Labouring-Class Borrowing at Innerpeffray Library, 1815-1833
Now that I’m in the final few weeks of my Carnegie-funded research with Books and Borrowing (I’m very sad about this!) I thought I’d share some of my findings with you. There’s too much for me to share in a single blog post, so this post will centre around labouring-class borrowings at Innerpeffray Library from 1815 to 1833, identifying who was using the library, how they were using it, and what they were borrowing. Where possible, I’ll compare my findings with those of Paul Kaufman, who, in ‘Innerpeffray: Reading for All the People’ details the borrowings at Innerpeffray from 1747 to 1800, in order to track any changes in borrowing trends after the turn of the century. I’ll also draw on information provided by the Statistical Account of Scotland, a multi-volume work which provides an insight into life in each of Scotland’s parishes from 1791 to 1799, thus offering a sense of the lives of potential borrowers. Sadly, there’s no mention of Innerpeffray Library in the Statistical Account of the surrounding area. Likewise, reading habits are never described; indeed, leisure and entertainment appear very little. But these accounts of contemporary society will help contexualise and explain some of the borrowing trends presented in my data.
After extracting the data of borrowings from the relevant time period from the Books and Borrowing Content Management System, I spent a significant amount of time searching for any biographical information of all the borrowers, looking specifically for occupations. The occupational information provided in Innerpeffray’s borrowing recording is ample in the latter half of the eighteenth century, but this extensive level of record-keeping seems to have dwindled in my period of interest. Biographical research was, therefore, a large task, but I’m pleased that of the 217 borrowers from 1815 to 1833, I was able to identity the occupations of 65 of them. This seems to be a sufficient cross-section of the borrowers. Evidence of this is manifested in the similarities between the most popular books of 1815 and 1833 and those of the identified 65 only:
Table 1: Most Borrowed Books at Innerpeffray Library, 1815-1833
|1||30||Tour in Scotland||Thomas Pennant (1726-1798)|
|2||28||Essays and treatises: on several subjects||David Hume (1711-1776)|
|3||26||Natural history: general and particular||Comte de Georges Louis Leclerc Buffon (1707-1788)|
|4||23||Synopsis criticorum allorumque S. Scripturæ interpretum||Matthew Poole (1624-1679)|
|5||22||Plays of William Shakespeare, in eight volumes (ed. Samuel Johnson)||William Shakespeare (1564-1616)|
|6||21||Iliad of Homer (tr. James Macpherson)||Homer|
|21||Ecclesiastical history: ancient and modern, from the birth of Christ, to the beginning of the present century||Johann Lorenz Mosheim (c. 1674-1755)|
|21||Old and New Testament connected: in the history of the Jews and neighbouring nations||Humphrey Prideaux (1648-1724)|
|7||19||History of the reign of the Emperor Charles V||William Robertson (1721-1793)|
|1||19||Biblia hebraica: secundum ultimam editionem||Richard Rogers (c. 1550-1618)|
|8||18||Essays. On the nature and immutability of truth: … On poetry and music, … On laughter, and ludicrous composition. On the utility of classical learning.||James Beattie (1735-1803)|
|9||17||Inquiry into the human mind: on the principles of common sense||Thomas Reid (1710-1796)|
|17||Roman history: from the foundation of the city of Rome, to the destruction of the western empire||Oliver Goldsmith
|10||16||Complete body of speculative and practical divinity, consisting of five parts||Thomas Stackhouse (1680-1752)|
|11||15||History of America||William Robertson (1721-1793)|
|15||Institution of Christian religion||Jean Calvin
|15||Works of John Locke, Esq: in three volumes||John Locke
|15||History of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire||Edward Gibbon (1737-1794)|
Table 2: Most borrowed books of the 65 identified borrowers, 1815-1833
|1||22||Synopsis criticorum allorumque S. Scripturæ interpretum||Matthew Poole (1624-1679)|
|2||15||Essays and treatises: on several subjects||David Hume (1711-1776)|
|15||Natural history,: general and particular||Comte de Georges Louis Leclerc Buffon (1707-1788)|
|3||12||Plays of William Shakespeare, in eight volumes (ed. Samuel Johnson)||William Shakespeare (1564-1616)|
|4||10||Biblia hebraica: secundum ultimam editionem||Richard Rogers
|10||History of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire||Edward Gibbon (1737-1794)|
|5||8||Iliad of Homer (tr. James Macpherson)||Homer|
|8||Works of John Locke, Esq: in three volumes||John Locke
|8||Institution of Christian religion||Jean Calvin
|8||Tour in Scotland||Thomas Pennant (1726-1798)|
|8||Ecclesiastical history: ancient and modern, from the birth of Christ, to the beginning of the present century||Johann Lorenz Mosheim (c. 1674-1755)|
|8||History of the reign of the Emperor Charles V||William Robertson (1721-1793)|
|8||Romae antiquae notitia: or, the antiquities of Rome||Basil Kennett (1674-1715)|
|6||7||History of America||William Robertson (1721-1793)|
|7||He Kaine Diatheke: Novum Testamentum||Ed. Richard Rogers
|7||Essays. On the nature and immutability of truth, : … On poetry and music, … On laughter, and ludicrous composition. On the utility of classical learning.||James Beattie (1735-1803)|
|7||Roman history: from the foundation of the city of Rome, to the destruction of the western empire||Oliver Goldsmith
As a comparison of Tables 1 and 2 reveals, all but two of the most borrowed books by the 65 identified borrowers also appear in the list of most borrowed books overall between 1815 and 1833. The only two additions in Table 2 are Kennett’s Romæ antiquæ notitia: or, the antiquities of Rome and the Greek New Testament. Further, the only three books that appear in Table 1 but not Table 2 are Prideaux’s The Old and New Testament connected: in the history of the Jews and neighbouring nations, Reid’s An inquiry into the human mind: on the principles of common sense, and Stackhouse’s A complete body of speculative and practical divinity, consisting of five parts. The bibliographical framework of both lists are therefore almost identical, save for a few additions and exclusions, and some variety in the orders in which the books appear. As such, these 65 borrowers are a relatively reliable representation of the borrowers as a collective, and so a closer study of these microcosmic 65 will offer an excellent insight into labouring-class trends from 1815 to 1833. As it’s much more difficult to find historical records for labouring-class people, the data these 65 borrowers offer is the most accurate representation possible.
I’ll return to the most popular books later in this post, but for now it’s worthwhile considering who borrowed from Innerpeffray Library from 1815 to 1833. My biographical search returned a total of 16 occupations, representing a range of classes:
Figure 1: Occupations identified and no. of borrowers belonging to each profession
As Figure 1 illuminates, ministers are by far the most represented occupational group (it’s worth remembering that biographical information about ministers is not too hard to find). Of these 17, nine are Church of Scotland ministers and two are Presbyterian Seceders. The rest have not been identified, but I’m still working on this! Ministers are followed by farmers, labourers, and weavers, who collectively constitute most of the labouring-class borrowers. The remaining borrowers represent a wide range of occupations from all stations of life (the student, William Young, is the subject of a previous blog post). It’s clear that, although there are more ministers than other occupational groups, there is a significant proportion of the ‘middling sort of people’ and labouring-class people accessing the library. These results suggest that library access was certainly not exclusive to scholars or gentry, as some narratives, such as Giles Mandelbrote’s and K.A. Manley’s suggest.
Moreover, workers have a significant impact on overall borrowing trends, more so than those of a higher social statues. This is exemplified by comparing the data in Table 1 (above) with the labouring class’ most borrowed books (Table 3). I chose to focus closely on farmers, labourers, and weavers as a collective, as they make up the majority of labouring-class borrowings.
Table 3: Most Borrowed Books by Farmers, Labourers, and Weavers at Innerpeffray Library, 1815-1833
|1||6||Fifteen sermons preached at the Rolls Chapel||Joseph Butler (1692-1752)|
|2||5||Philosophical works of the late Right Honorable Henry St John: Lord Viscount Bolingbroke||Viscount Henry St John Bolingbroke (1678-1751)|
|5||Inquiry into the human mind: on the principles of common sense||Thomas Reid (1710-1796)|
|5||Natural history: general and particular||Comte de Georges Louis Leclerc Buffon (1707-1788)|
|3||4||Ecclesiastical history: ancient and modern, from the birth of Christ, to the beginning of the present century||Johann Lorenz Mosheim (c. 1674-1755)|
|4||Essays. On the nature and immutability of truth: … On poetry and music, … On laughter, and ludicrous composition. On the utility of classical learning.||James Beattie (1735-1803)|
|4||Works of John Locke, Esq: in three volumes||John Locke
|4||3||Essays and treatises: on several subjects||David Hume (1711-1776)|
|3||Analogy of religion: natural and revealed, to the constitution and course of nature||Joseph Butler (1692-1752)|
|3||Sketches of the history of man||Henry Home, Lord Kames (1696-1782)|
|3||Tour in Scotland||Thomas Pennant (1726-1798)|
|3||History of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire||Edward Gibbon (1737-1794)|
|3||Essay on genius||Alexander Gerard (1728-1795)|
|3||Lives of the English poets: and a criticism on their works||Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)|
Again, there are variations in the order of the recurring books on these lists, but eight of the most borrowed books by the labouring class appear on Table 1. To emphasise the significance of this, a comparison of Table 1 and the most borrowed books of ministers (Table 4) for the same time period reveals that only three of ministers’ most borrowed books appear on the list of most borrowed books overall:
Table 4: Most Borrowed Books by Ministers at Innerpeffray Library, 1815-1833
|1||16||Synopsis criticorum allorumque S. Scripturæ interpretum||Matthew Poole (1624-1679)|
|2||13||Old and New Testament connected: in the history of the Jews and neighbouring nations||Humphrey Prideaux (1648-1724)|
|3||7||He Kaine Diatheke: Novum Testamentum||Richard Rogers
|4||6||History of the Puritans: or Protestant non-conformists, … with an account of their principles||Daniel Neal
|5||5||Travels in Greece: or an account of a tour made at the expense of the Society of Dilettanti||Richard Chandler (1738-1810)|
|5||Exposition of the five first chapters of the prophet Ezekiel: with useful observations thereupon||William Greenhill (1591-1671)|
|5||Certaine plaine, briefe, and comfortable notes, vpon euery chapter of Genesis||Gervase Babington (1550-1610)|
|6||4||L. Coelij Lactantij Firmiani Diuinarum institutionum libri septem||Lactantius
|4||Tour in Scotland||Thomas Pennant (1726-1798)|
|4||Historical account of the British trade over the Caspian Sea: with a journal of travels from London through Russia into Persia||Jonas Hanway (1712-1786)|
|4||Philosophical works of Francis Bacon, Baron of Verulam||Francis Bacon (1561-1626)|
This indicates, then, that the labouring class is the most significant borrowing force at Innerpeffray Library. While ministers borrow more books, the books they borrow are mostly different to those represented in the overall trends. My project supervisor, Kelsey Jackson Williams, suggests that this is because many of the books are practical reference works for writing sermons. The impact that the labouring class appears to have on overall borrowing trends is indicative of a high volume of labouring-class borrowers. Further reinforcement of this supposition arises when comparing the average number of borrowings per person with that of people in distinct classes:
|Occupation||Average No. of Borrowings
The average number of borrowings by labouring classes is in alignment with the total average number of borrowings, while that of ministers is about double the total average. This implies that a member of the labouring class is the ‘average borrower’, again, contradicting the narrative that libraries were used more readily by the upper class.
In fact, it seems that labouring-class borrowers had significant use of Innerpeffray Library even in the latter half of the eighteenth century, further challenging the notion that libraries were ‘the preserve of the élite’. I turned to Kaufman’s analysis of borrowing records from 1747 to 1800 to identify any changes in labouring-class borrowing over the turn of the century, finding that the labouring and middling classes were significantly prevalent in borrowing records, even before 1800. Kaufman notes the presence of the following twenty-seven occupations in the pre-1800 borrowing records:
barber, bookseller, army captain, cooper, dyer, dyer apprentice, factor, farmer, flaxdresser, gardener, glover, mason, merchant, miller, minister, quarrier, schoolmaster, servant, shoemaker, surgeon, student (of humanity, divinity, philosophy), smith, surgeon, surgeon apprentice, tailor, watchmaker, weaver, wright, rounded out with the mere status of ‘Esquire’.
Although a direct comparison is not possible as Kaufman does not include the number of borrowers from each profession, the vast range of occupations represented in eighteenth-century data suggests that no significant change in labouring-class access took place over the turn of the century. As such, the labouring class was able to access Innerpeffray Library far earlier than scholarship implies it should have. Having said this, it’s worth noting that Innerpeffray was a free lending library, allowing free access to workers. Most other Scottish libraries were subscription, institutional, or circulating libraries, too expensive for the labouring class to access. Innerpeffray Library does, therefore, contradict the narrative presented by Mandelbrote and Manley, but its labouring-class demographic is probably very unique. Mandelbrote’s and Manley’s view that libraries were used predominantly by upper classes is most likely generally correct, with Innerpeffray Library as an exception. I expect other libraries were quite restrictive to the working class, a trend which, I hope, a comparison between Innerpeffray and other Scottish libraries will demonstrate.
Details about the local parishes as described in the Statistical Account of Scotland help to contextualise the exceptionally large number of labouring-class borrowers at Innerpeffray. Very simply, and unsurprisingly given the library’s location in rural Perthshire, the considerable labouring- and middling-class presence at Innerpeffray Library is likely because the local population is predominantly working class. Almost all entries in the account list the occupations of their population, revealing a largely labouring and artisan population, as statistics from Crieff, Fowlis Wester, and Monzie exemplify:
Occupational demographics of Crieff from the Statistical Account of Scotland
Occupational demographics of Fowlis Wester from the Statistical Account of Scotland
Occupational demographics of Monzie from the Statistical Account of Scotland
The lack of a white-collar and aristocratic population can also be inferred from the accounts: in Auchterarder, for instance, ‘the four principle heritors do not reside in the parish’; in Trinity Gask, ‘only two [of six] of the heritors reside in the parish’; and in Muthill, ‘[t]here is no writer, surgeon, or physician’, with assistance requested from Crieff or Dunblane when required. William notes that fifty years prior to this, most heritors were residents of these parishes, and so their lack of presence represents a major change. As such, the borrower demographic is seemingly reflective of the local demographic.
The Statistical Account of Scotland also gives an indication as to why labouring-class borrowers had regular use of the library from the mid-eighteenth century, rather than at around the turn of the century scholars such as John Crawford and Mandelbrote and Manley contend. It seems that any social change that would have triggered an increase in labouring-class access to Innerpeffray Library had already happened by 1800. Many Statistical Account authors make mention of stabilised population numbers. In Auchterarder, ‘[t]he population … is not materially different from what it was 5, 10, or 25 years ago’ and in Methven ‘[t]he population has been almost stationary within these forty years’. Perhaps prior to these years, parishes were still dealing with the aftermath of the famine years of the 1690s and the Jacobite Rising in the first half of the eighteenth century, after which population numbers appear to have settled. The lack of demographic change at the turn of the century explains why borrower trends also remained unchanged. Agricultural improvements are also described in the Statistical Account. The author of the Methven account shares that ‘[w]ithin these 20 years; the improvements in agriculture have been very great in this parish, as well as in other places’. This sentiment is echoed in Muthill, where ‘much arable land [has] been meliorated’, and in Crieff, about which the author writes, ‘Until the year 1774, the old mode of farming by croft and outfield universally prevailed … Then, however, some extensive strata of marl were discovered in the neighbourhood, the use of which quickly introduced a more profitable mode of agriculture.’ These agricultural improvements potentially afforded the labourers a little more leisure, and thus more time to read. More generally, the labourers’ quality of life is described as contented. Although many authors describe the people as ‘industrious’, daily life does not appear to be too long or laborious. In Monzie, it is said that ‘[t]he people … have a reasonable measure of the comforts and conveniences of life’, ‘comforts’ further implying the presence of time for leisure. The author also notes that ‘[l]earning is now more generally diffused than formerly’, pointing to a more literate population, more likely to borrow books. The account from Fowlis Wester is particularly revealing. The writer describes the people’s ‘circumstances’ as ‘tolerably easy and more plentiful than formerly’, providing the following explanation:
On several of the greatest estates, the tenants were [19 years ago], or a few years earlier, bound to carry out the dung, to plow and harrow all the lands possessed by the heritor (who they all called, and still through habit call their master, but more frequently the laird) to cut, dry, and carry home his peats, and all the coals used by his family; to cut, win, and stack his hay; to cut down, carry home, and stack corns; to carry bark and farm meal to any unlimited distance where the factor sold these articles, but rarely above 12 or 20 miles; to go each in their turn with a horse or cart to Perth or Crieff, or longer journies when required, and all at their own charge, without any allowance of food for man and beast.
This ungodly number of chores labourers were required to complete for their lairds would have taken up a considerable amount of time and energy, and so rest and recovery would have been prioritised in any ‘free time’ these workers might have had. With the removal of these obligations, labourers may have been able to incorporate more hobbies into their daily routines, again, creating more opportunities for reading. It seems, therefore, that the obliteration of clan culture and agricultural innovation have together afforded more labourers some time to read, as well as the ability to read. As such, there is no marked increase in labouring-class borrowing in the early-nineteenth century as the turn of the century appears to have been a time of relative stagnation, after a mid-century of social upheaval and more recent agricultural innovation – a time in which labouring-class borrowing was more readily enabled. I’d be interested in analysing the occupations of borrowers from around 1750 to 1790 to uncover whether an observable increase in labouring-class borrowing exists at the time when the Statistical Account suggests it might have.
A further interesting discovery I made regarded the most active months at Innerpeffray Library. Charting the relative borrowing activity each month reveals that summer, for the borrowers as a collective as well as only the labouring class, was the most popular season, with numbers dwindling in the winter:
Figure 2: Total number of borrowings per month at Innerpeffray Library, 1815-1833
Figure 3: Total number of borrowings by farmers, weavers, and labourers per month at Innerpeffray Library, 1815-1833
For each of these labouring occupations, borrowing activity peaks in summer, and, although books are still borrowed in the winter months, borrowings observably decrease.
Only one chapter of the Statistical Account, that of Auchterarder, gives an insight into the yearly agricultural routine of farmers:
The tenants generally begin to sow pease and oats about the middle of March, if the weather prove favourable, and conclude the making of their barley sowing about the 25th of May. Harvest commonly begins, in the low part of the parish, the first or second week of September, and in the hills extends to the end of October or the beginning of November.
Although this is only one account, and so is by no means authoritative, the months in which workers were most active do broadly reflect this narrative, perhaps indicating that sowing and harvest time are the busiest for labourers, leaving limited time to borrow and read books.
A further insight into why labouring-class borrowings were heightened in the summer months is provided by Vivenne Dunstan’s PhD thesis, in which she reviews historical accounts of reading habits in Scotland from 1750 to 1820. Included in her thesis are several accounts of working-class people who read early in the morning, before the working day, or at night after the day’s tasks were complete, such as Robert White, a farmer’s son who ‘read between five and six in the morning, an hour at dinner, and from six in the evening “while day lasted”.’ It seems that labourers were borrowing more in summer to exploit the increased daylight, while the limited light in winter denied workers the ability to read, thus explaining the limited winter borrowings.
I also discovered an observable change in the type of books borrowed. Kaufman identified the following as the most borrowed books at Innerpeffray Library between 1747 and 1800:
Table 5: Most Borrowed Books at Innerpeffray Library, 1747-1800 (adapted from Kaufman)
|1||46||History of the reign of the Emperor Charles V||William Robertson (1721-1793)|
|2||37||Sermons on several subjects and occasions||Samuel Clarke (1675-1729)|
|3||34||Sermons and discourses: : some of which never before printed||John Tillotson (1630-1694)|
|4||30||Several discourses preached at the Temple church||Thomas Sherlock (1678-1751)|
|5||27||Natural history: general and particular||Comte de Georges Louis Leclerc Buffon (1707-1788)|
|6||26||Monthly review; or, Literary journal|
|26||Johann Lorenz Mosheim (c. 1674-1755)|
|7||24||Sermons on various subjects||John Abernethy (1680-1740)|
|8||23||Universal history, from the earliest account of time. Compiled from original authors; and illustrated with maps, cuts, notes, &c||William Robertson (1721-1793)|
|9||20||Sermons and discourses on several subjects and occasions||Francis Atterbury (1662-1732)|
|20||Works of John Locke, Esq; in three volumes||John Locke (1632-1704)|
It’s not difficult to notice that sermons make up five of the eleven titles on this list, with history books taking up a further four spots. Moreover, as Kaufman highlights, ‘still most noticeable is the absence of almost every kind of the less weighty literature: no fiction at all in the earlier period, practically no poetry and no drama at all’. The picture from 1815 to 1833, however, is visibly different, as Table 1 demonstrates.
In the early nineteenth century, borrowers are still interested in religion, but no longer read sermons almost exclusively. History books are also still prominent, but, overall, a more diverse range of genres are being borrowed. For instance, readers are swaying into the political and the critical by reading Hume’s Essays, interested in domestic travel in the form of Pennant’s Tour, and fiction is far more popular than in the previous century, with Homer’s Iliad and Shakespeare’s Plays both taking top spots.
Table 3 (above) demonstrates that the borrowings of the labouring class, namely farmers, labourers, and weavers, are broadly reflective of these trends. In slight contradiction to the overall borrowings in 1815 to 1833, Butler’s Sermons takes the top spot, perhaps reflective of the local population’s religious zeal, as mentioned in several Statistical Account descriptions of the local area. Some texts differ, but the genres featured on the list – religion, history, criticism, fiction, and travel – are largely the same, further reinforcing the significant impact of the labouring class on the library’s overall borrowing trends.
Next steps in my research include ascertaining how exceptional Innerpeffray Library was as a pre-established site of labouring-class borrowing by the beginning of the nineteenth century. As mentioned above, Innerpeffray’s labouring-class borrowing demographic is certainly unique, but to what extent were labourers and artisans in other parishes able to access libraries as readily as those near Innerpeffray? Fortunately, research has developed since the publication of Kaufman’s work, in which he emphasises Innerpeffray Library’s value as ‘the only known record of the kind surviving in Scotland from the eighteenth century’, and I’ll be able to compare this data with that of other libraries to create a more comprehensive picture of labouring-class borrowing in the early 1800s. Further, I’d like to examine how closely my findings align with pre-existing understandings of provincial and labouring-class library use in Scotland. I’m looking forward to sharing my findings with you!
My sincerest thanks go to Jill Dye and Vivienne Dunstan, whose PhD theses have informed my research.
 Giles Mandelbrote, and K. A. Manley, ‘Introduction: The Changing World of Libraries,’ in The Cambridge History of Libraries in Britain and Ireland: Vol. II 1640-1850, ed. by Giles Mandelbrote, and K. A. Manley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 1-6 (p. 5).
 Paul Kaufman, Libraries and their Users (London: Library Association, 1969), p. 156.
 Robert Stirling, ‘Parish of Crieff’, in Statistical Account of Scotland: Vol. IX, ed. by John Sinclair (Edinburgh: William Creech, 1793), pp. 583-602 (pp. 585-586).
 Rev. Mr Stirling, ‘Parish of Foulis Wester’, in Statistical Account of Scotland: Vol. XV, ed. by John Sinclair (Edinburgh: William Creech, 1795), pp. 594-609 (p. 600).
 George Erskine, ‘Parish of Monzie’, in Statistical Account of Scotland: Vol. XV, ed. by John Sinclair (Edinburgh: William Creech, 1795), pp. 241-259 (p. 258).
 Andrew Duncan, ‘Parish of Auchterarder’, in Statistical Account of Scotland: Vol. IX, ed. by John Sinclair (Edinburgh: William Creech, 1792), pp. 33-46 (p. 36).
 A Friend to Statistical Enquiries, ‘Parish of Trinity Gask’, in Statistical Account of Scotland: Vol. XVII, ed. by John Sinclair (Edinburgh: William Creech, 1796), pp. 482-488 (pp. 482-483).
 John Scott, ‘Parish of Muthill’, in Statistical Account of Scotland: Vol. VIII, ed. by John Sinclair (Edinburgh: William Creech, 1793), pp. 485-498 (p. 490).
 John Crawford, ‘The Ideology of Mutual Improvement in Scottish Working Class Libraries’, Library History 12, no. 1 (1996): pp. 49-61 (p. 55).
 Mandelbrote and Manley, ‘Introduction: The Changing World of Libraries’, p. 3.
 Duncan, ‘Parish of Auchterarder’, p. 36.
 John Dowe, ‘Parish of Methven’, in Statistical Account of Scotland: Vol. X, ed. by John Sinclair (Edinburgh: William Creech, 1794), pp. 609-622 (p. 615).
 Ibid, p. 611.
 Scott, ‘Parish of Muthill’, p. 486.
 Stirling, ‘Parish of Crieff’, pp. 585-586.
 Dowe, ‘Parish of Methven’, p. 621; Erskine, ‘Parish of Monzie’, p. 258; Stirling, ‘Parish of Foulis Wester’, p. 608.
 Erskine, ‘Parish of Monzie’, p. 258.
 Ibid, p. 251.
 Stirling, ‘Parish of Foulis Wester’, p. 604.
 Ibid, p. 605.
 Duncan, ‘Parish of Auchterarder’, pp. 37-38.
 Kaufman, Libraries and their Users, p. 156.
 Rev. Mr John Stevenson, ‘Parish of Blackford’, in Statistical Account of Scotland: Vol. IIII, ed. by Sir John Sinclair (Edinburgh: William Creech, 1792), pp. 203-212 (p. 211); Dowe, ‘Parish of Methven’, pp. 621-622; Stirling, ‘Parish of Foulis Wester,’ p. 608.
 Kaufman, Libraries and their Users, p. 154.