My First Paper on my TOPIC...!23:38 May 12 2007
Times Read: 732
Jacobitism, Civil War in Scotland
and the Dukes of Atholl
Cheryl Garrett
PhD Candidate
University of Aberdeen
Professor Allan Macinnes
Irish and Scottish Jacobitism
Final Paper
May 2007
Civil war is defined as the conflict between peoples of the same country or nation. This designation is rather insipid considering internal conflicts are the cruellest, most divisive of the forms of hostilities in which humans engage. It has affected almost every nation and community in some manner since the beginning of human history. Civil war, as noted, divides nations, communities, and ultimately, families, which is undoubtedly the bitterest aspect of the quarrel. To be separated from those considered loved ones due to ideological disputes is a stigma that is principally associated with ‘civil war’. The most prominent of all civil wars, of course, is the conflict that took place in the United States in the mid-19th century, which caused, in general: devastating loss of life; ramifications that lasted over one hundred years after the end of hostilities into the next “modern” century; and powerful familial catastrophes that touched the entirety of the nation in that time. No less devastating, though not always distinguished as a ‘civil war’, are the Jacobite uprisings, which took place in 1689, 1708, 1715, 1717, 1719, and finally, 1745. These were the civil wars in Scotland and Ireland that defined several generations with repercussions that have lasted to the present day. The campaigns involved factions in the British Isles who “in name” fought for the right of succession to the Crown of England although in the later conflicts the ideology behind the fighting can be seen as primarily political and/or economic in motivation. While the imperial succession was seen as the main division between the citizens of Ireland and Scotland from fellow countrymen and their English counterparts, they were also alienated through language, economic and religious divergences. These serious societal barriers aided in polarizing the disruptive factions of the Jacobite era, ultimately leading to brutal battles and the destruction of the clan system, a way of life that had been in place for centuries. This era is often vilified or romanticized, which in turn has promoted generalities and supposition as to the consequences the war had on the average subject. Little has been written about the effects of the Jacobite conflict on any particular family and, specifically, how it disrupted a noble and caring lineage. One family divided and overturned by the Jacobite wars were the Murrays of Atholl, descendants of heritage of a patrician house of Scotland since mediaeval times. “The spectacular divergence of opinion in the ducal house of Atholl confirmed the equation of Jacobitism to civil war” (Macinnes 1996). It is imperative to perceive how the clash of opposing ideologies transformed the Murray family in order to understand the injurious effects of the Jacobite hostilities. This understanding is also required to demonstrate at a more intimate level how such tensions and polarizations ruined good relations between relatives who had genuine affection and concern for one another.
John, the 1st Duke of Atholl, was born in 1660 to the 2nd Earl of Atholl and his wife, Lady Amelia Stanley, daughter of the Earl of Derby. His birth occurred shortly after the restoration of the throne of England to Charles II, the previously deposed Stuart monarch. Lord John married Katharine Hamilton, daughter of the 7th Earl of Gordon, and had many children, the most notable being: William (his second son and the named Marques of Tullibardine after the first son, John, died in 1709 in foreign campaigns under the Duke of Marlborough. William was attained for his part in the Jacobite Rebellion of 1715.); James (third son, officer in the British Army and the successor to the title in 1724 who remained loyal to the Hanoverian dynasty); Charles (fourth son – who died in 1720 but had fought in the 1715 for the Jacobites); and, most historically notable at present, George (the fifth son and famed General Lord George Murray of the Jacobite rising in 1745). John did take the oath of loyalty in 1689 to William of Orange although “he hedged his bets in 1689. He personally supported William of Orange but made no attempt to prevent the recruitment of his tenantry for the Jacobite cause” (Macinnes 1996). For his loyalty, the Duke was appointed by the King as one of the commissioners into the investigation of the Massacre at Glencoe following the unsuccessful Jacobite attempt in spite of the actions of the Atholl men. The Murray family reached the height of peerage when, in 1703, Queen Anne created Lord John the First Duke of Atholl and also bequeathed on him the title of Marques of Tullibardine to be left in perpetuity to the Duke’s eldest son. However, John himself had been a member of the Cavalier Party in the Scottish Parliament; a group who generally were loyal to the succession of the Stuart monarchs and further, who primarily wished to see Scotland retain its independence from England. He opposed the Act of Union and was one of its most vocal detractors in Parliament from 1705-1707. Although John did oppose the Hanoverian succession after the death of William and later, Anne, he never came out as a Jacobite and was reconciled to Hanoverian succession by 1715. One must surmise, however, that his political principles significantly affected his offspring as three of the eldest sons enlisted for the Jacobites in the 1715 war. Even the third son, James (who was generally unsupportive of the Jacobite cause) was instrumental in helping his disenfranchised brother, George, return to Scotland following his escape after the short-lived uprising in 1719. James also assisted his brother William, whose title he assumed, with financial aid in later years.
It is questionable why this newly created peer resisted the Union since the monarchy that supplied him with not only his title but also some of his livelihood desired the amalgamation to offset the possibility of war with France and further upheaval in the realm. Despite being a Cavalier and his resistance to the joining of the two kingdoms, John did eventually ‘sell out’ and vote to accept the Act of Union. He obviously had serious private doubts despite his allegiance to the Williamite monarchs, and it might be added that he ‘sold out’ for a rather paltry sum compared to others of his stature. Through the machinations of Simon Fraser, Lord Lovat the Duke was implicated in a Jacobite plot against Queen Anne. Lord John consequently became an adversary of the English government and the Hanoverian succession, although the propaganda had a damaging effect on his political career. He ultimately lost his office in October 1704 because of the deception. After this handling and his loss of prestige, he strongly opposed Union during 1705-1707 as previously mentioned. He entered into a planned resistance of the Union by force, which proposed the taking and possession of Stirling Castle with the aid of the Camerons. He ultimately accepted compensation of £1000 to call a halt to that plan in order to quell the proposed insurrection. Suspicions against the Duke were justifiably aroused after this intrigue, and a garrison was sent by Queen Anne to Blair-Atholl Castle to arrest him for treason and other less serious charges. The Duke was instead placed under house arrest, as he was rendered “ill” at the time of the garrison’s arrival. While “recuperating”, the deception was disclosed and Lord John sent a memorial to Queen Anne on the subject. He fervidly denied all seditious charges in the letter, and she evidently trusted his protestations of fidelity—she ordered the garrison removed in July 1708.
Despite all the implications against him and his reversals of career, the Duke remained loyal to the Crown. Such was not the case with much of his family. Three of his sons and his brother (William Murray, Lord Nairne) came out on the side of the Jacobites in the Rebellion of 1715. A letter from Duke John to his mother-in-law, Lady Hamilton, suggests that he was astonished at the Jacobite sympathies of his elder son, William, the Marques of Tullibardine. The Duke stated that after asking William of his intentions, he was answered: “I am come by King James’s orders and his friends”. The Duke went on to write: “I was perfectly struck with surprise at such an answer, but after I recovered myself I said do you know that I have taken the oath of loyalty to King George and that I will venture all my worth with him in opposition to a Popish King.” 1 He added that William answered that he chose the Jacobite cause out of principle and a belief in the rightness of the cause. The conversation described in this letter denotes the sectarianism that divided this family as the Duke was a devout Presbyterian and Tullibardine had switched his allegiance to the Episcopalian church. The Episcopalian faction of religious thought had more in common with Catholicism, the faith of James, who was notorious among the people as “Old Pretender.” Obviously the principal disagreement between these two men was primarily along religious grounds, not necessarily political ones. The Duke had some sympathies for the Jacobite cause. He was truly alarmed at the allegations made against him in the previous decade, and the near loss of his title and freedom. Another letter from the Duke to his son James in the archives at Blair-Atholl Castle indicates that while home for this visit, William refused to enter the Presbyterian Church with his family2. Such was a clear indication of his religious preference and his support of James as the rightful king. William, and his brothers Charles and George, rejected their upbringing in the Presbyterian Kirk by embracing the Episcopalian faith, thereby rejecting their father in the process. But why?
It must be realized that religion was a prime incentive for the lines on which men chose their allegiance to comprehend why the Duke’s eldest sons chose to turn their backs on the faith of their father. It was not, however, the only reason for their or any other self-defined Jacobite’s choice. “Non-juring Episcopalianism…played a pivotal role in holding up support for Jacobitism not only among clans predominantly of their persuasion, but also among clans of mixed denomination. Several caveats must be entered, however. Religion was not necessarily the prime determinant of Jacobite commitment among the clans, particularly when political allegiance cut across denominational lines” (Macinnes 1996). Nevertheless, faith caused significant divisions in English society, and later became a catalyst in the Scottish civil and religious uprisings, lasting for almost two centuries. Religion as a political issue was divisive beginning with the reign of Henry VIII and his break with the Catholic Church, which was made legal and forcibly instituted in England in 1536. The following century saw the outbreak of Cromwellian dynasticism and the usurpation of the monarchy, based primarily on these religious divergences. Scotland was home to two major religious factions during this time period—Episcopalians and Presbyterians. Catholicism, which had been ousted from the greater part of the kingdom, was not the issue that divided the Scottish. They were divided instead upon the aforementioned Protestant lines, although Episcopalianism was considered a “popish religion” to many. Episcopalianism, with its overtly Catholic sacraments, was seen as injurious to the state, as anti-Catholic sentiment was the predilection.
It was through this separatism that civil wars became prevalent. Into this era was born the 1st Duke of Atholl and he attained his majority under the troublesome years following the restoration of the Stuarts and their subsequent loss of the throne to William of Orange. The Duke’s children matured in the highly conflict-ridden time of James II deposition and the rule of King William with his less than ideal dealings with the Scots. These spiritual divisions were what led to the succession of William’s sister-in-law Anne to reign as England’s monarch after William’s death in 1703. Although a Stuart by birth, her loyalty lie with the Anglican protestant church. “Anne undoubtedly had an affection for the House of Stuart; but…she could not contemplate with pleasure the claim of her Papist half-brother and, in any case, since he (the Old Pretender) had already been recognized as King by Louis XIV, she could not form an alliance with the Jacobites without uncrowning herself” (Mackie 1964). The deposed Stuart monarchs were further removed from ever regaining the throne with the death of Queen Anne, as she had no surviving heir. The crown was thus handed to the Protestant Hanoverians, worrying many Scots who zealously supported the Episcopal faith. Scottish Parliament even took measures to keep the English monarchy from forcing the people to accept the Church of England as the primary religion, and to guarantee religious tolerance with regards to all church factions. The Episcopal Church was the faith of the Jacobites while Presbyterianism was the primary faith of the Scottish who were loyal to the Hanoverians. Not everyone was divided upon lines of religious ideology, although such was the general sentiment. Most Episcopalians supported Jacobitism and were anti-Union while their Presbyterian counterparts were more apt to support the established monarchy and Union. It is interesting to note that although the Duke of Atholl was a Presbyterian, he an anomaly in his fervent opposition to the Union. In fact, the Cavalier party he associated with was known to have strong Jacobite leanings. It is the religious differences of opinion that separated the Duke from his sons, especially William, as noted in letters in the Blair-Atholl Castle archives, despite the anti-Union sentiments he shared with his sons. The Union had a devastating affect on Scotland; the nation was under severe economic hardship, for the decades prior to and following the Union. Scotland was in dire fiscal condition and ripe for enjoining its more wealthy neighbour to the south upon the failure of the Darien Scheme. Many Scots attributed this failure directly to the power of the East India Company and its “great influence in the House of Commons” (Mackie 1964) over its alarm by perceived ‘competition’ the realm of economics and severe crop devastation in the latter part of the 17th century. Further, in 1701 the Act of Settlement had made the succession of the Hanoverians ‘legal’ without consulting or reference to the Scots. “It must be said that this hostility was due, not only to attachment to the ‘old song’ or to regret that the Scottish Parliament should have been extinguished just when it was thriving well, but to the attitude of the English themselves in misinterpreting the spirit of the Act of Union and sometimes even ignoring its text” (Mackie 1964). These issues paved the way for Scotland to welcome the return of James Francis Edward in 1715.
The persistent Jacobite leader Lord William Murray was born on April 14, 1689 and briefly attended St. Andrew’s University where his father was Chancellor. He matriculated there sometime around 1706 or 1707. Following his education, and against his father’s wishes, he joined the English Navy circa 1707 –1708 as an officer. The Duke accepted his son’s decision, and in a warm but austere letter to William, the Duke wrote of his concerns and offered constructive advice to his eldest son. He mainly worried that William would be engaging in the company of “rough men”. To counteract such influence, he advised his son “to read scriptures frequently, to let sincerity and truth be present in [his] heart - as to this piece of advice he mentioned that he had never known William to tell a lie, to avoid drunkenness and swearing and, finally, to keep the Sabbath holy.” 3 “By 1712 [William] had left the navy and went to live in London for the next two years, where he ran into debt, a problem which was to be lifelong. By 1714 at the latest he was receiving moneys from the Stuart court” (Pittock 2004). Indeed, the support from the Stuarts and the debt owed to them by William for their assistance may be part of his loyalty to their restoration. When William came out in the uprising of 1715, he joined with the Earl of Mar and was able to rouse over 1400 of the Atholl men despite his father’s warnings and the Duke’s unsuccessful attempts “in raising (his) men for the Hanoverian cause” (Leneman 1986). At this turn of events the Duke wrote to William to “submit to the lawful king and lay down your arms”. 4 It is interesting to note that there is no evidence that the Duke admonished his other sons, Charles and George, as severely through correspondence as he did his eldest son, despite that both were leaders of brigades of Atholl men. This may be due to the great esteem in which Lord John held his eldest son, and might also reflect on his concern that William’s endeavors would lead down a path to destruction. Either way, the Duke must have foreseen that the actions of his children against the might of England were foolish, and that they were committing their future to a cause many considered lost before it began. Mackie states, speaking in general of the rising of 1715: “It may be too much to say that they were foredoomed to failure, but certainly they were founded upon false hopes” (Mackie 1964). The ’15 and those who fought in it were not necessarily of the same conviction as their predecessors in the Glorious Revolution of 1689. In fact, of those men from Atholl roused to come out in the ’15; many had been forced, and of “those who went willingly, many would have been tenants of Jacobite vassals, considering themselves duty bound to follow their lords” (Leneman 1986). The dynastic issue and right of succession were not as motivating as was the economic disparity between the two countries in the newly forged union. “That no magnate family consistently supported Jacobitism bears out the contention that the cause was inherently if not fatally weakened by its lack of drawing power among the first rank of Scottish aristocracy” (Lenman 1980). It seems probable therefore that even those who held to Jacobite convictions at the time were not easily swayed to forcible action against the might of England.
Lord Charles Murray was taken prisoner when the Jacobites surrendered following the battle of Preston in Lancashire on November 12, 1715. He was court-martialled and found guilty of mutiny as he still held a British Army commission. He alone escaped execution through his father’s influence; two other Jacobite officers that were captured with Charles were executed without delay. Despite the Duke’s machinations, Charles remained incarcerated until the Act of Grace and Free Pardon in 1717, which provided him with an official emancipation for his part in the ‘15. His health was broken, however, by the lengthy detention. Lord George escaped imprisonment and somehow managed to spirit his brother, Lord William, out of the Tower of London where he was imprisoned and housed with his namesake, his uncle, William Murray, Lord Nairne. He and George made their way to France where William was bequeathed with several titles by the court in exile—titles he never used. Tullibardine was attained in Britain on February 17, 1716, losing all his rights to the hereditary titles of his ancestors and his ability to return to his home. These sons of a great Scottish peer paid a severe penalty for their part in the Jacobite cause; “…The Duke of Atholl moved heaven and earth to try to mitigate the consequences of the actions of his three Jacobite sons after the rising…but clearly this was because they were his sons, not because he felt any kind of latent sympathy with anti-Hanoverian Jacobite views” (Leneman 1986). These men owed a great debt to their father for his attempts to clear their names. Frankly, the Duke himself was little concerned with the individual men who had fought on the side of the Jacobites. The ideology of ‘civil war’ and how can destroy families is brought to light by the actions of a man for his children who betrayed the moral and spiritual foundations he laid for them in their youth.
Tullibardine was an active agent for the restoration of the Stuarts throughout the remaining campaigns of the Jacobite era. After the Treaty of Utretch in 1713 and the death of Louis XIV, the French were effectively out of the Jacobite plots for the remainder of the next twenty years. The Stuarts were banished from France and moved their court to Rome to receive succour from the Pope. Little is known of Tullibardine’s actual involvement in the planning of either of the following attempts, but hopefully further research will uncover his role during those tumultuous times. He was made Commander in Chief of Scotland in 1717 in the proposed invasion with Sweden, which never quite materialized. The proposed Swedish-Jacobite plot lacked the sincere backing of Charles XII of Sweden and was more of a “double confidence trick” (Lenman 1980). By no stretch of the imagination was the over-optimism of the Jacobites founded on any real hopes of this quasi-uprising, which never really had a chance. A better effort was made in 1719 when, with the aid of Spain, another attempt was launched. Cardinal Alberoni of Spain had hopes of quashing alliances with Austria to thwart his ambitions in Italy. According to Mackie it was merely a “side-issue of European diplomacy”(Mackie 1964). It is known that during the 1719 plot Tullibardine shared command with the Earl Marischal. They did manage to meet up with Spanish ships near the Isle of Lewis in spite of the British Navy almost catching them. But “at this point the smaller vessel began to makes its predictable contribution in the shape of divided counsels, quarrels over seniority in command, and that general air of mistrust and damaged pride which seems to be typical of bands of political brothers” (Lenman 1980). It seems that the Jacobites were at the mercy of the weather and poor planning. It is known, however, that when Marischal insisted on landing and attempting to make their way to Inverness, Tullibardine was able to supersede him. The attempt at invasion was hampered by news of the collapse of aid from the Duke of Ormonde, who had been attempting to join them. This was as a general dissuasion among the Highland clans to join the rebellion, although Lord Seaforth, Rob Roy McGregor and Lord George Murray were able to produce about a thousand men total. The Highland clans dispersed into the hills as they were swept back by British forces to Glen Shiel, leaving the Spanish infantry to surrender. Tullibardine wrote of the account, a depressed narrative, to the Earl of Mar, Jacobite Secretary of State; it ended with the statement: “we came with hardly anything that was really necessary for such an undertaking”. 5 Lord William succeeded again in making his escape despite a reward of £2000 for his capture, sailing from Harris for the Loire on 1 March 1720 (Pittock 2004). Further, “as far as Scotland was concerned, the event was of no substance” (Mackie 1964).
The next, and final attempt was in 1745. Prince Charles Edward was born in 1720 to the king in exile, James VIII (or III), keeping the hope of the Jacobite’s alive for another generation. “The sheer hopelessness of the Jacobite cause after the collapse of the ’15 had tempted even the staunchest of Jacobites to come surreptitiously to terms with the House of Hanover” (Lenman 1980). Much changed for Scotland both at home and abroad during the time between the failed effort of 1719 and the rising in 1745. The Highlands were nominally disarmed in 1725, and General Wade also constructed over 250 miles through the region with the aid of friendly clans. Six regiments of Highlanders were formed into the legendary “Black Watch” in 1729. James’s tiny court abroad was rocked with squabbles and political intrigues, and only the Pope recognized him as a king. George II had succeeded his father without incident in 1727, and France and England remained at peace. James attempted to keep his hopes alive through his Jacobite supporters in Parliament by asking them to band together on whatever issues they found in common, and an endeavour was made in 1738 to reduce the standing army of Britain. This failed through the sensible opposition led by Sir Robert Walpole, who argued that the standing army must be maintained to keep at bay any advance of an army of over five thousand, which could easily be brought over on ships and slip past the navy. Young Prince Charles felt it was his destiny to make an attempt to restore his father to what was felt by many still as his rightful throne. At age 23, he pawned jewels, borrowed money, acquired a few arms and munitions (and with them a few followers of whom Tullibardine was one), and set forth from France to seek his fortune—all without his father’s knowledge or blessing. These few men landed at Borrodale on July 25, 1745, and the young Chevalier unfurled his father’s standard at Glenfinnan on August 16. “Despite a gout problem, which rendered (William) unable to walk on the day of the landing and other signs of premature ageing (he was thought by one observer to be seventy, though in fact only fifty-six), he played an active part in the rising that followed” (Pittock 2004). James, the then Duke of Atholl, fled before his brother’s advance, allowing Lord William to retake Blair-Atholl Castle. Prince Charles Edward made Tullibardine Commander in Chief of the king’s forces in Scotland on September 22, 1745. Lord George Murray, who received a pardon for his part in the previous risings and who had been reconciled to his family, made his sentiments known to Duke James in a letter of September 2, 1745 and once again came out for the Jacobites. He was made a commanding general of the Prince’s forces. The Jacobite army took Edinburgh with relative ease in late September. It appears, however, that Tullibardine was not as successful at raising men as was hoped for “throughout October 1745 Lord George was writing…to implore his brother, Duke William, to come down with his men. Initially, the latter was to have gathered together a force from the northern central highlands, but once it was clear that in spite of Duke William’s efforts this was not going to prove possible, Lord George asked him to just to bring the Atholl men as speedily as he could” (Leneman 1986). The effort was doomed to failure when poor timing occurred once again, along with the plague of poor strategy, despite initial successes and several of the prominent Scottish gentry coming out to support the young prince. The Prince and his Irish ‘advisers’ (rather flatters) were highly suspicious of Lord George, although the general had served the Prince’s father well and was the most capable military adviser on the prince’s council. There was little support coming from the English Jacobites and virtually none from the French or any other European powers. The retreat into Scotland occurred following the unsuccessful invasion of England, which Lord George heartily advised against. Lord George commanded the rear, a difficult task considering the closeness of British forces, as well as the critical opinion of the Prince. There was another success for the Jacobites at Falkirk due once again to Lord George; however resources were running low and as the army fled towards Inverness, the Prince decided to make a final stand at Culloden. Lord George, a capable and shrewd military leader, advised against this site and time but headstrong Charles had to have his way. The move was disastrous and cost the Jacobite army over 1000 dead. Murray led the remnants of the Jacobite army to Ruthven following Culloden debacle with a mind to organise further resistance. Lord George, however, was issued a letter from the Prince releasing him from service. The astute general answered by chastising Charles for his suspicions and carelessness. Out of money and out of luck, the last hope for the Jacobites fled into the heather and made his escape from Scotland to end his days in drink and disillusionment.
Lord George also made an escape and wound up in Holland where his beloved wife, Amelia, joined him. He died there in 1760 never to return to his treasured Scottish home. His son, Lord John Murray, despite his father’s attainder succeeded his uncle, Duke James and became the 3rd Duke of Atholl in 1764. Tullibardine, already in ill health, fled south to the Buchanans near Loch Lomond. Buchanan’s son betrayed William, despite being a cousin by marriage, “to the garrison at Dumbarton Castle, whence the marques was sent by way of Edinburgh to the Tower of London, where he died, childless, on 9 July 1746, worn out by years of exile and privation” (Pittock 2004). William is seen as a less than remarkable figure in Jacobite history, but perhaps his reputation suffered through his inabilities in successfully and perceptively interpreting the most effective means of assisting his king in regaining his throne. What can be said about Tullibardine is that he was remarkably faithful to the Jacobite cause in spite of his carelessness with money, or his misplaced allegiance and errors in judgment. “He was a man dedicated more than most of his, or any other, class to a single task: the restoration of his royal master to the thrones of England, Scotland, and Ireland. For this he died an early death, without which the scaffold would have claimed him” (Pittock 2004). For all that Lord William Murray suffered, his place in Scottish Jacobite history should not be overlooked. He was literally born in the year the first rising commenced and died in the year the last rising failed. He truly is a remarkable figure in that he embodied the spirit of Jacobitism and lived and died for its purpose. He and his family were victims of the longest era of civil war seen in Britain and for that reason alone he and they are worth remembering.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
1 Letter from John, Duke of Atholl to Lady Hamilton; July 21, 1715. Blair-Atholl Castle Archives
2 Letter from John, Duke of Atholl to Lord James Murray, July 23, 1715. Blair-Atholl Castle Archives
3 Letter from John, Duke of Atholl to Lord William Murray, February 9, 1708. Blair-Atholl Castle Archives
4 Letter from John, Duke of Atholl to Lord William Murray, September 1715. Blair-Atholl Castle Archives
5 Letter from William Murray, Marques of Tullibardine to Earl of Mar, June 19, 1719. The Jacobite Attempt of 1719, Scottish History Society, vol. 19, Edinburgh, 1895.
Secondary Sources
Leneman, Leah, ‘Living in Atholl’, Edinburgh University Press, 1986
Lenman, Bruce, ‘The Jacobite Risings in Britain 1689-1746’, Meuthen London Ltd, 1980
Macinnes, Allan I., ‘Clanship, Commerce and the House of Stuart, 1603-1788’, Tuckwell Press Ltd, East Lothian, 1996
Mackie, J.D., ‘A History of Scotland’, Penguin Books Ltd, London, 1964
Pittock, Murray G. H., ‘Murray, William, Styled Second Duke of Atholl and Marques of Tullibardine (1689–1746)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004; online edn, May 2006 (http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/19654, accessed 10 May 2007)
COMMENTS
-