogilvie believed that tenants were unlikely to subject themselves to the ‘risque, care & daily attention & trouble’ that his suggested improvements would require, without them having ‘a prospect of being rewarded by a certainty of possession to himself or his heirs’.42 Although the wedding settlement was completed without the addition of Lockhart’s suggested clause, his observation that ‘it seems to be his Grace’s inclination . . . to go as great lengths as he can in changing the aforesaid [entail]’ was to prove well founded.43 On 16 October, Ilay Campbell, a future Lord Advocate and a former pupil of Smith, wrote to his father, the Duke’s legal agent Archibald Campbell, informing him that his old teacher had visited him that day, acting on behalf of the Duke of Buccleuch. Smith had requested that he make a draft of an Act of Parliament to enable the Duke to grant leases for the ‘lives of the tenants & 19 years certain’, Ilay adding that ‘he is in a hurray about it 39

NRS GD224/324/7/3, copy of ‘Opinion . . .’, Alexander Lockhart, 17 Mar. 1767; NRS GD224/386/11, Case of the Settlements and Entails of the Buccleugh family and about an Act of Parliament for setting leases, Nov. 1767. 40 Phillipson, ‘Lawyers’, 112–16; A. Stewart (ed.) The Minute Book of the Faculty of Advocates, vol. 46 (Edinburgh, 1999), 135. 41 See Chapter 1. 42 NRS GD224/389/2/1, Hints for improving the Duke of Buccleugh’s Estate, [William Ogilvie] Apr. 1767. 43 NRS GD224/324/7/3, copy of ‘Opinion . . .’, Alexander Lockhart, 17 Mar. 1767.

­

Majority (1767–70) 63 & wants it done immediately’. As Ilay admitted to being ‘totally ignorant of the Dukes settlements or business of any kind’, and Smith was to call on him again in a few days’ time, he requested his father’s ‘directions & advice’ on the matter as soon as possible.44 Four days later, Smith again met with Ilay, instructing him to bring a draft of the proposed Act and other related papers to Dalkeith House in two days’ time.45 As Archibald Campbell’s letter to Smith on 29 October would set out, this reform of the estate’s entail to enable the Duke to grant longer leases was crucial if the other main aspect of the Duke’s reforms was to be successfully carried out – that is, the re-set of the entire estate on long, improving leases.46 On 20 October 1767, the same day that Smith met with Ilay Campbell for the second time, an advertisement in the Edinburgh Advertiser announced the general ‘re-setting’ of the Duke’s entire Scottish estate. As the leases on the various Buccleuch estates would generally expire on the following Whitsunday (i.e. 15 May 1768), the advertisement invited offers from either the present possessors ‘or others’, for any of the farms. The advertisement further requested that the prospective tenants should specify the length and terms of lease they proposed, along with the level of rent that they would offer to pay. In addition, proposers were also asked to ‘specify what improvements they would propose to make themselves during their lease on the land estate; or, supposing the Duke to be at the expence of such improvements, what additional rent they will offer on that account’.47 While there was nothing particularly unusual about advertising vacant farms in the press, the advertisements are notable for the sheer scale of the proposed set – the Buccleuch estates at this time consisted of 439 farms – and for the way in which the advertisement placed the onus firmly upon the prospective tenant to outline both the length of the lease and the nature of the improvements intended to be made.48 Although the advert was drafted by Archibald Campbell, an entry in Campbell’s accounts reveals that Adam Smith was sent for to ‘concert the terms’ of the advertisements, indicating that he was involved in the drafting process.49 Other evidence also strongly suggests that Smith was at the heart of the Duke’s initial reforms and that his role was central. The general set of the estates announced in the advertisement of 20 October 1767 was a 44

NRS GD224/386/11, Ilay Campbell to Archibald Campbell, 16 Oct. 1767. NRS GD224/386/11, Ilay Campbell to Archibald Campbell, 20 Oct. 1767. 46 NRS GD224/389/2/20, Archibald Campbell to Smith [draft], 29 Oct. 1767. 47 Edinburgh Advertiser, 20 Oct. 1767. The advertisement was repeated on 27 October, 3 November, 10 November, and also appeared three times in the Newcastle Chronicle. NRS GD224/268/13, Accounts and vouchers, Sep.  1767−Sep.  1768; Accounts and Vouchers from Alexander McMillan. 48 NRS GD224/83/6/1, Concerning the reorganisation of the duke’s chamberlains, 23 Apr. 1764; NRS GD224/23, Rentals 1751–67; NRS GD224/285/5, Rental 1766–7. 49 NRS GD224/389/2/19, Draft Advertisement [in Archibald Campbell’s handwriting], Oct. 1767; NRS GD224/268/13, Accounts and vouchers, Sep. 1767−Sep. 1768. 45

64

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

much more radical plan than members of the Duke’s Scottish administration had envisaged. In his ‘Hints for improving the Duke of Buccleugh’s Estate’, submitted in April 1767, the Duke’s chamberlain, William Ogilvie, had advocated a more cautious and gradual approach to estate improvement, warning that ‘it is a very difficult thing to introduce all at once a sistematical method of culture over so large an extent of country’. He had suggested a ‘more general’ plan should be first attempted and would later voice his concerns to the Duke over the implementation of the general set.50 The memoranda and correspondence of the estate commissioners over the months following the announcement of the general set, with their repeated recourse to the Duke for clarification, also reveal that the instructions for the general set were not coming from any of the Duke’s Scottish agents, but rather originated with the Duke himself or someone else close to him.51 That Smith should be at the centre of the Duke’s proposals is perhaps unsurprising. With Townshend’s death and the Duke’s coming of age, Smith’s mentoring role had become even more important, as Buccleuch gained the freedom to shape his own affairs. Smith was also the Duke’s closest and most trusted acquaintance in Scotland and it was natural that he would turn to him for advice on how to put his plans into action. And despite his complete inexperience of estate management, Smith did hold strong views not only on the importance of agricultural improvement but also on the best ways to achieve it. Before examining how these reforms were implemented, then, it is worth at this stage considering in more detail Smith’s ideas on agriculture and agricultural improvement and how these related both to his views on the proper role of the landed nobility in a modern, commercial society, and to the actual reforms that were attempted upon the Buccleuch estates. In early April 1759, a few days before he first heard of Townshend’s interest in hiring him, Smith wrote to Lord Shelburne congratulating him on the improvements he had recently made to his Irish estates. Shelburne’s laudable actions were, he suggested, in stark contrast to the behaviour of the great landowners of his own country: We have in Scotland some noblemen whose estates extend from east to west sea, who call themselves improvers, and are so called by their countrymen, when they cultivate two or three hundred acres round their own family seat while they allow all the rest of their country to lie waste, almost uninhabited and entirely unimproved, not worth a shilling the hundred acres, without thinking themselves answerable 50

NRS GD224/389/2/1, Hints for improving the Duke of Buccleugh’s Estate, [William Ogilvie] Apr. 1767; NRS GD224/459 p. 29, William Ogilvie to the Duke, 21 Dec. 1767. 51 NRS GD224/91/2 pp. 1–2, Memorial, 2 Mar. 1768.

­

Majority (1767–70) 65 to God, their country and their posterity for so shameful as well as so foolish a neglect.52

With their lands extending virtually from the Solway to the Tweed and their generally unimproved condition, the Buccleuch estates were precisely the kind of holdings that Smith was thinking about when he wrote his letter to Shelburne. This raises the question that, given charge of the education of a noble with exactly this kind of estate, what would Smith stress to be his most proper role and duty? Smith’s letter also neatly encapsulates three aspects of his thought which also have a direct bearing on the way in which we should consider the role he played as tutor and advisor to the Duke: firstly, the importance of agricultural improvement within his model of economic development; secondly, the stringent critique of the nobility that runs throughout his work; and finally, the way in which the interests of the nobility were aligned to those of society as a whole and that the improvement of their estates was therefore a matter of public concern as well as private interest. Although Smith is perhaps more usually associated with his insights into the division of labour and the efficacy of market forces that seemed to foreshadow the nascent industrial revolution, commentators have long been aware of the particularly important role of agriculture in Smith’s economic thinking.53 Although Smith’s ideas on the importance of agrarian improvement seem to have been largely in place before he took up his position with the Duke, the clearest exposition of agriculture’s place in what he termed ‘the natural progress of opulence’ would come in Book III of the Wealth of Nations.54 This ‘natural progress’ was Smith’s conjectural model of the stages of economic development that a society would ideally go through, a three-stage progression from agriculture to manufacturing to foreign commerce.55 In practice, however, this ‘natural’ progress had in fact been inverted in the actual historical development of most European nations. In a reversal of the ‘natural order’, towns had grown by way of foreign trade which had in turn stimulated manufacturing, leading only then to the improvement of the surrounding countryside.56 Smith’s 52

Corr. no. 30, Smith to Lord Shelburne, 4 Apr. 1759. See R. H. Campbell’s and A. S. Skinner’s ‘General Introduction’ to WN, pp.  45, 57; D. McNally, Political Economy and the Rise of Capitalism (Berkeley, 1988), 228–57; J. Dwyer, ‘Virtue and Improvement: The Civic World of Adam Smith’, in The Age of the Passions: An Interpretation of Adam Smith and Scottish Enlightenment Culture (East Linton, 1998), 54–80. 54 See for example LJ(B) 289. 55 WN III.i.8. 56 WN III.i.4. Interestingly, recent research into the British industrial revolution seems to support Smith’s analysis: Robert C. Allen argues that the agricultural revolution in England was driven by ‘expanding world trade, to the growth of urban manufacturing, to rising agricultural productivity, and, finally, to large farms and enclosures. The city drove the countryside – not the reverse.’ R. C. Allen, The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective (Cambridge, 2009), 58. 53

66

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

explanation for this ‘unnatural and retrograde order’ was the role of government in promoting ‘manners and customs’ that distorted the ‘natural order’: the result was what Smith believed to be a far slower and more unstable path towards national economic prosperity than would have been the case if the ‘natural’ order had been allowed to take place.57 Smith’s emphasis on the central role of agriculture was further reinforced elsewhere in the Wealth of Nations. Here he argued that, of the three sectors in which capital could be employed – agriculture, manufactures, and commerce – agriculture produced a much greater amount of productive labour for the amount of capital invested. This was due to the fact that in addition to his servants, the farmer’s working animals were also ‘productive labourers’, and, more significantly, ‘nature’ itself, as Smith put it, ‘laboured along with men; and though her labour costs no expence, its produce had its value, as well as that of the most expensive workmen’. In proportion to the amount of productive labour it employed, therefore, agriculture added a much greater value to the annual wealth of the country than either of the other two sectors.58 This productivity could of course be further enhanced by improvements: Smith explicitly likened the productivity gains achieved from investment in the ‘fixed capital’ of agriculture (such as drains, fences, and buildings) to those gained from investing in machinery in manufactories.59 As long as there was unproductive land capable of cultivation and improvement, it was more beneficial for society as a whole to invest in the agricultural sector than in any other area of the economy.60 ‘Of all the ways in which a capital can be employed’, Smith summarised, agriculture ‘is by far the most advantageous to the society’.61 The second relevant aspect of Smith’s thought raised by his letter to Shelburne is his view of the nobility. Throughout his work, the feudal nobility or ‘great proprietors’ are subjected to a sustained and damning critique. This ranges from their historical origins as perpetuators of a repressive feudal system through to their current position as a group rendered indolent and ineffectual by wealth and luxury, indifferent to the welfare of either their tenants or society as a whole.62 As Smith memorably summed up, ‘All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.’63 Two aspects of this critique are particularly relevant in terms of the reforms 57

WN III.i.9. Smith’s primary example of progress following its ‘natural’ order was that of the American colonies, where he argued that the ‘principal cause’ of their ‘rapid progress towards wealth and greatness’ was the fact that almost all their capital had been employed in agriculture. WN II.v.21. 58 WN II.v.12. 59 WN II.ii.7. 60 WN II.v.19. See also WN I.xi.1.12; WN II.v.37; WN III.iv.24. 61 WN II.v.12. 62 TMS I.iii.2.4–5; LJ(A) iv.164–6; WN III.iv.10. 63 WN III.iv.10.

­

Majority (1767–70) 67

instituted by the Duke in 1767. The first was the way in which the remnants of the feudal institutions with which the nobility protected their position, such as primogeniture and entail, were hindering economic development by slowing down the improvement of agriculture. These ‘barbarous institutions’ kept large estates intact, meaning less land was available for those Smith believed made the best improvers – the owner occupiers of small estates.64 Secondly, Smith was particularly scathing over the deficiencies of the nobility’s education and abilities. In the Theory of Moral Sentiments – the very work that had recommended him to Townshend as a possible tutor – Smith had argued that the dominance of the nobility was on the whole maintained not by any practical abilities but rather because of the admiration and deference in which those of lower rank held them. As a result, young noblemen learned that their authority did not rely on acquiring the ‘more important virtues’; it was this lack of incentive to acquire them that in turn rendered them so unfit for the higher offices of public life or indeed any situation that demanded ‘the continual and long exertion of patience, industry, fortitude, and application of thought’, virtues that Smith argued were ‘hardly ever to be met with in men who are born to those high stations’.65 In the Wealth of Nations Smith would go on to argue that, as the nobility tended to derive their income from rent, which cost them ‘neither labour nor care’, they were often rendered ignorant by their lack of activity and so ‘incapable of that application of mind which is necessary in order to foresee and understand the consequences of any public regulation’.66 And this leads directly to the final point arising from Smith’s letter: the relation between the ‘interest’ of the nobility and that of society as a whole. According to Smith’s analysis, the annual profit of land and labour – the wealth of the nation – could be divided into three parts: the rent of the land, the wages of labour, and the profits of stock. From these three categories were derived what Smith termed the ‘three great, original and consistent orders of every civilised society’: those who live by rent, those who live by wages, and those who live by profit.67 Smith argued that the interests of the first two groups – the landowners and the labourers – were virtually identical and ‘strictly and inseparably connected with the general interest of society’.68 This was because the increases in the overall wealth of a nation would tend to result in the raising of both the wages paid to labourers and the rental value of land, both of which served the particular interests of each group.69 The interest of the third group, however, those who lived by profit, was often in some important respects different from, and at times directly opposed to, the general interest of society. While the interest of this 64

LJ(A) i.166–7; LJ(B) 295; WN III.ii.7; WN III.iv.19. TMS I.iii.2.1–5. 66 WN I.xi.p.8; WN V.i.f.50–3. 67 WN I.xi.p.7. 68 WN I.xi.p.9. 69 WN I.xi.p.5. 65

68

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

group in expanding their markets was usually beneficial to the country at large, what Smith saw as their other primary aim, of narrowing the competition, was always to the detriment of society as a whole. It was because of this that Smith argued that any proposed new law or ‘regulation of commerce’ that came from this group should always be considered carefully and never accepted until it had been fully examined ‘not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention’. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the publick, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the publick, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.70 What is particularly relevant about Smith’s account of these interests is the conclusion he draws about the danger inherent in the landed classes not realising the extent to which their own interests lay with that of society at large: When the publick deliberates concerning any regulation of commerce or police, the proprietors of land can never mislead it, with a view to promote the interest of their own particular order; at least, if they have any tolerable knowledge of that interest. They are, indeed, too often defective in this tolerable knowledge.71 By Smith’s account, the landed classes in general, and the nobility in particular, were in danger of being misled by those involved in commerce and manufacturing into believing that the public good is best served by catering to their interests. By failing to properly understand their own interests and how these coincided with those of society in general, they had allowed disastrous mercantile and monopolistic policies to prevail at the expense of the improvement of society at large. Given his stress on the importance of the landowning classes realising that their own interests were the same as those of society in general, together with his emphasis on the importance of improvement as a national economic goal, it seems more than likely that Smith would instil in his pupil the notion that both his and the nation’s interests coincided in the improvement of his estates. But there seems to be more to Smith’s input than this general advocacy of improvement. The actual reforms that were instigated during Smith’s stay at Dalkeith in the autumn of 1767 also corresponded closely with Smith’s views on how such a large estate could be best improved. Like most contemporary Scottish writers on improvement, Smith believed that feudal perpetuities such as entail were acting as a brake upon improvement. In his earlier lectures Smith had characterised entails as being ‘absurd in 70 71

WN I.xi.p.10. WN I.xi.p.8.

­

Majority (1767–70) 69 the highest degree’ not only on the theoretical grounds that they were an irrational and ‘unnatural’ extension of property rights beyond the grave, but on the practical grounds that, by excluding lands from commerce, they were ‘the causes of the almost total bad husbandry that prevails in those countrys where they are in use’.72

The letting policy, as outlined in the advertisement that Smith had helped to draft, was also broadly consistent with Smith’s own views on the most expedient way in which agricultural improvement could be encouraged. In his Glasgow lectures Smith had suggested that the best way to improve the land was to break up large estates into smaller, owner-occupied farms. Whereas ‘Great and ancient families’ rarely had the capital or inclination to improve their estates, by exposing the land to the open market, those most likely to improve – in Smith’s words, ‘men of scheme and project’, that is, those with sufficient capital, ambition, and ability to carry out improvements – would take possession. As a consequence, the level of attention that could be devoted to improvements, and the proportion of capital that could be reinvested, would all be increased.73 Similarly, the proposed reform to the estate’s restrictive entail would allow the Duke to issue exactly the kind of long leases that Smith had argued were an essential prerequisite for encouraging tenants to improve.74 Smith’s ‘ideal’ solution of abolishing entail entirely and breaking up large estates was of course not an option for the Duke. But the general set of the estates by way of advertisements that specifically invited offers from ‘others’ not currently in possession can be seen as an explicit attempt to expose the land to the competition of the market and attract exactly such men of ‘scheme and project’ that Smith believed would make the best improvers. Whatever the extent of Smith’s influence over the young Duke was, it soon became obvious to his Scottish agents that the Duke was committed to the improvement of his estates and was keen to proceed as quickly as possible, and over the next few months both aspects of the plan to improve the estate were put into action. During November 1767 legal preparations were made to apply to Parliament for an Act to enable the Duke to grant leases for twenty-one years and a life and the right to ‘excamb’ or exchange

72

LJ(A) i.166–7. See also LJ(B) 166. For the general anti-feudal consensus of Scottish improvers, see E. J. Hobsbawm, ‘Scottish Reformers of the Eighteenth Century and Capitalist Agriculture’, in E. J. Hobsbawm (ed.), Peasants in History: Essays in Honour of Daniel Thorner (Calcutta, 1981), 3–29; C. Kidd, ‘North Britishness and the Nature of Eighteenth-Century British Patriotisms’, The Historical Journal, 39, 2 (1996), 361–82. For the specific need for entail reform, see J. Dalrymple, Considerations Upon the Policy of Entails in Great Britain (Edinburgh, 1764); J. Swinton, A Free Disquisition Concerning the Law of Entails (Edinburgh, 1765). 73 LJ(A) i.166–7; LJ(B) 295; WN III.ii.7 and III.iv.19. 74 LJ(A) i.167. See also WN III.ii.16.

70

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

pieces of land.75 At this point, James Montgomery, the Lord Advocate, was consulted over the drafting of the Act and contracted to manage the Bill through Parliament.76 Like Lockhart, Montgomery was also sympathetic towards entail reform: as Solicitor General he had chaired the meeting of the Faculty of Advocates two years previously that had voted to transmit the draft Entail Bill to the counties for consultation.77 Despite Montgomery’s approval of the draft Act, legal advice in London suggested that Parliament would be unwilling to pass the Act.78 By mid-January 1768 the Duke had decided to postpone his application to Parliament after consulting with the Law Lords who recommended that a ‘general application’ should be made, ‘from as many owners of entailed estates as are interested in the power of granting leases’. If this was made, the Lords believed that ‘general relief’ would be given with regard to leasing, but without any power to exchange land.79 Back in Scotland consultations were made with local landowners through Sir Alexander Dick, a neighbour of the Duke’s at Prestonfield and an active improver and public figure in Edinburgh.80 By August, Montgomery had drafted a new, general Act, two copies of which were made for Buccleuch’s personal use, and over the course of the following year a series of public meetings were held in Edinburgh convened by Sir Alexander to discuss the proposed Act.81 As late as December 1769, the Duke seems to have been waiting to see whether the final draft of the Act would suit his purposes before committing himself to its support, but after being sent a draft of the Act early the following year, he decided to give it his backing, going on to contribute one hundred guineas to the ‘Committee of Gentlemen’ that had been formed to promote it.82 The ‘Act to Encourage the Improvement of Lands . . . held under the settlements of strict Entail’ of 1770 (10 Geo. III. C. 51), which was enacted in May 1770, has been widely seen as the legislature’s response to ‘prolonged agitation on the part of the landed class’, a class which continued to value the security of such perpetuities, but which increasingly regarded the associated restrictions as holding back their attempts to improve and

75

NRS GD224/386/11 [7], Case of the Settlements and entails of the Buccleugh Family and about an Act of Parliament for settling leases. 76 NRS GD224/268/13, Accounts and vouchers, 1767–8. 77 Stewart, Faculty of Advocates, xxxiii n. 78 NRS GD224/386/11 [17], ‘Opinion upon . . . the Act proposed for enabling his Grace to set Leases’; NRS GD224/368/11 [10], Mackenzie to Archibald Campbell, 17 Dec. 1767. 79 NRS GD224/368/11 [11], Mackenzie to Ilay Campbell, 16 Jan. 1767. 80 NRS GD224/368/11 [11], Mackenzie to Ilay Campbell, 16 Jan. 1767. 81 NRS GD224/268/13, Accounts and vouchers, 1767–8; NRS GD224/85/11/1, Draft Act of Parliament to enlarge the power of Leasing on the Heirs of Entailed Estates in Scotland, 1768; Caledonian Mercury, 9 Dec. 1769. 82 NRS GD224/930/16, Archibald Campbell to Sir Alexander Dick [draft], 19 Dec. 1769; NRS GD224/273/2, Letter authorising payment to Sir Alexander Dick, 23 Aug. 1770.

­

Majority (1767–70) 71

commercialise their estates.83 However, it seems that the renewed impetus to pass the Act originated in the Duke’s attempt to alter the Buccleuch entails in order to allow him to begin to improve his own estates. It is also worth noting that one of the reasons that the earlier attempts to abolish entail had failed, despite widespread support from the gentry and smaller landowners, had been the opposition of the nobility and greater landowners; as one of the most senior nobles and greatest landowners in Scotland, Buccleuch’s support may well have been critical in shifting opinion behind the Act.84 The Duke’s involvement in the passing of the Entail Act also raises the issue of the overall effectiveness of the Act in encouraging agrarian improvement. While earlier historians tended to regard the Act as an important catalyst to improvement, more recent accounts have been more sceptical of its effects, citing in particular the many restrictions it contained.85 The restrictions, however, mainly applied to the Act’s provision to enable proprietors to burden their estate with a proportion of the expense of improvement. The Duke’s main motivation behind his attempt to reform his entail, however, was the need to grant longer leases and to exchange pieces of land that were intermixed with the entailed estate. Indeed, one of the reasons for his hesitation in backing the Committee of Gentlemen’s campaign for the general Act was because, as Archibald Campbell explained, ‘leasing is his Graces principall & indeed I believe only object’.86 For estates such as Buccleuch’s, the relief that the Act gave from this aspect of entail was to be of fundamental importance in the overall promotion of improvement; it was no coincidence that the reorganisation and improvement of the Duke’s lowland estates only began in earnest in the summer of 1770, shortly after the passing of the Act.87 83

N. T. Phillipson, ‘Scottish Public Opinion and the Union in the Age of the Association’, in Phillipson and Mitchison (eds), Scotland in the Age of Improvement, 141. See also P. Hume Brown, History of Scotland (Cambridge, 1911), 275; Phillipson, ‘Lawyers’, 113–18; T. C. Smout, ‘Where Had the Scottish Economy Got to by the Third Quarter of the Eighteenth Century?’, in I. Hont and M. Ignatieff (eds), Wealth and Virtue: The Shaping of Political Economy in the Scottish Enlightenment (Cambridge, 1983), 68. Colin Kidd has argued that the agitation behind the entail reform should be seen as part of the ‘assimiliationist antifeudalist ethos of North Britain’. C. Kidd, ‘Eighteenth-Century Scotland and the Three Unions’, in T. C. Smout (ed.), Anglo-Scottish Relations from 1603 to 1900 (Oxford, 2005), 186. 84 Phillipson, ‘Lawyers’, 117. 85 Hume Brown, History of Scotland, 275; J. E. Handley, Scottish Farming in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1953), 202–3. For more sceptical views, see R. H. Campbell, ‘The Landed Classes’, in T. M. Devine and R. Mitchison (eds), People and Society in Scotland, Volume 1: 1760–1830 (Edinburgh, 1988), 92; T. M. Devine, The Transformation of Rural Scotland: Social Change and the Agrarian Economy, 1660–1815 (Edinburgh, 1994), 64. 86 NRS GD224/930/16, Archibald Campbell to Sir Alexander Dick [draft], 19 Dec. 1769. 87 See Chapter 4. For a more positive recent assessment of the impact of the Entail Act, see T. C. Smout, ‘A New Look at the Scottish Improvers’, Scottish Historical Review, 91, 1 (2012), 125–49.

72

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

The extent to which an improving letting policy was believed to be dependent upon entail relief can be clearly seen in the second aspect of the Duke’s initial reforms: the attempt to re-set the entire estate by way of granting leases upon plans of improvement. In November 1767, two months after the first advertisements for the general set of the estates had been placed in the papers, William Ogilvie reported he had only received thirtythree proposals, just fourteen of which were from existing tenants, noting that ‘they are but few and mostly [from] strangers’. The general opinion in the country, he noted, was that ‘strangers by making offers will only injure the present tenants without aiding themselves’. Moreover, most of the tenants were relying on the ‘general proposal’ they had submitted to the Duke during his visit, and were waiting for a response before acting. Ogilvie ended his report by summing up what he saw as the two options for setting the estates: either to agree to the tenants’ proposal and ‘make a tender to the present tenants of their respective possessions at such a rent, and upon such conditions as his Grace will accept of and they will give’, or ‘rejecting their proposal, intimate a general set of the whole estates at certain fix’d days, and then take the best offer’. While the first method was most likely to ‘procure the most equitable rental’, the second would achieve the highest.88 The ‘general proposal’ referred to by Ogilvie had been submitted jointly to the Duke during his first visit from the tenants of a number of his South Country estates, and was summarised as ‘praying the rises in rent may be moderate and paid on with equality’.89 Following Ogilvie’s report, a meeting of the Duke’s Scottish commissioners unanimously agreed that the tenants were to be informed that they should not rely on any answer to their general petition but rather it was expected that each tenant would make their own proposal for their farm: ‘otherwise, it will be understood that he means to relinquish his possession and that offers from strangers will accordingly be accepted of’.90 This clarification of the Duke’s intentions seems to have taken immediate effect: less than three weeks later Ogilvie could report that proposals were now ‘coming fast upon us’, and that he could hardly get anything else done ‘for people coming in, and for these two weeks past [I have] done nothing but by snatches’. However, even though he had by now received over a hundred proposals, he conceded that ‘yet you would wonder how few they are in proportion to the whole’.91 By the end of the month Ogilvie had received 153 proposals concerning 203 properties. Of these, just under half were from existing tenants, and the proposed rents represented an increase of just over 28% on those currently being paid.92 Whereas other 88

NRS GD224/459, Abstracts of the proposals and offers for farms of the Duke of Buccleugh’s estates, 4 Jan. 1768 [hereafter, Abstracts of proposals 1768]. 89 NRS GD224/389/2/21, List of proposals, Nov. 1767. 90 Abstracts of proposals 1768, p. 29. 91 NRS GD224/389/2/7, William Ogilvie to Archibald Campbell, 12 Jan. 1768. 92 Abstracts of proposals 1768, p. 48.

­

Majority (1767–70) 73

studies have suggested that attracting new tenants could often prove difficult, the evidence from these proposals, with over half coming from ‘strangers’, and with large advances being offered on the current rentals, indicates a strong demand and keen competition for farms on the Duke’s South Country estates at this time.93 By mid-January, when it had become clear that the Duke’s entail legislation would be postponed until the next session of Parliament, preparations began for instigating a single year’s set of the estate, but again, there was uncertainty among the Duke’s Scottish commissioners upon how to best proceed.94 When Ogilvie wrote to the Duke on 8 March to clarify the situation, he once again highlighted the widespread fears of the tenantry since the announcement of the general set and again stressed the difference between the highest and the most equitable rent – an issue that was to become a reoccurring theme in estate correspondence throughout the Duke’s administration. According to Ogilvie, the ‘anxious fears and apprehensions’ of the Duke’s present tenants, together with the ‘eagerness of strangers’ to become tenants, ‘affords your Grace an occasion of putting what rent you please almost upon your estates’. Indeed, such was the ‘present ferment of the country’, Ogilvie argued, there was more need of ‘moderating’ rather than ‘encouraging’ it. At the same time, it would still be right to make ‘proper use’ of the higher proposals, and Ogilvie suggested that ‘a medium between the present rents and the highest offers’ would probably be about ‘the right standard’. For the current, single-year set, Ogilvie advised that if the Duke was inclined to have advances on the current rental he should raise them universally by a ‘certain percent’. He also pointed out that several farms were already let at too high a rent, particularly those that had been set at public auction, where ‘the heat of such occasions makes people forget themselves and go to far’. By doing so, he also reiterated his concerns to the Duke over the eventual problems that would result if the ‘ferment of the country’ was encouraged rather than moderated, and the highest possible rents sought.95 Five weeks later, on 15 April, a second advertisement appeared in the Edinburgh Advertiser, announcing that due to ‘unavoidable obstructions’, the intended set could not now take place at Whitsunday. Those who had given in proposals were advised that they were free to ‘abide by their proposals, or not, as they see fit’, and that once the obstructions to implementing the leases were removed, further notice would be given in the public papers.96 On 11 May the South Country estates were successfully set by Ogilvie, with the Dalkeith tenants convening at Dalkeith House to 93

See for example H. Blair-Imrie, ‘The Relationship between Land Ownership and the Commercialisation of Agriculture in Angus, 1740–1820’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis (University of Edinburgh, 2001), 168–9. 94 NRS GD224/91/2 pp. 1–2, Memorial, 2 Mar. 1768. 95 NRS GD224/91/2 pp. 4–5, William Ogilvie to Duke, 8 Mar. 1768. 96 Edinburgh Advertiser, 15 Apr. 1768.

74

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

do likewise the following day. The conditions of both sets were the same: a ‘reasonable rise’ of rent, and such labouring restrictions as were ‘judged proper for preserving [the farms] in good order’.97 On 14 May, Ogilvie wrote to the Duke that the landsetting had been a success, noting that ‘we endeavoured to execute your Grace’s intention to the best of our understanding in the views of your interest and the quiet of the country’. ‘The latter I think is attained,’ he added, ‘but how far the former may be equal to your Grace’s expectation, I dare not so much as presume.’98 Although the Duke had hoped to return to Scotland in the spring of 1768, his personal affairs had taken a tragic turn. On 25 March, the Duchess of Buccleuch had given birth to a healthy boy, George, who had seemingly thrived.99 Two months later, however, on the morning of Thursday, 29 May, a few days after being inoculated for smallpox, Lord Dalkeith died. According to family accounts the couple were devastated by the death of their son and it was not until the middle of July that they arrived back in Scotland.100 It was during this stay, which lasted until the end of September, that the Duke set about clarifying his intentions for the general set of the estate. After issuing instructions for another general set of the Dalkeith estate, the Duke travelled south to Langholm Castle, where, on 24 September, he issued a general statement to the tenants of his South Country estates.101 The document, which was later printed with 1,200 copies being distributed thoughout the South Country estates, was the first clear statement of the Duke’s general management policy.102 The document began by answering the ‘great number’ of petitions that had been presented from his tenants by declaring that in the present circumstances he saw no need for abatements, that no more money would be advanced for repairs and improvements either already made or proposed, but rather these should be included in all the proposals that the tenants should make for their farms. However, in order to ‘quiet the minds of my present tenants, from fear of the consequences of invidious offers’, the Duke ordered it to be made known that ‘while they use their possessions well, and duly pay up their rents, they may depend upon my favour and protection’. Furthermore, this favour and protection ‘in a more special manner’ was to be extended to all those that had made or in future would make ‘improvements by building, inclosing, or other ways cultivating their possessions’. It was the Duke’s ‘will and intention’ that any tenants so improving would be continued in their possessions ‘upon reasonable terms’ and ‘for such a 97

NRS GD224/91/2 pp. 8–10, William Ogilvie to Duke, 15 Apr. 1768; NRS GD224/268/13, Accounts and vouchers, 1767–8; NRS GD224/91/2 pp. 10–13, William Ogilvie to Duke, 14 May 1768; NRS GD224/459 p. 12, Memorandum, 12 May 1768. 98 NRS GD224/91/2 pp. 10–13, William Ogilvie to Duke, 14 May 1768. 99 Coke, Journals, vol. 2, 235. 100 Coke, Journals, vol. 2, 275, 278; Public Advertiser, 21 Jul. 1768. 101 NRS GD224/459 p. 13, Memorandum of Duke of Buccleugh to John Alves, 14 Sep. 1768. 102 NRS GD224/257/1, William Ogilvie’s Account of Charge and Discharge, 1767.

­

Majority (1767–70) 75 period of years’ that would be sufficient not only to indemnify them of the expenses they incurred but also to ‘reward their industry for improving and cultivating, according to the worth and extent thereof’. In order to further encourage his tenants ‘to begin and go on towards the improvement of my estates’, it was further proclaimed as a rule that if any tenant ‘so improving’ were to be removed or dispossessed ‘from any cause whatsoever’ before they had been indemnified by the length of their possession, the succeeding tenant would be obliged to compensate them to an amount decided by mutually chosen arbiters. As a further inducement to enclose, the proclamation also stipulated that the expense of erecting and maintaining fences between the boundaries of two farms would be shared equally between the two tenants. These inducements to improve were followed, however, by a stark warning: As it is my intention to encourage the industrious only, the indolent and slothful tenant can expect no indulgence, whatever length of time he, or his ancestors, may have been in possession: and all such as shall abuse their farms, by breaking up their pasture lands, or other ways deteriorating their possessions, will have themselves to blame, if they are furthwith turned out for such abusive practices.103 The Duke’s proclamation of September 1768 was significant in several respects. Not only was it a clarification of the estate’s new letting policy that had been announced the previous year, but it also signalled an important modification of that policy, a modification due, at least in part, to the general unease and widespread fear of dispossession that it had caused. While still making the point that length of possession alone would be no guarantee of future favour, the proclamation sought to reassure tenants that, as long as they ‘used their possessions well’ and paid their rent, they would be secure in their holdings. Although leases were still to be granted upon proposals of improvement drawn up by prospective tenants, and special favour was to be shown towards improving tenants, there would be no set determined purely by the auction of farms to the highest bidder. It was an acknowledgement that, despite Smith’s strictures that land ‘should be as much in commerce as any other goods’, opening up the tenancies of the estate to the market was not as straightforward as the original plan had suggested. It also revealed a nascent tension between commercialisation and improvement and the non-economic elements of landownership which was to become increasingly apparent during the 3rd Duke’s administration. But the proclamation also served as an important announcement of intent on behalf of the Duke himself. Under his administration priority was to be given to the improvement of the estates, and management policies were to be directed towards this goal. Finally, the proclamation, with its assurances of security of tenure and arbitrated indemnification, was also 103

NRS GD224/389/2/24, Rules of Possession for the tenants, 24 Sep. 1768.

76

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

intended as a practical incentive for the Duke’s tenantry to ‘begin and go on towards the improvement’ of the estates. In this respect, the effects of the proclamation, both positive and negative, were soon to become apparent. Early the following year, John Church, the estate’s overseer of improvements, informed the Duke that some of the tenants on the Canonbie estate were beginning to erect superfluous buildings, which they hoped, in the light of his proclamation, would earn his favour at the new set of the farms.104 By June, however, Ogilvie could report that on the strength of the Duke’s declaration many of the tenants had begun not only to build at their own expense, but were ‘also proceeding to inclose and cultivate their farms in a manner hitherto unpracticed’. ‘There seems no cause to doubt’, he added, ‘that so laudable an example will produce the wished for effect upon others.’105 Meanwhile, preparations to enable the Duke’s commissioners to implement the new general set continued.106 By the end of March, however, it had become apparent that, with the terms of the proposed Entail Act still being debated, another annual set would be required, and the Duke ordered that the farms should be let for another year at the same rent and on the same conditions.107 Indeed, the first long, improving leases would not be set until November 1771, the year after the Entail Act was passed, while the re-setting of the rest of the Buccleuch estates was to progress in stages as part of the wider programme of improvements rolled out over the next decade.108 Although Smith remained close to the Duke and continued to be consulted on his affairs, there is no further evidence or suggestion of his direct involvement in the running of the Buccleuch estates. However, in the summer of 1772 Smith was once again called upon to assist the Duke in events that were to prove of the utmost importance to Buccleuch and the future of his estate. In 1769 the Duke had become one of the most prominent backers of the newly launched bank of Douglas, Heron and Company, commonly known as the Ayr Bank. The bank was promoted as a patriotic venture – encapsulated in its motto of ‘pro bon public’ – that would release the capital dormant in the landed estates of its backers to provide much needed credit to the then booming but chronically cash-poor Scottish economy.109 The Duke’s great uncle, the Duke of Queensberry, a keen improver and past director of the British Linen Bank, had been appointed chairman and it was most probably through his influence that 104

NRS GD224/91/2 p. 48, John Church to Duke, 6 Feb. 1769. NRS GD224/459 p. 61, Memorial concerning the repairs of tenant’s houses. 106 NRS GD224/91/2 pp. 61–3, John Alves to Mackenzie, 9 Mar. 1769. 107 NRS GD224/91/2 pp. 63–5. 108 See Chapters 4 and 5. 109 H. Hamilton, ‘The Failure of the Ayr Bank, 1772’, The Economic History Review, 8, 3 (1956), 405–17; S. G. Checkland, Scottish Banking: A History, 1695–1973 (Glasgow, 1975), 124–5. 105

­

Majority (1767–70) 77

Buccleuch subscribed.110 The company’s professed aim of funding agricultural improvements would have particularly appealed to the Duke, who no doubt regarded his £1,000 investment in the scheme in a similar light to his £3,000 subscription to the Forth–Clyde Canal, that is, a public venture aimed at stimulating the economic improvement of the country. The Duke had also shared the widespread frustration with the practices of the two senior chartered banks in Edinburgh; the year prior to the founding of the Ayr Bank, the Duke’s London agent Kenneth Mackenzie noted that, based on the ‘present practices’ of the Bank and Royal Bank of Scotland, the Duke would ‘upon no condition have anything to do with them’ and would borrow money in London instead. Later that year his legal agent advised him to change from the two chartered banks on the grounds that they gave low interest and were ‘troublesome in their rules’, particularly in their refusal to accept bank notes from the Glasgow or ‘country’ banks, which made up the great majority of the rental payments on the estate.111 The bank expanded rapidly and by 1772 its notes were said to account for two-thirds of the currency circulating in Scotland. However, unbeknownst to Buccleuch and the other partners, there were problems from the outset. The over liberal issuing of cash accounts together with a failure of shareholders to pay up their full subscriptions led to a capital shortage that was alleviated by borrowing £600,000 from London. The interest and commission on this borrowing, however, meant that the bank was in effect borrowing in London at 8% while lending in Scotland at 5%.112 This would have been bad enough, but as the subsequent enquiry revealed, the management of the bank, particularly at its branch in Ayr, was ‘wild, partial and profuse’. Practices there ranged from mismanagement and poor judgement to outright fraudulent behaviour, with a cabal of directors and partners approving loans for each other and their associated businesses.113 When the London-Scottish banking house of Neale, James, Fordyce and Downe failed on 8 June 1772 with reported debts of £243,000, its connections to the other Scottish private banks – particularly the Ayr Bank – led to widespread panic in Edinburgh, a rush to exchange notes for specie and ‘a sudden and general stagnation of credit’.114 The Ayr Bank was left with total liabilities of over £1,237,000 (although the company itself was owed an equivalent amount).115 110

On his return from France, the Duke seems to have been close to the Queensberrys, with the Duke hosting a wedding dinner for Buccleuch and Lady Elizabeth on 13 May 1767. Coke, Journals, vol. 1, 234. 111 NRS GD224/273/1, Mackenzie to Archibald Campbell, 7 Jan. 1768; NRS GD224/83/6/5, Memorandum, Archibald Campbell, 7 Sep. 1768. 112 Hamilton, ‘Ayr Bank’, 412. 113 The Precipitation and Fall of Mess. Douglas, Heron, and Company, Late Bankers in Air: With the Causes of Their Distress and Ruin (Edinburgh, 1778), 22–4. 114 Precipitation, 36. 115 Checkland, Scottish Banking, 127–8; Hamilton, ‘Ayr Bank’, 409, 411; Precipitation, 86.

78

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

Although Buccleuch’s personal investment in the bank had only been £1,000, half the maximum allowed to be held by any individual under the company’s constitution, he also had over £18,000 on deposit with the bank at the time of its collapse.116 More significantly still, the Ayr Bank was not a limited liability company such as the Scottish chartered banks, but a copartnership, which left Buccleuch and the other partners facing unlimited liability for the bank’s debt. In the days after the bank’s crash, the Duke was at the centre of attempts to shore up its credit and avoid bankruptcy. Buccleuch, who was in London for the birth of his son, Charles, on 24 May, joined Queensberry and Douglas of Douglas at the head of a delegation to the Bank of England that attempted to negotiate terms that would extend the Bank of England’s already substantial holding of Ayr Bank notes to a total of £300,000. Although we know that Smith was almost certainly involved in advising the Duke over this crisis, the extent of his involvement and the exact part he played remains unclear.117 If, as has been speculated, Smith was involved in persuading the Duke to turn down the Bank of England’s initial offer, which would have left himself and the other main partners liable for the £300,000 credit from the Bank in addition to the Ayr Bank’s other liabilities, his advice at the time was probably sound, although in hindsight this may have been one of the less damaging options.118 If he was involved in the Duke’s and the committee’s next decision, to raise the £350,000 then required by issuing redeemable annuities secured on their estates, it was the worst advice he had ever given him. Whether this desperate attempt to shore up the bank’s credit and stave off bankruptcy stemmed from the committee’s public-spirited motives or their financial naivety, it was a disastrous move. The bank remained solvent for the time being, opening its doors again in September, but with interest rates equivalent to nearly 15%, the annuities were ruinous.119 The later enquiry into the collapse of the bank argued that, in hindsight, legal bankruptcy may well have been a preferable option, as the so-called ‘annuity transaction’ and ‘the vast train of consequential inexplicable expences attending it’ amounted to an enormous sum that accounted for the great majority of the bank’s eventual 116

NRS GD224/273/2, Archibald Campbell’s accounts and vouchers, 1769–70; NRS GD224/269/2, John Davidson’s accounts, 1771–2. 117 Smith described himself as having been ‘a good deal occupied about the most proper methods of extricating’ some of his closest friends from the ‘calamities’, seemingly a reference to Buccleuch. Corr. no. 132, Smith to William Pulteney, 3 Sep. 1772. 118 The Bank of England offered to take a further £150,000 of Ayr Bank notes (it already held £150,000) on condition that the nominated partners (including the Dukes of Buccleuch and Queensberry) gave security with bonds on English lands with a rental of £10,000 a year as well as government securities. R. Saville, Bank of Scotland: A History, 1695–1995 (Edinburgh, 1996), 162–3. 119 On paying £800, two persons named would receive £100 a year for the life of the longest lived; for £700, one person received £100 a year. Less than two years later, over £450,000 was required to redeem the annuities. A. W. Kerr, History of Banking in Scotland (London, 1908), 103–4.

­

Majority (1767–70) 79

losses.120 In the meantime, the Bank of England had begun proceedings against the Dukes of Buccleuch and Queensberry and the Earl of Dumfries for £300,000.121 Whatever Smith’s role in this process was, it seems that the detailed business of raising the required sums to extricate the Duke from his predicament after the annuities were issued was handled by an English solicitor, Joseph Banks of Mortlake. Banks, who would later be appointed Vice Chancellor to the diocese of York and had earlier been involved in attempting to sort out the Duke’s affairs after the death of Townshend, was involved from November 1772, around the time that Buccleuch was appointed (along with Henry Dundas) as one of five Extraordinary Directors.122 By this point it had also become apparent that the holders of the annuities would require additional security, and, as this would have to come from English estates, only Buccleuch and Queensberry – the only partners with substantial English estates – would be liable for the debt.123 Banks devised a plan whereby the Duke could raise sufficient sums to meet his immediate personal obligations, which were estimated in 1773 to be £72,000; this included the sale of the Duke’s remaining English estates, including Adderbury, which was valued at around £85,000.124 Given the amount invested in the estate on his behalf, this must have been particularly galling to the Duke. Banks was also involved with borrowing a further £80,000 on behalf of the partners to pay off the remainder of the bank’s notes in England and in attempting to find a way to redeem the outstanding annuities.125 These proposals culminated in March 1774 with an Act, steered through the House of Commons by Dundas (who himself had been a partner), allowing the company to issue transferable bonds at 5% to the value of £500,000, in order to redeem the annuities and consolidate the company’s debt to a more manageable level. Even so, the interest on the debt still amounted to £24,000 a year.126 The loan was guaranteed on certain unentailed lands in Scotland with a net rent of £32,000, a

120

Precipitation, 93–100, 163. F. Brady, ‘So Fast to Ruin: The Personal Element in the Collapse of Douglas, Heron and Company’, Collections of the Ayrshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, 11, 2 (1973), 27–44. 122 NRS GD224/31/1/3, Mackenzie to Duke, 16 Nov. 1772. For Bank’s involvement in disentangling Townshend’s affairs at Adderbury, see NRS GD224/86/1/1, Legal Papers between the Duke of Buccleuch and Lady Greenwich, 1768. For Bank’s appointment as Vice Chancellor, see W. Betham, The Baronetage of England, vol. 4 (London, 1804), 77n. The Duke was appointed as an Extraordinary Director at the general meeting of the company on 2 November 1772. At the same meeting, the company retrospectively authorised the annuity transaction. Brady, ‘So Fast to Ruin’, 33. 123 NRS GD224/31/1/3, Mackenzie to Duke, 16 Nov. 1772. 124 NRS GD224/918/5/1, 3 Joseph Banks to Duke, 12 Jul. 1773, 21 Aug. 1774. 125 NRS GD224/918/5/1, 2, Joseph Banks to Duke, 12 Jul., 11 Sep. 1773. 126 14 George III c.21; Saville, Bank of Scotland, 165n. 121

80

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

substantial portion of which were from the Buccleuch estates.127 Although the bank officially went into liquidation in August 1773, it was not until March 1804 that the affairs of the company were finally settled, and some litigation continued even after that.128 The failure of the Ayr Bank would have severe consequences for the Scottish economy: only three of the thirty Scottish private banks survived, and by the summer of 1775 just over half of the company’s 226 partners were believed to be bankrupt; one account estimates around £750,000 of land changed hands as a consequence of the crash.129 For Smith, who would incorporate a section on the crash into the Wealth of Nations, where he sympathetically described the aims of its backers, the episode seems to have led him to adopt a more conservative stance on banking in general.130 For Buccleuch, the effects would be more profound. On the one hand, it impressed on the Duke and his political ally, Henry Dundas, the crucial importance of a robust banking sector for both economic and social stability. Together the two men would orchestrate the takeover of the Royal Bank from their political opponent Sir Lawrence Dundas, and in 1778 the Duke replaced Sir Lawrence as its governor – an irony not lost on the Duke’s opponents.131 With Dundas as the governor of the Bank of Scotland, the two men would oversee the creation of a stable two-tier banking system in Scotland, with the two chartered banks cooperating closer than ever before. At the same time, the two banks would provide the Buccleuch/Dundas interest with the largest potential credit of any political faction in eighteenth-century Britain.132 Although in one sense the Duke and other major partners had managed a miraculous escape – the Duchess of Queensberry reportedly likened her husband, Buccleuch and Douglas to the escape of the biblical Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego from the furnace – the Ayr Bank’s failure would have serious implications for the Duke’s financial situation.133 Although his nominal share of the debt should have only been £4,400, the bankruptcy of many of the original partners and the securing of the bonds on portions of his estate meant that his eventual contribution would be much higher and he continued to play a leading role in the attempts to pay off the bank’s remaining debt.134 Inevitably, this had a serious impact on the Duke’s finances: by the 127

NRS GD224/269/4, John Davidson’s accounts, 1773–4. Brady, ‘So Fast to Ruin’, 34. 129 Saville, Bank of Scotland, 163; Kerr, History of Banking, 107. 130 A. E. Murphy, The Genesis of Macroeconomics (Oxford, 2009), 180–5. 131 Anon., To the D. of B. When Your Grace Engaged in the Politics of E- (Edinburgh, 1777), 2. 132 Saville, Bank of Scotland, 171–5. 133 Coke, Journals, vol. 4, 116n. 134 In addition to selling off his English estates, the Duke contributed £20,000 in December 1773, followed by a number of substantial contributions, including £10,500 in 1778. Westminster Journal and London Political Miscellany, 1 Jan. 1774; The Scots Magazine, 40 (1778), 685. 128

­

Majority (1767–70) 81

mid-1780s his debt stood at around £50,000; ten years later it had risen to just under £80,000.135 This amount was large but not unmanageable, with annual interest payments of just under £4,000; but it did mean that money would always be tight, with Lady Louisa Stuart later characterising him as ‘the poor Duke’ who ‘somehow floundered on in money difficulties all his life’.136 And although Lady Elizabeth’s inheritance of part of the Montagu fortune in 1790 would help to alleviate the situation, this lack of ready money would have an important bearing on the future management and improvement of his estates.137

135

In 1787 the Duke’s debt was £50,846; by 1795 it stood at £79,666 13s. 4d. NRS GD224/269/19, Vouchers from John Davidson’s accounts, 1785–7; NRS GD224/584/11/16, General View of the Duke’s probable neat annual income in Scotland, 23 Feb. 1795. 136 Stuart, Memoire, 53. See also Lady Carlow’s comments in G. Clark (ed.), Gleanings From An Old Portfolio, vol. 1 (Edinburgh, 1895), 144. 137 The Montagu inheritance was valued at £150,000, £50,000 of which was jewellery, and which also included substantial Northamptonshire estates and the magnificent Boughton House, regarded as ‘the English Versailles’, and Montagu House in Whitehall, which became the family’s London residence from 1791. Chichester, rev. Mercer, ‘Montagu, George Brudenell’, in ODNB.

Chapter Four

Improvement I: The Lowland Estates (1767–1800) At the end of July 1770, two months after the Entail Act had finally been passed, the Duke embarked on a ten-day tour of his South Country estates. On leaving Dalkeith he travelled south, first to Yair in northern Selkirkshire, then on to Bowhill near Selkirk, before travelling on through Teviotdale and Ewesdale, finally arriving at his summer residence of Langholm Castle in Eskdale. As soon became evident, the main purpose of the tour was to inspect his estates with a view to instigating the improvements enabled by the new legislation. In Langholm, after an inspection of the existing tradesmen’s and labourers’ cottages on the estate there, the Duke gave orders for ninety-nine-year building leases to be granted, ‘pursuant to the powers in the late Act of Parliament’, for a street of uniform, stone-walled and slate-roofed houses on his land across the river from the existing town of Langholm, instigating what would become his planned village of New Langholm.1 A few days later, on 9 August, the Duke made the short journey south to Canonbie, the largest of his lowland arable estates. Accompanied by John Church and his chamberlain William Ogilvie, the Duke inspected the estate, ordering a new arrangement to be made of a number of farms on the east side of the river Esk. After personally pointing out the boundaries of the proposed new farms, the Duke gave instructions that they were to be subdivided in such a manner ‘as may better serve the purpose of cultivation’, and that the work was to be carried out ‘with all convenient speed’. Two days later he had travelled the forty miles northeast to Eckford, his arable estate in eastern Roxburghshire, where, after viewing the estate, he met with a neighbouring landowner to arrange an exchange of land, or ‘excambion’ – another power granted by the recent Act. As the proposed exchange would affect the boundaries of a number of other farms on the estate, the Duke ordered that a new arrangement should be made to render them ‘more comodious & fitt for any future plan of inclosing’. Before leaving, the Duke further ordered that twelve acres on the summit of Wooden Hill at the centre of the estate should be enclosed

1

NRS GD224/459, Instructions & Orders by his Grace the Duke of Buccleugh to William Ogilvie, 25 Aug. 1770, 109–13 [hereafter, Instructions & Orders 1770].

­

Improvement I: The Lowland Estates (1767–1800) 83

and planted with ‘firr & forest trees’, which Church was ordered to see ‘executed with all convenient speed’.2 The Duke’s tour in the summer of 1770 marked the first concrete steps in his plans to rearrange and improve his lowland estates. But it also emphasises the extent to which the Duke was personally involved in the initial stages, pointing out farm boundaries and the division of farms. The Duke’s keen interest in the practical details of agricultural improvement was also apparent in his increasing involvement in the management of his home farm at Dalkeith. The parks there had been managed by John Church since 1765, a role he combined with his other duties as ‘supervisor of woods, plantations, repairs and improvements’. As well as providing food for the family and household – Church could boast in 1768 that the livestock there were in ‘a thriving way’ and the Duke’s table would be ‘furnished with Beef and Mutton at least equal to any place in England’ – the home farm also retained its original purpose of providing an example of improved husbandry for the rest of the estate.3 The experimental nature of this role became even more pronounced when, from the early 1770s, the Duke became personally involved in the management of the farm. In the words of James Church, who succeeded his father as manager of the parks in the summer of 1770, the Duke had by this time ‘become a keen farmer’, who directed every aspect of the farm’s experiments, which included trying out new crops and rotations, farming implements and systematic livestock breeding.4 In 1774 he introduced a new plan of his ‘own invention’ to record in precise detail the use of each field on the farm, with an increasingly exasperated Church required to keep a detailed account of where particular crops were sown and the livestock were pastured. If the Duke was not in residence, Church was to send monthly summaries for him to enter in his own ‘Field Book’, so that, as the Duke’s secretary noted, he would be able ‘to Look back and See what has been done to each piece of Land for years or months Back’.5 This rational, empirical approach was also apparent in the Duke’s orders the previous year to begin the systematic collection of meteorological records at Dalkeith, an enquiry he would later extend to his Branxholm estate near Hawick.6 But Buccleuch’s interests in improvement went well beyond hobby-farming and his breeding experiments in 2

Instructions & Orders 1770. NRS GD224/91/2, John Church to Duke, 14 Apr. 1768. 4 NRS GD1/975/8, Life of James Church of Moss Tower, [Dec 1814] [hereafter, Life of James Church [1814]]. 5 NRS, Papers relating to James Church, GD1/975/1, J. Goldicut to James Church, 24 Feb. 1774; NRS GD1/975/2, J. Goldicut to James Church, 14 Mar. 1774. 6 NRS, Records of the Meteorological Office, Scotland, MET/1/4/37, Weather Diary for Dalkeith 1773–90. I am grateful to Alastair Dawson for this reference. The records from Branxholm were later submitted by the Duke to the Royal Society of Edinburgh. S. Shapin, ‘Property, Patronage, and the Politics of Science: The Founding of the Royal Society of Edinburgh’, The British Journal for the History of Science, 7, 1 (1974), 37n. 3

84

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

particular were designed to have practical applications beyond the home farm. Buccleuch used breeding stock from the renowned agriculturalist and livestock improver Robert Bakewell, and followed his methods of ‘inand-in’ selective breeding.7 From the early 1770s, the Duke was sending horses, sheep and cattle from Dalkeith and England to Langholm for the use of his South Country tenants in an attempt to improve local breeds, while the home farm at Langholm Castle was used to introduce new crops and rotations to the area.8 In his influential Observations on Live Stock, published in 1786, George Culley would praise the Duke’s efforts to improve the sheep of his tenants as ‘laudable and spirited endeavours’ from ‘an active Nobleman’ who was ‘ever attentive to the good of his country’.9 Although the Duke’s interest in farming and livestock improvement would continue, his hands-on involvement in the day-to-day management of the home farm and his personal supervision of his improvement plans seem to have peaked in the mid-1770s. From this point onwards the Duke’s agricultural interests had to compete with the growing demands of the other aspects of his public life, particularly his military role from 1778.10 By this stage, however, the supervision and planning of the estate’s improvement strategy had largely passed on to the Duke’s new overseer of improvements, William Keir. His appointment in late 1772 was undoubtedly the most significant of all of the Duke’s early improving initiatives and one which would have far-reaching consequences for the improvement of the estate. While the exact circumstances of Keir’s appointment are unclear, it seems most likely that he first came to the Duke’s attention through his work for the Annexed Estates. Although he would later describe himself as a young and ‘inexperienced’ man when he accepted his commission from the Duke, Keir in fact already had six years’ experience working as a land surveyor on the forfeited Perth estate for the Board of the Annexed Estates from 1766 to 1771.11 Despite the general consensus that the attempt to 7

For Robert Bakewell, see G. E. Mingay (ed.), The Agrarian History of England and Wales (Cambridge, 1989), 317–18; M. A. Ryder, Sheep and Man (London, 1983), 486. For the Duke’s use of Bakewell’s stock, see NRS GD1/975/3/4, Memorandom of Calves and Lambs, James Church; NRS GD1/975/4/1, Duke to James Church, 31 Jun. 1774; NRS GD224/657/19, Keir to Duke, 21 Apr. 1774. 8 NRS GD224/657/5, Keir to Duke, 4 Apr. 1773; 13, Keir to Duke, 6 Jul. 1773; 19, Keir to Duke, 21 Apr. 1774; 21, Keir to Duke, 3 Sep. 1774; 25, Keir to Duke, 30 Nov. 1774; 82, Keir to Duke, 17 Nov. 1791; Public Advertiser, 31 Oct. 1775. For an example of one of the Duke’s tenants using Bakewell’s rams to improve his stock, see A. Wight, The Present State of Husbandry in Scotland, vol. 2 (Edinburgh, 1778), 403–10. 9 G. Culley, Observations on Live Stock (London, 1786), 104. 10 For his continued interest in improving livestock, see NRS GD224/657/82, Keir to Duke, 17 Nov. 1791. For his military role and other aspects of his public life, see Chapter 6. 11 The first record of William Keir’s employment by the Board is a survey of the Barony of Strathgeath on the Perth estate in 1766. The same year, Thomas Keir was appointed as factor to the Lowland Division of the Perth estate, suggesting William may have been a

­

Improvement I: The Lowland Estates (1767–1800) 85

improve the forfeited estates was largely an underfunded failure, agricultural improvement undoubtedly lay at the heart of the Board’s improving mission, and the aims and methods promoted by the commissioners would prove extremely influential among improving landlords and the surveyors they employed.12 Buccleuch was familiar with a number of the members of the Board and had himself been appointed as a commissioner in 1772. When John Church, the Duke’s supervisor of plantations and improvements, died in the summer of that year, the Duke may well have drawn on his connections with the Board to find a successor.13 Such skilled estate personnel were still few and far between in Scotland in the early 1770s and were highly sought after by improving landowners; in 1769, the Duke’s cousin, James Stuart Mackenzie, had lamented the fact that, as far as he was aware, there were ‘not half a dozen such land stewards in all Scotland’.14 Mackenzie may have exaggerated the situation, but Keir was undoubtedly one of only a small number of professional land agents active during this period who could combine the skills of a land surveyor with the role of ‘supervisor’ or ‘overseer’ of improvements.15 Certainly, Keir’s experience on the Perth estate – which included the surveying and laying out of new farms and settlements, and had seen him assisting the renowned surveyor Peter May – made him an ideal candidate for the position and well qualified for the task of implementing the Duke’s proposed reforms to his lowland estates.16 Indeed, Keir’s experience and abilities would also have an important bearing on the evolution of the post he inherited. Keir received his commission from the Duke as ‘forrester and overseer’ in Kelso in December 1772. He was given a salary of £150 and the lease of the Duke’s farm of Milnholm, previously held by John Church, about two miles from what was to become the Duke’s summer residence in Langholm. Although the position was essentially a continuation of that held by Church, Keir’s remit differed significantly from his predecessor’s in relative. NRS, Forfeited Estates Papers, E777/333/15, Accounts William Keir, Land surveyor, 10 Aug. 1767. For the appointment of Thomas Keir, see A. M. Smith, Jacobite Estates of the Forty-Five (Edinburgh, 1982), 243. 12 For an assessment of the Commission’s role, see Smith, Jacobite Estates, 224–36; A. Mackillop, ‘More Fruitful Than the Soil’: Army, Empire and the Scottish Highlands, 1715–1815 (East Linton, 2000), 77–100. For the positive influence of the Board on landed proprietors, see I. H. Adams, ‘The Agents of Agricultural Change’, in M. L. Parry and T. R. Slater (eds), The Making of the Scottish Countryside (London, 1980), 159. 13 Smith, Jacobite Estates, 241. 14 I. H. Adams, Papers on Peter May Land Surveyor, 1749–1793 (Edinburgh, 1979), 161. 15 For example, Peter May on the Findlater and Bute estates, John Burrell on the Hamilton estates, and Robert Ainslie on the Douglas estates. For the importance of this ‘small group of highly energetic, influential and knowledgeable surveyors and factors’, see T. M. Devine, The Transformation of Rural Scotland: Social Change and the Agrarian Economy, 1660–1815 (Edinburgh, 1994), 93. 16 For Keir’s work with May, see Adams, Papers on Peter May, 107–9.

86

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

a number of important respects. As well as managing the ‘different woods, plantations, nurseries and fences’, Keir was required to oversee all lime and slate quarries and all other works ‘of whatever kind’ on the Duke’s South Country estates, and was also to ‘make proper surveys and plans’ for ‘such parts of the Estates’ as the Duke might specify. Whereas Church’s role had been defined as essentially supervisory – reporting back, for example, on the conditions of the woods and the progress of tenants’ improvements, and ensuring that the conditions of leases had been fulfilled – Keir was given a much more proactive and independent remit. He was ‘to visit the whole lands and Estate’ belonging to the Duke in the South Country and report back on the best way to manage them, specifying such ‘restrictions or other articles’ that should be inserted into the tenants’ leases, for ‘the better improvement’ of these estates. Whereas Church’s instructions had outlined in great detail the exact manner in which he was to conduct his business, even down to stipulating the number of books he should use to record his transactions, Keir was empowered to devise and direct his own plans of management, and, in the words of his commission, to give ‘such directions about the proper management thereof as he may see fit’. This change in emphasis of the overseer’s role was no doubt partly to do with Keir’s abilities and experience as a surveyor: although Church had been hired to survey the estate, he was essentially a farmer with no formal training or experience in surveying.17 But Keir’s commission also represented a new departure in the demarcation of duties within the Duke’s establishment and marked a further specialisation of roles which emphasised the improvement of the estate as a priority. Prior to Keir’s appointment William Ogilvie, the Duke’s South Country chamberlain, had been responsible for almost all the reports and proposals regarding the management and improvement of the Duke’s estates, including the drafting of Church’s instructions.18 From this point onwards, Keir had responsibility for all aspects of improvement policy while the chamberlain’s role increasingly focused on managing other aspects of the Duke’s interest, particularly issues of patronage and police.19 Indeed, the independence of his position within the estate hierarchy and the fact he answered directly to the Duke were of crucial importance to Keir. As he later recalled, when he first received his commission he had ‘immediately objected’ to a clause that implied he would have to take instructions from the Duke’s chamberlain as well as directly from the Duke himself as ‘a thing I could not agree to’. It was only when the Duke ‘immediately removed this objection’ by assuring Keir that it was not in his interest to put him under the ‘management 17

Life of James Church [1814]. See for example NRS GD224/389/2/1, Hints for improving the Duke of Buccleugh’s Estate, [William Ogilvie] Apr. 1767; NRS GD224/459 p.  57, Memorial concerning the repairs of tenant’s houses. 19 See Chapter 6. 18

­

Improvement I: The Lowland Estates (1767–1800) 87

of any factor’ that Keir agreed to accept the post. As Keir later put it, ‘I consider the commission I have the honour to hold under your Grace as giving me an opportunity of employing my time and ability for your Grace’s interest and my own credit,’ adding, ‘It points out a clear line of business which your Grace had been pleased to interest in my care without the ­interference of any third person.’20 For the next thirty-eight years, Keir would be responsible for the planning, implementation, and supervision of virtually all the improvements carried out upon the Duke’s South Country estates. Based at his farm of Milnholm at the foot of Eskdale, Keir would single-mindedly pursue his goal of improving the Duke’s estate; as he would later put it to the Duke, ever since his first appointment he had considered it his duty to do ‘everything in my power toward the improvement of your Graces Estate: and to submit every scheme that occurred to me for promoting that object, to your Graces consideration’.21 Keir’s immediate priority on his appointment was to implement the Duke’s plans to improve his lowland estates. Although the Duke’s Dalkeith estate in Midlothian had been set on long improving leases in the autumn of 1771, with detailed crop stipulations and the requirement for tenants to divide and enclose all their land, little progress had been made with the lowland estates in the South Country since the Duke’s tour of 1770.22 In late 1772, Keir set about implementing the Duke’s plans, beginning with the Canonbie estate. At over 21,000 acres, the estate of Canonbie in south-eastern Dumfriesshire was by far the largest of the Duke’s lowland, arable estates. Measuring roughly six miles from north to south and nine miles across, the estate was coterminous with the parish of the same name, with the river Esk, flowing south from Eskdale, roughly bisecting the estate and the river Liddel, running south-west from Liddesdale, forming its southern boundary and the border with England. Most of the land in the parish was low-lying, rising back from the rivers to the east and north-east to around 1,300 feet at its highest point, while to the north-west it gradually climbed to moorland at a height of 600 feet. While both of these higher areas supported a small number of sheep farms, the majority of the farms – or ‘ferm touns’ – lay in the centre and along the south-eastern edge of the parish, on the flat holm land that banked the rivers Esk and Liddel. This sheltered alluvial land produced a fertile, light loam soil and formed the ‘infield’ or ‘croft land’ of the ferm touns, intensively farmed arable land held by the tenants in runrig, with each tenant’s lands intermixed to ensure a fair distribution. Beyond the holm land, the land rose back to a rolling moor of heath and 20

NRS GD224/657/1/44, Keir to Duke, 16 Apr. 1778. NRS GD224/657/1/77, Keir to Duke, 26 Feb. 1790. 22 NRS GD224/114/6/19, Tack for Langshidehead, Oct. 1771. 21

88

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

Figure 4.1:  Canonbie: the pre-improved landscape. Roy’s Military Survey of 1747–55 shows the Canonbie estate prior to the new arrangement of 1772, with the ferm touns concentrated in the holm land on the banks of the rivers Esk and Liddel. George Bell’s farm of Woodhouselees lies in the bottom left-hand corner. © The British Library. Licensor .

coarse grass. Each ferm toun held a long, narrow strip of this uncultivated land, often stretching back as far as two miles, which formed the farm’s communally held ‘outfield’. These ‘back grounds’ were used primarily for rough grazing during the summer months, although the quality of pasturage was so poor that one local landowner noted it would be more accurate to say that the young cattle were turned out on the moor ‘merely to keep them alive till they grew older’.23 The estate’s rental listed 175 tenants by name in sixty-four separate farms, the vast majority being held as multiple tenancies, with only sixteen leased to a single tenant.24 Commentators 23

Wight, Husbandry, 423. For the layout of the farms see also Roy’s Military Survey Map of 1747–55, map no. 7/1, reproduced in W. Roy, The Great Map: The Military Survey of Scotland 1747–55 (Edinburgh, 2007). 24 NRS GD224/85/4/5, Petition to the Duke of Buccleugh’s Commissioners [copy], 1766;

­

Improvement I: The Lowland Estates (1767–1800) 89

remarked upon the ‘slovenly methods’ generally practised on the estate, and that there was very little evidence of improved husbandry. The present layout of the farms, in particular, was noted as making improvement almost impossible, with the tenants’ houses at too great a distance from their ‘out grounds’ making them consequently ‘almost inaccessible to the means of improvement’.25 There were a number of reasons why Canonbie was singled out as the first of the lowland estates to be improved. As the Duke’s largest arable estate, it had long been seen as having the potential to be improved; in 1761 Townshend had suggested that one of the English farmers should be given a farm in the area to act as an example to the other tenants, and with this in mind Keir’s predecessor, John Church, had been given a 200 acre farm there when he first entered the Duke’s service, where he had built a new house and offices.26 The parish was also particularly well endowed with the materials necessary for improvement. Limestone was present in a number of locations, particularly on the eastern side of the Esk, and the estate already had a limeworks in operation at Holehouse on the western side of the river. Even more crucially – and almost uniquely for this part of the county – the coal needed to burn the lime was also present alongside the limestone deposits, most notably on either side of the Esk at Holehouse and Byreburnside, making the use of lime significantly more economical than elsewhere in the county, where coal had to be imported from Cumberland.27 Trials carried out on the moorland that covered much of the estate had revealed that under a thin layer of moss or peat-earth lay a fine, clay soil which, when treated with lime, would produce a good crop of oats, suggesting it would be possible to bring large tracts of the uncultivated outfield land under the plough. Although there had been some improvements made on the nearby estate of Robert Graham of Netherby on the other side of the border, it was the pioneering work of one of the Duke’s own tenants that had shown the potential the estate had for improved husbandry.28 George Bell had inherited the lease for Over Woodhouselees, one of the few single-tenancy farms upon the estate, from his father, Benjamin Bell of Blackwoodhouse, in 1758, when he had been granted one of the tenyear leases issued under John Craigie’s administration. Under his father, NRS GD224/285/5, Rental of his Grace Henry Duke of Buccleugh . . . Whitsunday 1766 to Whitsunday 1767 [hereafter, Rental 1766–7]. 25 NRS GD224/657/1/2, Keir to Duke, 3 Dec. 1772. 26 NRS GD224/91/1 p. 7, [Mackenzie] to Phillip Buskall, 28 Feb. 1791. Church was given the farm of Lymiecleugh, later known as Park Place. Rental 1766–7; Life of James Church [1814]. 27 RCAMS, Eastern Dumfriesshire: An Archaeological Landscape (Edinburgh, 1997), 268–71. 28 For improvements at Netherby, see OSA (Canonbie), vol. 14, 417; D. Spring, ‘A Great Agricultural Estate: Netherby under Sir James Graham, 1820–1845’, Agricultural History, 29, 2 (1955), 73–81.

90

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

who had extensive interests as a drover and dealer in Galloway cattle and held his own estate elsewhere in Dumfriesshire, the farm had been almost completely neglected. According to one witness ‘it was destitute of all sort of proper management, uncultivated, and in a mere state of nature’, while George Bell himself would later describe it as ‘a Desart Wild, the Bulk of it Consisting of a Tract of Muir Land in its natural state not worth Six pence per acre’. The farm was totally unenclosed without a single hedge or ditch, and had ‘Scarce a House Habitable upon it Nor one Acre of Ground under any sort of Culture or Management’. As Bell recounted, Perhaps I might have drudged on at the ordinary rate of the Country, made ends meet at the end of the year, And my Farm at the end of the Lease have been that same Barren Uncultivated Field that I found it. But as I had betaken myself Solely to the Business of Farming, Notwithstanding the shortness of my Lease, I fell to work with all my might In Cultivating and Improving my Farm at Great Labour and Expence. As well as erecting houses and farm buildings, Bell set about draining the croft land, enclosing it with ditch and hedge, and began sowing turnips and clover, the first to do so on the estate. On the rough moor that formed the upper part of his farm, Bell began to cultivate the land, ‘Stubbing out Brush and Bramble’ and breaking up the layer of moss with a heavy plough. Once the surface layer had been given time to rot down and mix with the clay soil beneath, lime was applied, and the following season the ground was ploughed for a crop of oats, followed subsequently with a rotation alternating oats and rye grass.29 According to David Armstrong, an advocate called in to verify Bell’s account of his improvements, George Bell had ‘acted more like a Farmer and done more Substantial improvements upon his Farm and with more Taste, Than the whole Tennants upon His Graces Estate in this part’. If the other tenants could be induced to copy Bell’s example, he suggested, ‘It would Soon make a happy Country And in Twenty years time make His Graces Estate in the low Country capable of being doubled in the Rent.’ Bell himself believed he could act as an example to the other farmers on the estate, with his methods acting as ‘a Sort of Pattern’ for his neighbours, who up to now had ridiculed him for the expense of his improvements made on such a short lease; and indeed, Bell’s methods, particularly the reclamation of moorland, would form the basis for the new arrangement of the Canonbie farms.30 Bell’s improvements, which had been brought to the attention of the 29

NRS GD224/85/4/5, Petition to the Duke of Buccleugh’s Commissioners [copy], 1766; Wight, Husbandry, 428; OSA (Canonbie), vol. 14, 419. 30 NRS GD224/85/4/5, Petition to the Duke of Buccleugh’s Commissioners [copy], 1766. For more on Bell see OSA (Canonbie), vol. 14, 419, 427–9.

­

Improvement I: The Lowland Estates (1767–1800) 91

Duke’s commissioners in 1766 when Bell had petitioned for a renewal of his lease, gave a tangible example of what might be achieved upon the Canonbie estate if improvement was encouraged and waste land brought under cultivation; according to one later estimate it was thought that, if fully improved, around 70% of the estate could potentially be brought under the plough.31 A further consideration was the presence of the new turnpike road which bisected the estate and had been built largely at the Duke’s expense. This not only opened up easier access to markets and the materials of improvement, but as a main route from Carlisle to Edinburgh it also made the Canonbie estate an accessible and visible location to showcase the Duke’s progressive improving policies.32 Finally, as the Duke was the sole proprietor of the entire parish, there would be no difficulties arising from the need to divide commons or exchange land with other landowners or in gaining permission for other aspects of the new arrangement. Although there had been some preliminary surveying of the estate, work on the new arrangement of the Canonbie farms began in earnest with Keir’s appointment in late 1772. Keir began by making plans of the divisions of the proposed new farms based on the Duke’s initial proposals of 1770, and, by the end of March 1773, had begun marking out the new divisions on the ground ready for the Duke’s inspection. The first to be surveyed and divided were seven farms lying on the eastern side of the river Esk south of the Byre burn and along the northern banks of the Liddel.33 By early May the survey had been extended to include the farms of Todhillwood and Nether Woodhouselees near the southern border of the estate, and in October Keir was ordered to submit a report on the new divisions so that ‘directions may be given for letting them to such persons and upon such conditions as shall be approven of by his Grace’.34 The new divisions all followed the same general pattern and consisted of a complete rearrangement of the existing farm structure. The old ferm touns with their multiple tenancies and infield-outfield systems were to be replaced with new, single-tenant holdings of between sixty and 150 acres, made up largely of the old outfields. These, through enclosure, ploughing, and liming, were to be converted from rough pasture and heath into arable land. The rough buildings of the ferm touns, with their earthen floors and clay walls, were to be replaced on each farm by a ‘commodious’ stone or brick dwelling house and farm offices built close to the newly divided fields at the Duke’s expense, estimated at £150 per house.35 31

OSA (Canonbie), vol. 14, 425. See Chapter 6. 33 Instructions & Orders 1770, 111–12; NRS GD224/657/1/4, Keir to Duke, 23 Mar. 1773. 34 NRS GD224/657/1/7, Keir to Duke, 7 May 1773; NRS GD224/584/9/12, Instructions the Duke of Buccleugh to William Ogilvie, 4 Oct. 1773. 35 NRS GD224/657/1/12, Keir to Duke, 6 Jul. 1773. For the condition of the houses in Canonbie prior to this, see T. Pennant, A Tour in Scotland and Voyage to the Hebrides 1772, ed. A. Simmons (Edinburgh, 1998), 77; Life of James Church [1814]. For the important role 32

92

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

A notable element of the new arrangement was the Duke’s insistence that all the existing tenants and their dependants currently residing on the estate would be accommodated. During his visit of 1770, the Duke had ordered John Church to make a list of all the families residing within the boundaries of the existing farms, including their occupations, and to report back on the best way that they could be accommodated after the tenants were provided with the necessary houses.36 It was this requirement rather than any attempt to create an ideal working unit that largely dictated the size and number of the farms in the new arrangement; indeed, the size of some of the new farms, at around sixty acres, was significantly smaller than the hundred acres that was believed by some to be the minimum size for a progressive arable holding.37 Keir had initially suggested to the Duke that a ‘considerable saving’ in the expense of building could be made if the farms were made larger, but had felt it would be ‘extremely wrong’ to press the matter, as the Duke’s ‘humanity made him desirous to accommodate all his tenants’.38 Those residents who were not to be enrolled as principal tenants in the new arrangement were to be housed in what were later described as ‘small neat houses of brick, covered with slate’, and provided with enough land to support a cow, while tradesmen and labourers were to be accommodated in the small groups of tradesmen’s cottages that the estate was to build at Closes and Forgebraehead, near the site of the modern village of Canonbie.39 Another key characteristic of the new arrangement was the granting of improving leases, set at what was described as a ‘moderate’ level of rent. From the outset, the level of rent charged and the length of lease given were conceived of in terms of their ability to encourage the improvement of the farms. Despite the powers granted by the 1770 Entail Act, Keir had initially recommended that the tenants be given a shorter tack of six or seven years with the assurance of another tack for twenty-one years if the covenants of the first lease were adhered to and all the improvements completed. ‘I have often observed and I believe it is pretty generally the case’, Keir argued, ‘that a tenant who had a long tack . . . never carries on his improvements so rapidly as others that have shorter.’40 In the end, however, the farms were let on twenty-one-year leases, but with the rent rising progressively in three seven-year stages, to take into account the higher initial of new farm houses and steadings in the creation of ‘improved’ farms, see M. Glendinning and S. Wade Martins, Buildings of the Land: Scotland’s Farms 1750–2000 (Edinburgh, 2008), 28–32. 36 Instructions & Orders 1770, 112. 37 Devine, Transformation, 111. 38 NRS GD224/522/1/1, Memorial for His Grace the Duke of Buccleugh by William Keir relating to the improvements upon His Graces Estate under his management, 1776 [hereafter, Memorial on Improvements 1776]. 39 Wight, Husbandry, 426; NRS GD224/657/1/26, 31, Keir to Duke, 20 Jan., 17 May 1775. 40 NRS GD224/657/1/7, Keir to Duke, 7 May 1773.

­

Improvement I: The Lowland Estates (1767–1800) 93

costs of the improvements.41 The level of rent was seen as crucial by Keir, and, as he would later recall, the Duke concurred, instructing that the farms should be set at ‘such a moderate rate of rent as would enable the tenants to execute a proper plan of improvements’.42 Over the twenty-oneyear period, the rents averaged from around seven to twelve pounds per annum, depending on the size of the farm, with the initial seven-year part of the lease estimated by one observer to work out at around one shilling per acre.43 The conditions or ‘covenants’ of the leases required the tenants to enclose and divide all their land and to carry out what was described as a ‘regular course of husbandry’. Although the tenants were to meet the expense of enclosing and dividing their farms, the Duke was to supply the thorns to make the ­necessary hedges, and also pay for their weeding and maintenance.44 The first of the new farms at Canonbie were set in November 1773. The previous month the Duke had ordered Keir to extend the new arrangement to ‘as many more as can be overtaken’, and by the end of the year new divisions had been drawn up for four more farms on the west side of the Esk, which were in turn set the following May.45 In the meantime, Keir’s attention had turned to the Duke’s other lowland estates. In January 1773, at the Duke’s request, Keir had visited the estate of Wilton, lying on hilly ground to the north of the Teviot near Hawick in Roxburghshire. The commonty of Wilton had already been divided between the Duke and the neighbouring landowners in 1764–5, and Keir described the estate to the Duke as not only ‘a piece of ground capable of very great improvement’, but one ‘which requires your Graces attention more than any other place in that country’. Keir commissioned the local surveyor Robert Dickson, son of the famous nursery man Archibald Dickson at nearby Hassendean, to survey the 2,273 acre estate, and used this as the basis for his new arrangement of the nine farms there, which he intended to set in November 1774.46 The 41

In the event, some of the tenants surprised Keir by preferring to take only the first seven years of the tack at the lower level of rent without committing to the following fourteen. NRS GD224/657/1/9, Keir to Duke, 21 Jun. 1773. This method was also favoured by Robert Ainslie on the Douglas estate. Devine, Transformation, 87. 42 Memorial on Improvements 1776. For similar concerns on other large, improving estates, see T. M. Devine, ‘The Great Landlords of Lowland Scotland and Agrarian Change in the Eighteenth Century’, in T. M. Devine (ed.), Clearance and Improvement: Land, Power and People in Scotland, 1700–1900 (Edinburgh, 2006), 53. 43 NRS GD224/657/1/7, Keir to Duke, 7 May 1773; Wight, Husbandry, 423. 44 NRS GD224/522/1/3, Memorial by Will. Keir conserning the Improvements made upon his Grace the Duke of Buccleughs estate, Apr. 1780 [hereafter, Memorial on Improvements 1780]; Wight, Husbandry, 423–4. 45 NRS GD224/584/9/12, Instructions the Duke of Buccleugh to William Ogilvie, 4 Oct. 1773. 46 NRS GD224/657/1/1, Keir to Duke, 5 Jan. 1773; NRS GD224/345/1, Keir’s vouchers of account, 1774–6; Rental 1766–7; NRS GD224/325, Division of Commonties: NRS RHP181, Map of Wilton Common, 1764.

94

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

new arrangement at Wilton seems to have been more straightforward than that of Canonbie. Half of the farms were already held in single tenancy, seemingly without the intermixed runrig and infield-outfield husbandry that occasioned the wholesale redrawing of the Canonbie farms.47 The new arrangement of the remaining two lowland estates, however – Eckford in the parish of Eckford, and Lempitlaw in the nearby parish of Sprouston – would be much more involved and again require extensive replanning. Lying midway between the towns of Jedburgh and Kelso in north-east Roxburghshire, the estate of Eckford extended to some 2,376 acres, covering most of the north-west corner of the parish of Eckford. The estate consisted of undulating, low-lying land to the east of the river Teviot and spanned both sides of the Kale Water to the north, the land becoming rougher as it climbed to a height of 650 feet over Wooden Hill to the south.48 As in Canonbie, the ferm touns on the Eckford estate were organised in a traditional infield-outfield system, with the arable infield divided into shares, or ‘lands’, and held in runrig.49 Of the eight farms on the estate, six were classed on the rent roll as ‘corn ground’ or predominantly arable farms, with the remaining two, Wester and Easter Wooden, classified as ‘grass ground’ or rough pasture, and consisting of the slopes and summit of Wooden Hill. Of the arable farms, all except two were multiple tenancies, each divided into a number of ‘lands’ and held between two to seven tenants, while the ‘grass ground’ farms were also listed as distinct ‘lands’ and divided between the tenants of the arable farms.50 Despite the clear delineation of distinct farms on the estate’s rent roll, on the ground the farms lay in what was described as ‘a very confused and inconvenient manner’; not only were the lands of the individual farms unenclosed, but they lay intermixed with the lands of the other farms and even of other proprietors.51 John Riccalton, the tenant of the farm of Westermoss, described the lands of his farm as unbounded and ‘very irregular’ and requested that an exchange of land be made with the farm of Eckford to ‘render the possession of both more convenient’, while a piece of land owned by a neighbouring landowner, Henry Hall of Haughhead, lay in the middle of the Duke’s farm of Mosstower.52 Despite the confused nature of the estate, the quality of its land, with its dry, light soil similar to that of the rich farmland of the Merse to the north, its relatively dry climate, and its proximity to the nearby market towns meant that its 47

Rental 1766–7. Roy, The Great Map, map no. 8/2, 8/3; NLS EMS.s.34, Matthew Stobie, A Map of Roxburghshire or Tiviotdale, 1770; NRS RHP9629, Estate Survey, 1718. 49 NRS GD224/459, Abstracts of the proposals and offers for farms of the Duke of Buccleugh’s estates, 4 Jan. 1768, pp. 21–48 [hereafter, Abstracts of proposals 1768]; R. A. Dodgshon, Land and Society in Early Scotland (Oxford, 1981), 232. 50 Rental 1766–7. 51 NRS GD224/657/1/17, Keir to Duke, 27 Mar. 1774. 52 Abstracts of proposals 1768, pp. 21–48; Instructions & Orders 1770, 112. 48

­

Improvement I: The Lowland Estates (1767–1800) 95 potential for improvement was widely recognised.53 This was borne out by the high level of interest shown in the estate following the announcement of the general set in 1767; four offers were made for the farms of Grimslaw and Westermoss, three for Mosstower and Langton, and five for the farm of Eckford, while one prospective tenant proposed to take on five of the farms along with the estate’s mill. All of the proposers offered to pay significantly higher rents.54 As William Ogilvie summarised: This Estate of Eckford is the most Improvable the Duke has, lying in a good Climate, and near the materials of improvement, many have their Eyes upon it for such purposes, but all agree that the present Distribution of the Farms are mostly very Inconvenient for the purpose of Inclosing, and even of Possession in their present State, being in Several places Interjected one with another.

Ogilvie recommended that the estate should be surveyed and a new arrangement made, ‘taking from some and adding to others’ in such a way that ‘each farm may be reduced to a Regular Boundary and fitted to a General Conveniency in the Possession whether open or enclosed’, with proposals taken for leases of twenty-one years.55 But it would not be until the Duke’s visit to the estate in the summer of 1770 that the first moves were made towards implementing a new arrangement. In March 1770, John Church, the Duke’s overseer of improvements, had been granted the lease of Mosstower in Eckford, on the death of the previous tenant.56 Church was an experienced farmer well versed in the new husbandry of his native Norfolk, and it was the Duke’s intention, as one later account put it, that Church would ‘give a lesson of good husbandry to the neighbouring farmers’.57 In order to facilitate Church’s proposed improvements, the Duke agreed an exchange or ‘excambion’ of land with a neighbouring landowner, who owned a piece of land in the middle of Church’s farm. As this, together with the exchange of another piece of land, also affected the boundaries of the neighbouring farms, the Duke ordered ‘a new arrangement’ of the rest of the estate to the south-west of  the Kale Water in order to render it ‘more comodious & fitt for any future plan of inclosing’.58 In the event, it would be another three years before Keir would begin work on the Eckford estate, by which time it had been decided by the Duke to extend the new arrangement to include the remaining farms on the 53

For the quality of the soil, see C. J. Bown and B. M. Shipley, Soil and Land Capacity for Agriculture: South East Scotland (Aberdeen, 1982), 61–2, 131. 54 The offers averaged at over 40% higher than the current rents, with several proposals offering over 50%. Abstracts of proposals 1768, pp. 21–48. 55 Abstracts of proposals 1768, p. 28. 56 NRS GD224/459 p. 97, Memorial, Mar. 1770. 57 Wight, Husbandry, 368. 58 Instructions & Orders 1770, 109–13.

96

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

estate north of the Kale Water.59 Around the same time it was decided to include the Duke’s nearby estate of Lempitlaw in the new arrangement. Consisting of around 2,000 acres of arable land divided between five farms, the estate lay on a broad-backed ridge, overlooking the Tweed valley, four miles east of Kelso. As in Eckford, the farms were mostly multiple tenancies divided into ‘lands’, with only one being let to a single tenant.60 Before the end of 1773, Robert Dickson had begun surveying the estates of Eckford and Lempitlaw, and early in 1774, after being delayed by four weeks of winter storms, Keir began to look over the estates with a view to making out a plan for ‘a new management of these farms’.61 In his initial report back to the Duke, Keir noted that considerable alterations would be needed at Eckford due to the ‘very confused’ nature of the farms. In the meantime, however, work had began on reopening the estate’s slate quarry to provide materials for the new farm buildings that were proposed to be built, and Keir was also optimistic that ‘a fine field of marle’ would be found in the large moss near the centre of the estate.62 Further trials on the moss revealed a ‘great quantity’ of marl in a seam about six feet thick, which Keir noted would ‘be of very great advantage to this estate’ and which would indeed play a central role in his plans for the improvement of the farms there.63 By early November, Keir had completed his plans for the new arrangement, and sent these, along with valuations of the new farms and a list of conditions regarding the ‘inclosing and labouring of the ground’, to the Duke for approval. After consulting with the Duke at Dalkeith in December, Keir met with the tenants of Eckford and Lempitlaw, outlining the alterations proposed to be made.64 In early February 1775 Keir could report that, apart from four tenants in Eckford, all the tenants in both estates had ‘cheerfully accepted of their farms upon the terms offered them’, and at Martinmass 1775 the tenants entered possession of their farms.65 The new arrangements made at Eckford and Lempitlaw followed a similar pattern to those introduced at Canonbie: the rationalisation of farms into compact, single-tenant holdings; the enclosure of open land; and the treatment of soil to support the adoption of new rotations. The 59

NRS GD224/584/9/12, Instructions the Duke of Buccleugh to William Ogilvie, 4 Oct. 1773. 60 The Northside of Lempitlaw, for example, was divided into sixteen lands held by four tenants. Rental 1766–7; Roy, The Great Map, map no. 9/2; NLS EMS.s.34, Stobie, Map of Roxburghshire. 61 NRS GD224/345/1, Keir’s vouchers of account, 1774–6; NRS GD224/657/1/16, Keir to Duke, 25 Jan. 1774; NRS GD224/657/1/17, Keir to Duke, 27 Mar. 1774. 62 NRS GD224/285/5, Rental 1767; NRS GD224/657/1/17, Keir to Duke, 27 Mar. 1774. 63 NRS GD224/657/1/17, Keir to Duke, 27 Mar. 1774; NRS GD224/657/1/19, Keir to Duke, 21 Apr. 1774. 64 NRS GD224/657/1/22, Keir to Duke, 4 Nov. 1774; NRS GD224/657/1/24, Keir to Duke, 22 Nov. 1774; NRS GD224/657/1/26, Keir to Duke, 20 Jan. 1775. 65 NRS GD224/657/1/27, Keir to Duke, 9 Feb. 1775.

­

Improvement I: The Lowland Estates (1767–1800) 97

key differences at Eckford and Lempitlaw were the larger size of the farms and the different type of soil treatment required, with less emphasis on converting outfield to arable land. The original eight farms at Eckford were rearranged into nine consolidated farms, ranging from 180 to 350 acres, each with a single tenant. At Lempitlaw, the boundaries of the existing five farms were altered to make six new farms, averaging around 300 acres, but here a number of farms were split between two joint tenants, with one farm, Southside of Lempitlaw, shared between four.66 As in Canonbie, the farms were let on twenty-one-year improving leases, with a progressive scale of rent; the average rent at Eckford was just over £90, while at Lempitlaw it was around £85. The husbandry clauses of the leases required the tenants to enclose a percentage of their land at their own expense, with the Duke once again supplying thorns and paying for the weeding and dressing of the new hedges, while the detailed stipulations for labouring the ground included regulations on the use of marl.67 At Eckford, the Duke was again obliged to build new houses and farm buildings for the tenants, although this does not seem to have been the case at Lempitlaw.68 Although the new farms at Eckford and Lempitlaw were significantly larger than those at Canonbie, the parameters of the new arrangement were again restricted by the Duke’s insistence that all the existing tenants should be accommodated in the scheme. All of the existing tenants were offered farms apart from two in Lempitlaw, who were described as ‘not in the ability to undertake any farm’. As they had families, Keir recommended that they be allowed to continue in their present houses and given enough ground to allow the upkeep of a cow.69 As in Canonbie, this requirement dictated to some extent the size of the farms created and the overall cost of the improvements. When four of the existing tenants at Eckford turned down the offer of a farm, Keir argued that it would actually be to the Duke’s advantage as, by distributing the vacant divisions between the other farms, they would ‘make them much better’ and save the Duke ‘some hundred pounds which must necessarily have been laid out for buildings’.70 In the event, the number of principal tenants in Eckford was reduced from nineteen to nine, with the remaining tenants given small holdings on the estate, while the number of tenants at Lempitlaw was reduced by two, to eleven.71 66

Rental 1766–7; NRS GD224/459 pp. 197–8, State of the rents, 1793. NRS GD 224/657/1/40, Keir to Duke, 2 Dec. 1776; NRS GD224/459 p.  237, Mr Keir’s report respecting some farms in the estates of Eckford and Lempitlaw, 21 Dec. 1796; NRS GD224/657/1/41, Keir to Duke, 7 Nov. 1776; Memorial on Improvements 1780; NRS GD224/522/1/2, Report concerning the Marle at Eckford, William Keir, Nov. 1780 [hereafter, Report on Marle 1780]. 68 NRS GD224/657/1/41, Keir to Duke, 7 Nov. 1776; NRS GD224/657/1/44, Keir to Duke, 16 Apr. 1778. 69 NRS GD224/657/1/26, Keir to Duke, 20 Jan. 1775. 70 NRS GD224/657/1/27, 28, 30, Keir to Duke, 9 Feb., 17 Feb., 24 Apr. 1775. 71 No details of these survive from the 1775 set, but by 1793 these ‘small tenants’ at Eckford consisted of seven tenants with a combined land holding of sixty-six acres. NRS GD224/459 67

98

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

A crucial part of the improving schemes instigated on the Duke’s lowland arable estates in the 1770s was the provision of the related infrastructure and materials that were vital for agrarian improvement. Particularly important was the supply of substances that could lower the acidity – or, in contemporary usage, ‘sourness’ – of the soil. The root crops and sown grasses that were key elements of the improved rotations at the heart of the ‘new agriculture’ were dependent on non-acidic soil. Liming – whether by the application of marl dug from calcareous subsoil or lime produced from burning limestone – was not just about increasing crop yields; without access to these materials the changes to soil chemistry upon which the new arrangements depended simply could not have taken place.72 The supply of these materials at economical rates was therefore an essential part of the new arrangements, and the estate was to play a vital role in their provision. At Canonbie, lime was the key component to the land reclamation and soil improvement schemes and the presence of large quantities of limestone, along with the coal necessary to burn it, was one of the main reasons behind the new arrangement there.73 The estate’s limeworks at Holehead, on the west bank of the Esk, along with the Duke’s coal works in the parish, had been let out during his minority to the Reverend Robert Graham of Netherby, whose English estate bordered Canonbie to the south. By a clause in his tack, Graham was required to ‘use his utmost endeavours to supply all the country vassals to, or connected with his Grace’ with coal and lime.74 In 1766, however, a year before his lease was due to expire, it was reported that the complaints of the Duke’s tenants at Canonbie were ‘so frequent’ regarding the limestone quarry, ‘which they give in excuse for their delays in all improvements’, that it was necessary to cancel Graham’s lease and take the limeworks back into the Duke’s own management.75 At the expiry of the rest of Graham’s lease, the management of the coal works reverted to the estate, and while a number of surveys were carried out to assess the potential of the works, ten colliers and a grieve were sent from the Duke’s Dalkeith coal works in order that ‘the country may be supplied with coals’.76 The attempts of the estate to operate the coal works were beset by problems, and the lack of coal continued to be a serious constraint on p. 197, State of the rents . . . of Eckford and Lempitlaw, 1793; NRS GD224/459 p. 258, Mr Keirs report, 1797. 72 T. Williamson, The Transformation of Rural England: Farming and the Landscape, 1700–1870 (Exeter, 2002), 67–8. 73 One bushel of coal was required for burning three to three and a half bushels of lime, and between 400 and 600 bushels of lime were commonly spread per acre of newly enclosed land. Devine, Transformation, 54. 74 NRS GD224/459 pp. 79–83, Memorial, 8 Oct. 1768. 75 NRS GD224/459 pp. 80–1, Craigie to Robert Graham, 8 May 1766. 76 NRS GD224/459 pp. 79–83, Memorial, 8 Oct. 1768; NRS GD224/459 p. 19, Copy from Mathew Little’s Journal of the Cannonbie Coal, 25 Nov. 1768; NRS GD224/459 p.  70, Orders & Instructions, Sep. 1768.

­

Improvement I: The Lowland Estates (1767–1800) 99

improvements, with the deputy chamberlain in charge of the coal works noting in June 1770 that ‘the country crys out for want of coal to burn their lime’.77 As a result of the difficulties, and in order to ‘have the country accommodated with coal sufficient for all their purposes’, the Duke decided to let out the coal and lime works to James Lomax of Clayton Hall, Lancaster, who was again required by his lease to supply the demands of the Duke’s tenants.78 Lomax opened up a new limeworks at Harelawhill in the  south-east of the parish and a new colliery at Archerbeck to the east of the Esk, and had ambitious plans to transport coal and lime to Roxburghshire by wagons, which would return with grain to be ground in Canonbie and then exported by ship to England.79 Despite these plans, the supply of coal remained a problem in Canonbie, and an ongoing concern for William Keir. As early as 1773 Keir had expressed doubts over Lomax’s abilities to ‘execute all he proposes’, and by the following year he reported that there had been no ‘fine coals for sometime’ and that the brick makers had resorted to burning wood because of the shortage of coal.80 In order to save costs, Lomax restricted his operations to areas where the coal could be ‘wrought by an open level’, abandoning the colliery at Byreburnfoot, which had been badly damaged by floods in 1770, and, from 1778, concentrating on the Archerbeck works.81 Over the next twenty years numerous complaints were made over Lomax’s operations, mainly over the ‘improper’ nature of his works and his failure to keep the country supplied with coal. After the threat of legal action, and on the suggestion of Keir, it was agreed in 1791 that the Duke would take over part of the coal works at Byreburnfoot, which Lomax had abandoned ‘intirely in ruins’, while Lomax would be allowed to continue at Archerbeck, freed from his obligations to supply the country.82 Keir personally oversaw the management of the colliery, and, after a number of serious setbacks and the investment of over £1,000 in the first two years, could report in January 1794 that the 77

NRS GD224/91/2 pp.  17–20, William Ogilvie to Duke, 6 Dec. 1768; NRS GD224/459 p. 100, Extract from the Coal Journal, W[illiam] L[ittle], 12 Jun. 1770. 78 The original tack (signed 26 October 1771 and 10 March 1772) has not been traced, but these clauses were reproduced in Lomax’s 1791 lease. NRS GD224/459 pp.  271–5, Contract & Agreement between his Grace the Duke of Buccleuch and James Lomas esq. of Clayton Hall, Lancaster. Copy made at Langholm Lodge, 4 Jun. 1802. Original signed 1791. 79 NRS GD224/459 pp.  120–1, Additional Proposals by Lomax to the Duke of Buccleugh [n.d.]; RCAMS, Eastern Dumfriesshire, 270–1. 80 NRS GD224/657/1/4, Keir to Duke, 23 Mar. 1773; NRS GD224/657/1/20, Keir to Duke, 16 Aug. 1774. 81 OSA (Canonbie), vol. 14, 415–17n, 270; NRS GD224/522/1/4, Report on the present situation of the coal and lime works in Cannoby, 22 Nov. 1781 [hereafter, Report on the coal and lime 1781]. 82 NRS GD224/655/2/28, 32, 41, 76, John Davidson and Hugh Warrender to Keir, 30 Jan. 1782, 29 Jun. 1782, 10 May 1783, 18 Feb. 1790; Report on the coal and lime 1781; NRS GD224/459 pp. 271–5, Contract & Agreement, 4 Jun. 1802. Original signed 1791. That the plan was Keir’s suggestion, see NRS GD224/657/1/126, 127, Keir to Duke, 28 May 1794.

100

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

country was now ‘fully supplied’ with coal.83 Lomax was more successful in fulfilling his commitment to maintain the supply of lime, which he was obligated to sell at the fixed price of 7d. per bushel. The limestone at the Holehouse quarry on the west side of the Esk was nearly exhausted by 1781, but Lomax successfully opened up a second quarry and limekilns at Harelawhill, which by the 1790s was producing high-quality lime, with the author of the statistical account for the parish noting ‘the whole country is supplied, to the distance of 30 miles’ by Lomax’s kilns.84 While the development of an estate’s mineral resources is often seen as indicative of the new commercialised attitude towards estate management and the drive to maximise estate income, it is clear that the main motivation behind the Duke’s involvement in the colliery was the need to supply the area with fuel, particularly for the production of lime.85 When the coal mining rights to the damaged works at Byreburnfoot were taken back into the Duke’s own management it was above all to provide a much needed resource for the estate; as Keir explained, one of the main reasons for the ‘extraordinary expences’ involved was that he had been ‘compelled’ to start working the coals before they were properly prepared because Lomax had been unable to supply coal for some months and ‘the country were starving for want of fire’.86 On the other lowland estates under Keir’s charge, marl was to be the main material used for the liming of land, and the discovery of a large deposit of shell marl on the Eckford estate was to play a central part in his plans to improve both it and the nearby Lempitlaw estate. Prior to its discovery the nearest source of liming material was Northumberland, a distance of twentyfour miles, the expense of which Keir estimated would be about three times higher than using the local marl. Besides the convenience of finding marl upon the estate, Keir argued that it was particularly suited to the light and dry soil found there; as well as its liming effects, the application of marl also added body to light soils and had the further advantage of being spreadable straight onto the fields without any prior preparation. Its main disadvantage was the large volume of material needed to dress the land – calculated by Keir to be around seventy bolls per acre, or about seventeen and a half cart loads – and the amount of labour required to mix the marl into the existing topsoil.87 Unlike the Wilton estate, where marl was found 83

For details, see the correspondence from William Keir to the Duke, Nov. 1791 to May 1794, NRS GD224/657/1/82, 95, 96, 97, 98, 103, 108, 113, 114, 115, 120, 121, 122, 126, 127; and various reports, NRS GD224/459 pp. 203–4, 210–12. 84 Report on the coal and lime 1781; OSA (Canonbie), vol. 14, 417. 85 Devine, Transformation, 47. 86 NRS GD224/657/1/95, 96, Keir to Duke, 27 May 1792. 87 Report on Marle 1780; W. M. Mathew, ‘Marling in British Agriculture: A Case of Partial Identity’, The Agricultural History Review (1993), 97–110. See also W. Singer, General View of the Agriculture, State of Property, and Improvements, in the County of Dumfries (Edinburgh, 1812), 331.

­

Improvement I: The Lowland Estates (1767–1800) 101

on a number of the Duke’s farms, the marl at Eckford was concentrated in a single location, in a seam about six to eleven feet thick lying under Eckford moss which lay on the farm of Westermoss near the centre of the estate. As the marl lay under seven to eight feet of waterlogged moss, a large amount of drainage work and excavation was necessary before the marl could be removed.88 Draining began in November 1774, with Keir contracting a Mr Adam Crozier to dig a ‘close’ mine of 200 fathoms at an estimated cost of £150.89 By the end of January 1775 the preliminary open cast mine was almost finished, and three months later Keir could report that the work on the closed mine was progressing well.90 Over a year later, however, despite work continuing ‘night and day’, the drain was not yet complete, and the costs had climbed to £220; by the end of 1778 the total expenditure had risen to over £588.91 Although the draining of the moss took far longer than had been anticipated, large quantities of marl were made available to the Duke’s tenants from the outset of the drainage process, and tenants were initially permitted to dig as much as they wanted to lay upon their fields, provided they took care to ‘do it in a regular manner’.92 Once the marl pit was operational, the Duke’s tenants at Eckford were furnished with marl at the preferential rate of three pence per boll, half the amount charged to ‘strangers’, whilst the tenants of Lempitlaw were charged one penny per boll. The stipulations for labouring the ground included in their leases set out the maximum amount of marl to be laid out per acre of land (seventy bolls), with punitive clauses if the conditions were ‘contravened’, while the tenants were to be obliged to pay an addition to their rent once the marl had become available for their use.93 Another expense of the new arrangement incumbent on the estate was the provision of young hedging plants or ‘thorns’ for the enclosure of fields, and of trees to be planted within the hedges and as separate shelter belts on the farms. Initially, both trees and thorns were bought in from Archibald Dickson’s nursery near Hawick, but by 1774 the estate had established its own nursery at Langholm Castle; four years later the nursery was supplying some 23,000 trees to the Duke’s tenants in Canonbie, although this was still dwarfed by the 227,900 bought in from Dickson’s.94 From the early 1780s the Langholm nursery was beginning to produce enough thorns to save the Duke what Keir considered a ‘considerable annual expence’, and from 88

NRS GD224/657/1/1, Keir to Duke, 5 Jan. 1773; NRS GD224/657/1/19, Keir to Duke, 21 Apr. 1774; Wight, Husbandry, 368. 89 NRS GD224/657/1/24, Keir to Duke, 22 Nov. 1774. 90 NRS GD224/657/1/26, Keir to Duke, 20 Jan. 1775; NRS GD224/657/1/30, Keir to Duke, 24 Apr. 1775. 91 NRS GD224/657/1/42, Keir to Duke, 2 Jun. 1776; Memorial on Improvements 1776; NRS GD224/345/15, William Keir’s Accounts, 1777–8. 92 NRS GD224/657/1/22, Keir to Duke, 4 Nov. 1774. 93 Report on Marle 1780; NRS GD224/346/1, 7, Vouchers of Mr Keirs Accompts, 1779–84. 94 NRS GD224/345/15, Keir’s Accounts, 1777–8.

102

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

1780 to 1789 the nursery produced a total of 692,450 thorns and 439,360 trees, at an annual expense of between £100 and £160.95 A further ongoing expense incumbent on the estate was the weeding, cleaning, and dressing of the new hedges. During the first few years the hedges required careful attention if they were to be properly established, and although the tenants were responsible for the digging of ditches and planting, the estate had to provide for twice-yearly weeding for the first few years, followed by annual weedings thereafter, and then for the periodical ‘dressing’ of the hedges. By 1777 it was estimated that some 8,000 roods (around twenty-eight miles) of new hedges had been planted in Canonbie alone, and by 1781 the cost of cleaning and maintaining the hedges upon the farms at Canonbie and Eckford was estimated at around £30 a year, rising to £50 by the end of the decade.96 The building of farm houses and offices was another crucial element of the new arrangements. The costs ranged from around £35 for a tradesman’s cottage to between £100 and £200 for a farm house, depending on the size of the farm.97 Farm buildings or ‘offices’ ranged from £60 for a cattle shed to £170 for a full set of office houses, although these again varied depending on the size of the farm, with the Duke’s obligation to build them depending partly on the perceived character and improving credentials of the individual tenant.98 In 1775, for example, Alexander Oliphant, a tenant in Eckford, suggested to Keir that the £100 that the Duke had proposed to allow him for building on his farm of West Mains was too small, and that he would pass on plans and estimates of the house and offices he intended to build for the Duke’s approval. Keir argued that, as Oliphant ‘seems to have a turn for improving his farm and making things neet about it’, and the total cost of the buildings would be more than £400, the Duke should raise his share of the expense to £200. In the end, the estate’s total contribution to Oliphant’s buildings rose to over £450, around 70% of the final cost of the buildings.99 On the same estate, the Duke’s contribution towards a dwelling house and part of the offices on the farm of Grimslaw, which had been set in 1785 to an improving farmer, was estimated at £550.100 In addition to importing Welsh slate and Baltic timber, 95

NRS GD224/657/1/51, Keir to Duke, 12 Apr. 1781; NRS GD224/522/1/7, Produce of Langholm Nursery, 1780–9; NRS GD224/522/1/11, 12, 14, Abstracts of expences, 1781, 1783, 1787. 96 Wight, Husbandry, 424; NRS GD224/522/1/11, 14, Abstracts of expences, 1781, 1787. 97 Up until 1780, the average cost of farm houses in Canonbie was around £145, while the typical farm house on the larger farms of the Eckford estate cost £175. Memorial on Improvements 1776; Memorial on Improvements 1780; NRS GD224/522/1/10, Estimates for the year 1778. 98 NRS GD224/522/1/12, 14, Abstracts of Estimates, 1783, 1787. 99 NRS GD224/657/1/27, 32, Keir to Duke, 9 Feb., 4 May 1775; NRS GD224/345/15, Keir’s Accounts, 1777–8; NRS GD224/657/1/56, Keir to Duke, 4 May 1785. 100 NRS GD224/657/1/56, Keir to Duke, 4 May 1785; NRS GD224/522/1/13, Abstract of Estimates, 1786.

­

Improvement I: The Lowland Estates (1767–1800) 103

the estate opened up a number of slate and stone quarries to provide the building materials required, while in Canonbie, where stone was scarce, two brickworks were set up.101 By 1781 the estate had spent £1,890 on farm houses in Canonbie and £1,836 on the Eckford and Lempitlaw estates, while by the beginning of the following decade it was reported that fiftythree slate-roofed dwelling houses had been built on the Canonbie estate, not including farm offices which were also ‘generally slated’.102 A related aspect of the estate’s infrastructural improvement was the founding of planned settlements upon the estate. These were a distinctive part of landowner improvement initiatives in Scotland during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, used to provide employment through the setting up of rural industries and as a way of stimulating new markets for local produce while at the same time retaining the landowner’s control over local society.103 During the Duke’s administration two planned villages were founded upon the estate together with a number of smaller settlements. As noted above, the origins of New Langholm can be traced to the Duke’s tour of 1770 when he announced his intention to grant building leases near the existing town of Langholm, although it was not until 1776 that the first leases were prepared for plots for the Duke’s land in the Meikleholm Holm at the confluence of the Esk and Wauchope rivers, about half a mile from the existing town.104 As with many of the planned settlements of the period, small plots of arable or pastoral land, known as ‘lotted lands’, of two to three acres were also provided, which were considered as an essential incentive to encourage the take-up of leases.105 By March 1777 twenty people had taken up plots and the town expanded steadily over the next decade with three streets of houses completed by 1787.106 In the same year the Duke received a petition from the people of Liddesdale requesting building leases to found a settlement there. The Duke approved, and a visit to the area was arranged so that he could ‘see the spot’ for himself. In the end, the farm of Copshawpark in the parish of Castleton was selected as the most suitable site, and by May of 1792 Keir had drafted a plan for the town that would become known as Newcastleton; the following April 101

NRS GD224/657/1/3, 5, 9, 11, Keir to Duke, 26 Feb., 4 Apr., 21 Jun., 19 Oct. 1773; NRS GD224/345/1–3 Keir’s vouchers of accounts, 1774–6; NRS GD224/345/15, Keir’s Accounts, 1777–8; J. E. Handley, The Agricultural Revolution in Scotland (Glasgow, 1963), 31–2. 102 Memorial on Improvements 1780; OSA (Canonbie), vol. 14, 425. 103 T. C. Smout, ‘The Landowner and the Planned Village’, in N. T. Phillipson and R.  Mitchison (eds), Scotland in the Age of Improvement (Edinburgh, 1970), 75; D. G. Lockhart, ‘The Planned Villages’, in Parry and Slater (eds), The Making of the Scottish Countryside, 249; Devine, Transformation, 40, 45. 104 NRS GD224/657/1/35, Keir to Duke, 24 Apr. 1776. 105 These were set on separate leases of fourteen years. NRS GD224/657/1/38, Keir to William Ogilvie, 12 Mar. 1777; NRS GD224/657/1/48, Keir to Duke, 30 Dec. 1778. For the role of ‘lotted lands’, see Lockhart, ‘Planned Villages’, 263–4. 106 NRS GD224/657/1/117, Keir to Duke, 28 Feb. 1787.

104

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

it was reported that the leases for fifty-four houses had been taken.107 As with New Langholm, a portion of land was enclosed to be set along with the building leases to encourage undertakers, Keir noting that it was only the shortage of such land that restricted further expansion at that point.108 In addition to these villages, which would both grow into substantial towns, the estate also established at least three other smaller settlements intended ­specifically for accommodating tradesmen.109 Another area in which the estate’s involvement would be crucial was the improvement of communications. It was an area which, from the very outset of his administration, had proved a particular passion of the Duke’s, with members of his administration commenting upon ‘how keen he is upon Roads and Bridges’.110 This was borne out by his attempts to finish the section of the Carlisle to Edinburgh turnpike road which ran through his estates. During his minority Townshend had authorised expenditure to pass the Turnpike Act for that part of the road that would run from Scot’s Dyke on the border to Hare Moss in Roxburghshire, and by the end of 1768 the Duke as principal subscriber had paid a total of £4,910 towards its completion. Frustrated by its slow progress and his concerns over the ability of the other subscribers to fund the remainder of the work, in 1769 the Duke decided to take over the ‘burden and direction’ of the road himself so that he could ensure its completion and fund its maintenance. By 1795 he had spent upward of £7,000 upon this and his subscriptions to other turnpike roads, with, as his accountant noted, ‘very little return’ apart from a ‘small dividend from toll duties’.111 Important as the main thoroughfares were, however, it was at the level of the parish and the roads built to individual farms that the greatest contribution to the improvement of the estates was made. This was particularly evident on the Canonbie estate, where, apart from a narrow strip of land running along the banks of the Esk, the majority of the parish was virtually inaccessible by wheeled vehicles except during the driest of summers.112 With the creation of so many new farms out of uncultivated moorland, Keir viewed the building of proper roads through all the new farms there as a priority from the outset of the new arrangement. Proper roads were 107

NRS GD224/657/1/117, 64, Keir to Duke, 28 Feb., 18 Aug. 1787; NRS GD224/655/2/62, 64, 67, Duke to Keir, 27 Mar. 1787, 3 Oct. 1787, 11 Oct. 1788; NRS GD224/657/1/92, 93, 95, 96, 112, Keir to Duke, 14 and 27 May 1792, 3 Apr. 1793. 108 NRS 224/459 p. 203, Report of works . . . in 1793, William Keir; NRS GD224/657/1/112, Keir to Duke, 3 Apr. 1793. 109 These were at Forgebraehead (1776) and Harelaw (1792) in Canonbie, and at Ettrick Bridge End (1793) on the Ettrick Forest estate. For details, see B. D. Bonnyman, ‘Agricultural Improvement in the Scottish Enlightenment: The Third Duke of Buccleuch, William Keir and the Buccleuch Estates, 1751–1812’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis (University of Edinburgh, 2004), 195. 110 NRS GD224/389/2/29, William Ogilvie to Archibald Campbell, 24 Feb. 1769. 111 For details, see Bonnyman, ‘Agricultural Improvement’, 190. 112 OSA (Canonbie), vol. 14, 413.

­

Improvement I: The Lowland Estates (1767–1800) 105

essential for carrying in the materials of improvement needed to create the new farms, including lime and building materials, as well as for taking out the farm produce to market.113 Keir suggested that if the tenants were willing to contribute a certain percentage of their rent to help fund them, there could be roads made through all the farms within a few years.114 By the summer of 1774, however, little progress had been made, with Keir reporting that the improvements were being hampered by the great difficulties encountered transporting building materials to the new farms.115 One of the problems identified by Keir was the failure of the nominated authorities to spend the money that had been raised locally for the maintenance and building of roads and bridges. In June 1775, after discovering that some of the money raised in Canonbie had been set aside for a neighbouring parish, Keir ordered the overseer of highways to stop payments to the collector. From this point onwards Keir effectively took control of the direction of road building for the entire parish, with the Duke authorising 5% of the rental of the estate to be applied for that purpose.116 The amount spent on the parish’s roads rose from an average of around £10 a year prior to Keir’s intervention to £212 7s. 10d. in 1776, £259 8s. 2d. in 1777, and an average of just over £159 a year between 1779 and 1784.117 Writing of the roads and bridges built by the Duke, the author of the statistical account for the parish noted in the 1790s that ‘in no situation, within the writer’s knowledge, have greater or more rapid improvements been made in these two articles, so essential to civilization, and the exertion of industry in every sphere, than in this parish’. ‘Leading roads’ had been made on the east and west side of the parish and branches made to almost every farm.118 Canonbie was in some important respects an exceptional case: as sole proprietor of the parish, the Duke did not have to rely on the cooperation of other heritors, a problem that would hamper road building elsewhere on the estate.119 However, road and bridge construction (and the associated tasks of river banking and wall building) took place throughout the estates, and played an important role in all of the new arrangements.120 113

See NRS GD224/590/1, Report concerning the improvements proposed to be made upon the Duke of Buccleuch’s Estate in the County of Selkirk, William Keir, Sep. 1802 [hereafter, Report concerning improvements, 1802]. 114 NRS GD224/657/1/2, Keir to Duke, 3 Dec. 1772. 115 NRS GD224/657/1/20, Keir to Duke, 16 Aug. 1774. 116 This was later augmented by a charge of two pence per cart load of coal sold from the estate’s coal pits in the parish, amounting to around £84 per year in the six years preceding 1794. NRS GD224/657/1/34, Keir to Duke, 26 Sep. 1775; NRS GD 224/348/13, Keir’s Accounts 1786–94. 117 This continued into the 1790s with an average expenditure between 1788 and 1794 of just over £219 per annum. NRS GD224/345/9, 15; NRS GD224/346/2; NRS GD224/348/20. 118 OSA (Canonbie), vol. 14, 413. 119 NRS GD224/459 pp. 221–3. 120 See NRS GD224/657/1/52, Keir to Duke, 3 Feb. 1781; NRS GD224/522/1/11, Abstract of expences, 1781; Report concerning improvements, 1802.

106

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

Despite the main elements of the new arrangements being well under way by the end of 1775, Keir would still face considerable opposition in implementing his plans, both from the tenants and from within the Duke’s establishment. As early as November 1773, Keir had noted difficulties arising with a number of tenants on the west side of the Esk in Canonbie regarding the conditions for their new farms. According to Keir, their objections were entirely due to bad advice that was being spread amongst the tenants by Matthew Little, the Duke’s own deputy chamberlain of Canonbie, who ‘pretends to say they are a great deal too dear and proposes the tenants with a notion that they are oppressed’.121 It was bad enough, Keir argued, that such rumours were circulating through the country, but the fact they came from a person ‘who appears amongst them in your Grace’s name’ was particularly damaging. Keir believed that this was part of a concerted attack aimed at undermining him and his plans by making the ‘progress of these alterations so slow as possible & likewise to make everything I propose to appear extravagant and by that means hurt me in your Graces opinion’. Furthermore, Keir suspected that the Duke’s own chamberlain, William Ogilvie, was actively undermining his authority and attempting to obstruct the reforms. Although he stopped short of accusing Ogilvie of directly encouraging Little, Keir argued that Ogilvie had ‘no great inclination to forward these alterations’, and that he ‘had a design of preventing this plan of the Cannoby farms taking place at present if not to overturn it altogether’. I dare say that your Grace has observed that all the difficulties which could any way obstruct the sett of the Cannoby farms at present has been started. Your Grace will easily see if you never make any alterations in your Estate untill no difficulties are found in doing it that it must remain in the same situation it is for ever.122 Although Keir’s accusations seem to be supported by other accounts, there is no record of the Duke’s response to Keir’s allegations; Matthew Little continued in his post and Keir continued to have a workable, if at times acrimonious, relationship with Ogilvie.123 However, problems continued with other tenants involved in the new arrangement in Canonbie the following year, leading Keir to recommend that the problem tenants be served with warnings of removal in order that the Duke might have it in his power ‘to do with their farms as you may suppose’. Mindful of the delays caused in Canonbie, Keir suggested that similar warnings should also be served to the tenants in the other lowland estates that were due to be set

121

NRS GD224/657/1/15, Keir to Duke, 28 Nov. 1773. NRS GD224/657/1/15, Keir to Duke, 28 Nov. 1773. 123 Wight, Husbandry, 424–5. For Keir’s relationship with Ogilvie, see NRS GD224/657/1/19, 45–6, Keir to Duke, 21 Apr. 1774, 27 Feb. 1778. 122

­

Improvement I: The Lowland Estates (1767–1800) 107

the following year, adding that it would also have the effect of making the tenants ‘more complyable’.124 Despite these precautions, the new arrangements at Eckford also soon ran into difficulties, with Keir encountering problems in his relations with the tenants over the improvement stipulations required by their leases and, as general economic conditions worsened in the mid-1770s, with the payment of the new levels of rent. At least one of the four existing Eckford tenants who initially refused a new farm did so not because of the higher rent, but because of the enclosing required by the new lease.125 At Whitsunday 1776, six months after the commencement of the new leases, two of the Eckford farms were relinquished by their tenants and stood empty for over a year. In June of that year Keir turned down proposals for the farms on the grounds that the prospective tenants would not agree to ‘such conditions as I thought was absolutely necessary for the improvements of the ground’. He noted that ‘they object particularly to the inclosing of the ground and seem’d averse to any restrictions with respect to the labouring of the ground’. Furthermore, ‘they seem to have no idea that the marle is to be of any advantage to this land and consequently puts no value upon it’.126 By November Keir was prepared to set the farms at a reduced rent, with the estate to meet the full cost of enclosing (estimated at £150), to two of the Duke’s former tenants, who had previously relinquished their farms. ‘I am not very fond of treating a second time with people who have once given me the slip’, he commented, ‘as I think it but a bad precedent to others.’ However, as the farms had been ‘scourged for three years past’, and he had not received any other reasonable proposals, he recommended that the Duke accepted them as tenants. A large part of Keir’s problem was the overall worsening of the general economic climate; in November 1776 he noted that ‘the low price that grain of all kinds has given for some time past, has made tenants very shy of taking farms at what may be thought an adequate rent’.127 The fall in prices and the resultant decline in demand for leases shifted the balance of bargaining power decisively towards the tenants. The following month Keir reported that a number of petitions had been handed in by the tenants of Eckford and Lempitlaw regarding the terms of payment of their rent. As he ‘had reason to apprehend’ these complaints ‘may be the cause of some of them leaving their farms’, Keir recommended an alteration to the commencement date of their leases, adding ‘I do not think this is a time to throw farms vacant for triffles’.128 A further petition requesting a reduction of rents in March 1777 was turned down on Keir’s advice, and Keir could 124

NRS GD224/657/1/16, Keir to Duke, 25 Jan. 1774. NRS GD224/657/1/27, Keir to Duke, 9 Feb. 1775. 126 NRS GD224/657/1/42, Keir to Duke, 2 Jun. 1776. 127 NRS GD224/657/1/41, Keir to Duke, 7 Nov. 1776. 128 NRS GD224/657/1/40, Keir to Duke, 2 Dec. 1776. 125

108

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

report that none of the tenants had decided to give up their farms, adding ‘most of them seemed rather thankfull that your Grace had been so good as allow them to keep their farms and acknowledged that they had been missled by bad advice’.129 Further problems were encountered by Keir, however, in his attempts to enforce the husbandry clauses of the improving leases, particularly the use of marl by the Duke’s tenants. Although the initial problems in draining the marl were largely resolved, Keir reported in 1780 that it was still not making ‘any proper return’. This, he argued, was entirely due to the conduct of the Duke’s tenants who had entered into a ‘combination’ ‘to make no use of it’. They had also, Keir continued, by ‘improper representations’ drawn in most of the tenants of the neighbouring estates to their combination. Although Keir could not say for certain what their aims were, he believed they were attempting to persuade the Duke to forego the rise in their rent that was due to take place once the marl had become available to them, while at the same time trying to lower its price.130 Later that year, the tenants at Eckford did indeed submit a petition for a reduction in the price of marl, and Keir was required by the Duke to make a report of the situation, in which he went to great lengths to defend the current situation, arguing the very future of improvement upon that estate depended on it. After demonstrating the economic advantages of using marl at its current price (he estimated that an acre of land could be dressed at one third of the cost of using lime), Keir went on to defend the clause of the lease that stipulated that no more than seventy bolls of marl per acre should be used. In their petition the tenants had argued that this was insufficient, and that up to 200 bolls were required. Keir contested their assertion by noting that in Angus the usual rate per acre was sixty bolls and that the restriction to seventy bolls was ‘one of the most necessary restrictions upon the tenants’, and ‘exceedingly dangerous to dispence with’. The key issue with marl or lime, Keir argued, was that it was not the quantity which gave the greatest return for two or three crops that was the most profitable; rather it was ‘that quantity which can be most frequently repeated with advantage’.131 The argument here was about the long-term improvement of the soil versus the short-term gains from heavy liming, which could result in the exhaustion of the land. Keir’s final and most vehement objection to the tenants’ demands was that it would undermine the authority of the improving conditions of the lease, and would thereby be ‘exceedingly detrimental to the improvement of that estate’.132 For Keir, a key part of the improving lease was its role in reining in the tenants’ mistaken ‘notions of self-interest’ 129

NRS GD224/657/1/39, Keir to Duke, 10 Mar. 1777. Memorial on Improvements 1780. 131 Report on Marle 1780. Keir would later come to the conclusion that forty bolls per acre were in fact sufficient. NRS GD224/657/1/113–15, Keir to Duke, 11 Jun. 1793. 132 Report on Marle 1780. 130

­

Improvement I: The Lowland Estates (1767–1800) 109 and making up for their ‘want of experience’; ‘to leave them at liberty with respect to the quantity’, he argued, ‘would be hazarding every future advantage that his Grace might expect to reap from that estate by the ­vicinity of that manure’.133 Although Keir found the combination hard to break, he refused to compromise on either the marling stipulations or the price. Despite the fact that tenants from a neighbouring estate turned down a free trial of marl unless the petitioners’ demands were met, Keir still managed to sell £65 worth of marl at a lowered price to ‘strangers’ in 1780 and the following year began to make a profit there for the first time.134 The dispute over the marl came at a point when Keir was under increasing pressure over the escalating costs of his programme of improvements as a whole. Members of the Duke’s establishment, particularly William Ogilvie, had been sceptical of the benefits of Keir’s new arrangements from the outset, and in 1776 Keir drew up a memorandum to defend the growing expense of the improvements. In response to accusations that the advantages arising from the improvements were in ‘no way adequate’ for the level of expenditure, Keir stated that these criticisms had been based solely on the advance of rent of certain farms at the outset of their current leases compared to the expenditure of implementing the scheme. However, Keir contended that the initial increase in rental should be considered sufficient if it provided adequate interest on the capital expended on the improvements. Furthermore, he argued that the criticisms did not take into account the increased value of the improved farm at the expiry of its lease. According to his calculations, the expense of new buildings at Canonbie up to that point was £1,400 and the estate had produced an increase in rental of over £123 pounds, representing nearly 9% on the capital invested. At Eckford, the expense of draining the moss and building came to £1,041, compared to an increase in rent of £300, a 28% return. Furthermore, although Keir asserted that he had never proposed any alterations other than those he was certain would greatly benefit the estate and from which the Duke would ‘draw such advantage as would fully repay him’, he stressed that he had always understood that the Duke ‘was not so desirous of increasing his rental by these new arrangements but rather wished to have the estate improved’. This was a crucial distinction for Keir, and one which ‘perfectly corresponded’ with his own philosophy of improvement. It was with this in mind, Keir continued, that the Duke had agreed to ‘moderate’ levels of rent that would allow the tenants to carry out the improvements required of them. Keir also made the point that it was the Duke’s own ‘humanity’ in his wish to accommodate all his tenants that

133 134

Report on Marle 1780. Report on Marle 1780; NRS GD224/657/51, Keir to Duke, 12 Apr. 1781; NRS GD224/346/1, Keir’s Vouchers of Accounts, 1779–84.

110

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

had necessitated the smaller farm sizes and thus increased the overall costs of the arrangements. Finally, Keir concluded his defence by emphasising again that the condition of the farms prior to the new arrangements were such that ‘it was impossible for the tenants to make any improvements upon them tho’ they had been so well disposed to it’, making such a ‘total alteration . . . absolutely necessary’. And although this could not be done without ‘considerable expence’, Keir reassured the Duke that ‘every precaution’ had been taken to make this expense ‘as moderate as the nature of the [task] could admit’.135 Despite Keir’s reassurances, the growing levels of expense continued to concern the Duke. ‘Upon considering the state of my money affairs since I came here’, the Duke wrote from London in March 1777, ‘I find it will be absolutely impossible for me to spare so much for new works repairs etc. as your estimates amount to.’ The Duke requested that he omit or delay certain proposed works, including the building of Keir’s own new house which had been scheduled for that year.136 Two months later the Duke again stressed that he wished ‘as little money to be expended this season as you conveniently can’, ordering that only those works that were already begun were to be finished.137 Despite the Duke’s strictures, improvement expenditure continued to climb: £1,914 18s. 2d. was spent in 1776, rising to £4,858 19s. 10d. for the following two years combined.138 In March 1780 Keir was again summoned to Dalkeith to discuss the expense of the improvements: ‘My principal reason for wishing to see you soon’, wrote the Duke, ‘was to stop any new operations and to settle the plan for this year’, adding, ‘I cannot afford the expence (at present) of the last year and the year before. I could even wish to stop what has been already ordered if possible.’139 At that meeting Keir was again challenged, this time by the Duke’s accountant and his chief legal agent, over the mounting costs of improvements compared to their benefits.140 Keir responded with another memorandum where he again defended the soundness of his arrangements by citing the rises in rent as sufficient returns on the capital expended and emphasised the impossibility of improvement before the new arrangements had been made, although he had to concede that neither the cost of draining the marl at Eckford nor the expense of supplying thorns or maintaining the hedges had been included in his account. He did make the point, however, that the new arrangements had been instigated with the ‘approbation’ of, and by the ‘particular orders’ of, the Duke himself.141 135

Memorial on Improvements 1776. NRS GD224/655/2/3, Duke to Keir, 19 Mar. 1777. 137 NRS GD224/655/2/8, Duke to Keir, 9 May 1777. 138 NRS GD224/345/9, 15, Keir’s Accounts, 1776–7, 1777–9. 139 NRS GD224/655/2/19, Duke to Keir, 12 Mar. 1780. 140 NRS GD224/657/1/50, Keir to Duke, 22 May 1780. 141 Memorial on Improvements 1780. 136

­

Improvement I: The Lowland Estates (1767–1800) 111

The immediate context for the Duke’s need to rein in expenditure was the increasingly pressing demands of paying off his share of the debts arising from the collapse of the Ayr Bank, which were due to be paid off in four instalments beginning in Midsummer 1778.142 Two months after summoning Keir to Dalkeith, the Duke explained his inability to pay his mother’s full jointure that year by arguing that, although her expenses ‘had not been very considerable this year, mine certainly have, & my means for paying them very insufficient’.143 Over the next five years (1779–83) improvement expenditure declined to an average of £944 per annum.144 In the meantime, the first results of the improvements were beginning to attract attention. As early as August 1774 Keir had reported that the tenants of the newly created farms were going on with their improvements ‘with some degree of spirit’, noting they had already begun to enclose and had completed ‘a good part’ of their boundary fences.145 The improvements in Canonbie had come to the attention of Henry Home, Lord Kames, leading patron of Enlightenment Edinburgh and one of Scotland’s most notable improvers. In January 1777 Kames requested a report on the improvements there from a local landowner, John Maxwell of Broomholm, which was later included in Andrew Wight’s The Present State of Husbandry in Scotland, published by the Commission of the Annexed Estates the following year. Maxwell concluded his detailed and favourable account of the new arrangement there by alluding to Lord Belhaven’s famous quote on the merit of improvers: ‘I have read somewhere, that he who improves the produce of the earth, by the addition of a single blade of grass, has more merit than the greatest conquerer. If so, how many conquerers whoud be required to balance the improver of Cannobie parish?’146 In the same volume, Wight described the Duke’s ‘noble spirit, and warm zeal, for promoting the interest of this country’ that made him ‘an illustrious figure in this part of the world’. ‘The encouragement he gives for promoting every branch of husbandry’, he continued, ‘is endless’, noting that this was the opinion of ‘the country in general; and his tenants, in particular, have the strongest sense of his goodness to them’.147 In spite of the restrictions to Keir’s budget, the improvements continued, albeit at a slower pace, and the new arrangement was extended to other areas of the Canonbie estate.148 In February 1778 another nineteen farms, 142

In November 1778 he subscribed £7,500, bringing his recent contributions up to £10,500. The Scots Magazine, 36 (1774), 106; 40 (1778), 685. 143 NRS GD224/31/1/10, Duke to John Davidson, May 1780. The payment of Lady Dalkeith’s jointure was to be a long-running issue; see also NRS GD224/31/2/24, Lady Greenwich to John Elliot, 13 Dec. 1785. 144 NRS GD224/346/1, Keir’s Vouchers of Accounts, 1779–84. 145 NRS GD224/657/1/20, Keir to Duke, 16 Aug. 1774. 146 Wight, Husbandry, 420–4. 147 Wight, Husbandry, 395. 148 Keir noted in April 1781 that he would ‘indeavour to make the expenses of this year as

112

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

covering 5,853 acres, were measured out by Robert Dickson in Canonbie, and in 1781 the new arrangement was extended to the farms of Shilling Moss and Hairlaw Hole in the east of the parish.149 Although in February of the same year it was noted that only five more buildings were required to finish the new arrangement of all of the farms on the west side of the Esk, it was to be another four years before Keir could report that all the farms there were settled and that the tenants appeared to be ‘all perfectly satisfied’.150 In 1787 the farms of the east side of Canonbie were surveyed in order to make a new arrangement of the farms there.151 The recalcitrance on the part of some of the tenants to the new arrangements also seems to have declined, particularly as the benefits of the scheme began to become apparent. In 1777 Maxwell of Broomholm had noted in his account of the improvements that ‘the tenants themselves, of the remaining undivided farms, in spite of old prejudices, are becoming sensible of the advantages their neighbours are likely to reap, that they are keenly petitioning for an extension of it to themselves’. The following year Keir noted that the tenants of the Glenzier farms in the west of the parish were enquiring for an answer to their petition to the Duke requesting a new arrangement of their farms.152 By the mid-1780s Keir’s predictions regarding the increased value of the improved farms seemed to be coming to fruition. In 1785, when the farm of Grimslaw on the Eckford estate became vacant, it attracted proposals from two ‘very good’ tenants; when the farm was eventually set to a tenant described as ‘one of the best . . . in that part of the country’ for a ‘very sufficient rent’, Keir concluded that the other tenants on the estate would no longer have the ‘confidence to complain, that their farms are too high rented’.153 By early 1793, when preparations began for the next set of the Eckford and Lempitlaw estates, there was further evidence that the value of the farms had greatly increased. Keir submitted to the Duke a statement of the present rents paid for the farms, together with the offers made by the current tenants for renewing their leases, and a list of the rents that he estimated should now be charged. Although his proposed rents were ‘considerably more’ than those the tenants offered, Keir argued that if the farms were brought on to the open market they would be let ‘as much above my valuation as that exceeds the offers that has been made by the tenants’. One proposal for the farm of West Mains of Eckford, for example, offered £290 pounds, a rise of 58% from the present rent, and £50 above Keir’s valuation. However, as he believed it was not the Duke’s ‘inclination to demand moderate as possible and your Grace can be assured that I shall lay out no money that can possibly be avoided’. NRS GD224/657/1/51, Keir to Duke, 12 Apr. 1781. 149 NRS GD224/522/1/11, Abstract of Estimates, 1781. 150 NRS GD224/657/1/52, 56, Keir to Duke, 3 Feb. 1781, 4 May 1785. 151 NRS GD224/522/1/14, Abstract of Estimates, 1787. 152 Wight, Husbandry, 425; NRS GD224/657/1/48, Keir to Duke, 30 Dec. 1778. 153 NRS GD224/657/1/55, 56, 53, Keir to Duke, 22 Apr., 4 May, 21 May 1785.

­

Improvement I: The Lowland Estates (1767–1800) 113

the highest rent from your tenants that could be obtained’, and that taking the highest possible rent ‘might not ultimately lend to your Grace’s advantage’, Keir proposed to set the rent for the farms at a level that he was ‘confident the tenants could well afford to pay’.154 Keir’s own proposed rents for the farms amounted to a rise of just over 43.5% for Eckford and around 36.5% for Lempitlaw on the levels of rent set in 1775.155 The Duke approved Keir’s valuations, and in June 1793 Keir could report that the tenants of Eckford and Lempitlaw had accepted the terms of the new leases ‘without hesitation’. He continued, that in order to give ‘public testimony of the gratitude they felt for your Graces goodness on this occasion’, the tenants had all agreed to meet at Eckford and proposed to have ‘a whole Ox roasted upon Wooden Hill’.156 The set of 1796 was used again to modify the boundaries of the farms and in particular to enlarge James Church’s farm of Mosstower by 191 acres, which the Duke had ordered should be let on ‘more moderate terms’ that the rest of the farms.157 In addition to the increased rental of the estate, there was also evidence of what the statistical account for the parish of Eckford described as ‘a considerable change in the mode of agriculture’. The old Scots plough pulled by four oxen and two horses had been almost universally replaced by the new ‘English’ plough pulled by two horses, while the enclosure of land ‘with hedge and ditch’ was described as being ‘prevalent’, with ‘every farm [having] several upon it, generally in a thriving condition’. Turnips, broad clover, and ryegrass had all been introduced, and although oats and barley accounted for most of the grains sown, wheat was now becoming more common than before. James Church was singled out for his introduction of a new strain of oats which ripened a month earlier than the common variety, the author noting that such were their reputation ‘that they are now generally sown in this country, as well as through most other parts of Scotland, several parts of England, and they have even found their way across the Atlantic to America’.158 The author of the account for Canonbie presented an even more striking picture of the improvement of his parish and the transformation of its landscape. Prior to the Duke’s coming of age, he argued, agriculture did not appear to have been carried out ‘either with skill or industry’. Since

154

NRS GD224/657/1/109, Keir to Duke, 8 Feb. 1793. NRS GD224/459 p. 197, State of the rent . . . on the estate of Eckford and Lempitlaw, Mr Keir, 1793. 156 NRS GD224/657/1/113–15, Keir to Duke, 11 Jun. 1793. 157 NRS GD224/459 p. 237, Mr Keir’s report, 21 Dec. 1796; NRS GD224/459 p. 258. 158 OSA (Eckford), vol. 8, 22–5. The briefer account for the parish of Sprouston, in which the Lempitlaw estate lay, described the agriculture as ‘greatly improved’. ‘More corn is raised, and more cattle and sheep are fed for the market, than formerly’, although it also noted that ‘the magnitude of farms, which of late have been increasing, is reputed a grievance’. OSA (Sprouston), vol. 1, 65–6. 155

114

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

Figure 4.2:  Canonbie: the improved landscape. This detail from William Crawford’s map of Dumfriesshire of 1804 shows the main elements of the new arrangement, including the new farms, the improved road and bridge network, the Duke’s colliery at Byreburnfoot (marked by ‘Bore no. 1’), and the lime quarry of Harelawhill. The planned village of New Langholm is shown in the top left-hand corner just across the river from the Duke’s summer residence of Langholm Lodge. Reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the National Library of Scotland.

that time, however, and under the direction of Mr Keir, ‘a gentleman of distinguished talents and activity’, the parish had been transformed: Roads were made; farms laid out where the plough had never before entered; commodious houses and offices built and slated at his Grace’s expense, for the encouragement of his tenants; the ground divided into enclosures with hedge and ditch; the leases given at a moderate rate. The consequence now is, that luxuriant crops of corn are reaped, where heath, and bent, and moss, had predominated perhaps, since the deluge; population increased; the spirit of industry roused; the face of the parish beautified; and the inhabitants, in point of civilisation, proportionable improved.159 159

OSA (Canonbie), vol. 14, 418.

­

Improvement I: The Lowland Estates (1767–1800) 115 Despite this glowing report – and we should of course note that as a minister who owed his position to the Duke, the author was by no means a neutral observer – Keir was under no illusion as to the amount of work that still needed to be done before the improvements at Canonbie and the other arable estates could be considered complete.160 Nonetheless, the fundamental structural changes that the Duke had first set in motion on his 1770 tour of his estates – changes that would enable and encourage the tenants of the lowland estates to set about improving their farms – were now largely complete. In the meantime, the focus of Keir’s attention had shifted from the arable lowlands to the rest of the South Country estates, and, in particular, the problem of improving the sheep farms of the upland estates.

160

NRS GD224/459 pp. 224–5, Memorial . . . by Mr Keir, Oct. 1795. See also Chapter 6.

Chapter Five

Improvement II: The Upland Estates (1767–1812) The Duke’s predominantly upland estates of Ettrick Forest, Teviotdalehead, Eskdale, and Liddesdale formed by far the largest part of the South Country estate. Comprising tens of thousands of acres of the central Southern Uplands massif, stretching over southern Roxburghshire, southwest Selkirkshire, and north-east Dumfriesshire, as an estate report of 1767 summarised, this was ‘a country of great extent, but from its soil and climate not suited for much artificial improvement in the way of agriculture’. ‘Its chief purpose’, the report continued, was for sheep breeding, ‘and whatever plan of improvement may be thought of, this grand purpose should ever be kept in view, and the means to be used made subservient to that end’.1 Commercial sheep farming had been introduced to the Southern Uplands from the eleventh century onwards by the Border abbeys of Melrose, Jedburgh, and Kelso, and by the end of the sixteenth century large-scale sheep farming had become established throughout the region.2 Two surveys carried out by the Buccleuch estates – the first dating from the 1680s, the second from 1718 – provide a general picture of the size and stocking levels of the sheep farms on the estate around the turn of the eighteenth century.3 Two main types of holding emerge: in the lower reaches of the valleys, where more low-lying land was available, farm sizes tended to be small, generally under 200 acres; further up the valleys, where the land narrowed and farms consisted mainly of hill ground, farms tended to be much larger, between 500 and 1,000 acres, while the practice of tenants holding more than one farm meant that the average ‘working units’ of the hill farms were quite often in excess of 1,000 acres. Following the same pattern, those farms further down the dales where more arable land was available tended to hold smaller numbers of sheep, whereas the 1

NRS GD224/389/2/1, Hints for improving the Duke of Buccleugh’s Estate, [William Ogilvie] Apr. 1767 [hereafter, Hints for improving]. 2 R. A. Dodgshon, ‘Agricultural Change and Its Social Consequences in the Southern Uplands of Scotland, 1600–1780’, in T. M. Devine and D. Dickson (eds), Ireland and Scotland, 1600–1850 (Edinburgh, 1983), 47–8; A. J. L. Winchester, The Harvest of the Hills: Rural Life in Northern England and the Scottish Borders, 1400–1700 (Edinburgh, 2000), 21. 3 The following is based on Dodgshon’s analysis of the surveys in ‘Agricultural Change’.

­

Improvement II: The Upland Estates (1767–1812) 117

Figure 5.1:  ‘A country of great extent’: a view of Eskdale, the largest of the Duke’s South Country upland estates. Source: the author.

largest flocks were held in the highest districts. In 1681 45% of the upland farms consisted of flocks greater than 500 sheep, with 13% holding over 1,000; two years later a further survey showed 57% of farms with over 500 sheep, with just under 18% carrying more than 1,000.4 Although traditionally considered as a ‘laggard sector’ in the agrarian economy, by the mid-eighteenth century the upland farms of the Southern Uplands were in fact in advance of the lowland areas of the estate in terms of their structure and commercial orientation and well placed to respond to the demands of the expanding market for sheep products.5 These advances were reflected in the tenancy patterns of the sheep farms; although the majority of upland farms on the Buccleuch estate had been 4 5

Dodgshon, ‘Agricultural Change’, 50. Dodgshon’s analysis of the sheep farming areas of the Southern Uplands prior to 1780 revealed the ‘growing ascendency’ of large-scale commercial sheep farming from the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries over what he describes as a once ‘fairly substantial subsistence sector’.‘Agricultural Change’, 46. On the overall perception of upland areas as marginal, see Winchester, Harvest of the Hills, 3.

118

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

held in multiple tenancies in the early eighteenth century, by the time of the Duke’s majority in 1767 they accounted for only one third of the holdings on these estates, while payment of rents in cash was universal.6 Evidence also suggests that the size of working units and the number of sheep held had also continued to increase. Of the forty-two upland farms on the Ettrick Forest estate in 1767, 76% held more than 500 sheep, with 38% of the total possessing flocks of over 1,000 sheep, while an account of sheep farming in Eskdale and Teviotdale dating from the early 1770s suggested the average size of farm was somewhere between three and four thousand acres.7 The same account noted the predominance of sheep farming within these holdings, noting ‘the cows which [the farmer] keeps, and the corn which he sows, seldom do more than maintain his family’.8 The main markets for the livestock of the region, mostly as lean stock to be later fattened, were the north-east coal field of England, the textile centres of Lancashire and Yorkshire, and the central belt of Scotland, whereas the Yorkshire woollen industry was the main market for wool.9 The overall importance of the upland sheep farming sector within the Buccleuch estates as a whole was also increased by the new purchases made during the Duke’s minority, a significant amount of which were upland estates, particularly in Ettrick Forest and Eskdalemuir in upper Eskdale. By the beginning of the Duke’s personal administration, upland sheep farms accounted for over £10,200 in rental, around 59% of the gross rental of the entire South Country estates.10 The first plan for reforming the management of the Buccleuch sheep farms dates from the end of the Duke’s minority, with the drafting in April 1767 of a memorandum entitled ‘Hints for improving the Duke of Buccleugh’s Estate’, by the then chamberlain of the Melrose and Ettrick Forest estates, William Ogilvie.11 Directing his plans specifically at the Duke’s upland estates of Ettrick Forest, Teviotdalehead, Eskdale, and Liddesdale, Ogilvie’s ‘hints’ were primarily concerned with the reform of the management of the ‘croft’ land or infield of these farms. Ogilvie summed up the present infield-outfield system of husbandry prevalent on these farms as ‘taking up a great deal of land, with much labour & little increase’. This inefficiency was exacerbated by what he described as 6

Dodgshon, ‘Agricultural Change’, 51–3; NRS GD224/285/5, Rental 1767. Philliphaugh MSS, Note of Stock upon Selkirkshire farms of Buccleuch Estate in 1766, reproduced in T. Craig-Brown, The History of Selkirkshire: Or, Chronicles of Ettrick Forest (Edinburgh, 1886), 394–5; T. Pennant, A Tour in Scotland and Voyage to the Hebrides 1772, ed. A. Simmons (Edinburgh, 1998), 728. 8 Pennant, Tour in Scotland, 728. 9 R. A. Dodgshon, ‘The Economics of Sheep Farming in the Southern Uplands during the Age of Improvement, 1750–1833’, The Economic History Review, 29, 4 (1976), 551–69. 10 NRS GD224/584/11/4, Note of purchases, Jul. 1759; NRS GD224/285/5, Rental of his Grace Henry Duke of Buccleugh . . . Whitsunday 1766 to Whitsunday 1767. 11 Hints for improving. 7

­

Improvement II: The Upland Estates (1767–1812) 119 ‘the extraordinary humidity of the climate’ together with the ‘late & early frosts, and every inclement circumstance of weather, that the high & open situation’ of the upland estates were ‘naturally subject to’. Ogilvie’s solution was the ‘setting off’ of each farm’s croft land, laying it as ‘compact & convenient’ for the dwelling house as possible, and separating it from the grazing land with stone walls topped by hedgerow. The croft land was then to be subdivided into enclosures of between four and ten acres, divided by ditch and hedge, with one half in corn and the other alternating in hay and pasture. The tenant would then be restricted from taking more than two ‘white’ crops (i.e. cereals) without an intervening ‘green’ crop (i.e. sown grasses), and be required to leave at least half of the enclosed land in grass at the expiry of his tack. If this method was followed, Ogilvie argued that the croft land would produce enough grain to maintain the farmer’s family while also providing sufficient hay for feeding sheep in case of a hard winter. Furthermore, by limiting his tillage to stipulated areas, the farmer would better preserve his ‘lie ground’, that is, that most capable of producing early grass for his sheep in the spring. The second part of the plan involved surrounding the enclosed croft land with a belt of trees one hundred feet broad, which, in addition to providing shelter to the sheep, would ‘greatly contribute to the warming of the ground’. Where the nature of the ground made such planting unnecessary or impractical, Ogilvie suggested separate detached plantations of at least four acres should be made in the sheep field, both for shelter and for the ‘profit & advantage’ they would produce as a much needed source of timber. To enforce these reforms, Ogilvie recommended that the stipulations of the leases should be ‘strictly injoined’, with chamberlains visiting each farm once a year to report on any ‘wilful contravention or neglect’ of the terms of their leases, which would render their tacks void, adding ‘an instance or two of such a disagreeable proceeding would effectually cure the evil in time coming’. Ogilvie did not venture an opinion as to whether the Duke or his tenants should pay for the suggested improvements, but he did stress that whatever plan of management was eventually adopted, the tenants should be given leases for ‘a number of years certain’ to indemnify them and their heirs for the risk, trouble, and ‘dayly attention’ that such improvements would entail. No response to Ogilvie’s ‘hints’ was recorded, and following the decision not to implement the general set of the estates in 1768, the sheep farms continued to be set annually for the next ten years, with no stipulations beyond those included in the Duke’s general declaration of 1768. Ogilvie’s report did, however, highlight the key problem that would face any attempt to improve the estate’s sheep farms. The majority of the innovations of the new agriculture that were to be applied to the lowland parts of the Buccleuch estates could have only limited application upon the upland areas, where large-scale commercial sheep farming dominated and the arable element of farming had been declining over the course of

120

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

the century.12 The situation was summarised by one upland sheep farmer writing in the early 1770s: Though the country was in a complete stat[e] of improvement, it is probably the hills will never be enclosed, as nature seems to have intended them for the breeding of cattle . . . so long as they are applied to that purpose, and I think they never can be fit for any other, they cannot pay the expense of enclosing. The account continued, noting that substantial rent increases over the past twelve to fourteen years had ‘made Highland farming very uncertain; as no improvements which meliorate the farms can be made; but they entirely depend upon the rise and fall of the markets’.13 It would be an acute awareness of this very problem – the relationship between the level of rent, the market price of a farm’s produce, and their potential for improvement – that would form the basis for William Keir’s ambitious plans to improve the Duke’s upland estates. Despite his initial focus on the arable estates, William Keir viewed the improvement of the estate’s sheep farms as an ‘object of the greatest importance’ from the very beginning of his tenure as overseer of improvements.14 The ‘new regulation’ of the upland estates, however, posed a very different set of problems, and from the outset Keir was aware that their improvement required a different approach. As early as 1774 Keir had begun to systematically collate the prices of lamb and wool being sold in local markets, and around the same time began discreetly gathering information on the stocking capacities of various sheep farms on the Duke’s estate, focusing initially on those in the parish of Ewes, near Langholm on the Eskdale estate. Through his investigations, Keir was attempting to find a solution to a perennial problem affecting the Buccleuch estate and one which he believed was essential to the improving project as a whole: what was the most equitable and rational method of setting the rent of a pastoral farm? Keir was well aware that the level of rent set for a farm was a crucial element in the overall improvement process: set too high, and the tenant would have no money for improvements, would struggle to pay his rent, and would perhaps fail altogether; set too low, and the tenant would lack the necessary incentive to improve his holdings, farm more efficiently and maximise the output of his farm. A related issue was the comparative level of rents being charged over the estate as a whole. From his investigations Keir believed there was great ‘inequality’ in the levels set, with some farms paying too little and some too much. As well as the harmful effects such uneven letting had on the productivity and potential improvement of the estate, Keir argued it had other damaging consequences. Not only was it 12

Dodgshon, ‘Agricultural Change’, 56. Pennant, Tour in Scotland, 728–30. 14 NRS GD224/657/1/37, 77, Keir to Duke, 28 Mar. 1777, 26 Feb. 1790. 13

­

Improvement II: The Upland Estates (1767–1812) 121

the cause of ‘continual discord and animossity amongst the tenants’, it was also, Keir believed, the underlying reason behind ‘all the opposition and combinations that have been formed in order to thwart the new regulations on the other parts of the estate’. Those ‘Gentlemen’ currently occupying what Keir described as ‘lucrative farms’ – those whose rents were set too low – were ‘extremely jealous’ of the ‘most distant appearance of an inquiry into the present situation of the estate’, and so did all in their power to undermine Keir’s authority and his new arrangements elsewhere.15 It was for this reason that Keir insisted that his investigations had to be conducted in secrecy by himself or by a few trusted men, and why he urged the Duke not to tell anyone else about his scheme.16 The solution Keir arrived at was a simple but ingenious one: if he could work out the number and quality of sheep that each farm could support, it should be possible for him to estimate the annual produce of that farm. This knowledge, together with information on the average prices fetched for their produce over a number of years, would allow him to work out what he termed the ‘real value’ of each farm. This in turn would make it possible to ‘equalise’ the rents of the sheep farms over the entire estate, removing at a stroke the disadvantages of the current system. Not only would it be possible to arrive at ‘an established value’ for setting the estate ‘in all time coming’, but this knowledge would also allow the Duke to make ‘considerable improvements’ to the estate for both his own and his tenants’ advantage.17 By March 1776 Keir had collected enough information to present to the Duke the first broad outline of his scheme.18 The Duke’s response must have been positive, as, after further refining his plans, he submitted the following year ‘an estimate of the yearly value of the sheep farms in the parish of Ewis’, accompanied by a letter explaining his scheme. The estimate presented an ‘equalised’ rental for the sheep farms of the parish, based on the levels of stock kept on each farm, the current price of sheep, and some other non-specified considerations relating to the management of sheep farms. By his calculations, Keir estimated that, if the prices for sheep continued at their present level, most of the farms in the parish could afford to pay a rent of two shillings and six pence per sheep.  ‘But’, he added, ‘this is a rent I will by no means advise your Grace to require from your tenants’, as ‘I think a moderate well paid rent is better . . . than a high rent ill paid’. Although he suggested that if it was successfully implemented over the entire estate, the Duke could expect to make ‘a considerable advance’ upon the current rent without distressing the tenants, he was keen to stress that his main motive for proposing the scheme was to show that ‘the real 15

NRS GD224/657/1/43, Keir to Duke, 4 Jun. 1777. NRS GD224/657/1/37, Keir to Duke, 28 Mar. 1777. 17 NRS GD224/657/1/43, Keir to Duke, 4 Jun. 1777. 18 NRS GD224/657/1/37, Keir to Duke, 28 Mar. 1777. 16

122

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

value of these farms may be known and an equal rent may by that means be established upon the estate’. A key element of Keir’s plan was that the value of the sheep farms should be estimated by one or two ‘judicious honest men’ not connected with the estate to ensure that there would not be accusations of partiality. Using information furnished by Keir, they would arrive at a rent for each farm and from their estimate the Duke would be able to ‘fix an equal rent upon the estate’ and make ‘such an advance upon the rental as may appear reasonable’. Keir concluded his letter by warning the Duke that if the ‘new regulation’ was to be implemented, he should expect ‘violent opposition and strong combinations’ formed to render it ineffectual’; ‘a little resolution’, however, he argued, ‘will soon get the better of these oppositions’.19 Again, no response from the Duke survives, but it seems it was certainly not dismissed out of hand; Keir felt confident enough to continue to collect information and to further refine his scheme. Around this time it had been decided that the sheep farms, which had been set annually since the start of the Duke’s majority, would be set on nine-year leases from 1778, and Keir hoped that his scheme would form the basis of this new regulation. However, Keir’s proposal came at a difficult time, with opposition growing to his new arrangements of the lowland estates and questions being asked over the growing expense of his improvements. Writing in January 1778, in the context of a complaint made against him by a tenant, Keir was very much on the defensive, arguing that the main motive behind the ‘many designs on foot’ to ‘injure’ him in the Duke’s opinion was to prevent his new regulation of the sheep farms from taking place. He urged the Duke not to ‘lay aside’ his proposals until he had had the chance to prove it was not a ‘chimerical scheme’.20 At a meeting at Dalkeith House the following month, with the Duke, his commissioner John Davidson, and William Ogilvie, Keir was openly challenged over the propriety of his scheme. In the process, the very nature of his commission was called into question, with Davidson asserting that Keir had overreached his authority and that he should in future be placed under the direction of Ogilvie. In a letter written to defend his position, Keir set out his opinion on the nature of his role and the importance he placed in remaining independent of the chamberlain, who, he noted, had opposed every plan he had so far proposed for the improvement of the estate. He ended by noting that he had intended to send the Duke a revised version of his scheme to regulate the sheep farms, but ‘as I find that affair is intirely settled I have laid aside that intention as it now serves no good purpose’.21 Seven months later, when the Duke’s sheep farms were set on nine-year leases, no attempt was made to implement Keir’s scheme. Indeed, the printed conditions which accompanied the leases were based largely on William Ogilvie’s 19

NRS GD224/657/1/43, Keir to Duke, 4 Jun. 1777. NRS GD224/584/9/11, Keir to Duke, 14 Jan. 1778. 21 NRS GD224/657/1/45–6, Keir to Duke, 27 Feb. 1778. 20

­

Improvement II: The Upland Estates (1767–1812) 123

‘Hints’ of 1767, with regulations on the use of the sheep farms’ arable land and clauses reserving the right of the Duke to plant shelter belts.22 Despite the rejection of his proposals, Keir continued to collect information and refine his scheme; but it would be a further twelve years before his plans would again return to the Duke’s agenda. The first indication that Keir’s scheme was again being considered came in early 1790, when, in a letter to the Duke, Keir referred to a proposal made by Adam Ogilvie, who had replaced his father William as chamberlain in 1785, to join with Keir in making out a scheme for the regulation of the sheep farms. It was a proposal, Keir admitted, that put him under some difficulty and gave him ‘no small concerne’. The scheme of ‘equalising the rents of the sheep farms’, Keir noted, had ‘appeared to me very early, to be an object of the greatest importance’, and despite the opposition that had occurred when he had first proposed it, he had continued to believe the Duke would ‘some time or other, be inclined to obtain such a regulation’. I have therefore ever since that time, kept the object in view, and have spared no labour, or lost any opportunity of collecting such information as might enable me to assist your Grace in this matter, when ever your Grace might be pleased to signify your desire for it, and I trust & hope that your Grace will not think it unnatural if after spending so much trouble in this matter for fourteen years, I feel a desire to reap the credit of my own labours & my own scheme.23 Keir continued that he would happily set aside such concerns if he felt the Duke’s interest required it, but noted that there was a second, more pragmatic reason for not wishing Ogilvie to become involved. According to Keir’s sources, Ogilvie had already instructed two of the Duke’s tenants to collect information on the value of farms upon parts of the upland estates. It would be impossible, Keir argued, for such men who themselves possessed considerable farms to give an impartial account; furthermore, Keir had obtained a copy of their report for Liddesdale and found it ‘in general very eroniouse’. This being the case, Keir believed that himself and Ogilvie would ‘almost unavoidably differ from the outset’, and he hoped the Duke would understand that ‘the remembrance of what I suffered formerly from such disputes, makes me very cautious of putting it again in any mans power to use me ill’.24 Keir’s stress on the need for confidentiality was again emphasised in his subsequent correspondence on the scheme. He had kept the details of his proposals from Ogilvie for fear of betraying the ‘confidence reposed in 22

NRS GD224/522/3/13, Declaration by the Duke of Buccleuch, relative to the conditions of the leases, 4 Sep. 1778. 23 NRS GD224/657/1/77, Keir to Duke, 26 Feb. 1790. 24 NRS GD224/657/1/77, Keir to Duke, 26 Feb. 1790.

124

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

me’ by certain people on the estate who had agreed to furnish him with the details necessary for compiling his scheme. ‘If I should subject such people to the displeasure of their neighbours’, he noted, ‘it would make it exceedingly difficult for me to procure any further information.’ Keir proposed that if the Duke allowed him to offer farms to three or four such people who were ‘particularly intelligent in the affairs of the country’, it would greatly aid his undertaking.25 Keir had hoped to have the new regulation ready to be put in place by Whitsunday 1791, but the Duke’s affairs had kept him in London and delayed his meeting with Keir to discuss the scheme, and so the set was postponed until the following year. Ogilvie had also voiced reservations towards the scheme and recommended to the Duke that the ‘full execution of so extensive a scheme’ required more time, suggesting a ‘fuller and more leesurely deliberation’, citing the harsh winter and the possibility of a bad spring as further reasons to delay the regulation.26 However, unlike Keir’s previous attempt, on this occasion he had the full support of the Duke. Indeed, according to Keir, it was only at the Duke’s particular request that he had again raised the issue of his scheme.27 On 12 May 1791 Buccleuch wrote from London that he had considered Keir’s scheme and ‘approve very much of the fruits of your long intricate labour’. ‘It will be more satisfaction to me’, he continued, ‘to put your plan into execution, after some conversations on the spot’, noting that ‘business of that sort cannot be transacted by letters’.28 Although, as with the earlier decision to reject Keir’s proposals in 1778, there is no mention in the estate correspondence of the wider context for the Duke’s decision to implement Keir’s plan, evidence suggests that by 1791, despite Ogilvie’s concerns, the sheep farms were in a noticeably better state than in the late 1770s. After the drop in sheep and wool prices from the mid-1770s, prices had begun to recover, although in 1781 William Ogilvie observed that there had been a number of ‘bad seasons’, and that for the previous three years abatements had been given to the sheep farm tenants totalling £1,150.29 By the mid-1780s, however, prices had returned to their 1775 level, and had continued to rise; by February 1787 Adam Ogilvie could report that demand for sheep products was high and the prices fetched so good that ‘upon the whole, the tenants of the sheepfarms have not experienced a more prosperous year in the memory of any man living’. He concluded ‘with very few exceptions, all your tenants are thriving; and without one exception, I have experienced an emulation 25

NRS GD224/657/1/79, Keir to Duke, 13 Mar. 1790. NRS GD224/659/3/32, Adam Ogilvie to Duke, 8 Feb. 1791. 27 NRS GD224/657/1/84, Keir to Adam Ogilvie [copy], 16 Jan. 1792. 28 NRS GD224/655/2/79, Duke to Keir, 12 May 1791. 29 Dodgshon, ‘Sheep Farming’, 552; NRS GD224/584/10/4, Rental 1781. 26

­

Improvement II: The Upland Estates (1767–1812) 125

among them, the small ones especially, to keep their payments forward, and an universal expression of satisfaction with their situation under your Grace’.30 Two years later, referring to his winter collection of rents, Ogilvie remarked that he had ‘touched more money at Hawick, than ever I collected’.31 Although wool prices continued to rise into the 1790s, prices for livestock dropped again towards the end of the 1780s and into the early 1790s, reaching a low point in 1791, before recovering to the 1788 level around the middle of the decade. The decision to implement Keir’s plan was, therefore, made in a much better economic climate than in the late 1770s, but before the dramatic increases in sheep product prices of the late 1790s and early 1800s.32 The ‘Report on the value of the sheep farms’ that Keir submitted for the Duke’s consideration some time in early 1791 was the summation of over fourteen years of research into the best method of regulating the rents upon the Duke’s upland estates.33 Over the course of sixty pages, Keir set out to explain how ‘an equal and adequate rent’ could be arrived at from ‘a simple and easy rule’ based on the market price of the various articles produced from the farms. Although the underlying principles were essentially the same as those he had proposed in 1776, Keir’s 1791 report set out in much more detail the theoretical basis of his scheme and the methods by which he arrived at his estimates. He began by examining the usual ways of arriving at the rental value of a farm, arguing that this was commonly done by one of two methods: the landlord could compare the rent of similar farms in the area, making allowances for their situation or the abilities of their tenants; or the farm could be brought ‘into the market’ and let to the highest bidder. Keir argued that the first method was probably the most ‘equitable and rational mode’ of fixing the rent of a ‘corn’ – or arable – farm, provided that the landlord was ‘governed by moderation’ and was ‘capable of making a correct observation’. The second method, however, Keir believed was always unfavourable to the tenant and at times ‘detrimental to the interest of the landlord himself and the Country in general’. Although letting the farm to the highest bidder would achieve the ‘market price’ for the use of the land and the highest possible rent, Keir argued that this would often be disproportionate to what he termed the ‘real’ value of the land, which was determined by the annual value of its produce. Furthermore, as there was always a greater competition for renting a property than for buying it, 30

Dodgshon, ‘Sheep Farming’, 552. According to William Keir’s prices compiled from Langholm market, by 1784 prices for wool and lambs had returned to their 1776 level. NRS GD224/459 p. 172; NRS GD224/659/3/1, Adam Ogilvie to Duke, 20 Feb. 1787. 31 NRS GD224/659/3/23, Adam Ogilvie to Duke, 20 Dec. 1789. 32 Dodgshon, ‘Sheep Farming’, 552; NRS GD224/459 p.  172, Register of prices . . . ­commencing from 1774. 33 NRS GD224/459, Report on the value of the Sheep Farms, William Keir, 1791 [hereafter, Report on Sheep Farms].

126

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

the market price for the rental of a property would always be proportionally higher even than the market price for its purchase. Rent fixed by this method would therefore ‘generally exceed the proportion it ought to bear’ of the produce of the farm, leaving the tenant without ‘a reasonable profit upon the stock he is obliged to employ in its cultivation’. As ‘an ill paid rent can never be deemed a good one, however high it may nominally be’, a landlord who let his estate by this method would in all probability receive less annually than if he had been ‘governed by more liberal sentiments’ and set his rental at a ‘moderate’ level, an approach which would have the additional benefit of improving the general circumstances of his tenants. But the consequences of setting the rent of an estate too high went far beyond the pecuniary interests of the landowner. If the losses incurred by this ‘unwise conduct’ were limited to the landlord alone, Keir argued, ‘there would perhaps be less cause for regret’; however, more importantly, ‘the Interest of the Country suffers much more from it’, for by depriving his tenants of the hopes of bettering their situation in life, he deprives them of one of the strongest motives to industry and exertion; and the Country is also deprived of the benifit of that part of their labour which they would otherwise have bestowed upon the cultivation and improvement of their farms. Keir argued that similar disadvantages were also apparent at the opposite extreme, where the rent of a farm was set at too low a level. Although these circumstances were undoubtedly more favourable for the tenant, Keir believed they were ‘seldom . . . found to contribute so much towards their real prosperity, as people who view the matter in a superficial manner are apt to suppose’. Again, questions of motivation were central to Keir’s argument: ‘mankind in general’, he argued, generally require a ‘more forcible motive to stimulate them to industry and exertion’ than ‘merely a conviction that their pecuniary interest will be thereby promoted’. They must believe that it is to some degree ‘necessary for their comfortable subsistence’. By setting the rental of an estate too low, and thus ‘weakening the incitements to Industry’, the proprietor may actually ‘deprive his tenants of greater advantages than his well intended bounty bestows upon them’. And once again it was the country in general that suffered, as it was deprived of ‘that portion of their labours which it would otherwise have acquired’. The setting of rent at an optimum level was thus for Keir of the utmost importance, not only for the landlord and his tenants, but for the nation as a whole. And if the ill effects of either too high or too low a rent were indeed well founded, it could be supposed that ‘a large estate, very unequally rented, must in some degree partake of the evil arising from both’. The regulation that Keir now proposed to remedy this situation could be seen as not only advancing the Duke’s interest, but also contributing towards the ‘real prosperity’ of his tenants and ‘the Interest of the Country in general’.

­

Improvement II: The Upland Estates (1767–1812) 127 Keir now proceeded to outline a third method for setting the rent of a farm – an estimate based on the value of its annual produce. Whereas it would be impossible ‘to determine the value of the average annual produce of a corn farm for any certain years’, due to the ‘numberless contingencies’ that might ‘affect its produce from year to year’, Keir believed that this was not the case with a sheep farm. In this case, it was possible to arrive at a relatively accurate estimate of its produce over a given period, and thereby to calculate the amount a tenant could readily afford to pay as rent. This was partly due to the fact that the produce of sheep farms was far less dependent upon the ‘skill or industry’ of the tenant than that of arable farms. The average quantity of articles produced from a given number of sheep varied little from year to year, and so the average output of a given farm was also relatively stable. As the expense of management of these farms was ‘very moderate’ and roughly equal throughout the estate, varying only in proportion to the size of the farm, Keir argued that the only significant variable in the value of the produce of each farm from year to year was the difference in price which these articles would fetch when brought to market. The report then went on to examine the possible methods for estimating the annual produce of any given sheep farm on the estate. First, an accurate knowledge of the number of sheep a farm could maintain was required. This could be obtained by a combination of personal observation, discussion with tenants and ‘other people of the country’, and from estimates of how much stock could be supported on a given amount of land. Due to the inaccuracy of the ‘old measurements’ of the estate, Keir largely relied on information derived from the first two sources, warning that it was not safe to rely on the information gleaned from the tenants alone, because of the conflict of interests involved. In addition to the quantity of stock a farm could support, there were a number of other factors that had to be taken into account: the quality of sheep that a farm could support; the higher levels of loss that some farms were subject to due to their location; the prevalence of particular diseases on certain farms; and, finally, the extent and quality of arable land upon a farm. Although such ‘depreciation’ in the value of a farm’s produce caused by the above factors would seem to require a proportional reduction of rent, it first needed to be ascertained whether the difference in value arose from unavoidable ‘natural’ causes, such as the quality of the soil or the position of the farm, or from the comparative lack of skill and industry of the tenant. In the case of the latter, no abatement should be made, as that would have the effect of ‘laying a tax upon skill and industry, and bestowing a premium upon ignorance and sloth’. To take account of the various factors that might affect the value of the produce of the sheep farms, Keir divided the farms into a number of classes based on the extent to which they were affected by similar circumstances. Keir explained that his estimates of the value of the produce of these farms were based upon the average price of wool and various types of sheep for

128

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

the past seventeen years. In calculating his final estimate of rent that each farm could afford to pay, he allowed for management expenses and further deducted 15% from the annual produce of each farm to account for the tenant’s ‘profit upon the value of stock’. Keir’s explanation of his system was followed by ten pages of tables, listing the 287 farms in the Duke’s upland estates of Ettrick Forest, Liddesdale, Eskdale, and Teviotdalehead, 226 of which were categorised as sheep farms for the purpose of the report.34 Keir set out the rent for these farms in three columns, along the same principles he had used for his estimate of the Ewes farms in 1777: in the first column was the ‘estimated rent’, the amount Keir estimated the farms could afford to pay according to their ‘real value’; the second column listed their present rent; and the final column gave the present rent ‘equalized’, that is, the present rents adjusted to match the proportion of rent each farm was worth by Keir’s ‘estimated rent’. By including this third column, Keir was able to show which farms had previously been undervalued and which had been charged at a relatively higher rate. In the parish of Eskdalemuir on the Eskdale estate, for example, the equalised rent of the farm of Garwald saw it increase from £190 to just over £233, while the farm of Holm in the same parish dropped from £31 to £27 15s. and 4d. In every case, however, Keir calculated that the ‘estimated rent’ of what the farms could now afford to pay was higher than the existing rent; all in all, the total of Keir’s estimated rent came to £17,452, representing an increase of 26% on the current rental. The final element of Keir’s system, and one which had not been fully developed in his earlier versions, was a series of tables that allowed the Duke to estimate the variations in value of his sheep farms in proportion to the fluctuations in the current market price of their produce. Through the use of the prices he had collected over the previous seventeen years, Keir was able to arrive at a system that could be adjusted according to the variations in price of wool and wedder lambs (castrated male lambs) and the fluctuations in their relative value, and then estimate from this the current value of the sheep farms. By obtaining information on the best price fetched for these products at Langholm fair, the Duke could then use the tables to calculate the current value of his farms. It was a remarkable system which Keir believed would allow the Duke by a ‘simple and easy rule’ to discover ‘at one view’ the variations in the value of his sheep farms, and thereby estimate the level of rent that the farmers could afford to pay ‘at any future period’. But the real significance of this for Keir was the ability it gave the Duke to estimate the ‘real’ value of his farms. This would allow him to set the rental at a suitably ‘moderate’ level that would give his tenants both the means and the incentive to increase their productivity and improve their farms, which was the ultimate aim of 34

Several of these farms were let together so actual working units were less, around 221 in total, 169 of which were given an estimated rent.

­

Improvement II: The Upland Estates (1767–1812) 129

Keir’s proposals. The remainder of the report dealt with exactly that, detailing the changes in land management, pasture improvement, enclosure, and drainage that Keir believed would lead to the improvement of the farms. Indeed, the report was envisaged by Keir as the first step towards the rational reorganisation of the boundaries of many of the farms in order to create more viable and productive units. Keir’s report would revolutionise the method of landsetting on the Buccleuch estate, and would serve as the foundation for the improvement schemes that would dominate the management of the upland estates for the next twenty years. But the report is also notable for what can be seen as the systematic attempt to apply the insights of contemporary political economy to the management and improvement of a landed estate. Indeed, in terms of methodology and approach there are a number of striking similarities between the report and the analytical framework of economic theory developed by Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, most notably by Adam Smith. On a methodological level, Keir’s attempt to reduce the complex and seemingly subjective process of setting rent levels to a transparent ‘system’ based upon a few ‘clear principles’ works on the same general principles as those employed by Smith and other contemporary Scottish political economists.35 The central role played by issues of ‘motivation’ and ‘interest’ in the report also shows a debt to that other key line of Scottish Enlightenment economic enquiry: the way in which an understanding of human nature, particularly in terms of its motivations, could be used to analyse the way in which economic systems worked and make them function more efficiently.36 Keir’s attempts to create a system which would set rents at a level that would optimise the tenant’s motivation to improve and so release the maximum amount of productive labour for both the proprietor and the country in general is a clear example of this.37 In more specific terms, Smith’s particular influence is also strongly suggested in the use of a number of analytical concepts that appear to be derived from his work. Keir’s key distinction, for example, between the ‘market value’ and the ‘real value’ of farms seems to be directly informed by Smith’s distinction between the ‘real’ and ‘nominal’ price of 35

As R. H. Campbell and A. S. Skinner note, Smith’s work on ethics, jurisprudence, and economics all attempted to ‘explain complex problems in terms of a small number of basic principles’. WN, ‘Introduction’, 4. 36 S. C. Dow, ‘The Scottish Political Economy Tradition’, in D. Mair (ed.), The Scottish Contribution to Modern Economic Thought (Aberdeen, 1990), 27. A key element in this was the importance of self-interest as the primary motivational force. Sir James Steuart, for example, described self-interest as ‘the ruling principle’ of his Inquiry, noting, ‘This is the main spring, and only motive which a statesman should make use of, to engage a free people to concur in the plans which he lays down for their government.’ J. Steuart, An Inquiry Into the Principles of Political Oeconomy, vol. 1 (Edinburgh, 1767), 162. See also WN I.ii.2. 37 Report on Sheep Farms, pp. 137–8.

130

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

commodities and labour, and the ‘natural’ and ‘market’ price of commodities.38 Similarly, Keir’s assertion that the relationship between the ‘market value’ and ‘real value’ of a farm ultimately derives from the general rate of interest available on the comparable investment of stock elsewhere suggests a debt to Smith’s own analysis of the basis of the market value for land.39 In addition to these conceptual similarities, there are also broader parallels, particularly between Keir’s overall approach to the improvement of an estate and Smith’s analysis of the improvement of a nation. The potential wealth of a nation, Smith argued, was dependent upon both its natural resources – ‘the nature of its soil, climate and situation’ – and the constitution of its ‘laws and institutions’, which could function either to encourage or to impede its development.40 For Keir, the potential productivity of any given farm likewise depended upon a combination of ‘natural causes’ (its quality of soil, relative climate, and situation) and its regulatory structure – what could be considered the ‘laws and institutions’ of the estate. This regulatory structure, in the form of leasing policy and rent levels, was crucial to Keir’s vision of improvement, which, if properly constituted, could harness the self-interest of the tenant for the greater benefit of the estate and the country.41 Indeed, a notable feature of Keir’s writing on improvement is the extent to which the ultimate benefits of improvement are described in terms of its impact on the national economy and interest of the country as a whole.42 The influence of Smithian ideas on such an overtly interventionist improvement strategy as Keir’s may seem to be at odds with the laissez-faire economics that have become most closely associated with Smith’s economic writings. But, as commentators on Smith have noted, intervention was an integral part of Smith’s economic system in a number of key areas where the profit motive was not sufficient to achieve certain public goods, or where the imperfect knowledge of individuals meant that they were not sufficiently aware of their own self-interest to act accordingly.43 And it was in the terms of the latter justification that Keir explicitly berated the Duke’s tenants for being so ‘blind’ to their own self-interests, and why the correct institutional framework was required to compensate for this.44 Despite the Duke’s favourable reaction to Keir’s report, its implementation 38

Report on Sheep Farms, p. 137; WN I.v.9; WN I.vii. WN II.iv.17; Report on Sheep Farms, p. 137. 40 WN I.ix.15. 41 Report on Sheep Farms, p. 143. 42 See for example Report on Sheep Farms, pp. 134–96; NRS GD224/459, Abstracts of statements given in by tenants of the expense of improvements . . . by William Keir, Jan. 1801, p. 269. 43 See A. S. Skinner, ‘Adam Smith’, in M. Lynch (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Scottish History (Oxford, 2001), 191. 44 See for example Report on Sheep Farms, pp.  137–8; NRS GD224/522/1/2, Report ­concerning the Marle at Eckford, William Keir, Nov. 1780. 39

­

Improvement II: The Upland Estates (1767–1812) 131 was not to be without opposition from within the Duke’s establishment. The Duke had sent Adam Ogilvie a copy of Keir’s report for his opinion and on 15 November he submitted a detailed appraisal of Keir’s report. Although Ogilvie began by conceding that the report did Keir ‘considerable credit’, and contained ‘much real information, and many sound remarks’, on the whole he found the system was perhaps ‘too theoretical’ and suggested the Duke might be ‘inclined to follow a plan more simple, and more ­accomodated to ordinary practice’. He continued: It is said somewhere, that the Government, which is best administered, is the best; but some Governments are of a nature less capable of good administration than others: and I am afraid, that, notwithstanding the very great confidence which your Grace enjoys among your tenants, they would not easily be reconciled to that state of uncertainty in which they would be left, were the amount of their rents and their continuance in their farms to depend upon the report which your Grace . . . should receive annually of the price of the best Wedder lambs from Langholm fair. I doubt whether such a plan will be spur to ­improvements.

Although Ogilvie noted that Keir’s estimates were on the whole ‘very near the mark’, and, if the current prices continued, that the Duke could raise his rents to these levels without ‘injuring’ his tenants, he challenged some of the details of Keir’s calculations, disputing the prices collected by Keir as too limited and, on the whole, too high, and arguing that the 15% allowed for the tenants’ profit was over generous. A particular concern of Ogilvie’s was Keir’s suggestion in his report that the practice of letting multiple or ‘led’ farms should be curtailed.45 This practice, of letting several farms to a person who lived ‘many miles distant from them’, had, according to Keir, in recent years ‘prevailed in the management of [the Duke’s] estate’ to the detriment of its management and improvement.46 ‘The bad effects of this system’, Keir argued, ‘in preventing the improvement of the Estate, and the disadvantages attending it with respect to the country in general’, were obvious: whereas ‘The person who resides upon a farm, is always doing something for his own comfort and convenience, that is connected with the improvement of it’, upon led farms everything ‘will generally be found in a state of ruin’, particularly the houses and farm buildings. Echoing the long-standing criticism of absentee landlords, Keir argued that, whereas tenants residing on their farms spent their profits locally in a manner which ‘tends to promote the industry of the rest of the inhabitants’, those who held farms from a distance took their money ‘out of the country’, to be lodged in a bank or perhaps ‘dissipated . . . in a way ruinous to himself 45 46

NRS GD224/659/3/35–6, Adam Ogilvie to Duke, 15 Nov. 1791. Keir noted the practice was particularly prevalent on the Teviotdalehead and Ettrick Forest estates. Report on Sheep Farms, p. 152.

132

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

[the tenant] . . . and not benificial to the country’. Despite these disadvantages, Keir stressed he did not recommend their ‘total abolition’; the remote situation of some farms meant that a tenant could not comfortably reside on them, and he also foresaw circumstances where the Duke might have ‘some particular motive’ for granting such farms as favours. Overall, however, Keir concluded that ‘it would be conducive to the interest, both of His Grace and the country, if these farms affording a comfortable residence to a tenant, had one upon them’.47 Ogilvie agreed with Keir up to a point: although led farms often produced a temporary rise in rent, on the whole they tended to ‘enrich individual farmers’ but were ‘not the best calculated for the improvement or population’ of the estate. However, he argued on the one hand that if the intention was to abolish the system altogether then Keir’s recommendations did not go far enough, noting that many led farms had not been included in his report. On the other hand, he urged caution in implementing such a radical change: led farms had always been part of the ‘system of management’ upon the Buccleuch estate, and the Duke himself had increased their number. The tenants of these farms had been ‘encouraged to fix their views upon them, to lay out their stock, to square their expence of living, to educate their families, & to breed their own sons to their own profession’, in expectation of the system continuing. If the Duke were to dispossess all the tenants of the led farms, a great part of their stock would have to be employed elsewhere, on estates of ‘other landlords less patriotick’; and as many of the farms these tenants resided upon were not sustainable by themselves at the present rents, many of ‘your best tenants . . . whose ancestors have paid rent to your Family, almost as long as your Family have been proprietors of the lands they occupy’ would be forced to leave the estate. Ogilvie concluded his remarks by stressing the importance of subjecting Keir’s report to such detailed scrutiny, noting he had ‘nothing in view, but the mutual advantage of your Grace and your tenants, in which is involved the improvement of this part of the country: I may add the happiness of your Grace, the happiness of thousands of individuals, and not a small share of my own’.48 Some time in early December the Duke met with Keir and Ogilvie at Dalkeith House to discuss the new regulation. Although Ogilvie seems not to have directly criticised Keir proposals at the meeting, Keir was later shown Ogilvie’s letter on the subject and, in response, wrote to the Duke defending his proposals.49 In the light of the past attacks on his proposals, Keir was extremely sensitive to Ogilvie’s criticisms and there followed 47

Report on Sheep Farms, pp. 179–80. NRS GD224/659/3/35–6, Adam Ogilvie to Duke, 15 Nov. 1791. 49 NRS GD224/659/3/39, Adam Ogilvie to Duke, 27 Dec. 1791; NRS GD224/657/1/83, Keir to Duke, 30 Dec. 1791; NRS GD224/657/1/85, Keir to Duke, 19 Jan. 1792. 48

­

Improvement II: The Upland Estates (1767–1812) 133

a heated exchange of letters between the two men on the subject, Keir defending his proposals and accusing Ogilvie of trying to discredit his report, while Ogilvie threatened to resign.50 Clearly becoming exasperated by the situation, the Duke called Keir to a meeting at Dalkeith House on Sunday, 22 January, informing him that Ogilvie would not arrive until the following day, adding that the business had distressed him a good deal and that he wished to see the two men reconciled.51 At that meeting the Duke confirmed his intention of implementing Keir’s report, and the disagreement between Keir and Ogilvie was resolved, at least in the short term.52 The rents of the farms would be set at the level of Keir’s estimate and the farms set annually until Keir had visited the relevant estates and drawn up suitable conditions for their leases.53 Furthermore, the majority of the alterations suggested by Keir regarding the changing of boundaries and tenancy structure in order to reduce the practice of led farms were also to be carried out.54 It was also decided that the eight farms that were to become vacant as a result of the alterations would be advertised in the public papers, so that the rents obtained on the open market could be ­compared to Keir’s estimated rent.55 Preparations for the new arrangement began the week after the meeting, with letters printed informing the tenants of their new rents and whether they would continue in the same farm or be offered new ones.56 The first of these were delivered in early February, with Ogilvie noting that he did not expect that any of the tenants would reject the offers made to them.57 Later that month the Duke wrote to Keir that he had had a number of visits and many letters from the tenants regarding the new arrangement: ‘I have given in general answer viz. that I have made the present arrangements of my farms after much consideration, & that I am determined to make no alteration,’ adding, ‘I have not as yet in one instance heard of any complaint of the rent put on the farms.’58 By early March, adverts for the farms made vacant by the new arrangement had been placed in the Edinburgh, Kelso, and Dumfries papers, inviting potential tenants to

50

NRS GD224/659/3/39, Adam Ogilvie to Duke, 27 Dec. 1791; NRS GD224/659/3/40–2, Copy of the correspondence between Adam Ogilvie and William Keir, Dec. 1791–Jan. 1792. 51 NRS GD224/655/2/86, Duke to Keir, 13 Jan. 1792. 52 NRS GD224/659/3/43, Adam Ogilvie to Duke, 6 Jan. 1792. 53 NRS GD224/655/2/88, Hugh Warrender to Keir, 27 Jan. 1792; NRS GD224/659/3/49, Adam Ogilvie to Warrender, 14 Feb. 1792; NRS GD224/657/1/95–6, Keir to Duke, 27 May 1792; NRS GD224/522/3/4, State of Farms to be let from Whitsunday 1802, 8 May 1802 [William Keir]. 54 NRS GD224/655/2/88, List of farms to be reset, 26 Jan. 1792. 55 NRS GD224/655/2/88, Warrender to Keir, 27 Jan. 1792. 56 NRS GD224/655/2/88, Warrender to Keir, 27 Jan. 1792. 57 NRS GD224/659/3/51, Ogilvie to Duke, 7 Feb. 1792. 58 NRS GD224/655/2/90, Duke to Keir, 14 Feb. 1792.

134

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

specify the rent they would be prepared to pay.59 Despite rumours being propagated around the estate that the Duke had already decided on which tenants were to be given the vacant farms and that they were being advertised merely ‘to see the opinion of the Country respecting their value’, the offers that began to arrive were on average well above Keir’s estimated rent. As the Duke’s legal agent noted, ‘I can have no doubt about the propriety of advertiseing these few farms; it must satisfye His Graces tenants that he is a good landlord to them, and remove all insinuations against the moderation of what had been put upon them.’60 Despite the rumours, the competition for the farms was intense and by 17 March there had been around fifty offers made. As Warrender pointed out to Keir, the rents offered ‘far exceed your estimate – more than what it exceeds the former rent’.61 On 2 April the Duke wrote to Keir from London, enclosing the list of offers and confirming that he meant to take the highest rent offered, as long as the character and ‘pecuniary abilities’ of the prospective tenants were sound. ‘You will observe’, he continued, ‘the rent is far above the estimated value in your report, even beyond what I expected,’ adding, ‘I think the tenants who have taken their farms at the estimated rent ought to be silent, and thankfull.’62 Keir replied that, although the rents offered were indeed very high, they were roughly what he had expected: he had earlier estimated that if the farms were brought into the open market they would achieve an advance of around £10,000 on the present rent, and the offers now made for the advertised farms were ‘nearly in proportion to that sum’.63 The high level of rent offered for the advertised farms was the final vindication of Keir’s report. The Duke wrote to Keir congratulating him on the success of his efforts, adding, ‘I must take this opportunity of acknowledging how much I feel myself obliged to you for the very labourious task you [have] undertaken in forming your report upon the sheep farms,’ and ‘how much I approve of your conduct in that business’. It was a sentiment backed up by the award of a £105 bonus for his ‘extraordinary trouble’ respecting the sheep farms.64 In May 1792 the sheep farms of the upland estates were set on ten-year leases, most likely on Keir’s recommendation.65 After the previous rejection of his scheme, the successful adoption of his 59

NRS GD224/655/2/91, Warrender to Keir, 1 Mar. 1792. NRS GD224/655/2/92, Warrender to Keir, 10 Mar. 1792; NRS GD224/657/1/118, Keir to Warrender, Mar. 1792. 61 NRS GD224/655/2/94, Warrender to Keir, 17 Mar. 1792 [emphasis in original]; NRS GD224/659/3/52, Adam Ogilvie to Warrender, 22 Mar. 1792. 62 NRS GD224/655/2/95, Duke to Keir, 2 Apr. 1792. 63 NRS GD224/657/1/90–1, Keir to Duke, 8 Apr. 1792. 64 NRS GD224/655/2/95, Duke to Keir, 2 Apr. 1792; NRS GD224/269/28, Accounts, 1791–2. 65 NRS GD224/655/2/102, Warrender to Keir, 23 Jun. 1792; NRS GD224/522/3/4, State of Farms to be let from Whitsunday 1802, 8 May 1802 [William Keir]. 60

­

Improvement II: The Upland Estates (1767–1812) 135 report was a triumph for Keir. It was, however, only the first step towards his ultimate aim – the improvement of the upland estates.

In addition to outlining his equalising scheme for the sheep farms, Keir’s report had also proposed a number of alterations to their management practices. These consisted of several measures designed to increase the farms’ stocking capacity and to avoid unnecessary losses through the effects of disease and bad weather, and centred around schemes of pasture improvement through the drainage and enclosure of land. The new regulation had already addressed some of these problems by altering the boundaries of certain farms to give access to sheltered or low-lying ground. Keir also recommended that the amount of land tenants were allowed to cultivate for cereals should be limited, as by ‘raising great quantities of corn’ many were ploughing up areas of ground suitable for pasture; at the same time, he argued that tenants should be obliged to enclose a certain amount of land for growing hay. These improvements were intended not only to reduce unnecessary losses, but also to increase the winter carrying capacity of the farms, the key limiting factor to their overall productivity.66 No conditions of lease survive for the set of 1792, although a later report noted that draining was to be a ‘general obligation’ upon the tenants. Further specific improvements for each individual farm were to be stipulated by Keir following a more detailed survey of the upland estates. Apart from contributing to the cost of building new dwelling houses and offices, the estate’s contribution towards these improvements was to be limited to rent abatements on certain farms to enable tenants to carry out more expensive improvements; on the whole, the improvements to the sheep farms were to be funded by the tenants themselves.67 The progress of these improvements during the first decade of the new regulation was, however, to be slow. From the outset there were delays in finalising the arrangements of the new set, with the tenants who had bid for the advertised farms left in a state of uncertainty, unsure whether to purchase new stock or hire their shepherds.68 This was compounded by what Keir described as ‘an improper and ungratious combination’ entered into by ‘a good number’ of the tenants who had been obliged to give up their led farms at the new set, only to dispose of their stock to the new tenants the Duke had preferred at ‘extravagant prices’.69 Meanwhile, the proposed survey of the estate to finalise the specific improvements required to be made on each farm was delayed by Keir’s increasing involvement in ­managing the Byreburnside colliery in Canonbie.70 66

On this point, see Dodgshon, ‘Sheep Farming’, 558–9; Winchester, Harvest of the Hills, 146–7. 67 NRS GD224/657/1/110, 111, Keir to Duke, 7 Mar. 1793. 68 NRS GD224/659/3/59, 60, Adam Ogilvie to Duke, 26 Apr. 1792. 69 NRS GD224/657/1/86, Keir to Duke, 21 Apr. 1792. 70 See Chapter 4.

136

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

A further serious setback to the improvements was the series of bad seasons that followed 1791. By their very nature the upland sheep farms were particularly vulnerable to bad weather. Between 1785 and 1791 there had been a run of generally good seasons for the sheep farms, but from 1792 conditions took a turn for the worse. In 1793 Ogilvie reported that mortality had never been ‘more general or greater both among young and old’ sheep, and that, despite the £3,000 advance nominally gained at the set of 1792, he would be lucky to collect even the previous level of rent. The effects of bad weather had been compounded by what he described as ‘the universal embarrassment of credit & circulation’ affecting the sheep, wool, and black cattle trades.71 Worse was to come the following year with the ‘great storm’ or ‘Goniel Blast’ of 24 January 1794, when hurricane-force winds and unprecedented snowfall led to fifty-foot drifts and claimed the lives of seventeen shepherds, while the number of sheep lost ‘far outwent any possibility of calculation’.72 Writing a few days later, Keir described it as ‘such a tremendous hurracane of wind & snow as had not been seen in this country by the oldest man now alive’. The ‘great number’ of dead sheep and other animals he saw carried down the swollen river Liddel suggested heavy losses in Liddesdale, and all in all Keir reckoned that very few of the tenants would have escaped without ‘considerable loss’.73 Although the higher farms were worst affected, even lower-lying farms were hard hit, with the tenants of Bruntshielbog in Canonbie at the foot of Eskdale losing fourteen score of sheep.  Devastating as it was, the storm was short lived, but the rain that followed continued for the rest of the month, leading Ogilvie to speculate that ‘not a single sheep . . . in Eskdalemoor will be alive by Whitsunday’.74 In May, Ogilvie reported that less rental had been collected than in 1792, advising the Duke that, after deducting expenses, there would be very little left and that he ‘must find out some other ways and means than the rents of your estates under my care, for twelve months to come’.75 Another hard winter followed, and in 1795 the tenants of the sheep farms were required to submit estimates of the improvements they had carried out so far, together with a list of those they proposed to make in the future. Although a ‘great part’ of the tenants had submitted estimates, 71

NRS GD224/659/3/103, Adam Ogilvie to Duke, 2 Jun. 1793. J. Hogg, The Shepherd’s Calendar, ed. D. S. Mack (Edinburgh, 2002), 4. The term ‘goniel’ meant flesh fit to eat but not killed by the butcher, and referred to the thousands of frozen sheep carcasses that resulted from the storm. A. G. Dawson, So Foul and Fair a Day: A History of Scotland’s Weather and Climate (Edinburgh, 2009), 150. 73 NRS GD224/657/1/124, 125, Keir to Duke, 3 Feb. 1794. James Hogg recounted that after the flood that followed the storm subsided, there were found on the shores of the Solway Firth ‘1840 sheep, 9 black cattle, 3 horses, 2 men, 1 woman, 45 dogs, and 180 hares, besides a number of meaner animals’. Hogg, Shepherd’s Calendar, 5. 74 NRS GD224/659/3/71, Adam Ogilvie to Duke, 25 Feb. 1794. 75 NRS GD224/659/3/86, Adam Ogilvie to Duke, 30 May 1794. 72

­

Improvement II: The Upland Estates (1767–1812) 137 Keir reported that only the improvements made by twenty-six tenants were considered significant enough to ‘merit any degree of consideration’.76 Despite these setbacks and Keir’s evident disappointment with the progress of improvements, there was evidence that improvements were gradually gaining ground. In 1793, the surveyor and map maker William Crawford began his detailed survey of the Duke’s South Country estates, for which he was to be paid £200 a year, and which was to play a central role in Keir’s plans for the improvement of the upland estates. In June of the same year Ogilvie noted that one of the factors contributing to the lower rates of his collection that year was the expense of the buildings and improvements that the tenants were now proceeding with, adding that ‘Your Grace’s share of the expence of building are a draw upon the receipts, and the tenants’ share keeps them short of money’.77 Under the terms of their leases, if any tenants decided to build houses or offices with lime, or to roof them with slate, the estate was to supply stone from its quarries and would pay for the necessary lime, ‘foreign wood’, and slates, with the tenants responsible for the cost of carrying and building. It was later estimated that for dwelling houses the Duke paid roughly two-fifths of the costs while the tenant paid three-fifths for the carriage and workmanship, whereas for the rougher built offices the proportions were reversed.78 Of the twenty-six tenants considered to have made substantial improvements by 1795, all but one had already built, or intended to build, new dwelling houses or offices.79

Another area in which the estate was to play an important role was the drainage and improvement of pasture.80 Keir’s report had highlighted the importance of drainage, not only in increasing the amount of useable pasture and arable available, but as a means of reducing the diseases associated with pasturing sheep on wet ground, and the draining of farms became ‘a general obligation’ on the tenants.81 In 1793 Keir recommended that abatements should be given to fourteen farms, the majority in Eskdalemuir, for four years, varying from £4 to £13, the whole of which was to be laid out in draining their farms.82 Two years later Keir excluded the expense of draining from his report on the tenants’ improvements, noting that all the tenants that had submitted estimates had included the 76

NRS GD224/459 p. 250. NRS GD224/659/3/103, Adam Ogilvie to Duke, 2 Jun. 1793. 78 NRS GD224/522/3/13, Declaration by the Duke of Buccleuch, relative to the conditions of the leases, 4 Sep.  1778; NRS GD224/522/1/8, Memorial, William Keir, 7 Aug. 1787; W. Brown, ‘Improvements on the Duke of Buccleuch’s Estate: Regulations for Building Houses; Mode of Setting Land, Etc’, Farmer’s Magazine, 11, 41 (1810), 6–14. 79 NRS GD224/459 p. 250. 80 For a detailed account of the introduction of surface drains to the Duke’s sheep farms, see W. Brown, ‘Authorized Improvements on the Duke of Buccleuch’s Estates in the Southern Districts of Scotland’, Farmer’s Magazine, 9, 34 (1808), 148–55. 81 Report on Sheep Farms, pp. 149−51. 82 NRS GD224/459, Mr Keir’s report, Oct. 1793. 77

138

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

expense of draining their farms.83 By 1795, when John Naismith made his tour of the sheep districts of southern Scotland for the Society for the Improvement of British Wool, he noted draining under way in both Liddesdale and Teviotdalehead.84 One of the main difficulties of systematically introducing surface drains to the sheep farms was the need to have the drains properly made and managed.85 With this in mind, one of Keir’s recommendations in his 1791 report was for two overseers to be employed to make sure any drains made on the estate were properly constructed and maintained.86 But it seems to have been the Duke’s personal interest in introducing water meadow husbandry to the sheep farms that led to the employment of a full-time flooder and drainer to the estate. In April 1795, James Church Jr, son of James Church at Mosstower, embarked on an agricultural tour of England, and, on the Duke’s particular recommendation, travelled to Warwickshire to study the methods of draining practised there, something the Duke believed was ‘little understood in Scotland’.87 Water meadow husbandry – the controlled flooding of land to encourage the early growth of grass for pasture and hay – was a long-established practice in certain areas of England, particularly the mid-western counties. Although often more associated with the earlier agricultural changes of the seventeenth century, the 1790s saw the practice begin to spread to new areas, including upland estates.88 Church seems to have made a particular study of the process, and on his return to Scotland the following year, when the Duke offered to find him a suitable farm, Keir recommended one on the Teviotdalehead estate expressly for its potential for irrigated meadows. Keir was hopeful that the successful adoption of this ‘mode of improvement’ would act as an example to the other tenants in the area.89 No details survive of Church’s attempts, but the plan to introduce water meadow husbandry to the estate was again raised the following year, when the Duke met with the professional ‘flooder and drainer’ Charles Stephens of Gloucestershire. Two years previously, Stephens had been commissioned by the Highland Society of Scotland to tour the north of Scotland and advise proprietors on the possibility of introducing water meadows to the region. Despite the reported success of his tour, Stephens had not found enough work to remain in Scotland and 83

NRS GD224/459 p. 250. J. Naismith, Observations on the Different Breeds of Sheep, and the State of Sheep Farming, in the Southern Districts of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1795), 37, 39. 85 Brown, ‘Authorized Improvements’, 149. 86 Report on Sheep Farms, p. 191. 87 NRS GD1/975/6/2, Duke to Revd. Mr Bromfield, Duncharch, 1 Apr. 1795. 88 S. Wade Martins, Farmers, Landlords and Landscapes: Rural Britain, 1720 to 1870 (Macclesfield, 2004), 70; H. Cook and T. Williamson, ‘The Later History of Water Meadows’, in H. Cook and T. Williamson (eds), Water Meadows: History, Ecology and Conservation (Macclesfield, 2007), 52–69. 89 NRS GD224/657/2/5, Keir to Duke, 23 Dec. 1796. 84

­

Improvement II: The Upland Estates (1767–1812) 139

was on his way back to England when the Duke met with him at Dalkeith in the spring of 1797.90 The Duke, who had become a member of the Highland Society earlier that year, decided to attempt to raise a subscription from certain landed gentlemen to keep Stephens in the country for ‘a year or two’ on the grounds that it ‘would be a great loss to this country to be deprived of the assistance of such a man’.91 In the meantime, the Duke decided that he would ‘begin something as a specimen of what could be done in that mode of improvement’ upon his sheep farms and commissioned Stephens to return to Cumberland by way of Langholm and make a report on which farms in that area might prove suitable for flooding.92 Accompanied by Keir, Stephens visited various parts of the estate believed to be most suitable, with Keir informing the tenants that those who were interested in introducing the system at their own expense would be allowed the help of Stephens free of charge. There was an encouraging response and by the end of the year Stephens had constructed around a hundred acres of water meadows on six farms in Eskdale and Liddesdale, including two meadows on Keir’s own farm of Milnholm. Keir believed there were many more tenants who would be interested in constructing meadows but were reluctant to do so without the assurance that a qualified person would be available to direct and supervise the work. ‘I am afraid this mode of improvement cannot be expected to be generally adopted upon your Graces Estate & pursued with success’, he concluded, ‘unless your Grace shall see it proper to engage some person, who had experience in the business, to remain in the country & take the direction of it.’ Keir added that the same person could be used to ensure that the drains on the sheep farms were properly made and maintained.93 The Duke approved of Keir’s suggestion and the following year Stephens was appointed as full-time ‘flooder and drainer’ for the Duke’s South Country estates, with responsibility for supervising all draining and water meadow construction. From this point onwards it became a stipulated requirement that all draining carried out upon the estate would be done under Stephens’ direction and supervision.94 In May 1798, he embarked on a survey of all the upland estates, with orders to report upon the amount of draining made to date upon each farm, together with an assessment of what would be 90

The Society’s interest dated from 1794 when the Rev. Dr Smith, minister of Campbeltown, had won a prize for his essay entitled ‘An essay on the best method of improving pasture ground in the Highlands, by watering’. H. Mackenzie (ed.), Prize Essays and Transactions of the Highland Society of Scotland, vol. 1, 2nd edn (Edinburgh, 1812), xxii–xxiii; NRS GD224/657/2/19, 20, Duke to Keir, 13 May 1797. 91 The Duke joined the Society in January 1797 and two years later was appointed as one of its vice presidents. Mackenzie, Transactions, lxxxiii, lxxxix; NRS GD224/657/2/19, 20, Duke to Keir, 13 May 1797. 92 NRS GD224/657/2/19, 20, Duke to Keir, 13 May 1797. 93 NRS GD224/657/2/33, 34, Keir to Duke, 5 Dec. 1797. 94 NRS GD224/459 pp. 261–2, Instructions to Mr Stephens, 25 Jun. 1798.

140

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

­ ecessary to complete the work and the potential for forming water meadn ows.95 According to the instructions drafted by Keir, any tenants who had land on their farms capable of being converted into a water meadow at ‘a moderate expense’ were to be required to do so under Stephens’ supervision. Beginning with a few acres, the tenants were to add to it annually until they had completed the improvement of such a part or parts of their farms ‘as may be judged most proper to be laid out in that way’.96 Later that year Keir could report to the Duke that the instructions to the tenants were taking ‘full effect’ and that Stephens was ‘likely to get as much imployment as he can attend to’.97 A second, estate-wide initiative for the improvement of drainage upon the sheep farms was the systematic introduction of mole catching across the upland estates from the summer of 1797. Moles were particularly destructive to the new surface drains being constructed on the sheep farms and were also believed to be responsible for casting out a black mould thought to produce a grass that was ‘very unhealthy’ for sheep. In the summer of 1797 a firm from Westmoreland was contracted by the estate to catch moles for the following fourteen years, with the tenant paying a varying rate per acre along with their rent.98 From the set of 1802, an obligation for the tenant to contribute towards the expense of killing the moles in their parish was included in the conditions of the lease.99 According to James Hogg, writing in the 1820s, the Duke was the first to introduce such systematic mole catching into the country, and did so ‘on a scale so extensive and sweeping, that it might be termed an act of extermination for the Scottish moles’.100 Despite these measures, progress was still limited by 1801, when preparations began for another general set of the sheep farms. In a report of that year, Keir noted substantial improvements on only fifteen of the sheep farms, eight of which had been already considered in his 1795 report. Keir ended his report by stating that the increased value of the sheep farms, which he estimated at around 25%, was wholly down to the higher prices their products were fetching, rather than from any ‘increase in the quantity of produce arising from a more perfect cultivation or management’. With this in mind, Keir stressed that it was ‘of the highest importance’ that every landed proprietor ‘induce his tenants to make such improvements as may have the effect of increasing the produce of the land’; the only way 95

NRS GD224/657/2/41, Keir to Duke, 31 May 1798. NRS GD224/459 pp. 261–2, Instructions to Mr Stephens, 25 Jun. 1798. 97 NRS GD224/657/2/48, Keir to Duke, 24 Oct. 1798. 98 Report on Sheep Farms 1810; Brown, ‘Authorized Improvements’, 152–4. The plan was still in operation in the early 1830s. OSA (Eskdalemuir), vol. 12, 616. 99 NRS GD224/522/3/4/2, Declaration, 11 May 1802. 100 Hogg disapproved of the practice, arguing that the moles had in fact been beneficial to the quality of the soil. The Quarterly Journal of Agriculture, 1 (May 1828–Aug. 1829), 640–5. 96

­

Improvement II: The Upland Estates (1767–1812) 141

to accomplish this, Keir argued, was to keep the tenants ‘dependant and under dread of displeasure’ should they fail to comply with ‘the conditions for improvement of their farm’.101 It was this frustration with the pace of improvements and the estate’s apparent inability to induce the tenants to carry them out that led Keir to propose a much more thorough attempt at improving the upland estates, one which aimed, as one commentator later observed, at its ‘maximum of improvement’.102 During the initial preparations for the new set, Keir stressed to the Duke the importance of requiring each tenant to carry out the improvements that their farm was deemed ‘susceptible’ of during the period of their lease. The only way to do this, he argued, was to carry out a detailed survey of every farm so that each farmer knew exactly what improvements would be required.103 With this aim in mind, the following summer Keir set out to survey the estate, farm by farm, setting out the amount of ‘improvable’ land on each farm, and stipulating the improvements that each tenant would be required to carry out under the terms of their lease. Beginning with the Ettrick Forest estate, Keir instructed William Crawford, who had been engaged in mapping the estate since 1793, to make out detailed plans of each farm. Keir then measured the total amount of land he believed was capable of improvement on each farm, which was then marked on the plan along with existing and proposed enclosures, divisions, water meadows, and shelter belts. Also to be included were the routes of possible new roads and any other alterations that he recommended should be made. Next, Stephens was sent to estimate the cost of the proposed improvements, making allowances for the particular situation of each farm and its proximity to the materials of improvement. Finally, Keir calculated the estimated cost of improving the ground with marl and added the estimated building costs for any new houses and offices proposed by the tenants. As well as the previous emphasis on improved pasturage there was also a noticeable shift in Keir’s proposals towards increasing the amount of cultivated land on the sheep farms, a seeming reversal of previous policy which had attempted to limit tillage, a reflection of Keir’s increasing concerns over grain supply following the shortages of 1800–1.104 By carrying out the suggested improvements to the Ettrick estate, Keir argued that an additional 5,000 acres of land would be brought into ‘an improved state of cultivation’, and the process would ‘produce essential and permanent advantages, both to [the Duke] and to the country’.105 The requirement of the tenants to comply 101

NRS GD224/459, Abstracts of statements given in by tenants of the expense of improvements . . . by William Keir, Jan. 1801, pp. 265–9. 102 W. Brown, ‘Recent Plan for Improving and Beautifying the Hitherto Unimproved Parts of the Duke of Buccleuch’s Estates in the South of Scotland’, Farmer’s Magazine, 10, 39 (1809), 336–45. 103 NRS GD224/657/2/90, Keir to Duke, 16 Mar. 1801. 104 See Chapter 6. 105 NRS GD224/590/1/1, Report concerning the improvements proposed to be made

142

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

with Keir’s proposals had already been included in the conditions of leases issued four months earlier at the new set of May 1802, when the sheep farms had been set for nine to twelve years.106 Although again there seems to have been opposition from members of the Duke’s establishment, Keir’s plans were endorsed by the Duke and his survey extended to the other upland estates.107 Keir’s new plan of improvement for the upland sheep farms can be summarised as follows. First, a stone-built ring fence was to be constructed to separate the sheep pasture from the ground that was intended for pasture improvement or tillage. Divisions within the enclosed area were then marked off, usually between fifteen and twenty acres.108 The fences for these divisions were made of either stone or hedge; if the latter was chosen, the thorns were provided from the estate nursery, on condition they were properly planted and manured. The exact position and number of divisions were specified in a book of plans produced by Crawford for the use of the estate workers who oversaw the process, with black lines representing existing fences, and red ones showing those proposed to be made.109 The divided enclosures were then laid out as arable, pasture, or water meadow; those for arable were to be improved with marl or lime, with the tenants required to follow some general rules regarding crop rotation.110 The rest of the enclosed land was to be in grass, either cut for hay or used as pasture, and then successively broken up for tillage. Stephens was to be consulted by the tenants over the construction of water meadows and for any drainage necessary to make the enclosures workable, along with any embanking or straightening of rivers that was deemed necessary to avoid flooding. Finally, small plantations were made, either next to the ring fence or in strips between the enclosures.111 An important part of Keir’s plan was the measures put in place to oversee the improvements made by the tenants and to enforce the relevant clauses of their leases. This was achieved through a system of ‘parochial overseers’, usually chosen from smaller tenants on the estate. Each was given a copy of Crawford’s plans for the farms in their parish and required to ensure that the divisions of the enclosures were made accordingly. Once enclosure was upon the Duke of Buccleuch’s Estate in the County of Selkirk, William Keir, Sep. 1802; Continuation of Keir’s Report [1802]. 106 The sheep farms on the estate of Eskdale were set for nine years, on Ettrick Forest for ten, Teviotdalehead eleven, and Liddesdale for twelve. NRS GD224/522/3/4, State of Farms to be let from Whitsunday 1802, 8 May 1802 [William Keir]; NRS GD224/522/3/4/2, Declaration by the Duke of Buccleuch relative to the Conditions of the Leases, 11 May 1802. 107 Continuation of Keir’s Report [1802]; Brown, ‘Plan for Improving’, 337–8. 108 Continuation of Keir’s Report [1802]. 109 Brown, ‘Plan for Improving’, 343. 110 Brown, ‘Plan for Improving’, 339; NRS GD224/522/3/4/2, Declaration by the Duke of Buccleuch relative to the Conditions of the Leases, 11 May 1802. 111 Brown, ‘Plan for Improving’, 339–40, 343.

­

Improvement II: The Upland Estates (1767–1812) 143

under way, they were also tasked with making sure the ground was properly prepared before the hedges were planted, and with supplying the necessary thorns from the Duke’s nursery at Langholm, allowed at the rate of fifty per rood (eighteen feet) of hedge. After the enclosures had been made, the overseers were charged with supervising their maintenance and with ensuring that hedges were weeded twice a year until mature and that dykes and ditches were kept in good repair. Finally, in an echo of the system devised by the Duke to monitor his own fields at Dalkeith, the overseers annually filled in a table for each farm, noting the crops planted in each individual enclosure. As one commentator noted, the intention was ‘to stir up the indolent . . . [and] to show his Grace, at one glance, what advancement they are making towards a good system of management’.112 Beyond the expansion and better regulation of their arable land, the fundamental aim of these improvements to the upland farms was to increase their overall carrying capacity, primarily by enabling them to carry more sheep over the winter and to maintain these with fewer losses from weather or disease. An important part of this was to eliminate the need to drive the sheep – or ‘fly’ – to lower ground in times of bad weather. This was a costly process, with tenants being subject to ‘snowmail’ charges for pasturing their sheep on the lowland farms, while the spread of enclosures meant the practice was becoming increasingly untenable.113 The enclosure and drainage of land together with the planting of shelter belts increased the amount of low-lying land available to shelter the livestock – something that became even more important with the spread of the less hardy improved cheviot – while sown grasses and water meadow husbandry provided both hay for winter fodder when prolonged snow cover denied the sheep their usual grazings and an earlier growth of grass in the spring. Although not specified in Keir’s plan, the building of stone sheep shelters or ‘stells’ also quickly became widespread upon the upland farms, again providing shelter in times of bad weather.114 The effects of Keir’s new scheme were most striking in some of the areas that had previously been among the least productive of the estate. In his report of 1791 Keir had singled out Eskdalemuir in upper Eskdale as one of the areas of the estate particularly prone to heavy livestock losses due to disease and bad weather. Although this was partly due to the high and exposed location of many of the farms, Keir believed the situation was exacerbated by ‘indolence’ and poor management.115 He recommended rent abatements to allow the farmers there to carry out the necessary 112

Brown, ‘Plan for Improving’, 343–4. Writing in 1806, William Singer noted that ‘snow retreats’ for large flocks were now ‘hardly to be obtained’. Mackenzie, Transactions, 337. The last large-scale ‘general flying’ for flocks from the upland estates seems to have taken place in January 1802. W. Brown, ‘Improvements on the Duke of Buccleuch’s Estates’, Farmer’s Magazine, 9, 36 (1808), 474. 114 Brown, ‘Improvements’, 471–80. 115 Report on Sheep Farms, p. 151. 113

144

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

improvements, and in 1793 these were granted for eleven of the farms in the district, on the condition that the full sums were laid out on the drainage of the farms. The following year, however, the area was particularly hard hit by the great storm, when more than 4,000 sheep were lost.116 James Hogg later vividly recalled the aftermath when he passed through the parish a few days later, describing ‘multitudes of men skinning and burying whole droves of sheep, taking with them only the skins and tallow’.117 The losses of 1794 were compounded by two further poor seasons and Keir later argued that the accumulated effect meant it was two or three years before the farms could be considered as productive again. Despite reporting to the Duke in April 1800 that most of the tenants there had now done a ‘great deal’ towards the draining of their farms, a year later he noted that the majority of the farms there were now in a worse situation than they had been in 1792, and should be exempted from the rent rise proposed for the following year; indeed, in 1802 all but one of the Duke’s farms in the parish were granted abatements.118 By the end of the next lease in 1810, however, the results of the improvements in Eskdalemuir were marked. One of the most striking examples was the high-lying farm of Nether Cassock, at the head of Eskdalemuir. In his report of 1791 Keir had singled out this farm as one particularly prone to losses due to a lack of drainage. In particular, he had pointed out the potential of the large extent of holm land on the farm, which was currently rendered useless by the lack of proper drains and the frequent flooding of the adjoining river Esk, and had recommended that the Duke take on the cost of draining it.119 Despite these recommendations and the rent abatements granted two years later specifically for carrying out drainage work, by 1800 Keir noted the farm was still lagging behind the rest of the district in its improvements and was essentially in its ‘original state’.120 Part of the problem had been an ongoing dispute between the two brothers who jointly held the farm, neither of whom Keir believed had the ability to make the necessary improvements; indeed, one of the brothers had been actively attempting to ruin the other in order to take possession of the whole farm. Given his ‘improper conduct’, Keir recommended that the offending brother be removed entirely from the Duke’s estate and the other brother accommodated on a nearby vacant farm, allowing a new, more able tenant to be given the lease.121 Keir’s recommendations were put into effect at the set of 1802, and over the course of the next eight years the new tenant, 116

NSA (Eskdalemuir), vol. 4, 416. Hogg, Shepherd’s Calendar, 19. 118 NRS GD224/657/2/55, 56, Keir to Duke, 19 Apr. 1800; NRS GD224/657/2/90, Keir to Duke, 16 Mar. 1801; NRS GD224/522/3/4, State of Farms to be let from Whitsunday 1802, 8 May 1802 [William Keir]. 119 Report on Sheep Farms, pp. 189–90. 120 NRS GD224/657/2/55, 56, Keir to Duke, 19 Apr. 1800. 121 NRS GD224/657/2/46, 47, Keir to Duke, 5 Oct. 1798. 117

­

Improvement II: The Upland Estates (1767–1812) 145

Figure 5.2:  The photograph shows the straightened and embanked White Esk in Eskdalemuir, part of the large-scale scheme to drain and improve the holm land on the farm of Nether Cassock. Source: the author.

Thomas Laidlaw, together with the tenants of two neighbouring farms, set about draining the 125 acres of holm land on the farm. A new course for the river was cut, twenty-one feet wide, three feet deep and over a mile and a quarter long, with three-foot-high embankments made on either side. Large ditches were then dug along the edge and through the middle of the meadow to drain the holm land, with the land then levelled and divided into ten enclosures. By 1810 Laidlaw had spent upwards of £576 on draining the holm land, with a further £102 19s. on draining the farm’s sheep ground. After adding the expense of building sheep stells and farm offices, the total expended came to over £950, with the tenant reckoning he would have to spend a further £800–£900 on building a new dwelling house and offices. Although Nether Cassock was the only one of the seventeen farms of Eskdalemuir not to be given a rent abatement at the set of 1802, the estate did contribute £150 towards the cost of draining the farm.122 122

NRS GD224/522/3/65, Report respecting the improvements in Eskdale, [William Keir Jr] 1810; Brown, ‘Plan for Improving’, 340–1; NRS GD224/522/3/4, State of Farms to be let from Whitsunday 1802, 8 May 1802 [William Keir].

146

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

Although the improvements at Nether Cassock were perhaps the most dramatic on the Eskdalemuir estate, they were far from unique, with similar draining and embanking work taking place on many of the farms there.123 By 1808 over 755 miles of surface drains had been constructed on the Duke’s farms in the parish.124 This, together with the building of stells on different parts of the farms, the widespread practice of raising enough hay to support the sheep during periods of bad weather, and the change from the short to the long cheviot, were all cited as factors in their increased productivity and the eradication of previously endemic diseases such as the ‘rot’.125 By 1810 it was reported that in consequence of these improvements some of the farms of Eskdalemuir that ‘were formerly of least [value], are now become the most productive’, and could afford to pay higher rent per sheep than any other farms in the district.126 Although Eskdalemuir was the most striking example, by the end of the Duke’s administration, the impact of Keir’s new regulation was discernible throughout the upland estates. By 1810, a detailed assessment of Eskdale, the largest of the Duke’s upland estates, revealed that of the sixty farms examined only ten had made no improvements since the 1802 set, while nineteen were considered as having been ‘considerably improved’.127 Such was the extent of the changes since 1802 that it was recommended that a new regulation of the sheep farms was required to take the improvements into account.128 One of the most visible changes was the progress of enclosures and water meadows. On the Ettrick Forest estate alone it was estimated that nearly 5,000 acres had been enclosed by 1809, while by the end of the decade forty-two separate water meadows consisting of 415 acres had been formed throughout the upland estates, leading the Farmer’s Magazine to suggest that they represented ‘a greater extent of ground than, perhaps, was ever irrigated by any other individual in the world’.129 The magazine’s comments were indicative of the growing public notice of the Duke’s upland improvements. Between 1808 and 1810 the same journal had published four detailed articles by the Reverend William Brown, the minister of Eskdalemuir, which had covered in great depth almost every

123

Brown, ‘Plan for Improving’, 340–1. Brown, ‘Authorized Improvements’, 152. 125 The ‘rot’ was caused by sheep liver fluke, a parasite which particularly favoured wet summer conditions. D. H. Robinson, Elements of Agriculture (London 1977), 454. 126 As a result, Keir Jr recommended that the rental of Eskdalemuir should be increased by 80% at the set of 1810, 10% higher than the average for Eskdale as a whole. Report on Sheep Farms 1810. 127 NRS GD224/522/3/65, Report respecting the improvements in Eskdale, [William Keir Jr] 1810. 128 NRS GD224/522/3/65, Report respecting the improvements in Eskdale, [William Keir Jr] 1810; Report on Sheep Farms 1810. 129 Brown, ‘Plan for Improving’, 339; Farmer’s Magazine, 12, 45 (1811), 92. See also Mackenzie, Transactions, 258–337; NRS GD224/459, Report of Lands inclosed, 12 May 1802. 124

­

Improvement II: The Upland Estates (1767–1812) 147

aspect of the estate’s programme of improvement on the upland estates.130 In his assessment of what he variously described as an ‘enlightened and generous policy’ and ‘a system founded not only in wisdom, but in benevolence’, particular emphasis was placed on the new regulation introduced by Keir since 1802.131 Not only had this raised a hitherto unknown ‘spirit of improvement’ amongst the tenantry but the resulting improvements had transformed the upland landscape. ‘Let any one who knew Liddesdale, Eskdale, Ettrick, Yarrow, and the Duke’s farms at the head of Teviotdale, about ten years ago, but take the trouble to visit them now and he will see the truth of my observation.’132 A year prior to Brown’s first article, the Highland Society had published a detailed report by the agricultural writer the Reverend William Singer, who concluded that ‘in no other place have I seen so good a system, regularly going on to such an extent, and approaching rapidly to that state of improvement on store farms, which enables them to yield most comfort and profit, with the least risk’.133 For J.  Borthwick, writing in 1810 on the ‘Economy of Woods’, the Duke’s detailed surveys of his upland estates provided the best model for encouraging plantations and improvements upon large estates, and as such were a ‘public example’ and ‘most deserving of the inspection of every nobleman and gentleman in Scotland’.134 By the time of the publication of his General View of Dumfriesshire in 1812, Singer was arguing not only that the Buccleuch estate was the best managed in the county but that the system employed there had proved that improvement was possible even in a mountainous, pastoral district and provided a model for other upland areas.135 As both Singer and Brown were at pains to point out, although the estate continued to invest in general infrastructural improvement, the key element to Keir’s scheme was the extent to which the improvements were funded by the tenants themselves.136 Brown, basing his calculations on Keir’s own figures, estimated that the total cost of the proposed improvements on the Ettrick Forest estate alone would come to more than £30,000, whereas by 1806 Singer estimated the amount already expended on constructing the water meadows was over £2,000.137 The crucial context that allowed this kind of investment to take place was undoubtedly the rapid rise in value of the sheep farm products from the later 1790s, driven

130

Brown, ‘Authorized Improvements’; Brown, ‘Improvements’; Brown, ‘Plan for Improving’; Brown, ‘Improvements on the Duke of Buccleuch’s Estate’. 131 Brown, ‘Authorized Improvements’, 148; Brown, ‘Plan for Improving’, 344. 132 Brown, ‘Plan for Improving’, 344. 133 Mackenzie, Transactions, 334. 134 J. Borthwick, ‘Economy of Woods’, Farmer’s Magazine, 12, 45 (1811), 6–7. 135 W. Singer, General View of the Agriculture, State of Property, and Improvements, in the County of Dumfries (Edinburgh, 1812), 59, 303–6. 136 Brown, ‘Plan for Improving’, 340; Singer, General View of Dumfries, 303–6. 137 Brown, ‘Plan for Improving’, 339; Mackenzie, Transactions, 269.

148

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

largely by the increased demands of the war-time economy.138 Not only did the increased profitability of the farms mean that tenants could afford the capital investment required to carry out the improvements, it also meant that the balance of power in the landlord/tenant relationship shifted decisively in the landlord’s favour. This was particularly the case on the Buccleuch estates where the relative shortness of the lease coupled with Keir’s system of estimated rents allowed the estate to be far more responsive to market fluctuations than other estates.139 But beyond the additional leverage that the boom years gave the estate, both Brown and Singer stressed the importance of the Duke’s good relations with his tenantry in his ability to ensure such widespread improvements were carried out. For Singer, the ‘confidence’ that existed between the Duke and his tenantry prevailed to ‘an unusual degree’, the result of which, he argued, ‘appears to be highly beneficial to both parties, and extremely useful to the country at large’.140 Brown argued that such was the relationship that recommendations from the Duke were ‘equivalent to laws’ and were ‘eagerly executed by the farmers’.141 For both writers the relationship between the Duke and his tenants went beyond the purely economic and, as such, allowed a much greater influence over their behaviour than would otherwise have been the case. As the following chapter will argue, it was the nature of this relationship, not only in economic but also in social, political, and moral terms, that would come to dominate both William Keir’s thinking on improvement and the overall management strategy of the Buccleuch estates.

138

Dodgshon, ‘Sheep Farming’, 552; NRS GD224/459 p. 172, Register of prices paid for the best lambs and wool commencing from the year 1774; Brown, ‘Improvements on the Duke of Buccleuch’s Estate’, 9. 139 Dodgshon, ‘Sheep Farming’, 560–3, 569; NSA (Langholm), vol. 4, 424. 140 Mackenzie, Transactions, 334. 141 Brown, ‘Plan for Improving’, 340.

Chapter Six

Interest (1767–1812) The process of Scottish agrarian ‘improvement’ has been largely portrayed in terms of commercialisation and the drive to maximise estate incomes, a process that went hand in hand with the erosion of feudal practices and fundamentally altered the relationship between landlords and those who resided upon their estates. As one historian of Scottish agrarian change has described, ‘paternalistic traditions of the older world came under enormous pressure’, while for another, what was left of ‘lingering paternalism’ was ‘eliminated under the pressure of the commercial ethos’.1 However, the relationship between paternalism and improvement is perhaps more complex and nuanced than these statements would suggest. Part of the problem of this interpretation is that it implies that the relationship between the landowner and the tenant had already been reduced to a purely economic one and the landed estate into a purely commercial enterprise. However, a great landed estate in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries remained a social and political construct as well as an economic one and its management had to take into account the wider social and political interests of the landowner, something that – if anything – became even more relevant during the period under examination.2 One element of this was the continuing role of traditional attitudes, from both the landlord and the tenant, something that had a particular resonance on a Border estate. Up until the end of the sixteenth century, the social bond of a family ‘name’ in the Borders had functioned in a similar manner to the clan in the Highlands, and even as late as the 1680s it was still stipulated that the assessors for each district in a survey of the Buccleuch estate should themselves be ‘Scotts’.3 Notions of attachment to the ducal family and paternalistic attitudes in estate management persisted on the Buccleuch estates well into 1

T. M. Devine, The Transformation of Rural Scotland: Social Change and the Agrarian Economy, 1660–1815 (Edinburgh, 1994), 47–50; I. D. Whyte, ‘Rural Transformation and Lowland Society’, in A. Cooke, I. Donnachie, and C. A. Whatley (eds), Modern Scottish History 1707 to the Present, Volume 1: The Transformation of Scotland, 1707–1850 (East Linton, 1998), 96. 2 R. H. Campbell, ‘The Landed Classes’, in T. M. Devine and R. Mitchison (eds), People and Society in Scotland, Volume 1: 1760–1830 (Edinburgh, 1988), 94–6; J. V. Beckett, ‘Landownership and Estate Management’, in G. E. Mingay (ed.), The Agrarian History of England and Wales, vol. 6 (Cambridge, 1989), 545–6, 564, 596. 3 R. A. Dodgshon, From Chiefs to Landlords: Social and Economic Change in the Western Highlands and Islands, c.1493–1820 (Edinburgh, 1998), 30–1; R. A. Dodgshon, ‘Agricultural Change and Its Social Consequences in the Southern Uplands of Scotland, 1600–1780’, in T. M. Devine and D. Dickson (eds), Ireland and Scotland, 1600–1850 (Edinburgh, 1983), 51.

150

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

the nineteenth century. However, although some of these attitudes can be explained as the survival of traditional loyalties – particularly on an estate where the tenancies of farms had often been handed down through families for generations – the kind of paternalism employed on the Buccleuch estate was much more than merely the vestige of an earlier system.4 Indeed, rather than declining, it seems that under Duke Henry there was a resurgence of such traditions and attitudes. From the 1790s onwards the Duke’s birthday was marked by a public celebration of tenants, gentlemen, and clergy in Langholm, with similar annual events elsewhere on the estate celebrating the birthdays of other family members.5 Sir Walter Scott, the self-styled ‘minstrel’ to the Buccleuch family who regarded the Duke as his ‘clan chief’, stressed in his historical writings the clan-like nature of earlier Border society and the patriarchal role of ‘chieftain of the name’, while the Duke’s military career and the recruitment of men from his estates sought to revive older traditions of military service.6 Contemporary references to Buccleuch’s actions as a landowner and improver were likewise frequently couched in terms of his ‘benevolence’ and his role as ‘father of his tenantry’ and he became publicly associated with the revival and maintenance of such traditional relationships, while later accounts of the Duke’s and Duchess’s acts of charity towards those who lived upon their estate attained almost folk-mythic status.7 Whereas earlier, more deferential accounts of paternalism have characterised it as an essentially benevolent, one-sided relationship, it did in fact operate very much as a two-way reciprocal system that relied upon traditional and customary practices fulfilled by both sides. By this reading, the continuation of paternalistic elements in estate management can be characterised not merely as a remnant of a traditional system in decline, but rather as a pragmatic response to changing circumstances which attempted 4

W. Brown, ‘Improvements on the Duke of Buccleuch’s Estate: Regulations for Building Houses; Mode of Setting Land, Etc’, Farmer’s Magazine, 11, 41 (1810), 6–14. 5 The Duchess’s birthday was celebrated in Hawick and the Earl of Dalkeith’s in Selkirk. Brown, ‘Improvements on the Duke of Buccleuch’s Estate’, 13. For the planned celebration of the Earl of Dalkeith’s birthday by the tenants of the Eckford estate, see NRS GD224/657/1/113–15, Keir to Duke, 11 Jun. 1793. 6 For Scott as minstrel to the Buccleuchs, see R. Cronin, ‘Walter Scott and Anti-Gallican Minstrelsy’, English Literary History, 66, 4 (1999), 863–83. See also his historical introduction to his Minstrelsy, which was dedicated to the Duke. W. Scott, Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border, vol. 1 (Edinburgh, 1802), lxxii–lxxv. For the Duke’s military career, see below. 7 A. Carlyle, Anecdotes and Characters of the Times, ed. J. Kinsley (London, 1973), 248; W. Brown, ‘Authorized Improvements on the Duke of Buccleuch’s Estates in the Southern Districts of Scotland’, Farmer’s Magazine, 9, 34 (1808), 148–55; Brown, ‘Improvements on the Duke of Buccleuch’s Estate’, 12–14; J. Dwyer and A. Murdoch, ‘Paradigms and Politics: Manners, Morals and the Rise of Henry Dundas, 1770–1784’, in J. Dwyer, A. Murdoch, and R. Mason (eds), New Perspectives on the Politics and Culture of Early Modern Scotland (Edinburgh, 1982), 241; J. Dwyer and A. Murdoch, ‘Henry Dundas Revisited but Not Revised’, Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century, 256 (1988), 325–33; W. Fraser, The Scotts of Buccleuch, vol. 1 (Edinburgh, 1878), 496.

­

Interest (1767–1812) 151 to reinforce the existing social and political hierarchy.8 But it can also be argued that a paternalistic approach was also an integral part of the kind of top-down, ‘improvement from above’ approach as practised upon the Buccleuch estate. The older feudal servitudes may have been abolished, but in many ways the improvement process involved an even more intrusive management system than had previously been the case, requiring even tighter regulation and closer control of tenants’ behaviour, something that was by no means limited to economic matters.9 Central to this approach is the idea that the management of the estate has to be understood as one element – albeit an extremely important element – of the Duke’s wider concerns and that the concepts of ‘improvement’ and ‘interest’ were inextricably linked. One of the drawbacks of viewing estate management in isolation has been to see it as largely separate from other landowner interests. When it has been considered as an intrinsic part of a larger whole, the focus has tended to be on the way in which the expenditure demands of other interests – such as political activity or competitive consumption – have either led to a need to increase estate revenue or diverted resources away from improvements.10 But the relationship between estate management and the Duke’s other interests could operate on a number of levels. On the one hand, the Duke’s concerns for public order, social stability, and economic development all influenced the way in which his estates were managed. But conversely, the manner in which the estates were managed – and appeared to be managed – could also have an important bearing on the Duke’s reputation as a public-spirited patriot and improver, a reputation that played an important role in his overall political standing and electoral influence. From this perspective, the Duke’s public life and wider interests become an important element in understanding the overall ideology which informed his approach to land management and his commitment to the improvement of his estates. Indeed, if anything, during the latter part of the Duke’s administration these concerns became even more pressing as the question of how to reconcile traditional aristocratic ‘interest’ and influence over those living upon the estate with the pressures of commercial agriculture became central to the estate’s tenurial strategy and the wider management of the estate. Before examining in more detail 8

My argument here draws on C. A. Whatley’s important work on this subject. C. A. Whatley, Scottish Society, 1707–1830: Beyond Jacobitism, Towards Industrialisation (Manchester, 2000), 150–1, 205–9, 305, 323; C. A. Whatley, ‘Roots of 1790s Radicalism: Reviewing the Economic and Social Background’, in B. Harris (ed.), Scotland in the Age of the French Revolution (Edinburgh, 2005), 23–48. See also B. Harris, The Scottish People and the French Revolution (London, 2008), 190–6, 199–201, 204–5, 211–17; E. P. Thompson, ‘EighteenthCentury English Society: Class Struggle Without Class?’, Social History, 3, 2 (1978), 133–65. 9 T. M. Devine, ‘The Great Landlords of Lowland Scotland and Agrarian Change in the Eighteenth Century’, in T. M. Devine (ed.), Clearance and Improvement: Land, Power and People in Scotland, 1700–1900 (Edinburgh, 2006), 49. 10 Campbell, ‘Landed Classes’, 99; A. Mackillop, ‘The Political Culture of the Scottish Highlands from Culloden to Waterloo’, The Historical Journal, 46, 3 (2003), 511–32.

152

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

this interplay between interest and improvement, it is necessary first to sketch out briefly the Duke’s emergence into public life and his subsequent public and political career. Despite his reported reservations over a political career, from the very outset the Duke would play a prominent part in Scottish public and political life. By the end of 1770 he had already become associated with a number of high-profile public campaigns aimed at encouraging the country’s economic development, including the Forth–Clyde Canal, the Ayr Bank, and the Entail Act.11 His public profile was further enhanced the following year with his prominent role in the rebellion of the so-called ‘independent peers’ over government interference in the election of the sixteen representative Scottish peers, a role which, according to press reports, ‘raised him very high in the opinion of all ranks in this country’ and led to comparisons with his grandfather, the 2nd Duke of Argyll.12 In the coming years he would serve on a number of improvement-minded public bodies, including the Board of Trustees for the Annexed Estates, the Royal Bank of Scotland, and the Highland Society, and, despite his financial constraints following the Ayr Bank crash, would contribute to numerous public works and charitable institutions.13 Improving writers such as David Loch, James Anderson, and Andrew Wight praised him for his promotion of Scotland’s agricultural and manufactured produce, lauding his economic and agrarian patriotism.14 The Duke’s reputation was further enhanced by his successful petition to the King to enable him to raise a fencible regiment in 1778 to defend the country from possible French invasion, leading to him 11

The Duke’s last payment of his £3,000 subscription towards the Forth–Clyde Canal was made in March 1775. NRS GD224/269/5, John Davidson’s accounts, 1774–5. 12 S. J. Fergusson, The Sixteen Peers of Scotland: An Account of the Elections of the Representative Peers of Scotland, 1707–1959 (Oxford, 1960), 81–5; M. W. McCahill, ‘The Scottish Peerage and the House of Lords in the Late Eighteenth Century’, The Scottish Historical Review, 51, 152 (1972), 172–96; General Evening Post, 8 Jan.–10 Jan. 1771; see also Baron P. M. Elibank, Considerations on the Present State of the Peerage of Scotland: Addressed to His Grace the Duke of Buccleugh. By a Peer of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1771), 1. 13 Institutions supported by the Duke included the charity workhouse of Edinburgh, the Royal Infirmary, the Royal College of Physicians, Edinburgh’s new High School, the  Royal Company of Archers, the Dumfries Infirmary, and the Edinburgh Asylum for  the Industrious Blind. NRS GD224/269/5, 6, John Davidson’s Vouchers, 1774–6; A. Murdoch, ‘Scott, Henry, third duke of Buccleuch and fifth duke of Queensberry’, in ODNB. 14 D. Loch, Essay on the Trade, Commerce, and Manufactures of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1775); J. Anderson, Observations on the Means of Exciting a Spirit of National Industry (Edinburgh, 1777); A. Wight, The Present State of Husbandry in Scotland, vol. 2 (Edinburgh, 1778). For other dedications that praised the Duke’s economic patriotism, see W. Boutcher, A Treatise on Forest-trees (Edinburgh, 1775); A. Dickson, The Husbandry of the Ancients (Edinburgh, 1788); A. Carlyle, A Letter to His Grace the Duke of Buccleugh, on National Defence to Which Is Now Added, A Postscript, Relative to the Regiments of Fencible Men Raising in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1778); J. Pinkerton, Select Scottish Ballads, vol. 1 (London, 1783).

­

Interest (1767–1812) 153

being hailed in the Scottish press as the country’s ‘great’ or ‘universal chief’ and the defender of her martial heritage.15 The Duke’s overall reputation also benefited from his connection with Smith and his active participation in the distinctive cultural life of the capital. The Duke was a member of such enlightenment institutions as the Poker Club and the Musical Society, while Dalkeith Palace became a meeting place for leading figures of the Edinburgh literati.16 In addition to Smith himself, the Duke’s patronage also extended to Smith’s circle of friends including the architect Robert Adam and the scientists William Cullen and Joseph Black, while the inventor James Watt and the plough wright James Small also benefited from his support.17 In turn, the Duke drew on his enlightenment acquaintances, such as the botanist John Hope and the historian William Robertson, to pursue his own interests in agriculture, while his extensive library at Dalkeith became stocked with the key texts of the Scottish Enlightenment.18 In 1783, his pre-eminent position as the leading cultural patron of Enlightenment Edinburgh was formally recognised in his appointment as the first president of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.19 John Pinkerton’s dedication to the Duke in his Select Scottish Ballads, published the same year, gives a fair summation of the various facets of his public reputation up to this point: At a period when many of the British nobility are wasting their patrimonial estates in profligate dissipation; men trained to arms in defence of their rights and liberties, villages beautified and rendered salubrious, and their inhabitants rendered happy, have been the monuments of expence of the DUKE OF BUCCLEUGH . . . That SCOTLAND 15

Caledonian Mercury, 11 Apr. 1778, 21 Apr. 1779, 14 Feb. 1780; Dwyer and Murdoch, ‘Henry Dundas’, 327–8. 16 In addition to Smith and Hume, guests included William Robertson, Adam Ferguson, Hugh Blair, Alexander Carlyle, and John Home. NRS GD224/1085/1, Dalkeith House Day Book, 1775–98. The Duke joined the Musical Society in 1771. NRS GD224/269/2, John Davidson’s Accounts, 1771–2. For his membership of the Poker Club, see J. Robertson, The Scottish Enlightenment and the Militia Issue (Edinburgh, 1985), 137. 17 Cullen and Black served as physicians to the Duke and his family. NRS GD224/269/4, John Davidson’s accounts and vouchers, 1773–4; NRS GD224/269/7, Vouchers from John Davidson’s accounts, 1776–7. For his patronage of Small, see NRS GD224/30/12/7, 8, James Small to Duke, 22 Oct. 1787. For Watt, see J. Dallas, ‘The Cullen Consultation Letters’, Proceedings of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, 31, 1 (2001), 66–8. 18 In 1774, the Duke imported plants from South Carolina through John Hope, while in 1776 he commissioned Robertson to procure a number of Spanish books on agriculture from Madrid. NRS GD224/269/4, John Davidson’s accounts and vouchers, 1773–4; NRS GD224/269/7, Vouchers from John Davidson’s accounts, 1776–7. 19 Although, as Shapin has argued, there was undoubtedly a political element to his appointment, the Duke’s reputation and close connections with the city’s literati made him a particularly apt appointment. S. Shapin, ‘Property, Patronage, and the Politics of Science: The Founding of the Royal Society of Edinburgh’, The British Journal for the History of Science, 7, 1 (1974), 1–41.

154

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

may long consider YOUR GRACE as one of the best guardians of her liberty, and the living assertor of her ancient spirit.20 A common strand running through much of the Duke’s public career was his association with overtly ‘patriotic’ causes that were linked to the defence of Scottish rights and interests within the Union, or, as one fairly typical book dedication of 1775 put it, the way in which the Duke had ‘invariably and industriously pursued every measure tending to support the decaying honour, and promote the real interest of [his] country’.21 Behind his involvement in the rebellion of the independent peers lay the idea that the independence and dignity of the Scottish peerage was being undermined by ministerial interference, to the extent that an important element of political representation guaranteed by the Treaty of Union was being violated.22 But there was also a sense of national grievance behind the protest regarding the manifest inequality between the privileges and relative status of the Scottish and English peerage.23 Similarly, the Duke’s successful raising of his fencible regiment has to be seen not only in the context of the threat of French invasion but also as a patriotic response to the rejection of the Scots Militia Bill two years earlier, a measure that the Duke had enthusiastically supported.24 Contemporaries regarded the raising of his regiment as at least a step towards asserting the right of Scots as British citizens to bear arms and therefore to participate more equally within the Union, a perspective that the Duke himself unequivocally endorsed. Noting his anxiety for the success of the venture, the Duke wrote that ‘the Honour of Scotland’ as well as his own was at stake, and that the King, at his request, had ‘placed a confidence in us that has been for many years most unjustly denied to Scotland[:] I mean that of arming for our own defence’.25 This emphasis on patriotic causes was also consistent with Buccleuch’s other major preoccupation – the economic improvement of Scotland and, in particular, the improvement of her agriculture. The links between agricultural improvement and patriotism were well established in eighteenthcentury Britain, underpinned by the strain of classical agrarianism that 20

Pinkerton, Scottish Ballads, viii–x. This virtuous reputation extended beyond the public sphere to his personal character and private life, with the press praising both ‘his easy and popular manner’ and his ‘inflexible integrity’, while the popular moralist James Fordyce held up his ‘unaffected modesty’ as a model for young male virtue. Caledonian Mercury, 3 Sep. 1777; J. Fordyce, Addresses to Young Men, vol. 1 (London, 1777), 326. 21 Boutcher, A Treatise on Forest-trees, 3–4. For a discussion of such ‘North British’ patriotism, see C. Kidd, ‘North Britishness and the Nature of Eighteenth-Century British Patriotisms’, The Historical Journal, 39, 2 (1996), 361–82. 22 Fergusson, Peers of Scotland, 82. See also Elibank, Considerations. 23 McCahill, ‘Scottish Peerage’, 175–7, 180. 24 NRS GD224/30/1/1–4, Dundas to Duke, 16 Mar. 1776; Robertson, Militia Issue, 130–2. 25 NRS GD224/655/2/13, Duke to Keir, 10 May 1778. See also Caledonian Mercury, 11 Apr. 1778; Carlyle, A Letter to His Grace the Duke of Buccleugh, on National Defence; R. B. Sher, Church and University in the Scottish Enlightenment: The Moderate Literati of Edinburgh (Princeton, 1985), 228.

­

Interest (1767–1812) 155

presented the agricultural way of life as ‘a kind of aristocratic ideal’ and, as such, particularly appropriate for the landed nobility.26 For a patrician culture such as Britain, whose modes of thinking and outlook were dominated by classical models – particularly those of republican Rome – it is hardly surprising that the link between agrarianism and patriotism was so strong, nor that the view that the most proper role for a landed gentleman or member of nobility was to reside upon and improve their estates was such a pervasive one.27 In many respects this ‘agrarian patriotism’ was a pan-British phenomenon, epitomised by the spread of agricultural societies and by the agricultural interests of the King himself.28 But there was also a particular Scottish strain of agrarian patriotism, whose distinctiveness lay in the belief that only by achieving economic parity with England could Scotland hope to play a full and equal role within the Union and avoid economic and political dependency.29 Although rooted in the later seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, and exemplified by the founding of the Honourable the Society of Improvers in 1723, this view had become even more prevalent in the aftermath of the failed Jacobite rebellion of 1745, when patriotically minded economic improvement came to play a key role in the attempts to rehabilitate north Britain politically.30 It is in this context that it is worth stressing the importance of the Duke’s early decision to make Dalkeith his principal residence. Apart from a short 26

J. A. Montmarquet, The Idea of Agrarianism: From Hunter-Gatherer to Agrarian Radical in Western Culture (Moscow, Idaho, 1989), 25–6, 56; S. Wade Martins, Farmers, Landlords and Landscapes: Rural Britain, 1720 to 1870 (Macclesfield, 2004); J. Thirsk, ‘Making a Fresh Start: Sixteenth-Century Agriculture and the Classical Inspiration’, in M. Leslie and T. Raylor (eds), Culture and Cultivation in Early Modern England: Writing and the Land (Leicester, 1992), 15–34. 27 See Dwyer and Murdoch, ‘Paradigms’, 210–48. The key contemporary Scottish expression of this was H. Home, The Gentleman Farmer (Edinburgh, 1776). For the dominance of classical models in British elite society, see Thompson, ‘Eighteenth-Century English Society’, 145n; J. Cannon, Aristocratic Century: The Peerage of Eighteenth-Century England (Cambridge, 1984), 34–5. 28 J. Gascoigne, Joseph Banks and the English Enlightenment: Useful Knowledge and Polite Culture (Cambridge, 1994), 186, 236; D. Watkin, The Architect King: George III and the Culture of the Enlightenment (London, 2004), 32, 75, 167–9; K. Hudson, Patriotism with Profit: British Agricultural Societies in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries (London, 1972). The term ‘agrarian patriotism’ was coined by Bayly, who argues that it was ‘the dominant faith of the elite much as evangelicalism was to be after 1780’. C. A. Bayly, Imperial Meridian: The British Empire and the World 1780–1830 (London, 1989), 80. See also S. Tarlow, The Archaeology of Improvement in Britain, 1750–1850 (Cambridge, 2007), 41–2. 29 Dwyer and Murdoch, ‘Paradigms’, 219; Kidd, ‘North Britishness’, 367–8; Gascoigne, Joseph Banks, 186–8; Bayly, Imperial Meridian, 80–6, 122–6. For the earlier roots of Scottish agrarian patriotism, see B. Bonnyman, ‘Agrarian Patriotism and the Landed Interest: The Scottish “Society of Improvers in the Knowledge of Agriculture”, 1723–1746’, in K. Stapelbroek and J. Marjanen (eds), The Rise of Economic Societies in the Eighteenth Century: Patriotic Reform in Europe and North America (Basingstoke, 2012), 26–51. 30 B. Harris, Politics and the Nation: Britain in the Mid-Eighteenth Century (Oxford, 2002), 186–7; Whatley, Scottish Society, 116–22.

156

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

period in the early 1700s, the Buccleuch family had been, like so many of the Scottish aristocracy, effectively absentee landowners since the late seventeenth century. The favourable accounts of the Duke that appeared in the Scottish press in the years following his coming of age repeatedly highlighted his family’s residency in Scotland as proof of his patriotic credentials, something portrayed not only in terms of the practical economic benefits of spending the rents raised from his Scottish estates in Scotland rather than in the distant metropolis – a long-held criticism of absentee landowners – but also as further proof of his commitment to the country and his identification with its interests.31 Born in London to anglicised, absentee Scottish aristocrats, raised and educated in England, and mentored by an English step-father, the Duke, by choosing Dalkeith as his principal residence, was in effect choosing to be Scottish, something that was not lost on his contemporaries.32 There was, however, an important political dimension to the Duke’s emerging public career, one which can be traced to his very first visit to Scotland. It was during that initial two-month stay that the Duke first met with the ambitious young lawyer Henry Dundas, four years older than the Duke and already Solicitor-General for Scotland, whose Midlothian estate lay adjacent to the Duke’s Dalkeith estate. During the long absence of the Buccleuch family, Midlothian politics had been dominated by Dundas’s family and, with the Duke’s return, it was clear that some kind of accommodation would have to be reached. Almost immediately, however, the two men became close friends, and within a few years they had forged a political alliance that, as David Brown has noted, would ‘come to dominate Scots politics for the next 40 years’.33 As early as November 1771, Dundas had canvassed for the Duke’s support, urging him to take a more forward role in the country’s politics, and by the following spring the two men were working closely together. In the run up to the general election of 1774 they were active in a number of contested constituencies in the south of Scotland and Buccleuch’s support was crucial to returning Dundas and a small group of allies to Westminster.34 At this point Buccleuch and Dundas were still acting as equal partners and it was by no means clear that the Duke would not still take the lead; in early 1774, one Edinburgh lawyer close to Dundas suggested that the Duke was ‘laying a plan for taking the lead in Scotch affairs’, while the following year James Boswell noted in his journal that the Duke was ‘imaging that he should be Prime Minister for Scotland, and Harry Dundas was to act along with him’.35 As late as March 1776, Dundas could describe the necessity of the Duke’s 31

Caledonian Mercury, 3 Sep. 1777, 18 Feb. 1778. Lady L. Stuart, Memoire of Frances, Lady Douglas, ed. J. Rubenstein (Edinburgh, 1985), 50. 33 D. J. Brown, ‘“Nothing but Strugalls and Coruption”: The Commons’ Elections for Scotland in 1774’, Parliamentary History, 15, 1 (1996), 100–19. 34 Brown, ‘Strugalls and Coruption’, 103–19. 35 Brown, ‘Strugalls and Coruption’, 116; quoted in Dwyer and Murdoch, ‘Paradigms’, 213. 32

­

Interest (1767–1812) 157

presence at the ‘head of his own friends’ in Parliament, describing him as ‘the bond of their common union’.36 However, from around this point, particularly as Dundas and the Duke embarked on a decade-long struggle for the political control of Edinburgh, it became increasingly clear that Dundas was acting as the senior partner and that the Duke had essentially passed over the control of his interest.37 The reasons behind this abdication of leadership – which some saw as an ‘unnatural’ inversion of the traditional managerial relationship – remain obscure.38 It may have been partly an acknowledgement not only of Dundas’s superior political instincts and abilities, but also of the shift in power within Parliament between the Lords and the Commons. Personal inclination and character undoubtedly also played an important role: despite his regular attendance at the House of Lords and court, the Duke’s naturally reserved disposition left him unsuited to high office and the cut and thrust of parliamentary politics; and, although he would remain actively involved in Dundas’s political system, the Duke retained a lofty disdain of what he regarded as the base and self-seeking nature of most patronage.39 As he confided to Dundas in 1791, It quite disgusts me to see the want of feeling & proper, moral rectitude of conduct in many persons of this country when any office is in question. Judges, Dukes, Lords and commoners are all equally bad if an office suits their friend no matter what the nature of the office is, or what are the qualifications necessary to fill it. Public justice, & the civil government of the country is seldom thought of them.40 His involvement in the management of his estates, the need to extricate himself from the aftermath of the Ayr Bank collapse, and, from 1778, the recruitment, training, and command of his fencible regiment all may also have influenced his decision.41 And as Nick Phillipson has suggested, it may also have been through Smith’s influence that the Duke had come to see the most proper role of the landed nobility in a modern, commercial polity was no longer primarily a political one.42 Whatever his reasons, it is important to stress that the Duke’s decision to play a subordinate role did not preclude either his continued involvement 36

NRS GD224/30/1/1–4, Dundas to Duke, 16 Mar. 1776. A. Murdoch, ‘The Importance of Being Edinburgh: Management and Opposition in Edinburgh Politics, 1746–1784’, The Scottish Historical Review, 62, 173 (1983), 1–16. 38 Anon., To the D. of B. When Your Grace Engaged in the Politics of E- (Edinburgh, 1777); D. J. Brown, ‘Henry Dundas and the Government of Scotland’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis (University of Edinburgh, 1989), 35; Murdoch, ‘Importance of Being Edinburgh’, 15. 39 For his attendance at the House of Lords, see McCahill, ‘Scottish Peerage’, 189. 40 Quoted in Brown, ‘Henry Dundas’, 10. 41 NRS GD224/31/1/4, Duke to John Davidson, 20 Apr. 1778; NRS GD224/295/2/35 [old catalogue], Duke to Lord Advocate [Dundas], 29 Oct. 1779. 42 N. T. Phillipson, Adam Smith: An Enlightened Life (London, 2010), 204. 37

158

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

in politics or the active management of his interest. In fact, it is hard to overstate the significance of Buccleuch’s support for Dundas, both during his initial rise to prominence during the 1770s and early 1780s and also during the so-called ‘Dundassian Domination’ of Scottish politics from the mid-1790s.43 As has already been alluded to, the Duke’s early backing was essential to returning Dundas and his allies to Westminster, while it was largely through his influence that Dundas was granted his share of keepership of the Signet.44 Dundas would go on to build strategic alliances with other territorial magnates, such as the Dukes of Gordon and Argyll, and the Grant and Duff families.45 But unlike these other arrangements, Buccleuch’s support for Dundas throughout his career was unwavering and seemingly unconditional, leading some historians to characterise him as ‘blindly following’ Dundas.46 Their alliance, however, was not merely one of political expediency but was underpinned by a broadly shared set of political values. Dundas has at times been portrayed as the epitome of the unprincipled self-seeking eighteenth-century politician, with the building up of his personal interest his one and only goal.47 But as David Brown has argued, Dundas adhered for the most part to a traditional conservatism that believed above all in the right of the King to appoint his ministers and in the politician’s duty to support them. At the same time, he consistently strove to uphold what he himself termed ‘the great aristocratic interests of the country’ and their continued dominance of Scottish society.48 Although the Duke had begun his political life by opposing ministerial interference, throughout his career he shared Dundas’s political convictions and consistently used his influence and interest to support government.49 The very fact that the Duke chose to focus his attention on Scotland and the improvement of his estates and other patriotic pursuits meant that he could be portrayed as disinterestedly above political faction. This made him the ideal figurehead for Dundas’s campaign to unite the greater landowners and lesser gentry in Scotland, something that was particularly evident during the battle to control Edinburgh.50 At the heart of the relationship between ‘interest’ and ‘improvement’ was the fact that politics and property were inextricably linked. It was the ownership of land, nominally or otherwise, which conferred the right to 43

D. J. Brown, ‘The Government of Scotland under Henry Dundas and William Pitt’, History, 83, 270 (1998), 265–79. 44 Brown, ‘Strugalls and Coruption’; Dwyer and Murdoch, ‘Paradigms’, 212; Brown, ‘Henry Dundas’, 39. 45 Brown, ‘Government of Scotland’, 271. 46 H. Furber, Henry Dundas, First Viscount Melville, 1742–1811: Political Manager of Scotland, Statesman, Administrator of British India (Oxford, 1931), 195; Brown, ‘Henry Dundas’, 107. 47 W. Ferguson, Scotland: 1689 to the Present (Edinburgh, 1968), 236–7. 48 Brown, ‘Henry Dundas’, 4, 245n. 49 For the Duke’s account of his consistent support of government, see NRS GD224/30/2/3, Duke to Lord Hopetoun, 6 Aug. 1790. 50 Dwyer and Murdoch, ‘Paradigms’; Murdoch, ‘Importance of Being Edinburgh’.

­

Interest (1767–1812) 159

vote and, regardless of the number of votes directly controlled, the amount of land owned in a particular county largely dictated the amount of influence a family could hope to exert over their fellow landowners.51 Despite this link, aside from the practice of vote creation, little attention has been paid to the relationship between land management policies and political interest.52 Where it has been considered, the emphasis has largely been on how the often ruinous expense of political activity impacted on estate management, either by diverting limited resources away from improvements or by motivating landowners to maximise their landed incomes to recoup their losses.53 And yet it can be argued that the relationship between interest and estate management could be much more multifaceted and nuanced than this, and went well beyond the competition for resources. Landownership provided the foundation on which a parliamentary interest was built, and, as one would expect, the Duke of Buccleuch’s political interest was strongest in those counties where his largest estates lay: Midlothian (or Edinburghshire), Selkirkshire, Roxburghshire, and Dumfriesshire.54 Similarly, his interests in burgh politics tended to lie in those towns where the proximity of his property gave him influence, in particular Edinburgh, the Linlithgow Burghs (which included Selkirk), and the Dumfriesshire Burghs.55 But although an interest such as Buccleuch’s was founded on the extent of his estate and the seniority of his title, these in themselves were not enough to guarantee influence over the voters. An interest, as an essentially informal grouping underpinned by family connections, affiliations, and personal loyalties, had to be carefully cultivated and maintained.56 This could be achieved partly through the promise of patronage and preferment. Although outright bribery in the counties was unusual and offers of patronage in exchange for votes were rarely conducted explicitly, the ability of the patron to deliver such rewards undoubtedly played an important role, and here Buccleuch’s connection to Dundas was of central importance.57 Just as Buccleuch’s reputation had played a key part in his initial rise, Dundas’s position at the heart of British government, his friendship with Pitt, and his subsequent domination of government patronage in Scotland played an important role in the Duke’s ability to 51

L. B. Namier and J. Brooke, The House of Commons, 1754–1790, vol. 1 (London, [1964] 1985), 46–7. 52 A notable exception to this is Mackillop, ‘Political Culture’. 53 Mackillop, ‘Political Culture’, 513–21; Campbell, ‘Landed Classes’, 99. 54 For details see Namier and Brooke, House of Commons, vol. 1, 40–1, 478, 495, 496, 508; R. G. Thorne, The House of Commons, 1790–1820 (London, 1986), vol. 1, 74, 77–8, 80, 81; vol. 2, 522–3, 530–1, 594–6, 576–80, 597–8, 609–11. 55 Namier and Brooke, House of Commons, vol. 1, 479, 495, 474. 56 S. J. Fergusson, ‘“Making Interest” in Scottish County Elections’, The Scottish Historical Review, 26, 102 (1947), 119–33. 57 R. M. Sunter, Patronage and Politics in Scotland, 1707–1832 (Edinburgh, [1986] 2003), 2–8.

160

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

maintain and extend his own interest. Writing in 1792 on the Duke’s attempts to shore up his interest in Dumfriesshire, Sir William Maxwell stressed the importance that ‘by your influence with administration, every office concerned with the County & Bouroughs should be at your disposal’, noting on another occasion how keen he was that ‘every thing granted by Government, either for publick uses, or to Individuals, in this County, should be known to have been obtained by your influence’.58 In addition to influencing public appointments or securing government pensions, the Duke’s connections to the administration could also be used to support local public works and improvements; by securing government funding for projects that were of particular concern to the local gentry, the Duke’s reputation and family interest could also be further enhanced. Again in Dumfriesshire, the Duke not only gave a large private donation towards the building of the New Bridge over the Nith in Dumfries, he successfully lobbied Dundas to secure government funding to finish the work; as Sir William Maxwell had noted earlier, ‘I am convinced that if your Grace can procure the liberal aid of Government for compleating a Bridge, which is a favourite object with the Gentlemen in Nithsdale & the Inhabitants of Dumfries, you will secure an interest with them, that may prove both agreeable & advantageous.’59 There were of course limits to the amount of patronage that even Dundas could provide and there would always be more place seekers than there were jobs available.60 Furthermore, even in the disposal of offices nominally under his personal gift, such as the Sheriffdom of Selkirkshire, the Duke had to take into account the wishes and opinions of the local landed gentry.61 But the perception of influence could also play an important role and here Buccleuch’s closeness to Dundas was crucial; as Adam Ogilvie remarked in 1805, it was a common opinion not only that Dundas’s patronage ‘extends to every office of every description under government, where Scotsmen are interested’, but also that the Duke ‘has only to say to Lord Melville, do! – and it will be done!’62 Important as government patronage was, however, it was only one aspect of maintaining and extending the Buccleuch family’s political influence. As discussed earlier, during the Duke’s minority the extension of the family’s political interest and the expansion of their landed estate had gone hand in 58

NRS GD224/30/13/18, Sir William Maxwell to Duke, 7 Mar. 1792; NRS GD224/31/6/10– 11, Sir William Maxwell to Duke, 22 Apr. 1792. 59 NRS GD224/31/6/12, Sir William Maxwell to Duke, 9 May 1792; NRS, Melville Castle MSS, GD51/5/553–3, Duke to Dundas, 14 Jun. 1792; B. Johnston, General View of the Agriculture of the County of Dumfries (London, 1794), 71. 60 Brown, ‘Government of Scotland’, 272; NRS GD224/30/8/4–5, Dundas to John Rutherford [copy], 31 Oct. 1804. 61 A. E. Whetstone, Scottish County Government in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries (Edinburgh, 1981), 6–7. 62 NRS GD224/659/3/134, Adam Ogilvie to Duke, 14 Mar. 1805.

­

Interest (1767–1812) 161

hand. Although during his personal administration the Duke’s agents and their relatives continued to be closely aligned to his political interest, the practice of vote creation seems to have largely ceased, with land previously held in trust expressly for that purpose transferred back into the Duke’s personal ownership shortly after his coming of age.63 Indeed, in the mid1770s campaign to reform electoral law backed by Dundas, Buccleuch was held up as a virtuous example of a grandee who refused to use the practice of fictitious votes to extend his influence.64 Yet, the interest of a great aristocratic family relied upon much more than the number of votes it could directly control. As Gilbert Elliot, the then MP for Selkirkshire, explained to Charles Townshend during the Duke’s minority, ‘the Buccleuch interest is not so much to be estimated by the votes it can at present command as by the credit . . . it bestows upon any candidate it adopts’.65 This element of prestige that the patron’s endorsement conferred was an important part of the overall influence of a family. And, alongside rank, social standing, and the ability to provide patronage, the personal character and reputation of a patron played an important role in determining the level of prestige that their support gave. An important part of this was the commitment the patron showed to their locality, in terms of both their support of the local gentry’s concerns and their overall ‘public spiritedness’. Arguably, this became even more important from the 1760s onwards, when the local gentry began to become more active in politics and public life at county level and, in the process, more critical of the absenteeism and perceived neglect of the greater landowners.66 Indeed, one of the main criticisms of the creation of nominal votes, beyond the way it allowed ‘new money’ to usurp traditional landed interests, was that it would lead to a loss of connection between the voters and the counties in which their votes lay – something that even those engaged in vote creation had to be wary of.67 This in turn, it was argued, would undermine the traditional methods by which families ought to maintain their influence in a locality: as one contemporary put it, through ‘civility, hospitality, friendship, and good offices cultivated among the country gentlemen’.68 As Dundas himself argued in a public debate on the proposed voting reforms, instead of creating votes, ‘gentlemen of large fortunes, ought to make themselves respectable by their hospitality, their benevolence and promoting the good of the country’, adding that ‘this was 63

For the political involvement of the Duke’s agents, see Sir C. Elphinstone (ed.), A View on the Political State of Scotland in the Last Century (Edinburgh, 1887), 112, 307, 310, 311, 313, 320; NRS GD224/273/1, Archibald Campbell’s Accompts, 1768–9. 64 Dwyer and Murdoch, ‘Paradigms’, 239; M. Fry, The Dundas Despotism (Edinburgh, [1992] 2004), 61–2. 65 Namier and Brooke, House of Commons, vol. 1, 496. 66 Dwyer and Murdoch, ‘Paradigms’, 215; Whetstone, Scottish County Government, 69–70. 67 See for example NRS GD224/295/2/19, 39, Archibald Campbell to Mackenzie, 6 Aug., 24 Sep. 1763. 68 Caledonian Mercury, 25 Jan. 1773. Quoted in Dwyer and Murdoch, ‘Paradigms’, 235.

162

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

the true influence and power which they ought to have’.69 It was precisely this aspect of the Duke’s reputation that Dundas and his allies drew upon and which also underpinned the Duke’s interest in the counties where his estates lay.70 An important element of maintaining such a reputation was to display a commitment to the locality and a sympathetic responsiveness to the concerns of the local landed classes. And it was in this respect the management of the landed estate could become an important element in the management and maintenance of the Duke’s interest. As engaging in the development of his own estate also involved the general improvement of the locality, particularly through such activities as road and bridge building, improvement tended to reinforce the Duke’s reputation as a publicspirited improver, providing evidence that he was fulfilling his ‘natural’ role as a civic leader of the local landed classes.71 It was partly in this respect that the overall appearance of the Duke’s estate also took on a significant role. As the earlier chapters of this study have described, the improvements carried out on the Buccleuch estates involved a dramatic transformation of the rural landscape; the division, enclosure, and improvement of the land, the planting of shelter belts and plantations, along with the array of supporting infrastructural changes ranging from road building and the construction of planned villages to the expansion of rural industry, gave striking evidence of the change from an ‘evolved’ to a ‘planned’ landscape.72 At one level these changes were a very physical manifestation of the landowner’s power and control over his domain; the process of enclosure in particular was, as one writer has noted, ‘an expression of power in the landscape in its most stark and striking form’.73 But the improved landscape also provided tangible evidence of a landowner’s virtuous credentials and, by extension, his patriotism, evidence which simultaneously revealed his social responsibility and his deep-rooted connection to the locality.74 It was in this sense that there was also an important aesthetic component to improvement, one which revealed an awareness of the significance of the appearance of a well-planned and rationally ordered landscape. Considerations of this aspect of improvement have tended understandably to focus on the great houses and their immediate policies, and this was certainly an area of improvement that was not neglected by the 3rd 69

Caledonian Mercury, 14 Oct. 1775. Quoted in Dwyer and Murdoch, ‘Paradigms’, 238. See for example Caledonian Mercury, 3 Sep. 1777; Dwyer and Murdoch, ‘Henry Dundas’, 327–8. For an opposing view, see Anon., To the D. of B. 71 See for example Wight, Husbandry, 395. 72 On the distinction between ‘evolved’ and ‘planned’ landscapes, see Wade Martins, Farmers, Landlords and Landscapes, 77. 73 I. D. Whyte, Landscape and History Since 1500 (London, 2002), 75. 74 On the symbolic significance of ‘landscapes of improvement’, see T. Williamson, The Transformation of Rural England: Farming and the Landscape, 1700–1870 (Exeter, 2002), 77. 70

­

Interest (1767–1812) 163

Duke.75 However, as with many landowners, there was no sharp delineation between enhancing the policies and improving the wider estate, with both ‘types’ of improvement considered as part of the same overarching project.76 At Dalkeith, the improvements to the policies went on side by side with the agricultural experiments conducted under the Duke’s direction on the home farm, the improved breeds of cattle and sheep grazing in the parks an integral part of the overall improved landscape. Likewise, the nursery adjacent to the Duke’s summer residence at Langholm Lodge, although carefully laid out as part of the overall design of the house’s pleasure grounds, supplied thousands of saplings and thorns for the estate’s plantations and hedgerows.77 At the same time, the kind of aesthetic considerations more commonly associated with the improvement of the policies could also be applied to the wider estate. The positioning of plantations and shelter belts on the estate, for example, was often determined as much by a concern for how they would adorn or enhance the landscape as for their practical benefits,78 and on more than one occasion the Duke expressed that his preference of importing more expensive foreign timber for building was partly down to his wish to preserve his own woods in order to ‘ornament’ his estate.79 Similarly, the same detailed attention the Duke paid to the design of Langholm Lodge was also evident in his involvement in the layout of his new town at Langholm and even in the design of ­individual tenants’ houses.80 These general concerns for the ‘ornamental’ value of improvements included a conscious awareness of the importance of how the estate appeared to others and an understanding that attention should be paid to the overall impression that particular improvements gave. In working out 75

J. Brewer, The Pleasures of the Imagination: English Culture in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1997), 629–30; Whyte, Landscape and History, 73; T. R. Slater, ‘The Mansion and Policy’, in M. L. Parry and T. R. Slater (eds), The Making of the Scottish Countryside (London, 1980), 223–47. 76 Wade Martins, Farmers, Landlords and Landscapes, 8–9; Williamson, Transformation of Rural England, 19; Beckett, ‘Landownership’, 568–9; Tarlow, Archaeology of Improvement, 74. 77 NRS GD224/657/1/1, Keir to Duke, 5 Jan. 1773. On this point, see also T. Williamson, Polite Landscapes: Gardens and Society in Eighteenth-Century England (Stroud, 1995), 119–24; Wade Martins, Farmers, Landlords and Landscapes, 8. 78 NRS GD224/657/1/2, 3, 37, Keir to Duke, 3 Dec. 1772, 26 Feb. 1773, 28 Mar. 1777; Continuation of Keir’s Report [1802]. For this practice elsewhere, see J. B. Caird, ‘The Reshaped Agricultural Landscape’, in Parry and Slater (eds), Making of the Scottish Countryside, 216. 79 NRS GD224/655/2/34, Duke to Keir, 12 Aug. 1782. 80 NRS GD224/657/1/55, 61, Keir to Duke, 22 Apr. 1785, 18 Mar. 1787; NRS GD224/655/2/61, 62, 63, Duke to Keir, 8 Jan., 27 Mar., 26 Apr. 1787; NRS GD224/459, Instructions & Orders by his Grace the Duke of Buccleugh to William Ogilvie, 25 Aug. 1770; NRS GD224/655/2/22, John Davidson to Keir, 1 Nov. 1780; NRS GD224/657/1/39, Keir to Duke, 10 Mar. 1777; NRS GD224/655/2/5, 6, 7, Duke to Keir, 19 Apr., 21 Apr., 8 May 1777; W. Singer, General View of the Agriculture, State of Property, and Improvements, in the County of Dumfries (Edinburgh, 1812), 89.

164

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

the optimum position for shelter belts and plantations, for example, utilitarian concerns were balanced with the desire to make the improvements both ‘ornamental to the country’ and ‘conspicuous’, particularly when viewed from the nearest road, with similar concerns expressed regarding the positioning of new buildings.81 The converse of this was also true: the appearance of ruined farm houses and unkempt fields was one of the arguments put forward for abolishing the practice of ‘led’ farms, particularly when they were close to the turnpike road. As Keir noted, ‘the ruinous state of the houses upon these farms, and the total want of even the smallest appearance of improvement upon them, leaves a disagreeable impression upon the minds of strangers who have occasion to pass through the country’.82 A similar concern also lay behind the great lengths the Duke went to in order to have the turnpike road properly served by ‘English style’ inns, with estate money invested in providing better facilities for travellers and incentives offered to attract good landlords.83 In all of this, there was a tacit understanding that it was important not only for the estate to be improved but for it to be seen to be improved, and an awareness of how this reflected back upon the Duke himself and his overall reputation.84 Beyond these concerns for the overall impression given by the appearance of the estate, there were other, more overt ways in which estate management policy could be used to enhance the Duke’s interest. One such area was the estate’s tenurial policy. Along with their financial standing and professional reputation, the ‘character’ of each prospective tenant, broadly summarised by either Keir or one of the chamberlains, was personally reviewed by the Duke, who gave the final approval to new tenants. On the Duke’s sheep farms, where the practice of holding more than one farm was widespread and tenants could also be freeholders in their own right, the prospect of a lease of one of the estate’s farms was sometimes enough to secure the electoral support of the tenant.85 That said, although the voting record of tenants might be raised as one of the factors considered in the renewal of their lease, on the whole this seems to have been rare, and, at least according to the Duke’s chamberlain, it was unlikely that a tenant would be refused a lease solely on the grounds that he supported a rival interest.86 81

NRS GD224/657/1/3, 2, 29, 75, Keir to Duke, 26 Feb., 3 Dec. 1773, 7 Mar. 1775, 14 May 1789. For examples of this practice on other estates, see Wade Martins, Farmers, Landlords and Landscapes, 79. 82 Report on Sheep Farms, p. 191. 83 The estate owned the inns at Langholm, Mosspaul, and Hawick. NRS GD224/91/2 pp. 10–13, 15–17, 39, 66; NRS GD224/459 p. 97; NRS GD224/345/15, Keir’s accounts, 1777 & 1778; NRS GD224/651/1/64, 87, 88; NRS GD224/655/2/75, 77. 84 For examples of this elsewhere, see Wade Martins, Farmers, Landlords and Landscapes, 79; S. Wade Martins, Coke of Norfolk (1754–1842): A Biography (Woodbridge, 2010), 95. 85 NRS GD224/659/3/71, 72, Adam Ogilvie to Duke, 25 Feb., 14 Mar. 1794; NRS GD224/659/3/73, Adam Ogilvie to Mr Miln, 6 Mar. 1794. 86 See for example NRS GD224/659/3/53, 57, Adam Ogilvie to Duke, 16 Mar., 10 Apr. 1792; NRS GD224/659/5/63, Adam Ogilvie to William Cuthill, 30 Mar. 1803.

­

Interest (1767–1812) 165

Land deals were another area that could play an important part in reinforcing the ties of friendship and obligation that have been described as the ‘cement of county politics’.87 Aptly enough, given their commitment to the maintenance of the landed hegemony, the Duke’s friendship with Dundas, for example, was reinforced the year after they met with an exchange of land, with Buccleuch agreeing to rent and then sell one of his parks to Dundas.88 When the Duke agreed to sell his substantial estate of Yair in Selkirkshire to Alexander Pringle of Whitebank in 1788 for what was later considered a ‘bargain’ price, Pringle was considered from this point onwards to be ‘under obligations’ to the Buccleuch family for his vote in Selkirkshire, a connection which was further strengthened by his subsequent appointment through the Duke’s interest as commander of the Selkirkshire volunteers and, subsequently, as vice lieutenant of the same county.89 According to Adam Ogilvie, the role of such transactions was to try to instil a genuine attachment to the Duke and his interest, something, he argued, that was achieved by appealing to ‘ties of honour & feelings of the heart’ rather than naked self-interest. Referring to one such arrangement, he argued that, although the piece of land in question was ‘too insignificant in point of pecuniary interest, to bind any man, who can aspire to a qualification to a vote’, the granting of the request would be ‘sufficient to bind a gentleman for life’.90 As chamberlain, Ogilvie was particularly well placed to comment on the management of the Duke’s interest. The position had long held political significance on the Buccleuch estates, but under the 3rd Duke, particularly after the appointment of William Keir as overseer of improvements in 1772, the chamberlain became even more concerned with matters of patronage and the management of the family’s political interest. As Adam Ogilvie summarised shortly after inheriting the position from his father: I find too, that I naturally ought to take a share in the publick business of these counties. The very great Interest, which the Duke has in each of them, leads to it, and it seems to be expected by those who take a concern in that business. Indeed so long as His Grace wishes to maintain a lead in the politics of these counties, he must pay attention to their police, and in that view, it is necessary that he have somebody to be the channel of communications between himself and the gentlemen of them, through whom his sentiments upon publick matters may 87

Sunter, Patronage and Politics, 8. NRS GD224/337/1, Extract of contract of tack, 1769–70; NRS GD224/962/15/18, William Ogilvie to John Davidson, 26 Aug. 1771. 89 NRS GD224/584/11/4, Note of purchases made, Jul. 1759; NRS GD224/659/3/11, Adam Ogilvie to Duke, 10 Apr. 1788; NRS GD224/31/5/10, Buccleuch to John Davidson, 1 Aug. 1788; Elphinstone (ed.), Political State of Scotland, 321; G. Tancred, The Annals of a Border Club (the Jedforest) (Jedburgh, 1899), 362. 90 NRS GD224/659/5/63, Adam Ogilvie to William Cuthill, 30 Mar. 1803. 88

166

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

be known to them & their to him. So much I say without having the most distant inclination to become a politician.91 As well as highlighting his mediating role between the Duke and the local landed communities, Ogilvie’s statement also draws attention to a further important aspect of the Duke’s ‘interest’: the Duke’s role in the ‘police’ of the counties in which his estates lay. In doing so it also emphasises the fact that the concept of ‘interest’ to a landed grandee such as Buccleuch went beyond questions of political and electoral influence to encompass their broader influence over the counties in which their estates lay and, more particularly, over those who lived upon them. In contemporary usage, the term ‘police’ could refer to a broad range of governmental responsibilities, ranging from public sanitation and the regulation of markets to the maintenance of public order and the prevention of crime.92 While the management of the estate involved all of these definitions to some degree, it was above all the issue of social order that came to concern the Duke and his agents. The legal powers of the baron baillies, the estate officials traditionally responsible for maintaining order and upholding the landowner’s jurisdiction, had been severely curtailed by the abolition of heritable jurisdictions in 1746.93 The South Country estate baillies, who had been reduced from five officers to two during the Duke’s initial reforms, retained the power to regulate the local fairs and markets, but, as Adam Ogilvie later noted, were powerless to protect the game or fisheries ‘much less the peace and good order of the country’.94 Indeed, as Ogilvie pointed out, what authority they did have rested ‘almost entirely on the character and respect, which the person who holds it, bears among the people’.95 But despite this decline in legal authority, the estate continued to exert an important influence over the behaviour of those living within its bounds.96 As previously mentioned, the character and standing of tenants within the wider community had long been a consideration in letting policy on 91

NRS GD224/30/12/12–13, Adam Ogilvie to John Davidson, 16 Apr. 1787. F. M. Dodsworth, ‘The Idea of Police in Eighteenth-Century England: Discipline, Reformation, Superintendence, c. 1780–1800’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 69, 4 (2008), 583–604; D. G. Barrie, Police in the Age of Improvement: Police Development and the Civic Tradition in Scotland, 1775–1865 (Uffculme, 2008), 1–15. 93 For the traditional role of baron baillies, see I. D. Whyte, Agriculture and Society in Seventeenth-Century Scotland (Edinburgh, 1979), 44. 94 NRS GD224/257/1, William Ogilvie’s Accounts, 1767; NRS GD224/659/5/58, Adam Ogilvie to Duke, 4 Jan. [1803]. 95 NRS GD224/659/3/48, Adam Ogilvie to Duke, 19 Feb. 1792. By the early 1800s Ogilvie was arguing that his office should in future be combined with that of Sheriff Substitute. NRS GD224/659/5/57, 58, Adam Ogilvie to Duke, 23 Nov. 1802, 4 Jan. [1803]. 96 One aspect of this was estate officials acting in a legal role. William Keir, for example, on the Duke’s request, served as a Justice of the Peace. NRS GD224/657/1/62–3, Keir to Buccleuch, 16 Jun. 1787. 92

­

Interest (1767–1812) 167

the estate, and moral judgements over the social behaviour of tenants could lead to their removal, while good behaviour could be rewarded.97 But the general idea of improvement also contained an important moral component, where the goal was not only to improve the material conditions of those concerned but also to modify their conduct and ‘improve’ their moral condition.98 Just as the stadial conception of history proposed by Smith and his contemporary Scottish thinkers drew direct parallels between social and economic organisation and the progress of a society’s ‘manners’ or morals, the economic development of a region could be seen as a barometer of its inhabitants’ progress from ‘rudeness to refinement’, with improvement widely regarded as a civilising force and the improved landscape as tangible evidence of a society’s progress.99 This point was made explicitly by the minister of Canonbie in his summation of the Duke’s improvements there for the statistical account: not only had the spirit of industry been ‘roused’ and ‘the face of the parish beautified’, but the parish’s inhabitants ‘in point of civilisation’ had also been ‘proportionally improved’.100 An important element of this moral improvement was the way in which estate policy could be used not only to enforce property rights and combat social disorder, but also to encourage more disciplined work patterns. One area where this would become increasingly evident was the estate’s attempts to deal with the connected issues of poaching and trespassing. From the early 1780s the estate embarked on what was to become a concerted campaign to stamp out unauthorised hunting on the estate.101 It became a particular preoccupation with the Duke, who vowed to ‘spare neither expence or trouble’ in detecting the people who destroyed his game, describing the clampdown as ‘the most urgent proceeding I ever

97

NRS GD224/657/2/46–7, Keir to Duke, 5 Oct. 1798; NRS GD224/657/1/31, Keir to Duke, 17 May 1775. 98 Tarlow, Archaeology of Improvement, 12. 99 For Smith, the proportion of improved and cultivated land in a country could be taken as an almost infallible indication of a nation’s progress from ‘barbarism’ to ‘civilisation’. WN I.xi.n.3. See also Wade Martins, Farmers, Landlords and Landscapes, 7; Tarlow, Archaeology of Improvement, 35. For Scottish stadial history and its relationship to agriculture, see N.  Davidson, ‘The Scottish Path to Capitalist Agriculture 3: The Enlightenment as the Theory and Practice of Improvement’, Journal of Agrarian Change, 5, 1 (2005), 1–72. 100 OSA (Canonbie), vol. 14, 417–18. 101 As in England, the right to hunt animals termed as ‘game’ in Scotland (defined as hare, muir fowl, heath fowl, partridge, pheasant, ptarmigan, and snipe) was based on a property qualification outlined in seventeenth-century legislation. In practice, however, the game laws were less restrictive (and less draconian) in Scotland and most landowners had the right to hunt on their own land, and to empower others to do the same, while legislation introduced in 1772 had specified penalties for those not qualified to hunt caught in possession of game. P. B. Munsche, Gentlemen and Poachers: The English Game Laws, 1671–1831 (Cambridge, 1981), 188; Game (Scotland) Act 1772, 13 Geo III c.54; Anon., A Candid Inquiry Into the Present State of the Laws Relative to the Game in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1772).

168

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

knew’.102 In addition to annual advertisements published in the press for the preservation of the Duke’s game, 500 notices were printed and delivered by the chamberlain to every tenant on the estate – so ‘that none may pretend ignorance’ – ordering that they would be expected to inform the estate’s gamekeepers of any incidents of trespassing or poaching, and warning them ‘not to harbour or lett houses to any known poacher or destroyer of the game’ unless they wished to incur the Duke’s ‘highest displeasure’.103 Around the same time, the Duke’s head gamekeeper was ordered to cultivate good relations with the shepherds on the farms near his ‘game resorts’, and to offer ‘proper encouragement’ to those who helped protect the game.104 In the spring of 1785 a new regulation for the Duke’s ‘salmon and fishings’ on the river Esk in Dumfriesshire was drawn up, which allocated fishing rights to those tenants whose farms lay adjacent to the river for a yearly rent, with each tenant then assuming responsibility for policing their stretch of the river.105 When that plan proved ineffectual, a new scheme was devised which divided the river between three or four of the Duke’s principal tenants and made them responsible for prosecuting at their own expense all those who ‘committed trespass by fishing’ on the river.106 The reasons behind the crackdown were partly pragmatic and can be seen as part of the wider trend towards stricter game preservation that developed throughout Britain in the second half of the eighteenth century in response to the growing popularity of field sports and the more intensive game management that this required.107 Although as early as 1767 the Duke had appointed two gamekeepers for his South Country estates, the 1780s campaign against poaching marked the beginning of a more focused attempt to develop the sporting potential of his estates, particularly those near his summer residence at Langholm.108 A new head gamekeeper was appointed in 1782, while later in the decade Langholm Castle was rebuilt as ‘Langholm Lodge’, its new name emphasising its recreational and sporting use.109 Around the same time, pheasant and black grouse were introduced to the surrounding woods and moors, the access to which became more

102

NRS GD224/655/2/47, Duke to Keir, 23 Oct. 1783. NRS GD224/659/2/3, William Ogilvie to Duke, 29 Nov. 1783. 104 NRS GD224/655/2/49, Duke to Keir, 19 Nov. 1783. 105 NRS GD224/657/1/55, 56, Keir to Duke, 22 Apr., 4 May 1785; NRS GD224/655/2/53, Duke to Keir, 21 May 1785. 106 NRS GD224/657/1/97–8, Keir to Duke, 20 Sep.  1792; NRS GD224/522/3/33, Papers relative to the Esk Fisheries, 1792 [hereafter, Esk Fisheries, 1792]. 107 Munsche, Gentlemen and Poachers, esp. chapter 2. 108 NRS GD224/257/1, William Ogilvie’s Accounts, 1767. It was also around this time that the Duke founded the Lothian Hunt, based at Dalkeith. J. H. Rutherfurd, The History of the Linlithgow and Stirlingshire Hunt 1775–1910 (Edinburgh and London, 1911), 68. 109 For the building of Langholm Lodge, designed by James Playfair, and begun in 1787, see NRS GD224/657/1/61, 78, 80–1; NRS GD224/655/2/61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 70, 71. 103

­

Interest (1767–1812) 169

strictly controlled.110 Similarly, a major factor behind the introduction of tighter controls over the Duke’s fisheries was to protect the spawning salmon and their young and to ensure they became ‘more equally distributed over the river’.111 However, as far as the Duke himself was concerned, there were more fundamental principles at stake than the preservation of game and the estate’s response to poaching became increasingly concerned with issues of property rights, law and order, and the ability of the Duke to uphold his authority over those living on his estates. All of these issues were brought to the fore by an incident which took place on the Canonbie estate in late November 1785. William Keir reported that the overseer of the Duke’s colliery there had gathered a large number of the ‘idle people’ of the area and hunted with dogs and greyhounds through ‘all the farms in the neighbourhood . . . breaking down fences both in the farms & round the plantations’, with the incident apparently inspiring others to take ‘liberties of the same kind’.112 An incensed Duke described the mass trespass as a ‘violent transgression against the law and the property of the country’, and urged for the swift prosecution of offenders. ‘The game is not the object with me,’ the Duke asserted. ‘I want to teach the people of that part of the country a proper subordination to the laws of the country and a proper respect for my orders in so far as I have authority to give them.’113 In addition to the blatant flouting of the Duke’s proclamation on unauthorised hunting, the practice of hunting with dogs was incompatible with the newly improved landscape. Writing a few years later, the author of the General View of the Agriculture of Dumfries went so far as to list it as the first of his ‘principal obstacles to improvements’.114 But there was also a symbolic aspect to the destruction of fences and hedges around the recently enclosed fields and plantations that the hunt entailed. The hunt had involved the deliberate destruction of one of the most visible elements of improvement, the enclosure, and all the restrictions and limitations that it implied. It was surely no accident that the incident took place on the Canonbie estate, the scene of the Duke’s earliest and most radical reforms, or that it involved the ‘idle people’ of the area, the people whose lives must have been directly affected by the changes involved in the ‘new arrangement’ of the estate.115 Indeed, the description of the participants as ‘idle’ highlights the important moral aspect of the estate’s clampdown 110

NRS GD224/655/2/34, Duke to Keir, 12 Aug. 1782; NRS GD224/657/1/67, 68–9, Keir to Duke, 14 Apr., 6 Jun. 1788; NRS GD224/659/4/85, Adam Ogilvie to Duke, 13 Aug. 1799. 111 Esk Fisheries, 1792. 112 NRS GD224/657/1/60, Keir to Duke, 29 Nov. 1785. 113 NRS GD224/655/2/56, Duke to Keir, 8 Dec. 1785. 114 Johnston, General View, 85–6. See also NRS GD224/522/3/3, Printed Notice, 1799. 115 Although there is only one previously recorded case of the deliberate breaking down of fences – in April 1776 – Keir did note the particular difficulty of keeping fences that lay next to roads intact. NRS GD224/657/1/35, Keir to Duke, 24 Apr. 1776. For more examples of this form of resistance to landlord authority, see Whatley, Scottish Society, 155–8.

170

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

on illegal hunting. One of the most frequently voiced justifications for the stricter enforcement of game laws was the fear of the moral consequences of poaching among the lower orders. Not only was poaching seen as a gateway to further crime, but the ‘idleness’ of the way of life it encouraged and, in particular, the ability it gave to live without the regular discipline of work were held to undermine both the individual’s morality and the wider social order.116 Whereas ‘sporting’ for the gentry was seen as a fitting or even noble pursuit, for ‘men of small worth’ it was regarded as a direct route to a life of crime and moral degeneracy.117 These concerns were particularly relevant for an estate whose improvement was predicated on the imposition of new, more regulated and regimented work practices, something that was made explicit in the correspondence surrounding the regulation of the Duke’s fisheries. In proposing his new regulation to curtail illegal fishing, the primary reason Keir gave was not the preservation of fish stocks but the effect that the practice of fishing was having on the behaviour of the ‘tradesmen & labouring people in the country’. Such was the ‘passion they all have for fishing’, Keir argued, and so great was the ‘idleness’ occasioned by its practice, that only a more effectual system of regulation could ‘check that licentious idle spirit which so much prevailed in the country’.118 The new leases drawn up for the fishing rights also made it explicitly clear that the ‘particular motive’ of the Duke for letting the fishings was ‘to prevent tradesmen and labouring people from spending their time (which may be more usefully employed about their own business) in the idle amusement of fishing’.119 The right to fish, however, was widely held as a customary right, with the Duke’s own chamberlain having previously described it as ‘a benefit and a privilege hitherto enjoyed even in the worst of times’, and earlier perceived encroachments had been fiercely resisted.120 The response to the estate’s clampdown on poaching seems to have been just one of a number of areas where collective action was used to protest against what were seen as encroachments upon customary rights and traditional practices. Whether it was over the right of access to a newly divided commonty,121 the ‘liberty’ 116

Bryce Johnston, for example, described those who hunted with dogs with no regard to enclosures or livestock as ‘idle and thoughtless persons, many of whom have no other qualification than an aversion to industry and regularity’. Johnston, General View, 85; Munsche, Gentlemen and Poachers, 53–4. 117 Munsche, Gentlemen and Poachers, 53–4. 118 NRS GD224/657/1/97–8, Keir to Duke, 20 Sep. 1792. 119 Esk Fisheries, 1792. 120 For example, see NRS GD224/459 pp.  90–3, Narrative of . . . attempt to destroy Mr. Graham’s dam head across the river Esk, Dec. 1769; NRS GD224/657/1/49, Keir to Duke, 11 May 1780; NRS GD224/655/2/50, Duke to Keir, 29 Nov. 1783. 121 See NRS GD224/389/2/18, William Grieve to Archibald Campbell, Oct. 1767; NRS GD224/389/2/5, William Ogilvie to Archibald Campbell, 12 Jan. 1768. For the Duke’s long-running dispute with the town of Hawick over its commonty, see R. Wilson, A Sketch

­

Interest (1767–1812) 171

to quarry sand from a particular river bank,122 or even the forcible eviction of an unpopular toll keeper from his small holding,123 the ‘people below’ were willing to resist the changes associated with ‘improvement’ where it impacted on their perceived traditional rights. Furthermore, with the advent of the French Revolution, this resistance to the estate’s authority was to be given a new ideological edge. There was more than a hint of this in the response of a group of people caught fishing by one of the Duke’s tenants in 1792, who when challenged replied ‘very insolently’ that they would fish there ‘when ever they were inclined and they did not apprehend that he, or even your Grace, had any right to hinder them’. When Keir had attempted to make an example of the men by beginning legal proceedings, they had been defended by a subscription ‘raised in the country amongst a set o[f] people of the same description’.124 The previous year, the influence of radical ideas was even more overt in what was described as ‘a rebellion’ over the payment of the poor rates in New and Old Langholm. A group of twenty-eight residents, described as being ‘of the lowest classes’, had refused to pay their quotas, and when others followed and the revolt became widespread, the Duke’s baron baillie took legal action against the ringleaders. In his written defence, the leader of the revolt, a lint dresser named John Stewart, argued that the heritors had no right to collect such sums. ‘Such assumed rights and impositions might have passed unnoticed in this country in times past,’ he continued, ‘but this is the age of inquiry, wherein arbitrary power is held in contempt, and the Rights of Man begin to be understood and vindicated.’125 The following year several of the same men were involved in what was described as a ‘daring & seditious riot’ in the town, part of the wave of radical activity that swept Scotland in the second half of 1792.126 On the afternoon of Friday, 9 November, a dozen or so men who styled themselves the ‘Revolution Club’ congregated at a bonfire at Langholm Cross to celebrate the success of the French’s recent victory at Jemappes. Three public toasts were drunk, reported as being ‘success to the French Revolution’, ‘George the third and last king’, and ‘liberty and equality to all the world’, each followed by a general discharge of the guns they were carrying. That evening, candles were set up in the windows of the club members’ houses, and a mob of boys were sent through the streets ‘to oblige all the inhabitants to illuminate their windows’, breaking the windows of those who of the History of Hawick (Hawick, 1825), 182–7; J. Wilson, Annals of Hawick, 1214–1814 (Edinburgh, 1850), 154–5, 158–61, 366–73. 122 NRS GD224/657/2/23–4, Keir to Duke, 16 Jul. 1797; NRS GD224/657/2/42, Keir to Duke, 15 Jun. 1798. 123 NRS GD224/268/13, Craigie’s accounts, 1767–8. 124 NRS GD224/657/1/97, 98, Keir to Duke, 20 Sep. 1792; Esk Fisheries, 1792. 125 NRS GD224/522/46, Miscellaneous papers, 1791–1805. 126 NRS GD224/522/46/3, List of names of those refusing to pay poor rates, Whitsunday 1791.

172

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

refused to comply.127 Ten days later, the Duke’s friend and Dumfriesshire neighbour Sir William Maxwell of Springkell wrote to the Duke describing the overall situation in the county as a matter of ‘national concern’. According to Maxwell, ‘unknown emissarys of sedition’ had been ‘sowing the seeds of discontent, faction and rebellion’ amongst the lower classes of the people and Paine’s pamphlet – or at least ‘the cream and substance of it’ – was now ‘in the hands of every countryman’. Medals of liberty and equality had been sent to several ministers, and the riot in Langholm was merely an indication of ‘the seditious inclinations of the lowest people of this country in general’. From Maxwell’s account there was also an important agrarian element to the unrest, with the promise of land redistribution and ten acres to each person being regarded as one of the major causes.128 Although noting that, on the whole, the people of Langholm were ‘very moderate & peac[e]ably inclined’, Adam Ogilvie concurred with Maxwell that there had been ‘a very large importation & great demand of Paine’s abridgement’, adding that ‘the common people are wonderfully agog about reformation’.129 The panic over radicalism was, however, short lived. By December Maxwell could report that ‘the spirit of sedition’ had ‘visibly declined of late’ and that the ‘very low class’ of the people had now ‘lost sight of the absurd doctrine of equality’. Furthermore, the farmers and other ‘more respectable parts of the commons’ had rallied behind their ‘superiors’ and seemed happy to adopt ‘whatever measures may be recommended . . . for the protection of their lives and property’.130 However, the events of late 1792 together with the entry of Britain into war with France the following year do seem to have marked an important watershed in the estate’s overall attitude towards issues of social order and the threat of unrest. This would be particularly evident in another area of the Duke’s public life that had strong links to his estates – his military role. The relationship between the Buccleuch estates and military service had a long history; in the turbulent period prior to the seventeenth-century pacification of the Borders, the Scotts of Buccleuch had routinely raised sizeable private armies, and the need to retain a large following had remained an important consideration in the overall tenurial policy of the

127

NRS GD224/657/1/101, Keir to Duke, 13 Nov. 1792; NRS GD224/31/6/17, Sir William Maxwell to Duke, 19 Nov. 1792. John Stewart and two others were tried by the Sheriff Deputy and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment. NRS GD224/522/46, Miscellaneous papers, 1791–1805. 128 The other key issue was an end to taxation. NRS GD224/31/6/17, Sir William Maxwell to Duke, 19 Nov. 1792. See also H. W. Meikle, Scotland and the French Revolution (Glasgow, 1912), 99n. 129 NRS GD224/657/3/1/66, Adam Ogilvie to Duke, 16 Dec. 1792. For the role of cheap editions of Paine’s Rights of Man in the unrest, see Harris, Scottish People, 79–80. 130 NRS GD224/31/6/18–19, Sir William Maxwell to Duke, 17 Dec. 1792.

­

Interest (1767–1812) 173

estate.131 Even after the Union of the Crowns, traditions of military service had continued, with both Lord Scott and the 1st Earl of Buccleuch raising men for their regiments in the Netherlands in the first half of the seventeenth century. More recently, the 2nd Duke had called out his Dalkeith tenantry to assist in the defence of Edinburgh from the Jacobite attack in 1745, while during the 3rd Duke’s own minority, Charles Townshend had instructed estate officials to assist in the recruitment of men for British regiments serving in Germany.132 This connection between the estate and recruiting became even more evident after the raising of the 3rd Duke’s fencible regiment in 1778. The regiment recruited actively in the counties in which the Duke’s estates lay, with Langholm, Branxholm near Hawick, and Dalkeith all acting as recruiting centres, while estate officials, including the chamberlains, acted as recruitment officers.133 The month the regiment was formed the Duke’s tenants in the parishes of Canonbie and Langholm entered into a subscription to give ‘every assistance in their power’ to promote the success of this ‘most patriotick design’. Within two days Canonbie alone had raised £100 to be used as an additional bounty for every man from their parish who enlisted in the regiment, and Keir reported that he believed that the tenants from every other part of the estate shared their sentiments and would soon follow suit.134 Although the Duke declined the offer, arguing that a bounty might do more harm than good, he noted the behaviour of his tenants had not only given him ‘the greatest pleasure’ but was a validation of his approach towards his tenants in general: I have always wished much to gain the affections of those living on my estate, I am sure I have upon all occasions considered their ease and happiness before any pecuniary advantage to myself. The return they wish to make me upon this occasion is much more satisfactory to me than any raise, or increase of rental they could have offered me.135 By the 1790s, however, the relationship between the Duke’s military concerns and those living upon his estates had become less straightforward, as issues of national defence, social order, and loyalty to the constitution became key elements of military policy and recruitment. Following the outbreak of war with revolutionary France in 1793, the Duke would once again play a central role in organising both home defence and the Scottish loyalist campaign against radicalism. As an active and energetic lord lieutenant, first of Midlothian (1793–1812) and then of Roxburgh (1804–12), he oversaw the arrangements for local defence, including the organisation 131

Fraser, Scotts, 95, 151; Dodgshon, ‘Agricultural Change’, 51. Fraser, Scotts, 235, 253–9, 486; NRS GD224/91/1 p. 13, Mackenzie to Craigie, 16 Jun. 1761. 133 M. M. Lodge, ‘The Militia Issue: The Case of the Buccleuch Fencibles, 1778–1783’, unpublished M.Litt thesis (University of Edinburgh, 1985), 81, 86, 106, 110, 114. 134 NRS GD224/655/2/12, Keir to Duke, 9 May 1778 [copy]. 135 NRS GD224/655/2/13, Duke to Keir, 10 May 1778. 132

174

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

Figure 6.1:  ‘For the honour of Scotland’. The Duke’s raising of his Southern Fencible Regiment in 1778 saw him hailed in the press as the country’s ‘great’ or ‘universal chief’ and the defender of her martial heritage. The Duke expended a great deal of time, energy, and money on his military duties and would go on to play a key role in the organisation of Scotland’s volunteer defence forces during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. Henry, 3rd Duke of Buccleuch, on horseback in the uniform of the South Fencibles, Martin Ferdinand Quadal (1780). Reproduced by courtesy of His Grace the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.

of volunteer forces, and, after 1797, the raising of the militia, while his son and heir, Lord Dalkeith, held the same position in Selkirkshire (1794–7) and Dumfriesshire (1797–1819).136 In addition to holding a number of personal commands, most notably as colonel of the 10th or Edinburgh North British Regiment of Militia, the Duke was also an influential member of the small group of officials and ‘notables’ who advised government on military affairs in Scotland.137 136

For the full role of the lord lieutenant, see Whetstone, Scottish County Government, 95–111. For the leadership and zeal of the 3rd Duke’s lieutenancy, see Harris, Scottish People, 142, 149. 137 R. C. Dugeon, History of the Edinburgh, or Queen’s Regiment Light Infantry Militia (Edinburgh, 1882), 21–58; J. E. Cookson, The British Armed Nation, 1793–1815 (Oxford, 1997), 140; J. R. Western, ‘The Formation of the Scottish Militia in 1797’, The Scottish Historical Review, 34, 117 (1955), 1–18; Brown, ‘Henry Dundas’, 223–4; D. J. Brown, ‘The Government

­

Interest (1767–1812) 175

The issue of military organisation was one that the Duke gave much thought to, particularly in light of the 1792 disturbances. He shared Dundas’s enthusiasm for the system of lord lieutenants and was an early proponent of the scheme which would see the introduction of the system of lord lieutenancies on the English model.138 This was to become the key innovation of Dundas’s scheme for Scottish home defence and loyalist organisation; with the initial role of encouraging and directing volunteer forces in each county, the lord lieutenant would act as the apex of local organisation and go on to play a vital role in the implementation of the Militia Act in 1797.139 Furthermore, with their hierarchy of deputy lieutenants, constables and assistants, the lieutenancies also worked as an effective arm of local government, reporting back on such issues as crop returns and the political state of the county.140 Indeed, with the position invariably going to the senior noble of the county, the system came close to Dundas’s and Buccleuch’s political ideal of a system of government based on landed supremacy; in effect, the appointment formalised the magnate’s standing as the leading authority in the county while the patronage opportunities of the system further bolstered their position.141 But for the Duke and his associates the social make-up of the forces raised under the system was also a vital concern. Indeed, according to Sir William Maxwell, this was something that the Duke discussed in some detail with his old tutor, Adam Smith, before his death in 1790. By Maxwell’s account, Smith recommended to the Duke a ‘plan for the establishment of a Constitutional Army’, one which Maxwell, writing in November 1792, believed would be the ‘best of all safeguards’ for the defence of the country from either ‘foreign invasion or intestine commotions’.142 Smith’s attitude towards militias and voluntary military forces was a complex one; despite backing earlier attempts to pass a Scottish militia, in 1778 he had been publicly criticised – in a pamphlet dedicated to Buccleuch – for arguing in the Wealth of Nations that a full-time standing army was superior to a modern Response to Scottish Radicalism, 1792–1802’, in Harris (ed.), Scotland in the Age of the French Revolution, 114. 138 NRS GD224/31/6/18–19, William Maxwell to Duke, 17 Dec. 1792. 139 Brown, ‘Government Response’, 109; A. Gee, The British Volunteer Movement, 1794–1814 (Oxford, 2003), 21–7. 140 Harris, Scottish People, 230; NRS GD224/31/13/15, Duke of Buccleuch to Duke of Portland, 4 Dec. 1794 [copy]; NRS GD224/588/6/7, Duke of Buccleuch to Duke of Portland, 16 Nov. 1795 [copy]. 141 Whetstone, Scottish County Government, 98–9; Cookson, British Armed Nation, 134; J. E. Cookson, ‘The Napoleonic Wars, Military Scotland and Tory Highlandism in the Early Nineteenth Century’, The Scottish Historical Review, 78, 205 (1999), 60–75. On Dundas’s pride in the system, see Brown, ‘Government Response’, 110. 142 NRS GD224/31/6/18–19, William Maxwell to Duke, 17 Dec. 1792. The precise date of Smith’s discussion with the Duke is unclear, but Sir William Maxwell dined with Smith and the Duke at Dalkeith House on six occasions between August 1788 and February 1789. NRS GD224/1085/1, Dalkeith House Day Book, 1775–98.

176

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

militia.143 Smith, however, argued that he had been misrepresented, and indeed elsewhere in the Wealth of Nations he had made the case for the importance of maintaining a ‘martial spirit’ in the general population, for both moral and practical reasons.144 This was no doubt one of the reasons why he, along with Buccleuch and other members of the pro-militia Poker Club, had been a founder member of the ‘Antigallacian Society’, established in 1780 to promote martial skills and ‘manly exercises’, and why he had continued to support a Scots militia.145 The term ‘constitutional army’, as mentioned by Maxwell, was not used by Smith in any of his published writings and it is unclear what this may have referred to.146 The term ‘constitutional force’, however, was used in correspondence to the Duke regarding the volunteer forces that were being raised after 1794, and its use seems to have referred to both the social composition of the force and their proposed role. From their inception, the volunteer corps had been envisaged as a force that would consist mainly of men of property and their dependants; although formed ostensibly to defend against foreign invasion, it was acknowledged that a key part of their role would be the maintenance of internal order, and as such the loyalty and social composition of such units were of high importance.147 This was partly a pragmatic response to the fear of radical infiltration and recruits were carefully vetted for political loyalty; as Buccleuch himself noted, ‘To render them [the volunteers] useful against the attacks of a foreign enemy, and harmless with regard to ourselves requires great attention and superintendence’.148 But from the outset there also seems to have been a conscious aim of creating a ‘constitutional force’: one which would bring together the landed classes and their tenantry, reinforcing the existing hierarchy while strengthening the bonds between them.149 Writing in May 1794, the Duke’s friend, former fellow Poker Club member and future MP John Rutherfurd of Edgerston, argued that had 143

A. Carlyle, A Letter to His Grace the Duke of Buccleugh, on National Defence (London, 1778). Smith’s comments regarding the superiority of ‘a well-regulated standing army’ to a militia are made at WN V.i.a.23, 28, 39. 144 Smith discusses the attack in a letter to Andreas Holt in October 1780, Corr. no. 208. For his comments regarding the need to maintain a martial spirit, see WN V.i.f.59–60. For a summary of the issues, see R. B. Sher, ‘Adam Ferguson, Adam Smith, and the Problem of National Defense’, The Journal of Modern History, 61, 2 (1989), 240–68; Robertson, Militia Issue, 216–25. 145 Caledonian Mercury, 2 Feb. 1780. 146 The most that can be gleaned from Smith’s writings is that he believed any measures to encourage martial virtues and exercises would have to be far more universal and involve more of the population than those of a modern militia, but he gave no real indication of what form such a force should take. WN V.i.f.58–60; Sher, ‘National Defense’, 255. 147 Whetstone, Scottish County Government, 103; Brown, ‘Government Response’, 110; Brown, ‘Henry Dundas’, 179. 148 Brown, ‘Government Response’, 110; letter to Dundas in early 1797, quoted in Harris, Scottish People, 155. See also Gee, Volunteer Movement, 124. 149 Gee, Volunteer Movement, 22–5, 116.

­

Interest (1767–1812) 177

the Duke been chosen as the lord lieutenant of Roxburghshire (the position had gone to the Duke of Roxburgh), he believed that they would have ‘raised a real constitutional force, consisting of the gentlemen & principal farmers of the County, that in point of numbers & respectability, would have been second to none in the Kingdom’.150 Later that year Rutherfurd would go on to explain that the ‘general idea’ behind the force being organised was ‘that the Cavalry should consist of the Gentleman, Yeomanry, principal farmers, & a few of the chief inhabitants of the towns’, while the ‘inrolled men’ or infantry would be drawn from ‘the best of the next rank in society that can be pitched upon’.151 The long-term importance of forging these links between the landed classes and farmers in Scotland was made explicit in a letter written by Dundas to the Duke three years later in the summer of 1797, where he argued that the defence of the constitution after the end of the war with France would depend ‘in great measure’ on the ability to ‘raise and keep up in the country . . . the spirit of yeomanry corps, and these by forming a connection between the gentlemen of rank and the yeomanry in England, and the persons of rank and the substantial farmers in Scotland’.152 However, despite Rutherfurd proudly describing the Roxburgh Yeomanry as ‘our farmer cavalry’ as early as December 1794, on the whole tenant farmers seem to have been reluctant to serve during the first wave of volunteering, and it was only after the invasion threat of 1796–7 that they became increasingly active in home defence.153 Early in 1797 the first of several public offers by groups of farmers was made volunteering logistical support to the government in the form of the free use of their carts and horses, a proposal that Dundas described as ‘a most valuable addition to the strength of the country’ and which he envisaged would play a valuable part in his overall defence plans.154 Even more importantly, the number of tenant farmers signing up to serve with the volunteer corps also increased markedly from this point, with farmers going on to make up the majority of many volunteer units, particularly the voluntary cavalry or yeomanry.155 150

NRS GD224/31/14/2, John Rutherfurd to Duke, 12 May 1794. NRS GD224/31/14/3, John Rutherfurd to Duke, 13 Jul. 1794. For similar arguments for the militia as ‘an agent of social solidarity’ during the earlier militia agitation, see Robertson, Militia Issue, 135, 144. 152 NRS GD224/30/3/9–11, Dundas to Duke, 10 [Jun. 1797]. See also NRS GD224/30/3/12– 16, Dundas to Duke, 17 Jun. 1797; J. R. Western, ‘The Volunteer Movement as an AntiRevolutionary Force, 1793–1801’, The English Historical Review, 71, 281 (1956), 603–14. 153 NRS GD224/31/14/5, John Rutherfurd to Duke, 5 Dec. 1794; Brown, ‘Government Response’, 110. 154 A. L. Wold, ‘Loyalism in Scotland in the 1790s’, in U. Broich, H. T. Dickinson, E. Hellmuth, and M. Schmidt (eds), Reactions to Revolutions: The 1790s and Their Aftermath (Münster, 2007), 123–4; Henry Dundas to Robert Dundas, 7 Mar. [1797], printed in Meikle, Scotland and the French Revolution, 280. 155 In 1798 the Haddington Yeomanry Cavalry was ‘almost entirely [made up] of substantial 151

178

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

In all of this, the active leadership and support of the Duke was regarded as crucial for securing the involvement of the gentry and the tenant farmers. As one correspondent noted to the Duke on his appointment as lord lieutenant, urging him to return from London as soon as possible, ‘there must be a keystone to the arch – a rallying point, somebody to look up to & resort to, which in the state we are now in is absolutely necessary’.156 Earlier that year John Rutherfurd had argued that if the Duke had been appointed as the lord lieutenant of Roxburghshire, ‘the principal farmers, would have gone heartily into’ the yeomanry, but as the Duke of Roxburgh had been less enthusiastic, the gentlemen connected to him had also held back and ‘without several of the Gentlemen come forward to shew the way, it could not be expected that the farmers would turn out’.157 Three years later, when it was announced publicly that Buccleuch had returned his subscription papers for the Roxburgh Yeomanry unsigned, Adam Ogilvie reported the consternation and anxiety that had followed amongst his friends in the county: ‘All of them have taken an active part in the internal defence of the county, with your approbation hitherto; some of them on your account and through your influence,’ adding that the landowners of the county, particularly those who resided in and around Edinburgh, ‘seem to hang upon your Grace’s example’.158 Dundas’s concern went even further, arguing not only that the Duke’s friends would ‘instantly’ follow his example but that ‘the phlegm may spread over other parts of Scotland’.159 In reply, the Duke explained that his delay in subscribing had not been caused by any reluctance to contribute but rather by his uncertainty over the appropriate amount he should pledge; in addition to Roxburghshire and his own lieutenancy of Midlothian, the counties of Dumfries and Selkirk would also require (and expect) his assistance, not to mention the two volunteer infantry battalions under his personal command in Midlothian and the Musselburgh and Dalkeith volunteers. The Duke ended by pledging £300 to the Roxburgh volunteers, adding that ‘I shall with pleasure add to it if you think more would be required hereafter. I never give my money to public or private uses from ostentation[:] I wish to do what is right and proper from purer intentions.’160 This was not mere posturing on the Duke’s part. In a letter complaining about the practice of deducting expenses from the rental before it had reached the Duke, an increasingly frustrated Ogilvie remarked in 1798 that ‘the Duke may expend a whole year’s rent, upon highroads & armaments, Farmers, whose Possessions cover a wide extent of Country’. Quoted in Whetstone, Scottish County Government, 150, n134. See also Harris, Scottish People, 150, 232. 156 NRS GD224/31/13/8, Baron Archibald Cockburn to Duke, 30 May 1794 [emphasis in original]. 157 NRS GD224/31/14/1, John Rutherfurd to Duke, 18 Apr. 1794. 158 NRS GD224/659/4/15, Adam Ogilvie to Duke, 11 Jun. 1797. 159 NRS GD224/30/3/9–11, Henry Dundas to Duke, 10 [Jun. 1797]. 160 NRS GD224/659/4/11–14, Duke to Adam Ogilvie, 13 Jun. 1797 [copy].

­

Interest (1767–1812) 179

if his patriotism shall exceed his prudence; but it would not be just, to make him believe, that his estate had produced nothing for that year’.161 Although Ogilvie was exaggerating, the Duke’s financial commitment to the war effort was undoubtedly a substantial one and acted as a drain on estate income.162 Indeed, according to Dundas, it was Buccleuch’s remark that he would happily give up nine-tenths of his income rather than submit to an unfavourable peace that was the inspiration behind Pitt’s voluntary contributions scheme of 1797–8, and for the remainder of the war the Duke pledged £6,000 a year to the scheme.163 But beyond his financial commitment, there were also other ways in which the Duke’s military concerns impacted on the management of his estate. As had been the case with the Duke’s fencible regiment, his estate personnel were once again actively involved in the recruitment and organisation of volunteers drawn from the estate.164 But whereas the fencible regiment had been drawn overwhelmingly from the labouring and artisan classes, the recruits for the volunteer corps were very consciously drawn from the ranks of his substantial tenants.165 Indeed, such was the concern with the social position and perceived loyalty of the recruits that the effectiveness of the forces raised became almost a secondary consideration. Writing in March 1797 on the proposal to raise a troop of volunteer cavalry from Eskdale, William Keir reported that he believed that ‘all our tenants of the sheep farms within the age, & their sons, will enroll to a man’. The reasoning behind the raising of a cavalry unit, Keir noted, was Sir William Maxwell’s opinion that there would be less likelihood of ‘getting disaffected people amongst them’ than if they attempted to raise a body of infantry. Keir, who would go on to serve somewhat reluctantly as the troop’s commanding officer, remained sceptical, however, of the farmers’ ability to get their horses trained ‘to act together’ and doubted the effectiveness of such an ‘irregular body of cavalry’. Moreover, he also believed it would be quite possible to raise 200 men for an infantry corps from the same district without any fear of taking on any ‘disaffected people’.166 Despite Keir’s

161

NRS GD224/659/4/56, Adam Ogilvie to William Cuthill, 12 Sep. 1798. Between September 1794 and September 1795, for example, the Duke gave a total of £1,254 in contributions towards raising voluntary cavalry in the counties of Roxburgh, Selkirk, and Dumfries. NRS GD224/269/31, John Davidson’s accounts,1794–5; for his contributions to the militia regiments, see Whetstone, Scottish County Government, 148. 163 NRS GD224/30/3/17–18, Dundas to Duke, 19 Jun. 1797; NRS GD224/30/4/1–7, Dundas to Duke, 27 Jan. 1798; Brown, ‘Henry Dundas’, 228. The scheme, which asked ‘persons of affluence’ to contribute a fifth of their income to help pay for the war effort, is usually credited to the speaker of the House, Addington. J. Ehrman, The Younger Pitt: Consuming Struggle, vol. 3 (Stanford, 1996), 107–8. 164 NRS GD224/657/2/49, Keir to Duke, 6 Dec. 1797; NRS GD224/659/4/16, Adam Ogilvie to Duke, 17 May 1797. 165 Lodge, ‘Militia Issue’, 87. 166 NRS GD224/657/2/10–11, Keir to Duke, 15 Mar. 1797. 162

180

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

reservations, it was decided to press ahead with a yeomanry corps of around fifty men which was formed the following year.167 The Duke’s involvement in military affairs is a key example of what Richard Drayton has described as ‘agrarianist defence schemes’: the idea that ‘local loyalties would stiffen resistance to any riot or invasion, and the relations of agricultural production – of magnate to large tenant to yeoman – could be converted into a military chain of command’.168 There could be no more potent symbol of this than William Keir, ‘Overseer of Improvements’, riding out at the head of the yeomanry corps formed from the Duke’s sheep farmers of Eskdale. Events in the meantime would push these issues of loyalty and social order even further to the fore. In August 1797 widespread rioting broke out across the country when the Scottish Militia Act was implemented. Some of the worst unrest came in the counties where the Duke’s estates lay, with serious disturbances reported in Roxburghshire, Selkirkshire, and Dumfriesshire.169 The Duke was staying with his family at Langholm Lodge when the unrest broke out, and although he had previously argued against the Act and had warned of a possible backlash, he was clearly taken aback by the scale and extent of the disturbances that followed.170 At nearby Canonbie, where a mob of 300 young men had forcibly removed the ballot lists from the schoolmaster’s house, the Duke personally intervened, meeting the heads of around thirty local families in an attempt to restore order and prevent further violence. Recounting the events in Canonbie and what he described as the ‘open rebellion’ that had taken place in nearby Annandale, the Duke wrote, ‘God knows how this will end. Thank God all my tenants are [a] quiet well-affected people, and attached to my family.’171 When he was summoned to Edinburgh to help coordinate the government’s response, the Duke left the Duchess and his daughters at Langholm under the protection of his tenants. Despite his professed faith in his tenantry and numerous assurances of loyalty, however, the Duke did acknowledge that if his family had to flee, they were well situated to quickly pass over the border to England.172 Although the government in Scotland held its nerve and the disturbances over the militia proved short lived, the events of the summer of 1797 167

NRS GD224/657/2/38, 48, Keir to Duke, 28 Mar., 24 Oct. 1798. R. Drayton, Nature’s Government: Science, Imperial Britain and the ‘Improvement’ of the World (New Haven, 2000), 102. 169 K. J. Logue, Popular Disturbances in Scotland, 1780–1815 (Edinburgh, 1979), 79, 84; R. W. Weir, A History of the Scottish Borderers Militia (Dumfries, 1877), 3, 4. 170 As part of the committee instigated to discuss the possible implementation of a Scottish militia, the Duke had argued strongly against it. Brown, ‘Henry Dundas’, 223–4. 171 Duke of Buccleuch to Duke of Portland, 27 Aug. 1797, quoted in Weir, Scottish Borderers, 3–4. 172 Quoted in Weir, Scottish Borderers, 3–4; NRS GD224/657/2/25–6, Keir to Duke, 31 Aug. 1797; NRS GD224/657/2/27, John Armstrong to Captain George Maxwell, [Aug. 1797]. 168

­

Interest (1767–1812) 181 provided yet more evidence of the potential volatility of the ‘people below’. Writing at the end of the year, Ogilvie confided to the Duke that I confess, that for five years past, I have thought, that every year has discovered stronger symptoms of the danger we are in of having a revolution in the government of this country; or at least of a disposition fomenting somewhere to undermine, and at length overturn it. I am sorry to think, that should such an attempt ever be made, there is considerable portion of the common people not to be depended on . . . The conflagration, which the Militia Act occasioned displayed the worst proof of the dispositions of the common people, & had the worst effect upon their minds; the flame has ceased, but I fear that the embers are not quite extinguished; and I dread and depreciate every thing that may revive a similar seen. Nothing can be worse than to give the people an idea of their own power; and how little their betters are able to controul them with a military force.173

For Ogilvie, the key issue was the attempts that had been made to ‘break their attachment to their betters, & to withdraw them from that influence and subordination on which good government depends’.174 And it was these concerns that would increasingly influence the management strategy pursued on the estate during the final years of the Duke’s administration. The implications of these concerns, however, were not always straightforward. On the one hand, the need to keep the tenant farmers ‘on-side’ could manifest itself in a reluctance to force through the kind of sweeping changes that improvers like Keir saw as necessary, resulting in tension between the seemingly conflicting demands of ‘improvement’ and ‘police’. Adam Ogilvie’s reluctance to implement Keir’s new regulation of the sheep farms in the early 1790s was at least in part due to his concerns over how the reforms would affect relations with the tenantry. His choice of language when he described the potential impact of the reforms on some of the tenants as being ‘too like that of the French Revolution upon the nobles and clergy’ was surely not accidental.175 Similarly, he was keen to make the point that improvements should not be prioritised above the Duke’s wider social and political concerns. Writing on the need to provide an additional stipend to quickly fill a vacant parish on the estate, he argued that a long vacancy without the influence of a minister would ‘give room for seceding interlopers’ and thus ‘have a bad effect among such an ungoverned crew’; he summarised his position by noting that ‘bad roads are easier mended than bad religion’.176 On the other hand, the food shortages and rising prices of 1795–6 and 173

NRS GD224/659/4/1, Adam Ogilvie to Duke, 27 Dec. 1797. NRS GD224/659/4/1, Adam Ogilvie to Duke, 27 Dec. 1797. 175 NRS GD224/659/3/35–6, Adam Ogilvie to Duke, 15 Nov. 1791. 176 NRS GD224/659/3, Adam Ogilvie to Duke, 23 Feb. 1790. 174

182

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

more especially 1799–1801 and the associated disorder also brought home the urgent need to increase national food production.177 Concerns over the connection between food shortages and social unrest were of course nothing new. Following the run of bad harvests from 1782 to 1784, Dundas had confided to the Duke that ‘both as a Politician and an Individual I lament the prospect of a bad season’. ‘Nothing is so apt to sour the minds of the Governed against their Governors as empty Bellies,’ he added, ‘whence on a year of plenty they look upon every thing with a favourable eye.’178 The heightened political tensions of the 1790s, however, made the shortages of that decade an even more pressing concern. Although the food shortages and price rises of 1795–6 seemed to have had less impact on the Duke’s estates than elsewhere in the country, those of 1799–1801 proved much more serious and led to the active intervention of the estate.179 As in 1795–6, bad weather and poor harvests were at the root of the 1799– 1801 shortages. As early as June 1799 Keir was reporting that the sheep farms had been badly hit by the weather, while incessant rain from August through to November led to late and poor harvests across the country.180 Before the end of the year Ogilvie was warning the Duke to expect ‘a very extraordinary demand’, not only for the ‘ordinary poor’ but for labourers and tradesmen with families. By February almost every parish in the South Country estates had applied for assistance to raise an ‘extraordinary fund’ to deal with the effects of what Ogilvie described as ‘a most calamitous season for the lower class of the people’; in the parish of Canonbie alone, the minister reported that there were sixty-seven labourers and their families requiring assistance in addition to the ‘ordinary poor’.181 By the spring, building work on the Langholm estate had to be stopped because the carters’ horses were too weak from the lack of corn.182 On 20 April Ogilvie reported that there was only a very small amount of meal or potatoes for sale in Langholm and that oatmeal had been scare in Hawick for weeks. At the same time there were also growing fears of unrest, with the baron baillie of Langholm reporting that the people there had shown ‘a strong disposition to rise in mob’ and were demanding to search the storerooms of certain farmers believed to be hoarding grain. In response, Ogilvie urged the farmers in Eskdale to bring any surpluses they could spare to town to sell, while the baron baillie went so far as to authorise the seizing of meal that 177

For a detailed account, see Harris, Scottish People, 185–222. NRS GD224/30/1/1–4, Dundas to Duke, 24 Aug. 1784. For the deteriorating weather and poor harvests from 1782 onwards, see Devine, Transformation, 74, 75; A. G. Dawson, So Foul and Fair a Day: A History of Scotland’s Weather and Climate (Edinburgh, 2009), 141–7. 179 On the 1795–6 shortages, see Harris, Scottish People, 195–205. For the Duke’s assessment, see NRS GD224/588/6/7, Duke of Buccleuch to Duke of Portland, 16 Nov. 1795. 180 NRS GD224/657/2/58, Keir to Duke, 12 Jun. 1799; Harris, Scottish People, 206; Dawson, So Foul and Fair, 151. 181 NRS GD224/659/4/96, Adam Ogilvie to William Cuthill, 18 Feb. 1800. 182 NRS GD224/657/2/66, Keir to Duke, 6 Aug. 1800. 178

­

Interest (1767–1812) 183

was believed to be intended for dealers rather than for the local market.183 On a report that there was neither meal nor grain for sale in Hawick, Ogilvie managed to convince a dealer – ‘partly, by persuasion, partly by authority’ – to sell his supplies of pease. He then proceeded to organise the shipment of pease and barley meal from Newcastle and Berwick to be sold at various locations around the estate in order, as he put it, to help quell those who were inclined to ‘make want worse by riot and depredations’.184 Although these and other interventionist measures proved successful and were followed by a better harvest, fears over further shortages continued into the next year. In January, a farmer’s carts were attacked by a crowd near Langholm acting on a rumour that he was intending to buy up the meal from the market there to sell in Teviotdale. His servant was beaten and his two carts destroyed before the mob returned to the marketplace to break the windows of a house belonging to another meal seller.185 The baron baillie feared that unless an adequate military presence was quartered in the town there would be further mobs, and there were concerns that the trade between Eskdale and Teviotdale would be stopped altogether.186 In response the Sheriff of Dumfriesshire sent twenty dragoons to keep the peace and personally led the investigations into the rioting.187 For Ogilvie, the Langholm riot was yet more evidence of the pressing need to establish what he described as ‘some ideas of good order & subordination in Eskdale’.188 Although Keir saw the military response as an overreaction, the general unrest caused by the food shortages only served to strengthen his conviction that further improvements were essential if agrarian production was to be maximised and the social order maintained. This was the immediate context in which Keir drew up his 1802 improvement plan for the Duke’s upland estates. With its emphasis on utilising every available piece of land for arable production together with its plan to extend the estate’s road network, it was designed specifically to increase the arable production of the estate while at the same time expediting the delivery of its produce to the wider market.189 Improvement had always been a moral imperative for Keir, but by the early years of the new century it had become nothing less than a matter of national survival.190 Indeed, 183

NRS GD224/659/4/104–5, Adam Ogilvie to William Cuthill, 20 Apr. 1800; Harris, Scottish People, 193. 184 NRS GD224/659/4/104–5, 107, Adam Ogilvie to William Cuthill, 20 Apr., 16 May 1800. 185 NRS GD224/659/5/1, Adam Ogilvie to William Cuthill, 23 Jan. 1801; Logue, Popular Disturbances, 33. 186 NRS GD224/659/5/2, Adam Ogilvie to William Cuthill, 25 Jan. 1801. 187 NRS GD224/657/2/86–7, Keir to Lord Dalkeith, 28 Jan. 1801. 188 NRS GD224/659/5/1, Adam Ogilvie to William Cuthill, 23 Jan. 1801. 189 NRS GD224/590/1/1, Report concerning the improvements proposed to be made upon the Duke of Buccleuch’s Estate in the County of Selkirk, William Keir, Sep.  1802. See Chapter 5. 190 NRS GD224/657/2/67–79, Keir to Duke, [Dec. 1800]; Continuation of Keir’s Report [1802].

184

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

the wartime economy effected a discernible shift in the nature of Scottish agrarian patriotism. Whereas in the earlier part of the century, catching up with England had been the driving factor, by the 1790s agrarian improvement had become an integral part of the war effort against France, with the ‘Scottish’ element increasingly subsumed into a wider British patriotism.191 Despite his uncompromising attitude towards improvement, Keir was still acutely aware of the other, extra-economic aspects of the landlord-tenant relationship, and of the potentially destabilising effects of agrarian change. And it was this awareness of the need to reconcile the goals of improvement with the other elements of the landowner-tenant relationship that would come not only to shape his thinking on improvement but to directly influence the management strategy of the Buccleuch estates during the latter stages of the 3rd Duke’s administration. As discussed earlier, Keir’s radical scheme to equalise the rents of the estate’s sheep farms can be seen as a conscious attempt to apply the insights of contemporary political economy to the improvement of a great estate, and these ideas – particularly those of Adam Smith – continued to influence his thinking. His analysis of the price rises and food shortages of 1799–1801, for example, was couched in recognisably Smithian terms, with Keir arguing that their primary cause had been the system of ‘speculation and monopoly’ which was now ‘almost universally adopted by all our mercantile people’. Whereas many local officials – including Adam Ogilvie – were arguing for more intervention to ensure that markets remained supplied and social unrest contained, in Keir’s opinion it was the ‘impolitic interference of government’ in the form of grain bounties on imports that had exacerbated the situation in the first place, distorting what would otherwise have been the ‘natural progress’ of goods from the producer to the consumer.192 Nonetheless, despite his broad agreement with the general principles of Smith’s economic thinking, there remained for Keir important limits as to how far the principles of the free market could be applied to the management of a great landed estate. Nowhere were these reservations more evident than in his criticism of what, for Smith, had been a central tenet of his thinking on agricultural improvement – the idea that land should be brought into the market like any other commodity.193 As discussed earlier, this idea lay at the very heart of the agrarian reforms suggested by Smith such as his call to abolish the practice of entail. The ultimate aim of this was to encourage the break-up of large estates, thereby opening up the land market to those who had made their money 191

Whyte, Landscape and History, 74–5; Tarlow, Archaeology of Improvement, 51. Continuation of Keir’s Report [1802]. The view that speculative practices were behind the shortages and high prices were widely held at this time; see Harris, Scottish People, 209–11. 193 Keir presented his criticisms in some detail to the Duke as part of his 1802 report into the proposed improvements on the Duke’s Selkirkshire estate. Unless otherwise stated, the following summary is based on this report. Continuation of Keir’s Report [1802]. 192

­

Interest (1767–1812) 185 elsewhere. These entrepreneurs, according to Smith, would be much better suited to the task of improving their land for profit than the great hereditary landowners; the improvement of land was, after all, just another ‘commercial project’, and so men such as merchants, with their commercial drive and willingness to invest, should make the best improvers of all.194 For Keir, however, it was precisely the influx of this class of men into land ownership that was undermining the traditional relationship between landowner and tenant, a process he believed not only hampered improvement but ultimately risked the breakdown of the social order. Whereas Smith argued that the qualities these men had drawn upon to make their fortunes – their prudence, parsimony, and willingness to invest – made them ideal improvers, Keir stressed the negative aspects of a commercial outlook when applied to the running of a landed estate.195 Rather than the virtuous attributes emphasised by Smith, Keir believed that the defining characteristics of such men – he singled out merchants, imperial adventurers, and lawyers in particular – were their overriding drive for profit, their ‘worship’ of gold, and their generally ‘covetous’ and ‘avaricious’ dispositions. Although he argued that such ‘upstarts’ primarily bought into land in order to enhance their social and political position and ‘obtain some permanent influence in society’, their desire to extract the maximum return from their investment in the shortest possible time soon manifested itself in their approach to estate management. Drawing on their commercial experience that public competition was the best means to achieve the highest price for any article, Keir argued that as soon as they were able to they tended to bring their farms into the public market and offer them to the highest bidder, showing what he described as a total disregard for ‘all the distress which they thereby occasion, to all the old inhabitants residing upon the estate’. Keir had long been a critic of using this method to set farms. From a pragmatic perspective he argued that the competition of auctions invariably led to inflated levels of rents being offered, leaving tenants unable to properly stock their farms and struggling to pay their rent, let alone find the surplus capital necessary to improve their farms. But there was a further consequence to this practice that Keir believed was, if anything, even more damaging in the long run. By reducing the traditional relationship between tenant and landlord to what was in effect a purely legal one, with no guarantee that the tenant would not be replaced by a higher bidder at the end of his or her lease, Keir believed that any improvements that were carried out would tend to be temporary, calculated to secure the greatest possible profit in the short term but ultimately leaving the farm in a worse state than it was in before. The negative effects of what Keir termed this ‘covetous mercantile practice’ would have been bad enough if it had been limited to the estates owned by such ‘upstarts’. But according to Keir such practices were now spreading 194 195

WN III.ii.7, III.iv.3. WN III.ii.7.

186

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

to other estates through the influence of legal advisors and expert ‘land doctors’, who, he argued, had managed to ‘insinuate’ themselves into ‘the principal management of almost every great estate in Scotland’. Through the influence of such men, the established landed classes were being persuaded that the only way to achieve the ‘true’ value of their estates (and cash in on the rising prices) was to set their farms to the highest bidders. It was this that was leading to what Keir considered to be the most profound consequence of these practices – the dissolution of the ‘natural bond’ that existed between the landowner and his tenants. As Keir explained, in terms that, given the initial attempt to reform the estate under Smith’s guidance, must have had a particular resonance for the Duke: By these advertisements which they publish in the name of the proprietor soliciting people from distant parts of the country, to come forward and make offers for any farms which are then out of lease . . . they certainly make him declare to all the world, that he has now no regard whatever for the comfort and happiness of the old tenants upon his own estate, (who have perhaps lived under himself and his predecessors, generation after generation, for many ages past,) and that he cares not how soon this ancient and natural connexion between his own family and theres is dissolved.196 It was this break in the connection between the landlord and his tenants that most concerned Keir and which came to dominate his later thinking on tenurial strategy and improvement. Whereas Smith had argued that land was ‘most likely to be well managed’ when it was ‘in commerce’ and frequently changed hands,197 Keir argued the precise opposite: that the process of buying and selling land and the related practice of setting farms to the highest bidders undermined what he saw as the self-evident, God-given natural order. Moreover, he argued that these attitudes would percolate downwards, with tenants following the example of their superiors and happily bidding against each other in the same way they would ‘a boll of oats in the public market’. In addition, the relationship between the tenants and their dependants would also be adversely affected. ‘If their natural superior oppresses them’, Keir reasoned, ‘they in their turn are just as ready to oppress those lesser members of the state who depend upon them’ until the ‘lower orders of mankind’ also lost their ‘allegiance to their superiors’. Furthermore, by weakening the traditional bonds between them, the landowner would destroy that ‘confedence and influence which he ought always possess in the minds of his tenants’, an influence that Keir regarded as ‘absolutely ne[essary] for the peace and proper government 196

Continuation of Keir’s Report [1802]. See also NRS GD224/657/2/84–5, Keir to Duke, 24 Jan. 1801. 197 LJ(A) i.166.

­

Interest (1767–1812) 187

of the country’.198 Crucially for Keir, this would in turn also undermine the landowner’s power over his tenants in respect of the management and improvement of their farms. ‘Is it possible’, he asked, ‘that any regular system of permanent improvement can be carried on in the country . . . if this useful body of men (the tenants) are permitted to be kicked about like a tennis-ball, as they now are?’199 The extent to which his attempt to reconcile the demands of agricultural improvement with the need to maintain landowner influence and social stability had come to dominate Keir’s thinking is most clearly revealed in his proposals to alter the tenurial strategy of the estate, a plan that would come to be known as his ‘system of benevolence’.200 Keir’s proposal, first outlined to the Duke in a letter of December 1800, was radical in that it challenged a key tenet of the prevailing improving orthodoxy that had dominated Scottish agrarian thinking for much of the previous century, namely the necessity of granting long, improving leases. As discussed earlier, the ability to set such leases had been at the core of the Duke’s initial reforms and had remained a key part of the estate’s improvement strategy ever since.201 Keir, however, had always been more sceptical of the efficacy of long leases on the grounds that they provided less immediate incentive for the tenant to improve and also tended to lessen the landowner’s control over the tenant’s behaviour.202 Although his initial recommendations to use shorter leases on the arable estates during the 1770s were not adopted, it was almost certainly through his influence that the sheep farms were set on shorter, nine- to twelve-year leases at the new arrangement of 1792 rather than the longer ones recommended by the Duke’s other advisors.203 By this time Keir was also beginning to question the effectiveness of the husbandry clauses contained in such improving leases, arguing that the law courts were unable or even unwilling to enforce them.204 A few years later, when the improving leases of part of the Canonbie estate came up for renewal, Keir recommended that as the tenants had been unable to complete the improvements stipulated in their leases, it would be better not to issue new leases but rather to renew the tenure of the farms annually until all the improvements were completed. The Duke concurred and the tenants continued for four years under the conditions that Keir had suggested.205 It was this approach that formed

198

NRS GD224/659/5/103, Keir to Adam Ogilvie, 25 Mar. 1804. Continuation of Keir’s Report [1802]. 200 The term was coined by Adam Ogilvie. NRS GD224/659/5/17, 18–19, Ogilvie to Duke, 3 May, 6 May 1801. 201 See Chapter 3. 202 See NRS GD224/657/1/7, 9, Keir to Duke, 7 May, 21 Jun. 1773. 203 See Chapter 5. 204 Esk Fisheries, 1792. 205 NRS GD224/459 pp.  224–6, 227–8, Memorial respecting a new settlement with the 199

188

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

the basis of Keir’s benevolent system, the details of which he outlined in a long letter to the Duke in December 1800. Some years ago I took the liberty of proposing to your Grace to grant leases upon a different plan from what has generally been practised by other landlords, in order to preserve that influence which your Grace ought always to have over the conduct of every person who lives upon your estate. And the present state of the country seems to require, that every exertion should be made to give this natural influence its full and natural effect . . . After bestowing much thought upon the subject for many years, I flatter myself, that I shall now find little difficulty in convincing your Grace that it is not proper for you to grant any leases at all: and that whenever leases are granted, they must unquestionably have the effect to deprive the landlord, of that influence which he ought always to maintain over the conduct of every person who lives upon the estate.206 Keir had come to the conclusion that the kind of ‘regular system of permanent improvement’ he believed was necessary could only be realised by utilising the full extent of influence that the landowner could exert over his tenants. To encourage improvement as a long-term, ongoing process, it was not enough to set in place the kind of institutional framework that would incentivise tenants to improve, either through the setting of optimum rent levels or by the legal stipulations of a finite lease. From Keir’s perspective, the relationship between the tenant and the landlord had to go beyond a merely economic and legal one; the tenants had to realise that their leases had not been granted because they had offered the highest rent, but rather that they held their farms solely through the favour of their ‘benevolent’ landlord. Paradoxically, Keir believed that the best way to give tenants the kind of long-term security required to encourage them to improve their farms was to keep them ‘dependent under the dread’ of the Duke’s ‘displeasure’; only then would the landlord be able to ensure that tenants carried out the requisite improvements on their farms.207 As long as they lived in a ‘quiet peaceable and industrious manner’, they could be assured that they would be ‘perfectly secured in the peaceable and undisturbed possession’ of their farms.208 In some respects, this move from written, long leases to annual leases was a reflection of what was already happening in the more progressive farming areas of England, where long leases had been falling out of favour from the tenants, William Keir, Oct. 1795; Memorandum for Mr Keir, respecting the farms of Canonby, 11 Nov. 1795. 206 NRS GD224/657/2/67–79, Keir to Duke, [Dec. 1800]. 207 NRS GD224/459 p. 269, Abstracts of statements, Jan. 1801. 208 NRS GD224/657/2/67–79, Keir to Duke, [Dec. 1800].

­

Interest (1767–1812) 189

1780s.209 What sets Keir’s policy apart, however, is the particular emphasis he placed on the need to reinforce the Duke’s ‘natural influence’ over the ‘minds and conduct’ of those living on the estate, something that was to be by no means limited to matters of improvement and land management.210 In his letter of December 1800 Keir suggested that the Duke should issue a general declaration to the tenants and ‘every other individual’ living upon the estate, assuring them that, as long as they shall continue to regulate their conduct by the law of nature, which is no other but the revealed law of God: to be sober, peacable, and industrious, and faithfull and honest in all their dealing with one another; and to behave in every other respect like virtuous, orderly, dutyfull, and peacable subjects; and obey such other rules and regulations as may at any time appear to you to be necessary for the general interest, and happyness of the country, to require them to observe; that they shall never be by you disturbed in the quiet and peaceable possession of their respective farms. By Keir’s proposals, anyone who failed to conform to the estate’s strictures in terms of their conduct or ‘the general improvement of the estate’, or who was found ‘habitually guilty of intemperance, or other immoral and disorderly conduct’, would lose their farms and be expelled from the estate.211 Although in some respects Keir’s ‘benevolent system’ can be seen as a direct response to the particular demands of the war-time economy and the associated social unrest of the later 1790s, his proposals were in fact the culmination of much of his earlier thinking. One of the central aims of his 1792 plan to equalise the rents of the sheep farms had been to enable the Duke to set his farms at what would be a demonstrably ‘moderate’ rent, in order to create the optimum conditions to encourage the farmer to improve. But a further goal of the plan – and one which Keir held to be just as important – had been to ensure that the tenants would be made fully aware that their rent had been set at such a level not through any ignorance as to the ‘real’ value of the farms, but solely because of the Duke’s ‘liberal sentiments’ towards them. Thus, with the tenants aware of their debt to their paternalistic landlord, and suitably grateful to him, Keir argued that the Duke would maintain a much higher level of control and influence over the behaviour of his tenants than would be attainable through a strictly economic or legal relationship. As he explained to the Duke: No man feels more pleasure than I do in the contemplation of your Graces indulgence to your tenants; but I must own, I would be glad to see the tenants made sensible, that they owe every indulgence of this 209

Beckett, ‘Landownership’, 612–13. NRS GD224/459 p. 269, Abstracts of statements, Jan. 1801. 211 NRS GD224/657/2/67–79, Keir to Duke, [Dec. 1800]. 210

190

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

kind to your Graces goodness, and not to the want of knowledge of the value of their farms.212 This was also why Keir repeatedly stressed the importance of new tenants being made aware that they had been granted farms by the Duke’s direct favour and not through the influence of any third party. Failure to do so, he noted, ‘would have a tendency to destroy, or at least weaken, that influence which your situation ought to give you over the minds of those people who are dependent upon you’.213 Similarly, the idea that the social and moral conduct of those living upon the estate should be more directly under the Duke’s influence can be traced back to earlier policies which had already been put into practice. As part of the estate’s clampdown on poaching, stipulations had appeared in the leases of the Canonbie estate from the mid-1780s reserving cottars’ cottages on tenants’ farms for the Duke, giving him the power to dispossess those who acted with ‘impropriety’, particularly with regard to poaching or hunting with dogs.214 This had later been extended to the principal tenants themselves, with a clause added to new leases that meant tenants, as one commentator noted, ‘even of a suspicious character’ were ‘in danger of losing their farms at the expiry of the lease’.215 The system was then applied to the residents of the Duke’s planned village of New Langholm with the express purpose of ‘suppressing all idle and disorderly practices within the bounds of [the] estate’. Here, the ‘lotted land’ that had been set to the tenants as part of their building leases, and had since expired, was from now on to be set annually. If any tenants were found guilty either of disobeying the rules that the Duke had set for ‘the regulation of conduct’ or of allowing any sub-tenants to remain under them who were known to be guilty of any of the prescribed ‘disorderly practices’, they would be removed from their lotted land, with the forfeited holdings set to those tenants who had shown themselves deserving by their ‘peaceable and orderly conduct’.216 Keir’s proposed system, therefore, was an attempt to generalise policies that were already in place on certain parts of the estate, policies that had been explicitly designed to bolster the ‘connection’ between the Duke and his tenants and thereby increase his influence over their economic and moral behaviour. From this perspective, far from undermining social relations, improvement, as part of a programme of benevolent landownership, could actually serve to strengthen them.217 212

NRS GD224/657/1/77, Keir to Duke, 26 Feb. 1790. NRS GD224/657/2/59, Keir to Duke, 27 Sep. 1799. See also NRS GD224/657/2/55–6, 99–104, Keir to Duke, 19 Apr. 1800, 20 May 1801. 214 NRS GD224/657/1/60, Keir to Duke, 29 Nov. 1785. 215 OSA (Canonbie), vol. 14, 431. 216 NRS GD224/522/3/31, Notice to the inhabitants . . . of the newtown of Langholm [n.d. but post 1790]. For a similar suggestion to use tenancies ‘at will’ to control tenant behaviour in Ayrshire, see Devine, Transformation, 66. 217 For the concept of ‘benevolent improvement’ within contemporary conservative English 213

­

Interest (1767–1812) 191 Despite comments by Adam Ogilvie that four months after proposing his scheme he was already systematically implementing it upon the Duke’s lowland estate of Wilton, it seems that Keir’s proposals were only ever put into practice on a relatively small number of farms on the arable estates while the vast majority continued to be set by way of written leases.218 Nonetheless, the leases set by the Buccleuch estate did continue to be significantly shorter than those of neighbouring estates.219 Furthermore, the other aspects of Keir’s system of leasing, with its emphasis on the link between ‘influence’ and ‘improvement’ and its aversion to letting farms by public auctions, seem to have remained as the underlying rationale behind the estate’s distinctive leasing policy. Writing in 1810 in the last of his four articles on the management of the Buccleuch estates for the Farmer’s Magazine, the Reverend William Brown outlined the Duke’s particular system of setting farms. The Duke’s method, he argued, was designed to give an ‘equitable rent of land’ that allowed the tenants interest on the capital that they had invested along with ‘a decent subsistence’ to themselves and their families. In contrast with the widespread practice of setting farms by public auctions – which according to Brown not only broke down the ‘connexion’ between landlord and tenant, but was also responsible for the inflated level of rents across the country – the Duke ‘absolutely prohibited’ all bidding for farms.220 Instead, when a vacancy arose, the tenant was usually selected by way of a private recommendation and the farm entered into ‘on the general conditions by which the rest are held’. Brown defended the system against criticisms that the Duke never received the true value of his land by arguing that the superiority of the Duke’s ‘mode of management’ could be summed up in the single word ‘security’, which Brown described as ‘the grand charm that binds the tenantry to his Grace’. It was a system, Brown argued, that benefited both the Duke and his tenants; the tenants were able to ‘improve without the fear of being ejected’ and were so secure in their tenure that ‘their farms are looked upon as a species of inheritance; and they tryst that they shall descend to the children’s children’. As Brown summed up, ‘so long as they behave properly, have a son to heir them, and can pay their rent, they have nothing to fear’.221 From the Duke’s perspective, the system not only ensured a contented and thriving tenantry, and a well paid rent roll, but also allowed him to maintain a far greater influence over them. And, as Brown was keen to writing, and the idea that improvement could be used to preserve the existing social system, see N. Everett, The Tory View of Landscape (New Haven, 1994), 82–90. 218 NRS GD224/659/5/17, 18–19, Adam Ogilvie to Duke, 3 May, 6 May 1801. Annual tenancies were still in place on a number of farms on the Canonbie estate at the end of the Duke’s administration. NRS GD224/527/2, Accompt of Charge and Discharge, 1810–12. 219 NSA (Wilton), vol. 3, 79; (Castleton), vol. 3, 446; (Eskdalemuir), vol. 4, 408; (Langholm), vol. 4, 424. 220 Brown, ‘Improvements on the Duke of Buccleuch’s Estate’, 8–9, 11. 221 Brown, ‘Improvements on the Duke of Buccleuch’s Estate’, 11–12, 12n.

192

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

point out, this ability was particularly telling when it came to questions of political influence: In the late confusion about liberty and equality, it was pleasing to notice the extent of his power. While many other proprietors solicited their tenants, and were refused; his tenantry and their dependants came cheerfully forward. They found themselves happy under him and the existing government. They looked not at things with the jaundiced eye of discontent: and when they heard the democrat painting scenes of future bliss, – instead of being captivated with his sophistry, they coolly told him that they might be worse, but they could not be better than they were at present. Granting, therefore, the supposition, that the Duke at that time really drew not the full amount of his possession in gold and silver, I am certain that he drew it in a large return of gratitude and political influence. For, whilst proud and unfeeling proprietors secretly trembled at the threats of their discontented peasantry, his rallied round him, and were as willing to second his views as he was to propose them. I need scarcely add, that influence like this should not wantonly be destroyed, by the adoption of plans which the selfish, the needy, and the dissipated, have been forced to introduce.222 What is most striking about Brown’s idyllic account of the Duke’s benevolent paternalism is the extent to which estate management strategy in general – and agricultural improvement in particular – had become inextricably linked to questions of landowner influence, social stability, and political loyalty. Rather than negating paternalism, here improvement was envisaged as one of the central aims of a ‘benevolent’ land management strategy. Not only this, it was also envisaged as a means of reinforcing the bonds between landowner and tenant, the very bonds which, according to Keir and Brown, were threatened by the introduction of unfettered commercialisation and exclusively economic goals. That these concerns continued to be shared by the Duke himself is revealed by correspondence dating from the final years of his administration. On hearing that the Duke did not approve of his plans to erect a manufactory near the Duke’s Langholm property, his neighbour, George Maxwell of Broomholm, ventured that the Duke had perhaps ‘been somehow led to entertain an erroneous opinion respecting the establishment of manufactories’. ‘May I be permitted to ask’, Maxwell continued, ‘of what value would the landed property of the Kingdom be if the manufacture of its produce was not encouraged[?]’223 The Duke replied through his secretary that, while he by no means intended to oppose or interfere in any of Maxwell’s plans, the manufactories that had been established at 222 223

Brown, ‘Improvements on the Duke of Buccleuch’s Estate’, 12–13. NRS GD224/522/3/89/1, George Maxwell of Broomholm to William Cuthill, 22 Nov. 1808.

­

Interest (1767–1812) 193

Langholm had not only failed to raise the value of his lands there in any degree, but the ‘evils attended upon them’ had been ‘prejudicial to his property, and his residence there rendered very disagreeable if not disgusting in many respects’. But the Duke’s regrets over the development of the town’s industry – which he himself had previously encouraged – went beyond his disgust with what was later described as the various ‘trespasses & depredations’ that had sullied the woods and pleasure grounds of his rural retreat, to a more general critique of what he saw as the dangerous results of misguided political economy.224 As his secretary relayed, the Duke was of the belief that ‘manufactories in general’ had been ‘pushed too far in Great Britain’, to the extent that they were now ‘beyond the means of being supplied with food, even in abundant years of harvest’. Not only this, but as manufactories had ‘increased more rapidly than the improvement of land’, they had ‘withdrawn a great deal of the capital which ought to have been employed in the cultivation of the waste ground of the Kingdom’. The upshot of this advancement of industry over agriculture was that the slightest increase in the price of ‘the necessities of life’ inevitably would lead to ‘riot and disorder’ that would thereby ‘force the employer in to an advance [of] their wages, which when complied with is always followed by less work being done, and thus more opportunity is held out for idleness & dissipation’.225 On one level, Buccleuch’s opinions echoed his old tutor’s agrarian sentiments regarding the most rational deployment of resources in an improving country. But they also reveal the extent to which, for the Duke, agricultural improvement had become as much a social and political necessity as an economic one.

224

See also NRS GD224/522/3/53, Memorial by the manufacturers in Old and New Langholm, 7 Jul. 1809. 225 NRS GD224/522/3/90, William Cuthill to George Maxwell, 4 Jan. 1809.

Conclusion Henry Scott, 3rd Duke of Buccleuch, died aged sixty-four, at Dalkeith House on 11 January 1812. It was less than a year since the death of his old friend Henry Dundas, and only twelve months after he had finally inherited the Dukedom of Queensberry and the majority of the Douglas estates.1 At Langholm, the members of the Eskdale Farmers Club gathered in full mourning at their next meeting to pay their respect to their fellow member, while at Langholm church, its pulpit and gallery draped in black cloth, the minister delivered ‘an eloquent and faithful delineation of his Grace’s amiable and virtuous character’.2 A few weeks later, and in order to ‘consecrate to benevolence’ his father’s memory, the 4th Duke ordered that on the anniversary of his birthday each year, two guineas were to be awarded to each head of ten ‘poor labouring families’ in Langholm who had been recommended as ‘being most exemplary for good conduct, and bringing up their children in habits of peace, order, and industry, and by instilling into them moral and religious principles’.3 Although he had never been a self-publicist in the manner of Coke or Sinclair, the Duke’s reputation as an improver, already well established during his lifetime, if anything grew after his death. A notable feature of this reputation was the extent to which his role as an improver was invariably couched in terms of paternalism and benevolence. Obituaries praised his affable nature and accessibility while highlighting his role as ‘benefactor and friend’ to his tenantry; the Farmer’s Magazine argued that his ‘character and conduct’ as a landowner ‘ought to be known in every quarter, and imitated . . . by every great landlord of the United Kingdom’; more than fifty years after his death the Journal of Agriculture described how his devotion to improving his great estate had introduced ‘a golden age to himself and his tenantry’, claiming that his improvements had not only enhanced the value of his estates more than ‘any other property in Britain’ but had transformed the landscape from ‘a dreary desert’ into ‘a land of beauty’.4 Despite never achieving the popularity of his father amongst his tenantry, 1

For an account of his final illness, see NRS, Montagu Papers, GD40/9/244, Letters from Lord Montagu and Lord Dalkeith, Jan. 1812. 2 Caledonian Mercury, 16 Jan. 1812, 13 Feb. 1812. 3 Caledonian Mercury, 30 Apr. 1812. 4 Gentleman’s Magazine, 111 (1812), 92; Farmer’s Magazine, Mar. 1812, 136; The Edinburgh Magazine and Literary Miscellany, vol. 5 (Edinburgh, 1819), 287; Journal of Agriculture, Jan.– Jun. 1867, 348; Jul.–Dec. 1867, 33.

­

Conclusion 195

it was an approach that Charles William, the 4th Duke, consciously continued during his short tenure as Duke.5 If anything, paternalist strategies became even more central to estate management and public life under his son, the arch-Tory 5th Duke, William Francis. Duke William was actively involved in the attempts to revive Scottish Tory fortunes in the 1830s and 1840s through a resurgence of ‘aristocratic paternalism’ and adopted what has been described as a ‘paternalist regime’ in the management of his Midlothian collieries.6 An ardent improver, he continued the ‘benevolent’ leasing arrangements established under the 3rd Duke, and actively used land management policies to support his political interest.7 There was also a degree of continuity in the day-to-day management of the estate. William Keir had retired on a pension from the Duke in March 1810, exhausted by almost forty years of continuous work which by his own admission had required him to be ‘almost constantly on horseback’. He was succeeded by his son, William Keir Jr, who continued to apply his father’s principles to the management of the Duke’s Eskdale and Liddesdale sheep farms.8 Adam Ogilvie had died the previous year, reportedly mourned equally by the Duke’s tenantry and the ‘poor about Hawick’, with over fifty members of the Farmers Club in Teviotdale marking his passing by appearing in ‘deep mourning’.9 Ogilvie, too, would eventually be replaced by a family member, his nephew William Ogilvie.10 This book has argued that the management of the Buccleuch estates under the 3rd Duke is an important example of what T. M. Devine has termed ‘improvement from above’: one in which the proactive and interventionist role of the estate was central to the transformation of agrarian organisation and practice. However, whereas Devine has argued that the commitment of the landed classes in general to improvement was based ‘on the expectation of hugely increased profits from their lands which would cover the cost of their investment in a relatively short time’, this was clearly not the case

5

James Hogg, a close friend to the 4th Duke (1772–1819), argued his unpopularity was ‘solely owing to the change of times, over which no nobleman can have any controul’. J. Hogg, Altrive Tales, ed. G. Hughes (Edinburgh, 2005), 53; Edinburgh Magazine, 287–90. 6 J. A. Hassan, ‘The Landed Estate, Paternalism and the Coal Industry in Midlothian, 1800– 1880’, The Scottish Historical Review, 59, 167 (1980), 73–91; A. Tyrrell, ‘The Queen’s “Little Trip”: The Royal Visit to Scotland in 1842’, The Scottish Historical Review, 82, 213 (2003), 47–73. I am grateful to Dr Anna Groundwater for this reference. 7 NSA (Eskdalemuir), vol. 4, 408; I. G. C. Hutchison, A Political History of Scotland 1832–1924: Parties, Elections and Issues (Edinburgh, 1986), 2, 106; K. D. Reynolds, ‘Scott, Walter Francis Montagu-Douglas, fifth duke of Buccleuch and seventh duke of Queensberry’, in ODNB. 8 NRS GD224/657/3/1/14, William Keir Jr to William Cuthill, 8 Feb. 1812; NRS GD224/657/1/105–7, Keir to Buccleuch, 19 Dec. 1792; NRS GD224/588/4/46, Commission the Duke of Buccleuch to Mr William Keir Junr., 1 Mar. 1810. 9 Brown, ‘Plan for Improving’, 336–45. 10 Tancred, Annals of a Border Club, 339.

196

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

upon the Buccleuch estates.11 This is not to say that the improvement of the estate was carried out regardless of its long-term profitability or without the ultimate aim of increasing its value. The passing on of the estate to the next generation intact and, preferably, enhanced had to be the overriding goal in the management of any aristocratic property. And, certainly, by the end of the 3rd Duke’s administration the financial rewards of improvement were more than evident, with the annual gross rental of his Scottish estates standing at over £50,000 – and this excluding the £13,000 income from the recently inherited Queensberry estates.12 Duke Henry’s administration had seen the family emerge from the relative obscurity of the 2nd Duke to lay the foundations of what would by the final decades of the nineteenth century become the most valuable landed estate in Scotland. Including their English holdings, their estates generated an annual income of £232,000, placing the family in the top rank of what has been described as the new, ‘supra-national’ and ‘super-rich’ British elite.13 But, as this book has described, the overwhelming priority of the management strategy pursued by William Keir under the 3rd Duke was not to maximise rental income in the short term, but rather to effect the long-term improvement of the estate while simultaneously maintaining the family’s wider moral, social, and political influence. Economic constraints played an important role in determining the improvement strategy pursued, the lack of funds meaning that the vast majority of improvements were funded by the tenants themselves. But there was no sense in which the Duke’s straightened circumstances drove excessive rent rises or led to rack-renting. In fact, the charging of demonstrably moderate rents was a key part of the process, whereby the Duke’s perceived benevolence was seen as a vital way of exerting both economic and moral influence over his tenants. Indeed, under Keir’s proposals, far from undermining social relations, ‘benevolent improvement’ became seen as a way to reinforce the ‘natural connections’ between the Duke and those who lived upon his estates. As this book has argued, ‘improvement’ for the 3rd Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith was conceived of as a matter of public duty and patriotism as well as a means of personal gain: an area where private and national interests converged. However, under the management of the 3rd Duke and William Keir, the estate itself continued to be considered as much more than a purely economic entity, and concerns over the maintenance of the traditional ‘connections’ between the landowner and his dependants continued to play a central role. Indeed, by the end 11

Devine, Transformation, 61. NRS GD224/527/2, Mr Riddell’s accounts, 1810–12; NRS GD224/549/1, Dalkeith Rental, 1811. 13 By the 1880s the 5th Duke’s Scottish estates were estimated at over 420,000 acres and their landed income was second only to the Duke of Westminster. Beckett, ‘Landownership’, 619; J. Bateman, The Great Landowners of Great Britain and Ireland (London, 1883), 63; D. Cannadine, Aspects of Aristocracy (London, 1995), 11, 13–15. 12

­

Conclusion 197 of his administration ‘improvement’ had become an integral part of a paternalist strategy that sought to maintain and even enhance control over society during a period of dramatic social and economic change, a strategy that would continue into the very different circumstances of the later ­nineteenth century.

Bibliography MANUSCRIPT SOURCES National Records of Scotland Buccleuch Muniments, GD224 Forfeited Estates Papers, E777/333/15 Melville Castle Muniments, GD51 Montagu Papers, GD40 Papers relating to James Church, GD1/975 Records of the Meteorological Office, Scotland, MET The National Archives C 12 Court of Chancery Oxfordshire Record Office M1, Adderbury Manorial Records Maps and plans National Records of Scotland RHP181, Map of Wilton Common, 1764 RHP9629, Estate Survey, 1718 RHP13771, Plan for a garden at [Adderbury House?]: [18th century] National Library of Scotland EMS.s.34, Matthew Stobie, A Map of Roxburghshire or Tiviotdale, 1770 EMS.s.327, William Crawford, Map of Dumfries-shire, 1804

PUBLISHED PRIMARY SOURCES Newspapers and periodicals Caledonian Mercury Edinburgh Advertiser Edinburgh Evening Courant The Edinburgh Magazine and Literary Miscellany Farmer’s Magazine General Advertiser General Evening Post Gentleman’s Magazine

­

Bibliography 199 Journal of Agriculture Lloyd’s Evening Post The London Chronicle London Evening News Newcastle Chronicle Public Advertiser The Quarterly Journal of Agriculture The Scots Magazine Westminster Journal and London Political Miscellany Contemporary commentaries Anderson, J., Observations on the Means of Exciting a Spirit of National Industry: Chiefly Intended to Promote the Agriculture, Commerce, Manufactures, and  Fisheries, of Scotland. In a Series of Letters to a Friend (Edinburgh, 1777). Anon., A Candid Inquiry Into the Present State of the Laws Relative to the Game in Scotland. By An Admirer of Truth (Edinburgh, 1772). Anon., To the D. of B. When Your Grace Engaged in the Politics of E- (Edinburgh, 1777). Arnold’s Magazine of the Fine Arts, vol. 2 (London, 1831). Boutcher, W., A Treatise on Forest-trees (Edinburgh, 1775). Brown, W., ‘Authorized Improvements on the Duke of Buccleuch’s Estates in the Southern Districts of Scotland’, Farmer’s Magazine, 9, 34 (1808), 148–55.   ‘Improvements on the Duke of Buccleuch’s Estate: Regulations for Building Houses; Mode of Setting Land, Etc’, Farmer’s Magazine, 11, 41 (1810), 6–14.   ‘Improvements on the Duke of Buccleuch’s Estates’, Farmer’s Magazine, 9, 36 (1808), 471–80.   ‘Recent Plan for Improving and Beautifying the Hitherto Unimproved Parts of the Duke of Buccleuch’s Estates in the South of Scotland’, Farmer’s Magazine, 10, 39 (1809), 336–45. Carlyle, A., Anecdotes and Characters of the Times, ed. J. Kinsley (London, 1973).   A Letter to His Grace the Duke of Buccleugh, on National Defence: With Some Remarks on Dr. Smith’s Chapter on the Subject, in His Book Entitled An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (London, 1778).   A Letter to His Grace the Duke of Buccleugh, on National Defence to Which Is Now Added, A Postscript, Relative to the Regiments of Fencible Men Raising in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1778). Clark, G. (ed.), Gleanings From An Old Portfolio: Containing Some Correspondence Between Lady Louisa Stuart and Her Sister Caroline, Countess of Portarlington, and Other Friends and Relations, vol. 1 (Edinburgh, 1895).

200

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

Coke, Lady M., The Letters and Journals of Lady Mary Coke: 1756–1774, vols. 1, 2, 4 (Bath, 1970). Cregeen, E. R. (ed.), Argyll Estate Instructions, 1771–1805 (Edinburgh, 1964). Culley, G., Observations on Live Stock (London, 1786). Dalrymple, J., Considerations Upon the Policy of Entails in Great Britain (Edinburgh, 1764). Dickson, A., The Husbandry of the Ancients (Edinburgh, 1788). The Edinburgh Magazine and Literary Miscellany, vol. 5 (Edinburgh, 1819). Elibank, Baron P.  M., Considerations on the Present State of the Peerage of Scotland: Addressed to His Grace the Duke of Buccleugh. By a Peer of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1771). Elphinstone, Sir C. (ed.), A View on the Political State of Scotland in the Last Century (Edinburgh, 1887). Fordyce, J., Addresses to Young Men, vol. 1 (London, 1777). Hogg, J., Altrive Tales, ed. G. Hughes (Edinburgh, 2005).   The Shepherd’s Calendar, ed. D. S. Mack (Edinburgh, 2002). Home, H., The Gentleman Farmer: Being An Attempt to Improve Agriculture, by Subjecting It to the Test of Rational Principles (Edinburgh, 1776). Johnston, B., General View of the Agriculture of the County of Dumfries: With Observations on the Means of Its Improvement (London, 1794). Loch, D., Essay on the Trade, Commerce, and Manufactures of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1775). Mackenzie, H. (ed.), Prize Essays and Transactions of the Highland Society of Scotland, vol. 1, 2nd edn (Edinburgh, 1812).   Prize Essays and Transactions of the Highland Society of Scotland, vol. 3 (Edinburgh, 1807). Naismith, J., Observations on the Different Breeds of Sheep, and the State of Sheep Farming, in the Southern Districts of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1795). Pennant, T., A Tour in Scotland and Voyage to the Hebrides 1772, ed. A. Simmons (Edinburgh, 1998). Pinkerton, J., Select Scottish Ballads, vol. 1 (London, 1783). The Precipitation and Fall of Mess. Douglas, Heron, and Company, Late Bankers in Air: With the Causes of Their Distress and Ruin (Edinburgh, 1778). Roy, W., The Great Map: The Military Survey of Scotland 1747–55 (Edinburgh, 2007). Sandford, E. D., A Treatise on the History and Law of Entails in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1822). Scott, Sir W., Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border, vol. 1 (Edinburgh, 1802). Singer, W., General View of the Agriculture, State of Property, and Improvements, in the County of Dumfries (Edinburgh, 1812). Steuart, Sir J., An Inquiry Into the Principles of Political Oeconomy, vol. 1 (Edinburgh, 1767). Stewart, A. (ed.), The Minute Book of the Faculty of Advocates, vol. 46 (Edinburgh, 1999).

­

Bibliography 201 Stuart, Lady L., Memoire of Frances, Lady Douglas, ed. J. Rubenstein (Edinburgh, 1985). Swinton, J., A Free Disquisition Concerning the Law of Entails (Edinburgh, 1765). Taylor, G. and A. Skinner, Survey and Maps of the Roads of North Britain or Scotland (Edinburgh, 1776). Trusler, J., Memoirs of the Life of the Rev. Dr. Trusler (Bath, 1806). Wight, A., The Present State of Husbandry in Scotland, vol. 2 (Edinburgh, 1778). Wilson, J., Annals of Hawick, 1214–1814 (Edinburgh, 1850). Wilson, R., A Sketch of the History of Hawick: Including Some Account of the Manners and Character of the Inhabitants; With Occasional Observations (Hawick, 1825).

SECONDARY SOURCES Adams, I. H., ‘The Agents of Agricultural Change’, in M. L. Parry and T. R. Slater (eds), The Making of the Scottish Countryside (London, 1980), 155–76.   ‘Division of the Commonty of Hassendean 1761–1763’, The Stair Society Miscellany, 1 (1971), 171–92.   Papers on Peter May Land Surveyor, 1749–1793 (Edinburgh, 1979). Allen, N., Adderbury: A Thousand Years of History (Chichester, 1995). Allen, R. C., The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective (Cambridge, 2009). Austen-Leigh, R. A., The Eton College Register, 1753–1790 (Eton, 1921). Barclay, K., Love, Intimacy and Power: Marriage and Patriarchy in Scotland, 1650–1850 (Manchester, 2011). Barnard, T. C., Improving Ireland? Projectors, Prophets and Profiteers, 1641– 1786 (Dublin, 2008). Barrie, D. G., Police in the Age of Improvement: Police Development and the Civic Tradition in Scotland, 1775–1865 (Uffculme, 2008). Bateman, J., The Great Landowners of Great Britain and Ireland (London, 1883). Bayly, C. A., Imperial Meridian: The British Empire and the World 1780–1830 (London, 1989). Beckett, J. V., The Aristocracy in England, 1660–1914 (Oxford, 1986).   ‘Landownership and Estate Management’, in G. E. Mingay (ed.), The Agrarian History of England and Wales, vol. 6 (Cambridge, 1989), 545–640. Betham, W., The Baronetage of England, vol. 4 (London, 1804). Bignamini, I., ‘The Grand Tour: Open Issues’, in A. Wilton and I. Bignamini (eds), The Grand Tour: The Lure of Italy in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1996), 31–6. Black, J., The British Abroad: The Grand Tour in the Eighteenth Century (Sutton, 2003).

202

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

Bonnyman, B., ‘Adam Smith in Geneva’, in V. Cossy, B. Kapossy, and R. Whatmore (eds), Geneva, an English Enclave 1725–1814 (Geneva, 2009), 153–67.   ‘Agrarian Patriotism and the Landed Interest: The Scottish “Society of Improvers in the Knowledge of Agriculture”, 1723–1746’, in K. Stapelbroek and J. Marjanen (eds), The Rise of Economic Societies in the Eighteenth Century: Patriotic Reform in Europe and North America (Basingstoke, 2012), 26–51. Boud, R. C., ‘Scottish Agricultural Improvement Societies, 1723–1835’, Review of Scottish Culture, 1 (1984), 74–7. Bown, C. J. and B. M. Shipley, Soil and Land Capacity for Agriculture: South East Scotland (Aberdeen, 1982). Brady, F., ‘So Fast to Ruin: The Personal Element in the Collapse of Douglas, Heron and Company’, Collections of the Ayrshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, 11, 2 (1973), 27–44. Brewer, J., The Pleasures of the Imagination: English Culture in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1997). Brown, D. J., ‘The Government Response to Scottish Radicalism, 1792– 1802’, in B. Harris (ed.), Scotland in the Age of the French Revolution (Edinburgh, 2005), 99–124.   ‘The Government of Scotland under Henry Dundas and William Pitt’, History, 83, 270 (1998), 265–79.   ‘“Nothing but Strugalls and Coruption”: The Commons’ Elections for Scotland in 1774’, Parliamentary History, 15, 1 (1996), 100–19. Brown, I. G., ‘Hume in Paris: Le Bon David and Guid Auld Uncle Davie’, Folio, 6 (2003), 6–9. Caird, J. B., ‘The Reshaped Agricultural Landscape’, in M. L. Parry and T. R. Slater (eds), The Making of the Scottish Countryside (London, 1980), 203–22. Campbell, R. H., ‘The Enlightenment and the Economy’, in R. H. Campbell and A. S. Skinner (eds), The Origins and Nature of the Scottish Enlightenment (Edinburgh, 1982), 8–25.   ‘The Landed Classes’, in T. M. Devine and R. Mitchison (eds), People and Society in Scotland, Volume 1: 1760–1830 (Edinburgh, 1988), 91–108.   ‘The Scottish Improvers and the Course of Agrarian Change in the Eighteenth Century’, in L. M. Cullen and T. C. Smout (eds), Comparative Aspects of Scottish and Irish Economic and Social History, 1600–1900 (Edinburgh, 1977), 204–15. Cannadine, D. Aspects of Aristocracy (London, 1995). Cannon, J., Aristocratic Century: The Peerage of Eighteenth-Century England (Cambridge, 1984). Card, T., Eton Established: A History from 1440 to 1860 (London, 2001). Checkland, S. G., Scottish Banking: A History, 1695–1973 (Glasgow, 1975). Colley, L., Britons: Forging the Nation 1707–1837 (Yale, 1992). Cook, H. and T. Williamson, ‘The Later History of Water Meadows’, in

­

Bibliography 203

H. Cook and T. Williamson (eds), Water Meadows: History, Ecology and Conservation (Macclesfield, 2007), 52–69. Cookson, J. E., The British Armed Nation, 1793–1815 (Oxford, 1997).   ‘The Napoleonic Wars, Military Scotland and Tory Highlandism in the Early Nineteenth Century’, The Scottish Historical Review, 78, 205 (1999), 60–75. Craig-Brown, T., The History of Selkirkshire: Or, Chronicles of Ettrick Forest (Edinburgh, 1886). Cregeen, E., ‘The Changing Role of the House of Argyll in the Scottish Highlands’, in N. T. Phillipson and R. Mitchison (eds), Scotland in the Age of Improvement (Edinburgh, 1970), 5–23. Cronin, R., ‘Walter Scott and Anti-Gallican Minstrelsy’, English Literary History, 66, 4 (1999), 863–83. Dallas, J., ‘The Cullen Consultation Letters’, Proceedings of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, 31, 1 (2001), 66–8. Daniels, S., ‘The Political Iconography of Woodland in Later Georgian England’, in D. Cosgrove and S. Daniels (eds), The Iconography of Landscape (Cambridge, 1988), 43–82. Daniels, S., S. Seymour, and C. Watkins, ‘Enlightenment, Improvement, and the Geographies of Horticulture in Later Georgian England’, in D.  N. Livingstone and C. W. J. Withers (eds), Geography and Enlightenment (Chicago, 1999), 345–71. Davidson, N., ‘The Scottish Path to Capitalist Agriculture 3: The Enlightenment as the Theory and Practice of Improvement’, Journal of Agrarian Change, 5, 1 (2005), 1–72. Dawson, A. G., So Foul and Fair a Day: A History of Scotland’s Weather and Climate (Edinburgh, 2009). Dawson, D., ‘Is Sympathy So Surprising? Adam Smith and French Fictions of Sympathy’, in R. B. Sher and J. A. Dwyer (eds), Sociability and Society in Eighteenth-Century Scotland (Edinburgh, 1993), 147–62. Devine, T. M., ‘The Great Landlords of Lowland Scotland and Agrarian Change in the Eighteenth Century’, in T. M. Devine (ed.), Clearance and Improvement: Land, Power and People in Scotland, 1700–1900 (Edinburgh, 2006), 42–53.   The Transformation of Rural Scotland: Social Change and the Agrarian Economy, 1660–1815 (Edinburgh, 1994). Dickson, P., Red John of the Battles: John, 2nd Duke of Argyll and 1st Duke of Greenwich, 1680–1743 (London, 1973). Dodgshon, R. A., ‘Agricultural Change and Its Social Consequences in the Southern Uplands of Scotland, 1600–1780’, in T. M. Devine and D. Dickson (eds), Ireland and Scotland, 1600–1850 (Edinburgh, 1983), 46–59.   ‘The Economics of Sheep Farming in the Southern Uplands during the Age of Improvement, 1750–1833’, The Economic History Review, 29, 4 (1976), 551–69.

204

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

  From Chiefs to Landlords: Social and Economic Change in the Western Highlands and Islands, c.1493–1820 (Edinburgh, 1998).   Land and Society in Early Scotland (Oxford, 1981). Dodsworth, F. M., ‘The Idea of Police in Eighteenth-Century England: Discipline, Reformation, Superintendence, c. 1780–1800’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 69, 4 (2008), 583–604. Dow, S. C., ‘The Scottish Political Economy Tradition’, in D. Mair (ed.), The Scottish Contribution to Modern Economic Thought (Aberdeen, 1990), 19–32. Drayton, R., Nature’s Government: Science, Imperial Britain and the ‘Improvement’ of the World (New Haven, 2000). Dugeon, R. C., History of the Edinburgh, or Queen’s Regiment Light Infantry Militia (Edinburgh, 1882). Dwyer, J., ‘Virtue and Improvement: The Civic World of Adam Smith’, in The Age of the Passions: An Interpretation of Adam Smith and Scottish Enlightenment Culture (East Linton, 1998), 54–80. Dwyer, J. and A. Murdoch, ‘Henry Dundas Revisited but Not Revised’, Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century, 256 (1988), 325–33.   ‘Paradigms and Politics: Manners, Morals and the Rise of Henry Dundas, 1770–1784’, in J. Dwyer, A. Murdoch, and R. Mason (eds), New Perspectives on the Politics and Culture of Early Modern Scotland (Edinburgh, 1982), 210–48. Ehrman, J., The Younger Pitt: Consuming Struggle, vol. 3 (Stanford, 1996). Emerson, R. L., Academic Patronage in the Scottish Enlightenment: Glasgow, Edinburgh and St Andrews Universities (Edinburgh, 2008).   ‘The Contexts of the Scottish Enlightenment’, in A. Broadie (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Scottish Enlightenment (Cambridge, 2003), 9–30.   An Enlightened Duke: The Life of Archibald Campbell (1682–1761), Earl of Ilay, 3rd Duke of Argyll (Kilkerran, 2013).   ‘The Social Composition of Enlightened Scotland: The Select Society of Edinburgh, 1754–1764’, Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century, 114 (1973), 291–329. Everett, N., The Tory View of Landscape (New Haven, 1994). Ferguson, W., Scotland: 1689 to the Present (Edinburgh, 1968). Fergusson, S. J., ‘“Making Interest” in Scottish County Elections’, The Scottish Historical Review, 26, 102 (1947), 119–33.   The Sixteen Peers of Scotland: An Account of the Elections of the Representative Peers of Scotland, 1707–1959 (Oxford, 1960). Fraser, W., The Scotts of Buccleuch, vol. 1 (Edinburgh, 1878). Fry, M., The Dundas Despotism (Edinburgh, [1992] 2004). Furber, H., Henry Dundas, First Viscount Melville, 1742–1811: Political Manager of Scotland, Statesman, Administrator of British India (Oxford, 1931).

­

Bibliography 205

Gascoigne, J., Joseph Banks and the English Enlightenment: Useful Knowledge and Polite Culture (Cambridge, 1994). Gee, A., The British Volunteer Movement, 1794–1814 (Oxford, 2003). Glendinning, M. and S. Wade Martins, Buildings of the Land: Scotland’s Farms 1750–2000 (Edinburgh, 2008). Hamilton, H., ‘The Failure of the Ayr Bank, 1772’, The Economic History Review, 8, 3 (1956), 405–17. Handley, J. E., The Agricultural Revolution in Scotland (Glasgow, 1963).   Scottish Farming in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1953). Harris, B., Politics and the Nation: Britain in the Mid-Eighteenth Century (Oxford, 2002).   The Scottish People and the French Revolution (London, 2008). Harris, J., J. M. Crook, and E. Harris, Sir William Chambers, Knight of the Polar Star (London, 1970). Haskell, F., ‘Preface’, in A. Wilton and I. Bignamini (eds), The Grand Tour: The Lure of Italy in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1996), 10–12. Hassan, J. A., ‘The Landed Estate, Paternalism and the Coal Industry in Midlothian, 1800–1880’, The Scottish Historical Review, 59, 167 (1980), 73–91. Henry, D. G., ‘The Political State of Scotland in the Last Century’, The Scottish Historical Review, 46, 141 (1967), 87–9. Henry, M. A., ‘The Making of Elite Culture’, in H. T. Dickinson (ed.), A Companion to Eighteenth-Century Britain (Oxford, 2002), 311–28. Hobsbawm, E. J., ‘Scottish Reformers of the Eighteenth Century and Capitalist Agriculture’, in E. J. Hobsbawm (ed.), Peasants in History: Essays in Honour of Daniel Thorner (Calcutta, 1981), 3–29. Holmes, H., ‘The Circulation of Scottish Agricultural Books During the Eighteenth Century’, The Agricultural History Review (2006), 45–78. Hont, I. and M. Ignatieff, ‘Needs and Justice in the Wealth of Nations: An Introductory Essay’, in I. Hont and M. Ignatieff (eds), Wealth and Virtue: The Shaping of Political Economy in the Scottish Enlightenment (Cambridge, 1983), 1–44. Hoppit, J., ‘The Landed Interest and the National Interest, 1660–1800’, in J. Hoppit (ed.), Parliaments, Nations and Identities in Britain and Ireland, 1660–1850 (Manchester, 2003), 83–102. Hudson, K., Patriotism with Profit: British Agricultural Societies in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries (London, 1972). Hume Brown, P., History of Scotland (Cambridge, 1911). Hutchison, I. G. C., A Political History of Scotland 1832–1924: Parties, Elections and Issues (Edinburgh, 1986). Jack, R. D. S. and P. A. T. Rozendaal, The Mercat Anthology of Early Scottish Literature, 1375–1707 (Edinburgh, 1997). Jonsson, F. A., Enlightenment’s Frontier: The Scottish Highlands and the Origins of Environmentalism (New Haven, 2013). Kerr, A. W., History of Banking in Scotland (London, 1908).

206

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

Kidd, C., ‘Eighteenth-Century Scotland and the Three Unions’, in T. C. Smout (ed.), Anglo-Scottish Relations from 1603 to 1900 (Oxford, 2005), 171–87.   ‘North Britishness and the Nature of Eighteenth-Century British Patriotisms’, The Historical Journal, 39, 2 (1996), 361–82. Langford, P., A Polite and Commercial People: England 1727–1783 (Oxford, 1989). Leask, N., Robert Burns and Pastoral: Poetry and Improvement in Late EighteenthCentury Scotland (Oxford, 2010). Lee, M., The Heiresses of Buccleuch: Marriage, Money, and Politics in SeventeenthCentury Britain (East Linton, 1996). Lindsay, I. G. and M. Cosh, Inveraray and the Dukes of Argyll (Edinburgh, 1973). Lockhart, D. G., ‘The Planned Villages’, in M. L. Parry and T. R. Slater (eds), The Making of the Scottish Countryside (London, 1980), 249–70. Logue, K. J., Popular Disturbances in Scotland, 1780–1815 (Edinburgh, 1979). McCahill, M. W., ‘The Scottish Peerage and the House of Lords in the Late Eighteenth Century’, The Scottish Historical Review, 51, 152 (1972), 172–96. Mackillop, A., ‘More Fruitful Than the Soil’: Army, Empire and the Scottish Highlands, 1715–1815 (East Linton, 2000).   ‘The Political Culture of the Scottish Highlands from Culloden to Waterloo’, The Historical Journal, 46, 3 (2003), 511–32. McNally, D., Political Economy and the Rise of Capitalism (Berkeley, 1988). Mathew, W. M., ‘Marling in British Agriculture: A Case of Partial Identity’, The Agricultural History Review (1993), 97–110. Maxwell-Lyte, H. C., A History of Eton College (1440–1910) (London, 1911). Meikle, H. W., Scotland and the French Revolution (Glasgow, 1912). Mingay, G. E. (ed.), The Agrarian History of England and Wales (Cambridge, 1989). Mitchison, R., Agricultural Sir John: The Life of Sir John Sinclair of Ulbster, 1754–1835 (London, 1962).   ‘Patriotism and National Identity in Eighteenth-Century Scotland’, in T. W. Moody (ed.), Historical Studies 11: Nationality and the Pursuit of National Independence (Belfast, 1978), 73–95. Mokyr, J., The Enlightened Economy: An Economic History of Britain 1700–1850 (New Haven, 2009). Montmarquet, J. A., The Idea of Agrarianism: From Hunter-Gatherer to Agrarian Radical in Western Culture (Moscow, Idaho, 1989). Munsche, P. B., Gentlemen and Poachers: The English Game Laws, 1671–1831 (Cambridge, 1981). Murdoch, A., ‘The Importance of Being Edinburgh: Management and Opposition in Edinburgh Politics, 1746–1784’, The Scottish Historical Review, 62, 173 (1983), 1–16.

­

Bibliography 207   ‘The People Above’: Politics and Administration in Mid-Eighteenth-Century Scotland (Edinburgh, 1980). Murphy, A. E., The Genesis of Macroeconomics (Oxford, 2009). Namier, L. B. and J. Brooke, Charles Townshend (London, 1964).   The House of Commons, 1754–1790, vols. 1–3 (London, [1964] 1985). Overton, M., Agricultural Revolution in England: The Transformation of the Agrarian Economy 1500–1850 (Cambridge, 1996).   ‘Re-establishing the English Agricultural Revolution’, The Agricultural History Review (1996), 1–20. Parry, M. L., ‘Introduction: The Course of Rural Change in Scotland’, in M. L. Parry and T. R. Slater (eds), The Making of the Scottish Countryside (London, 1980), 17–20. Phillipson, N. T., Adam Smith: An Enlightened Life (London, 2010).   ‘Lawyers, Landowners and the Civic Leadership of Post-Union Scotland’, Juridical Review, 21 (1976), 97–120.   ‘The Scottish Enlightenment’, in R. Porter and M. Teich (eds), The Enlightenment in National Context (Cambridge, 1981), 19–40.   ‘Scottish Public Opinion and the Union in the Age of the Association’, in N. T. Phillipson and R. Mitchison (eds), Scotland in the Age of Improvement (Edinburgh, 1970), 125–47. Pincus, S. C. A., 1688: The First Modern Revolution (New Haven, 2009). Quarrie, P., ‘The Eton Leaving Portraits’, in Leaving Portraits from Eton College (London, 1991). Rae, J., Life of Adam Smith (London, 1895). Rcams, Eastern Dumfriesshire: An Archaeological Landscape (Edinburgh, 1997). Robertson, J., The Scottish Enlightenment and the Militia Issue (Edinburgh, 1985). Robinson, D. H., Elements of Agriculture (London, 1977). Ross, I. S., ‘Educating an Eighteenth-Century Duke’, in G. W. S. Barrow (ed.), The Scottish Tradition: Essays in Honour of R. G. Cant (Edinburgh, 1974), 178–97.   The Life of Adam Smith (Oxford, 1995).   Lord Kames and the Scotland of His Day (Oxford, 1972). Rutherfurd, J. H., The History of the Linlithgow and Stirlingshire Hunt 1775– 1910 (Edinburgh and London, 1911). Ryder, M. A., Sheep and Man (London, 1983). Saville, R., Bank of Scotland: A History, 1695–1995 (Edinburgh, 1996). Seki, G., ‘Policy Debate on Economic Development in Scotland: The 1720s to the 1730s’, in T. Sakamoto and H. Tanaka (eds), The Rise of Political Economy in the Scottish Enlightenment (London, 2003), 22–38. Seta, C. de, ‘Grand Tour: The Lure of Italy in the Eighteenth Century’, in A. Wilton and I. Bignamini (eds), The Grand Tour: The Lure of Italy in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1996), 13–19. Shapin, S., ‘Property, Patronage, and the Politics of Science: The Founding

208

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

of the Royal Society of Edinburgh’, The British Journal for the History of Science, 7, 1 (1974), 1–41. Shaw, J. S., The Management of Scottish Society 1707–1764: Power, Nobles, Lawyers, Edinburgh Agents and English Influences (Edinburgh, 1983). Sher, R. B., ‘Adam Ferguson, Adam Smith, and the Problem of National Defense’, The Journal of Modern History, 61, 2 (1989), 240–68.   Church and University in the Scottish Enlightenment: The Moderate Literati of Edinburgh (Princeton, 1985). Simpson, J. M., ‘Who Steered the Gravy Train, 1707–1766?’, in N. T. Phillipson and R. Mitchison (eds), Scotland in the Age of Improvement (Edinburgh, 1970), 47–72. Skinner, A. S., ‘Adam Smith’, in M. Lynch (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Scottish History (Oxford, 2001), 190–1. Slater, T. R., ‘The Mansion and Policy’, in M. L. Parry and T. R. Slater  (eds),  The Making of the Scottish Countryside (London, 1980), 223–47. Smith, A. H. H., ‘A History of Two Border Woodlands’, in T. C. Smout (ed.), Scottish Woodland History (Edinburgh, 1997), 147–61. Smith, A. M., Jacobite Estates of the Forty-Five (Edinburgh, 1982). Smout, T. C., A History of the Scottish People, 1560–1830 (London, [1969] 1985).   ‘The Landowner and the Planned Village’, in N. T. Phillipson and R.  Mitchison (eds), Scotland in the Age of Improvement (Edinburgh, 1970), 73–106.   ‘Landowners in Scotland, Ireland and Denmark in the Age of Improvement’, Scandinavian Journal of History, 12, 1–2 (1987), 79–97.   ‘A New Look at the Scottish Improvers’, Scottish Historical Review, 91, 1 (2012), 125–49.   ‘Scottish Landowners and Economic Growth, 1650–1850’, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 9, 3 (1962), 218–34.   ‘Where Had the Scottish Economy Got to by the Third Quarter of the Eighteenth Century?’, in I. Hont and M. Ignatieff (eds), Wealth and Virtue: The Shaping of Political Economy in the Scottish Enlightenment (Cambridge, 1983), 45–72. Spring, D., ‘A Great Agricultural Estate: Netherby under Sir James Graham, 1820–1845’, Agricultural History, 29, 2 (1955), 73–81. Sunter, R. M., Patronage and Politics in Scotland, 1707–1832 (Edinburgh, [1986] 2003). Tancred, G., The Annals of a Border Club (the Jedforest) (Jedburgh, 1899). Tarlow, S., The Archaeology of Improvement in Britain, 1750–1850 (Cambridge, 2007). Thirsk, J., ‘Making a Fresh Start: Sixteenth-Century Agriculture and the Classical Inspiration’, in M. Leslie and T. Raylor (eds), Culture and Cultivation in Early Modern England: Writing and the Land (Leicester, 1992), 15–34.

­

Bibliography 209 Thomas, J., Midlothian: An Illustrated Architectural Guide (Edinburgh, 1995). Thompson, E. P., ‘Eighteenth-Century English Society: Class Struggle Without Class?’, Social History, 3, 2 (1978), 133–65. Thorne, R. G., The House of Commons, 1790–1820, vols. 1 and 2 (London, 1986). Timperley, L., ‘The Pattern of Landholding in Eighteenth-Century Scotland’, in M. L. Parry and T. R. Slater (eds), The Making of the Scottish Countryside (London, 1980), 137–54. Tyrrell, A., ‘The Queen’s “Little Trip”: The Royal Visit to Scotland in 1842’, The Scottish Historical Review, 82, 213 (2003), 47–73. Wade Martins, S., Coke of Norfolk (1754–1842): A Biography (Woodbridge, 2010).   Farmers, Landlords and Landscapes: Rural Britain, 1720 to 1870 (Macclesfield, 2004).   ‘Turnip’ Townshend: Statesman and Farmer (North Walsham, 1990). Waterston, C. D., ‘Late Enlightenment Science and Generalism: The Case of Sir George Steuart Mackenzie of Coul, 1780–1848’, in C. W. J. Withers and P. Wood (eds), Science and Medicine in the Scottish Enlightenment (East Linton, 2002), 301–26. Watkin, D., The Architect King: George III and the Culture of the Enlightenment (London, 2004). Weir, R. W., A History of the Scottish Borderers Militia (Dumfries, 1877). Western, J. R., ‘The Formation of the Scottish Militia in 1797’, The Scottish Historical Review, 34, 117 (1955), 1–18.   ‘The Volunteer Movement as an Anti-Revolutionary Force, 1793–1801’, The English Historical Review, 71, 281 (1956), 603–14. Whatley, C. A., ‘Roots of 1790s Radicalism: Reviewing the Economic and Social Background’, in B. Harris (ed.), Scotland in the Age of the French Revolution (Edinburgh, 2005), 23–48.   Scottish Society, 1707–1830: Beyond Jacobitism, Towards Industrialisation (Manchester, 2000). Whetstone, A. E., Scottish County Government in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries (Edinburgh, 1981). Whittington, G., ‘Agriculture and Society in Lowland Scotland, 1750– 1870’, in G. Whittington and I. D. Whyte (eds), An Historical Geography of Scotland (London, 1983), 141–64. Whyte, I. D., Agriculture and Society in Seventeenth-Century Scotland (Edinburgh, 1979).   Landscape and History Since 1500 (London, 2002).   ‘Rural Transformation and Lowland Society’, in A. Cooke, I. Donnachie, and C. A. Whatley (eds), Modern Scottish History 1707 to the Present, Volume 1: The Transformation of Scotland, 1707–1850 (East Linton, 1998), 86–107. Williamson, T., Polite Landscapes: Gardens and Society in Eighteenth-Century England (Stroud, 1995).

210

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

  The Transformation of Rural England: Farming and the Landscape, 1700–1870 (Exeter, 2002). Winchester, A. J. L., The Harvest of the Hills: Rural Life in Northern England and the Scottish Borders, 1400–1700 (Edinburgh, 2000). Withers, C. W. J., ‘A Neglected Scottish Agriculturalist: The “Georgical Lectures” and Agricultural Writings of the Rev Dr. John Walker (1731– 1803)’, Agricultural History Review, 33, 2 (1985), 132–46.   ‘On Georgics and Geology: James Hutton’s “Elements of Agriculture” and Agricultural Science in Eighteenth-Century Scotland’, Agricultural History Review, 42 (1994), 38–48.   ‘William Cullen’s Agricultural Lectures and Writings and the Development of Agricultural Science in Eighteenth-Century Scotland’, Agricultural History Review, 37 (1989), 144–56. Wold, A. L., ‘Loyalism in Scotland in the 1790s’, in U. Broich, H. T. Dickinson, E. Hellmuth, and M. Schmidt (eds), Reactions to Revolutions: The 1790s and Their Aftermath (Münster, 2007), 109–36. Womack, P., Improvement and Romance: Constructing the Myth of the Highlands (Basingstoke, 1989). Unpublished secondary sources Blair-Imrie, H., ‘The Relationship between Land Ownership and the Commercialisation of Agriculture in Angus, 1740–1820’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis (University of Edinburgh, 2001). Bonnyman, B. D., ‘Agricultural Improvement in the Scottish Enlightenment: The Third Duke of Buccleuch, William Keir and the Buccleuch Estates, 1751–1812’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis (University of Edinburgh, 2004). Brown, D. J., ‘Henry Dundas and the Government of Scotland’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis (University of Edinburgh, 1989). Lodge, M. M., ‘The Militia Issue: The Case of the Buccleuch Fencibles, 1778–1783’, unpublished M.Litt thesis (University of Edinburgh, 1985).

Index Note: page numbers in bold refer to illustrations accountants, 13, 30, 60, 110 Adam, Robert, 24, 153 Adderbury estate, 9, 23, 28–9, 54, 79 administrative reforms by Buccleuch, 59–64, 69–76, 84–7, 162–3, 187–92 by Craigie, 20–1, 26, 30 by Keir, 120–35, 187–92, 196 by Lady Dalkeith and Argyll, 12–14, 18–20, 30 Smith’s involvement in, 60, 62–4, 69 by Townshend, 26–8, 30–2 aesthetics, 7, 162–4, 194 agrarian patriotism, 5, 152, 154–5, 184 agricultural reforms and aesthetics, 7, 162–4, 194 by Buccleuch, 82–115, 116–48, 162–4, 194–6 Canonbie estate, 21, 26, 31, 82, 87–93, 98–106, 109, 111–14, 114, 167, 187 cost of, 30–1, 109–11 by Craigie, 20–1 Dalkeith estate, 21, 24–7, 31, 83, 87 Eckford estate, 82–3, 94–7, 100–1, 102–3, 107–9, 112–13 Eskdale estate, 31, 139, 146 Eskdalemuir, 137–8, 143–7 Ettrick Forest estate, 141, 146, 147 by Keir, 91–115, 120–48, 183–92, 196 by Lady Dalkeith and Argyll, 18–20 Langholm estate, 82, 84, 103–4

Lempitlaw estate, 96–7, 100–1, 103, 107–8, 112–13 Liddesdale, 138, 139 Ogilvie’s proposals, 118–19, 122–3 and reputation, 162–4 role in economic development, 50, 65–6 role of nobility in, 3–6 in Scotland generally, 3–8 sheep farms, 11, 116–48, 164, 184, 189, 195 Smith’s views on, 64–9, 184–6, 196 tenant opposition to, 106–9, 121, 122, 170–1 by tenants, 74–6, 89–91, 136–7, 140–8, 185–6, 187–8 Teviotdalehead estate, 138 by Townshend, 24–7, 30–2, 89, 104 Wilton estate, 93–4, 191 Anderson, James, 152 Archerbeck colliery, 99 Argyll, Duke of see Campbell, Archibald, 3rd Duke of Argyll; Campbell, John, 2nd Duke of Argyll Armstrong, David, 90 Ayr Bank, 76–81, 111, 152 Bakewell, Robert, 84 Bank of England, 78–9 Bank of Scotland, 15, 77, 80 Banks, Joseph, 79 Barnard, Edward, 35–6, 38 baron baillies, 166, 171, 182–3 Barret, George, 57–8

212

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

Bell, George, 89–91 benevolent system, 187–92, 196 Black, Joseph, 153 Board of Agriculture, 7 Board of the Annexed Estates, 84–5, 111, 152 Borthwick, J., 147 Boswell, James, 156 Branxholm estate, 83, 173 breeding stock see livestock improvement brickworks, 103 bridges, 24, 104–5, 160, 162 Brown, David, 156, 158 Brown, Lancelot ‘Capability’, 29 Brown, William, 146–8, 191–2 Buccleuch, Duchess of see Montagu, Lady Elizabeth; Scott, Anne, 1st Duchess of Buccleuch Buccleuch, Duke of see Scott, Charles William, 4th Duke of Buccleuch; Scott, Francis, 2nd Duke of Buccleuch; Scott, Henry, 3rd Duke of Buccleuch; Scott, William Francis, 5th Duke of Buccleuch Buccleuch, Earl of see Scott, Francis, 2nd Earl of Buccleuch; Scott, Sir Walter, 1st Earl of Buccleuch building, 25, 76, 90–1, 97, 102–4, 109, 114, 135, 137, 141, 145, 163–4, 182 Buskall, Phillip, 25–6 Byreburnfoot colliery, 89, 99, 100, 135 Campbell, Archibald, of Succouth, 13, 14, 17, 60, 62–3, 71 Campbell, Archibald, 3rd Duke of Argyll, 14–18, 20, 22–4, 30, 56 Campbell, Caroline, Lady Dalkeith, 9, 12–19, 21–3, 28, 29, 34–5, 54, 61 Campbell, George, 25 Campbell, Ilay, 62–3

Campbell, John, 2nd Duke of Argyll, 9, 152 Canonbie estate, 19, 21, 26, 31, 76, 82, 87–93, 88, 98–106, 109, 111–14, 114, 136, 167, 169, 173, 180, 187, 190 Carlyle, Alexander, 2–3, 24, 42, 56–7, 59 chamberlains, 12–13, 18, 27, 30, 59–60, 86, 165–6, 168, 173 Chambers, Sir William, 55 charity, 150, 152 Church, James, 83, 113 Church, James, Jr, 138 Church, John, 26, 31, 76, 82–3, 85–6, 89, 92, 95 Clerk, Robert, 59 climate, 119, 136, 143–4, 182 clover, 90, 113 coal works, 89, 98–100 Coke, Lady Mary, 53, 54 Colbert, Abbé, 44, 48 commercialisation, 6–8, 70–1, 75, 100, 149, 192 competition, 68, 69, 185 Craigie, John, 1, 14–18, 20–2, 26–8, 30, 60, 89 Craigie, Robert, 15, 18 Crawford, William, 137, 141, 142 crop rotation, 24, 83, 84, 90, 96, 98, 119, 142 Crozier, Adam, 101 Cullen, William, 153 Culley, George, 84 Dalkeith, Earl of see Scott, Francis, Earl of Dalkeith; Scott, George, Earl of Dalkeith Dalkeith, Lady see Campbell, Caroline, Lady Dalkeith Dalkeith estate, 11, 12, 21, 24–7, 31, 73–4, 83–4, 87, 143, 173 Dalkeith home farm, 24–7, 31, 83–4, 163 Dalkeith House, 1–2, 10, 14, 31, 53, 57–8, 153, 155–6, 194

­

Index 213 Dalkeith Palace and Park and River (Barret), 58 Davidson, John, 122 Devine, T. M., 195–6 Dick, Sir Alexander, 70 Dickson, Archibald, 93, 101 Dickson, Robert, 93, 112 Douglas, Archibald, 78 Douglas, Charles, 3rd Duke of Queensberry, 76–7, 78, 79 drainage, 25, 90, 101, 109, 135, 137–40, 142, 143–6 Drayton, Richard, 180 Dumfries, Earl of see McDouall, Patrick, 6th Earl of Dumfries Dunbar, Ronald, 12 Dundas, Henry, 2, 37, 79, 80, 156–62, 165, 175, 177, 178, 182, 194 Eckford estate, 31, 82–3, 94–7, 100–3, 107–9, 112–13 Eckford farm, 94, 95 economic development, 50, 65–8 Edgar, James, 25–6 Edinburgh, 3, 10, 23, 42, 153, 157, 173, 180 education Buccleuch’s, 34–52 of the nobility, 35–6, 67 Smith’s views on, 45–8 electoral reform, 161–2 Elliot, Gilbert, 17, 46–7, 161 enclosure, 25–6, 31, 74–6, 82–3, 87, 90–1, 93, 96–7, 101–2, 107, 111, 113–14, 119–20, 135, 141–3, 146, 169 Enlightenment, 2, 3, 6–8, 129, 153 Entail Act, 69–71, 76, 82, 92, 152 entails, 16, 20, 60–4, 68–72, 76, 184–5 Eskdale estate, 19, 26, 31, 57, 82, 87, 116, 117, 118, 120, 128, 139, 146, 179, 182–3, 195 Eskdalemuir, 118, 128, 137, 143–7 Esprit des Lois, De l’ (Montesquieu), 46, 48

Eton College, 22, 35–9, 40 Ettrick Forest estate, 1, 11, 19, 59, 116, 118, 128, 141, 146–7 Ewes, 120, 128 Ewesdale, 1, 82 Farmer’s Magazine, 146–7, 191, 194 Farquharson, Alexander, 30 Farquharson, Francis, 13, 30 fencible regiment, 2, 152–3, 154, 173 Ferguson, Adam, 3 feudalism, 12, 27, 66–7, 68–9, 149 fisheries, 168, 169, 170, 171 Fitzmaurice, Thomas Petty, 40–1, 46–7 ‘five per cent’ scheme, 26 food prices, 181–4 food shortages, 181–4 Forth–Clyde Canal, 3, 77, 152 Fountaine’s of Marylebone, 34–5 French Revolution, 171, 181 French Revolutionary Wars, 172–3 game preservation, 167–70, 190 Geneva, 45, 50–1 Glasgow University, 39, 40–1, 46–7 Graham, Robert, 89, 98 Grand Tour, 2, 28, 29, 40–6, 50–2 Grant, John, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18–19, 22 great storm, 136, 144 Grimslaw farm, 95, 102, 112 Hall, Henry, 94 Hallam, John, 35, 42 Harelawhill, 99, 100 Hawick, 1, 11, 125, 182, 183 hay, 119, 135, 142, 143, 146 Hay, John, 4th Marquis of Tweeddale, 15, 18, 22–3 hedging, 90, 93, 97, 101–2, 113, 114, 119, 142, 143, 163 Highland Society of Scotland, 138–9, 147, 152 Hogg, James, 140, 144

214

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

Holehouse, 89, 98, 100 Home, Henry, Lord Kames, 24, 111 Honourable Society of Improvers, 5, 155 Hope, John, 153 housing, 19, 31, 91–2, 97, 102–4, 114, 137, 145, 163 Hume, David, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 48, 59 improvements see administrative reforms; agricultural reforms independent peers’ rebellion, 152, 154 industry, 192–3 infield-outfield system, 11–12, 32, 87–8, 91, 94, 118–19 interventionism, 130, 151, 183, 184; see also paternalism investments, 15, 76–81, 152 Jacobite rebellion (1745), 5, 155, 173 Kames, Lord see Home, Henry, Lord Kames Keir, William, 8, 84–7, 91–115, 120–48, 164, 169–71, 173, 179–81, 183–92, 195–6 Keir, William, Jr, 195 Ker, John, 3rd Duke of Roxburgh, 177, 178 Laidlaw, Thomas, 145 Laing, William, 13 land exchanges, 69–70, 71, 82, 94, 95, 165 land purchases, 10–11, 15–17, 27–9, 61, 118 land reclamation, 90, 98 landlord–tenant relations, 92, 97, 109–10, 148–51, 185–92, 196 landsettings, 12, 20–1, 60, 63–4, 69, 72–6, 119, 129, 140–1, 191 Langholm Castle, 1, 57, 74, 82, 84, 101–2

Langholm estate, 11, 82, 84, 103–4, 139, 143, 150, 171–3, 182–3, 192–4 Langholm Lodge, 163, 168, 180 leases, 12, 19–21, 27, 32, 60–4, 69–76, 87, 92–3, 97, 103–4, 107–8, 119, 134, 142, 187–92; see also rents led farms, 131–2, 133, 135, 164 legal agents, 13, 60, 61, 77, 110, 134 Lempitlaw estate, 96–7, 100–1, 103, 107–8, 112–13 Lennox, Charles, 3rd Duke of Richmond, 51 Liddesdale, 11, 87, 103–4, 116, 118, 123, 128, 136, 138, 139, 195 limeworks, 86, 89, 98–9, 100, 137 liming see soil treatment Little, Matthew, 106 livestock improvement, 83–4, 163 Loch, David, 152 Lockhart, Alexander, 61–2 Lomax, James, 99–100 London, 40, 53, 58, 156 lord lieutenancies, 175–80 McDouall, Patrick, 6th Earl of Dumfries, 79 Mackenzie, James Stuart, 56, 85 Mackenzie, Kenneth, 14, 18, 22, 26, 27, 29, 52, 55, 77 McMillan, Alexander, 13, 17 market value farms, 69, 75, 125–6, 129–30, 133–4, 184–7 sheep farm products, 120, 121, 124–5, 127–8, 140, 147–8 marl, 96–8, 100–1, 107, 108–9, 141, 142; see also soil treatment Maxwell, George, 192–3 Maxwell, John, 111, 112 Maxwell, Sir William, 160, 172, 175, 179 Melrose, 10, 11, 18, 59, 116 meteorological records, 83 military service, 2, 150, 152–3, 154, 172–81

­

Index 215 mills, 31, 95 Milnholm farm, 85, 87, 139 mole catching, 140 Monmouth, Duke of see Scott, John, Duke of Monmouth and Buccleuch Montagu, Lady Elizabeth, 1, 53–5, 61, 74, 81, 180 Montesquieu, 46, 48 Montgomery, James, 70 morality, 36, 47, 164, 167, 169–70, 189, 190, 194 Mosstower farm, 94, 95, 113 Naismith, John, 138 Nether Cassock farm, 144–6, 145 New Langholm, 82, 103–4, 163, 171, 190 New Town, Edinburgh, 3 Newcastleton, 103–4 nobility education of, 35–6, 67 role in agricultural reform, 3–6 Smith’s views on, 66–8 Norfolk, 24–5, 26, 30, 95 nurseries, 19, 101–2, 142, 143, 163 oats, 89, 90, 113 Ogilvie, Adam, 123–5, 131–3, 136–7, 160, 165–6, 172, 178–9, 181–4, 191, 195 Ogilvie, William (father of Adam), 18, 59–60, 62, 64, 72–4, 82, 86, 95, 106, 109, 118–19, 122–3 Ogilvie, William (nephew of Adam), 195 Oliphant, Alexander, 102 Over Woodhouselees farm, 89–91 ‘overseer of improvements’ role, 8, 26, 30, 84–7, 122 Paine, Thomas, 172 Paris, 40, 41, 44, 45, 50, 51 parochial overseers, 142–3 pasture improvement, 135, 137–40

paternalism, 149–51, 188–92, 194–5; see also interventionism patriotism, 2–3, 5, 37, 152, 154–6, 184 patronage, 159–61, 165–6, 175 Perth estate, 84–5 Petty, Henry, 1st Earl of Shelburne, 41, 46, 47, 64–5 Philllipson, Nicholas, 50, 157 Pinkerton, John, 153–4 Pitt, William, 159, 179 planned settlements, 82, 103–4, 162, 163 plantations, 19, 26, 31, 83, 86, 119, 142, 147, 163, 164 ploughing, 90, 91, 113 poaching, 167–71, 190 Poker Club, 153, 176 political economy, 5, 6, 8, 50, 129–30, 184–7, 193 Pringle, Alexander, 165 public order, 151, 166–72, 180–3, 190 quarries, 86, 89, 96, 103, 137 Queensberry, Duke of see Douglas, Charles, 3rd Duke of Queensberry Quesnay, François, 50, 52 real value (farms), 121, 125, 128–30, 186, 189 rental incomes, 10, 11, 16, 32, 55, 109, 112–13, 118, 196 rents, 19–20, 32, 72–4, 92–3, 97, 107–9, 112–13, 120–35, 143–4, 184, 189, 191, 196; see also leases Riccalton, John, 94 Richmond, Duke of see Lennox, Charles, 3rd Duke of Richmond riots, 171–2, 180–1, 182–3 river embanking, 105, 142, 145, 145–6 river straightening, 142, 145 roads, 1, 27, 91, 104–5, 114, 141, 162 Robertson, William, 153 Roxburgh, Duke of see Ker, John, 3rd Duke of Roxburgh

216

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

Royal Bank of Scotland, 77, 80, 152 Royal Society of Edinburgh, 2, 153 runrig system, 12, 32, 87, 94 Rutherford, John, 176–7, 178 Scott, Anne, 1st Duchess of Buccleuch, 10, 11, 61 Scott, Campbell, 35, 37, 44–5, 52 Scott, Charles William, 4th Duke of Buccleuch, 195 Scott, Lady Frances, 1, 52, 56 Scott, Francis, 2nd Duke of Buccleuch, 9–10, 35, 173, 196 Scott, Francis, 2nd Earl of Buccleuch, 11, 61 Scott, Francis, Earl of Dalkeith, 9 Scott, George, Earl of Dalkeith, 174 Scott, Henry, 3rd Duke of Buccleuch administrative reforms, 59–64, 69–76, 84–7, 162–3, 187–92 and the Ayr Bank, 76–81, 111, 152 birthday celebrations, 150 on Board of the Annexed Estates, 85, 152 charity, 150, 152 children, 74, 78, 174, 195 coming of age, 1–2, 53–64 cultural involvement, 2–3, 153–4 and Dalkeith home farm, 83, 163 makes Dalkeith principal residence, 2, 57–8, 155–6 death, 194 death of son, 74 at Dr Fountaine’s of Marylebone, 34–5 as Duke of Queensberry, 194, 196 education, 34–52 and the Entail Act, 69–71, 152 at Eton, 22, 35–9, 38, 40

fencible regiment raised by, 2, 152–3, 154, 173, 174 first visit to Scotland, 1–2, 53, 56–8, 59–60 on Grand Tour, 2, 28, 29, 40–6, 50–2 Highland Society membership, 139, 152 improvements to estates, 82–115, 116–48, 162–4, 194–6 and the independent peers’ rebellion, 152, 154 inheritance, 9–33, 194, 196 investments, 76–81, 152 and livestock improvement, 83–4 marriage, 53–5 military role, 84, 150, 172–81 patriotism, 2–3, 152, 154–6 personal expenses, 28, 35, 54–5 presentation at Court, 40, 53 public and political career, 2–3, 69–71, 76–81, 152–66 and public order, 151, 166–72, 180–3, 190 reputation, 2–3, 151, 152–5, 160–4, 194 as Royal Bank of Scotland governor, 80, 152 Royal Society of Edinburgh presidency, 2, 153 Smith as advisor to, 59–60, 62–4, 69, 76–9, 175–6 Smith’s tutorship of, 2, 40–52 tenant relations, 92, 97, 109–10, 148–51, 185–92, 196 Scott, James, 35, 37 Scott, John, Duke of Monmouth and Buccleuch, 10, 11 Scott, Sir Walter, 1st Earl of Buccleuch, 10–11 Scott, Sir Walter (writer), 3, 150 Scott, William Francis, 5th Duke of Buccleuch, 195 Scottish Enlightenment, 2, 3, 6–8, 129, 153 Seven Years War, 43, 48

­

Index 217 sheep farms, 11, 116–48, 164, 184, 189, 195 sheep shelters, 143, 145, 146 Shelburne, Earl of see Petty, Henry, 1st Earl of Shelburne shelter belts, 101, 119, 123, 141, 143, 163, 164 Singer, William, 147–8, 169 slate quarries, 86, 96, 103, 137 Smith, Adam as advisor to Buccleuch, 59–60, 62–4, 69, 76–9, 175–6 at Dalkeith, 2, 59–60 on Grand Tour, 2, 40–6, 50–2 involvement in administrative reforms, 60, 62–4, 69 and Keir’s improvement strategy, 129–30, 184–7 Theory of Moral Sentiments, 39, 67 tutorship of Buccleuch, 2, 24, 39–52 tutorship of Fitzmaurice, 40–1, 46–7 views on agricultural reform, 64–9, 184–7, 196 views on economic development, 65–6 views on education, 45–8 views on Grand Tour, 45–6 views on military forces, 175–6 views on morality, 47, 167 views on the nobility, 66–8 views on political economy, 50, 129–30, 184–7 Wealth of Nations, 45, 59, 65–6, 67, 80, 175–6 Smith, James, 10 soil treatment, 89–91, 96–8, 100–1, 107–9, 141, 142 stells, 143, 145, 146 Stephens, Charles, 138–40, 141, 142 Steuart, Sir James, 3 stone quarries, 103, 137 Stuart, Lady Louisa, 9, 57, 81 subsistence farming, 11–12

surveying, 11, 19, 27, 32, 85–6, 91, 93, 112, 135, 137, 139–42 system of benevolence, 187–92, 196 tenants housing, 19, 31, 91–2, 97, 102–4, 114, 137, 145, 163 improvements by, 74–6, 89–91, 136–7, 140–8, 185–6, 187–8 incentivisation of, 74–6, 126, 141–3, 187–8 moral character of, 164, 167, 189, 190 opposition to improvements, 106–9, 121, 122, 170–1 relationship with Buccleuch, 92, 97, 109–10, 148–51, 185–92, 196 rioting by, 171–2 see also landsettings; leases; rents Teviotdale, 1, 10, 82, 118, 183 Teviotdalehead estate, 31, 116, 118, 128, 138 Theory of Moral Sentiments (Smith), 39, 67 Toulouse, 44–5, 50 Townshend, Caroline see Campbell, Caroline, Lady Dalkeith Townshend, Charles, 2, 14, 21–32, 34–43, 45, 48–9, 51, 56, 58, 89, 104, 161, 173 trade, 5, 48, 65, 67–8 Treaty of Union, 5, 154–5 trespassing, 167–71 turnips, 24, 90, 113 turnpike roads, 1, 27, 91, 104, 164 Tweeddale, Marquis of see Hay, John, 4th Marquis of Tweeddale valuation (farms), 112–13, 121–2, 123–35, 140, 189 Voltaire, 45 volunteer corps, 175–80 vote creation 16–17, 28, 158–9, 160–2 Warrander, Hugh, 134 Warwickshire, 138

218

The Third Duke of Buccleuch and Adam Smith

water meadows, 138–40, 141, 142, 143, 146, 147 Wealth of Nations (Smith), 45, 59, 65–6, 67, 80, 175–6 weather see climate; great storm; meteorological records West Mains farm, 102, 112 Westermoss farm, 94, 95, 101

Wight, Andrew, 111, 152 Wilton estate, 93–4, 100–1, 191 woods see nurseries; plantations; shelter belts wool, 118, 120, 124–5, 127–8 Yair, 1, 82, 165