A.D. 1624-1636.
BRITISH SOVEREIGNS:--
James VI., 1603-1625. Charles I., 1625-1649.
Insurrection of the clan Chattan against the Earl of Murray
--Dispute between the laird of Duffus and Gordon, younger of
Embo--Sir Donald Mackay’s machinations--Feud among the Grants
--Dispute between the lairds of Frendraught and Rothiemay--Quarrel
between Frendraught and the laird of Pitcaple--Calamitous and
fatal fire at Frendraught House--Inquiry as to the cause of the
fire--Escape of James Grant--Apprehension of Grant of Ballindalloch
--And of Thomas Grant--Dispute between the Earl of Sutherland and
Lord Lorn--Depredations committed upon Frendraught--Marquis of
Huntly accused therewith--The Marquis and Letterfourie committed
--Liberated--Death and character of the Marquis.
The troubles in Sutherland and Caithness had been scarcely allayed,
when a formidable insurrection broke out on the part of the clan
Chattan against the Earl of Murray, which occasioned considerable
uproar and confusion in the Highlands. The clan Chattan had for a
very long period been the faithful friends and followers of the Earls
of Murray, who, on that account, had allotted them many valuable
lands in recompense for their services in Pettie and Strathearn.
The clan had, in particular, been very active in revenging upon the
Marquis of Huntly the death of James, Earl of Murray, who was killed
at Donnibristle; but his son and successor being reconciled to the
family of Huntly, and needing no longer, as he thought, the aid of
the clan, dispossessed them of the lands which his predecessors
had bestowed upon them. This harsh proceeding occasioned great
irritation, and, upon the death of Sir Lauchlan their chief, who
died a short time before Whitsunday, 1624, they resolved either to
recover the possessions of which they had been deprived, or to lay
them waste. While Sir Lauchlan lived, the clan were awed by his
authority and prevented from such an attempt, but no such impediment
now standing in their way, and as their chief, who was a mere child,
could run no risk by the enterprise, they considered the present a
favourable opportunity for carrying their plan into execution.
Accordingly, a gathering of the clan, to the number of about 200
gentlemen and 300 servants, took place about Whitsunday, 1624. This
party was commanded by three uncles of the late chief.[211] “They
keeped the feilds,” says Spalding, “in their Highland weid upon foot
with swords, bowes, arrowes, targets, hagbuttis, pistollis, and other
Highland armour; and first began to rob and spoulzie the earle’s
tennents, who laboured their possessions, of their haill goods, geir,
insight, plenishing, horse, nolt, sheep, corns, and cattell, and left
them nothing that they could gett within their bounds; syne fell in
sorning throw out Murray, Strathawick, Urquhart, Ross, Sutherland,
Brae of Marr, and diverse other parts, takeing their meat and food
per force wher they could not gett it willingly, frae freinds
alseweill as frae their faes; yet still keeped themselves from
shedeing of innocent blood. Thus they lived as outlawes, oppressing
the countrie, (besydes the casting of the earle’s lands waist), and
openly avowed they had tane this course to gett thir own possessions
again, or then hold the country walking.”
When this rising took place, the Earl of Murray obtained from
Monteith and Balquhidder about 300 armed men, and placing himself
at their head he marched through Moray to Inverness. The earl
took up his residence in the castle with the Earl of Enzie, his
brother-in-law, eldest son of the Marquis of Huntly, and after the
party had passed one night at Inverness, he despatched them in quest
of the clan Chattan, but whether from fear of meeting them, or
because they could not find them, certain it is that the Monteith and
Balquhidder men returned without effecting anything, after putting
the earl to great expense. The earl, therefore, sent them back to
their respective countries, and went himself to Elgin, where he
raised another body of men to suppress the clan Chattan, who were
equally unsuccessful in finding the latter out.
These ineffectual attempts against the clan served to make them more
bold and daring in their outrages; and as the earl now saw that no
force which he could himself bring into the field was sufficient to
overawe these marauders, King James, at his earnest solicitation,
granted him a commission, appointing him his lieutenant in the
Highlands, and giving him authority to proceed capitally against
the offenders. On his return the earl proclaimed the commission he
had obtained from his majesty, and issued letters of intercommuning
against the clan Chattan, prohibiting all persons from harbouring,
supplying, or entertaining them, in any manner of way, under certain
severe pains and penalties. Although the Marquis of Huntly was the
earl’s father-in-law, he felt somewhat indignant at the appointment,
as he conceived that he or his son had the best title to be appointed
to the lieutenancy of the north; but he concealed his displeasure.
After the Earl of Murray had issued the notices, prohibiting all
persons from communicating with, or assisting the clan Chattan, their
kindred and friends, who had privately promised them aid, before
they broke out, began to grow cold, and declined to assist them, as
they were apprehensive of losing their estates, many of them being
wealthy. The earl perceiving this, opened a communication with some
of the principal persons of the clan, to induce them to submit to his
authority, who, seeing no hopes of making any longer an effectual
resistance, readily acquiesced, and, by the intercession of friends,
made their peace with the earl, on condition that they should inform
him of the names of such persons as had given them protection, after
the publication of his letters of interdiction. Having thus quelled
this formidable insurrection without bloodshed, the earl, by virtue
of his commission, held justice courts at Elgin, where “some slight
louns, followers of the clan Chattan,” were tried and executed, but
all the principals concerned were pardoned.
As the account which Spalding gives of the appearance of the accused,
and of the base conduct of the principal men of the clan Chattan,
in informing against their friends and benefactors, is both curious
and graphic, it is here inserted: “Then presently was brought in
befor the barr; and in the honest men’s faces, the clan Chattan who
had gotten supply, verified what they had gotten, and the honest
men confounded and dasht, knew not what to answer, was forced to
come in the earle’s will, whilk was not for their weill: others
compeared and willingly confessed, trusting to gett more favour at
the earle’s hands, but they came little speid: and lastly, some stood
out and denyed all, who was reserved to the triall of an assyse. The
principall malefactors stood up in judgment, and declared what they
had gotten, whether meat, money, cloathing, gun, ball, powder, lead,
sword, dirk, and the like commodities, and alse instructed the assyse
in ilk particular, what they had gotten frae the persons pannalled;
an uncouth form of probation, wher the principall malefactor proves
against the receiptor for his own pardon, and honest men, perhaps
neither of the clan Chattan’s kyne nor blood, punished for their good
will, ignorant of the laws, and rather receipting them more for their
evil nor their good. Nevertheless thir innocent men, under collour of
justice, part and part as they came in, were soundly fyned in great
soumes as their estates might bear, and some above their estate was
fyned, and every one warded within the tolbuith of Elgine, while the
least myte was payed of such as was persued in anno 1624.”[212]
Some idea of the unequal administration of the laws at this time may
be formed, when it is considered that the enormous fines imposed in
the present instance, went into the pockets of the chief judge, the
Earl of Murray himself, as similar mulcts had previously gone into
those of the Earl of Argyle, in his crusade against the unfortunate
clan Gregor! This legal robbery, however, does not appear to have
enriched the houses of Argyle and Murray, for Sir Robert Gordon
observes, that “these fynes did not much advantage either of these
two earles.” The Earl of Murray, no doubt, thinking such a mode
of raising money an easy and profitable speculation, afterwards
obtained an enlargement of his commission from Charles I., not only
against the clan Chattan, but also against all other offenders
within several adjacent shires; but the commission was afterwards
annulled by his majesty, not so much on account of the abuses and
injustice which might have been perpetrated under it, but because,
as Sir Robert Gordon observes, “it grieved divers of his majesty’s
best affected subjects, and chieflie the Marquis of Huntlie, unto
whose predicessors onlie the office of livetennendrie in the north of
Scotland had bein granted by former kings, for these many ages.”
There seems reason, however, for supposing that the recall of the
commission was hastened by complaints to the king, on the part of
the oppressed; for the earl had no sooner obtained its renewal,
than he held a court against the burgh of Inverness, John Grant
of Glenmoriston, and others who had refused to acknowledge their
connexion with the clan Chattan, or to pay him the heavy fines
which he had imposed upon them. The town of Inverness endeavoured
to get quit of the earl’s extortions, on the ground that the
inhabitants were innocent of the crimes laid to their charge; but
the earl frustrated their application to the Privy Council. The
provost, Duncan Forbes,[213] was then sent to the king, and Grant of
Glenmoriston took a journey to London, at the same time, on his own
account; but their endeavours proved ineffectual, and they had no
alternative but to submit to the earl’s exactions.[214]
The quarrel between the laird of Duffus and John Gordon, younger of
Embo, which had lain dormant for some time, burst forth again, in the
year 1625, and proved nearly fatal to both parties. Gordon had long
watched an opportunity to revenge the wrong which he conceived had
been done him by the laird of Duffus and his brother, James, but he
could never fall in with either of them, as they remained in Moray,
and, when they appeared in Sutherland, they were always accompanied
by some friends, so that Gordon was prevented from attacking them.
Frequent disappointments in this way only whetted his appetite for
revenge; and meeting, when on horseback, one day, between Sidderay
and Skibo, with John Sutherland of Clyne, third brother of the laird
of Duffus, who was also on horseback, he determined to make the laird
of Clyne suffer for the delinquencies of his elder brother. Raising,
therefore, a cudgel which he held in his hand, he inflicted several
blows upon John Sutherland, who, as soon as he recovered himself
from the surprise and confusion into which such an unexpected attack
had thrown him, drew his sword. Gordon, in his turn, unsheathed
his, and a warm combat ensued, between the parties and two friends
who accompanied them. After they had fought a while, Gordon wounded
Sutherland in the head and in one of his hands, and otherwise injured
him, but he spared his life, although completely in his power.
Duffus immediately cited John Gordon to appear before the Privy
Council, to answer for this breach of the peace, and, at the same
time, summoned before the council some of the Earl of Sutherland’s
friends and dependants, for an alleged conspiracy against himself
and his friends. Duffus, with his two brothers and Gordon, came to
Edinburgh on the day appointed, and, the parties being heard, Gordon
was declared guilty of a riot, and was thereupon committed to prison.
This result gave great satisfaction to Duffus and his brothers, who
now calculated on nothing less than the utter ruin of Gordon; as they
had, by means of Sir Donald Mackay, obtained a Strathnaver man, named
William Mack-Allen (one of the Siol-Thomais), who had been a servant
of Gordon’s, to become a witness against him, and to prove every
thing that Duffus was pleased to allege against Gordon.
In this state of matters, Sir Robert Gordon returned from London to
Edinburgh, where he found Duffus in high spirits, exulting at his
success, and young Embo in prison. Sir Robert applied to Duffus,
hoping to bring about a reconciliation by the intervention of
friends, but Duffus refused to hear of any arrangement; and the more
reasonable the conditions were, which Sir Robert proposed, the more
unreasonable and obstinate did he become; his object being to get
the lords to award him great sums of money at the expense of Gordon,
in satisfaction for the wrong done his brother. Sir Robert, however,
finally succeeded, by the assistance of the Earl of Enzie, who was
then at Edinburgh, in getting the prosecution against the Earl of
Sutherland’s friends quashed, in obtaining the liberation of John
Gordon, and in getting his fine mitigated to one hundred pounds
Scots, payable to the king only; reserving, however, civil action
to John Sutherland of Clyne against Gordon, before the Lords of
Session.[215]
Sir Donald Mackay, always restless, and desirous of gratifying his
enmity at the house of Sutherland, endeavoured to embroil it with the
laird of Duffus in the following way. Having formed a resolution to
leave the kingdom, Sir Donald applied for, and obtained, a license
from the king to raise a regiment in the north, to assist Count
Mansfield in his campaign in Germany. He, accordingly, collected, in
a few months, about 3,000 men from different parts of Scotland, the
greater part of whom he embarked at Cromarty in the month of October
1626; but, on account of bad health, he was obliged to delay his own
departure till the following year, when he joined the king of Sweden
with his regiment, in consequence of a peace having been concluded
between the King of Denmark and the Emperor of Germany.[216] Among
others whom Mackay had engaged to accompany him to Germany, was a
person named Angus Roy Gun, against whom, a short time previous to
his enlistment, Mackay and his brother, John Mackay of Dirlet, had
obtained a commission from the lords of the Privy Council for the
purpose of apprehending him and bringing him before the council for
some supposed crimes. Mackay could have easily apprehended Angus Roy
Gun on different occasions, but having become one of his regiment, he
allowed the commission, as far as he was concerned, to remain a dead
letter.
Sometime after his enlistment, Angus Roy Gun made a journey into
Sutherland, a circumstance which afforded Mackay an opportunity of
putting into execution the scheme he had formed, and which showed
that he was no mean adept in the arts of cunning and dissimulation.
His plan was this:--He wrote, in the first place, private letters to
the laird of Duffus, and to his brother, John Sutherland of Clyne,
to apprehend Angus Roy Gun under the commission he had obtained; and
at the same time, sent the commission itself to the laird of Duffus
as his authority for so doing. He next wrote a letter to Alexander
Gordon, the Earl of Sutherland’s uncle, who, in the absence of his
brother, Sir Robert, governed Sutherland, entreating him, as Angus
Roy Gun was then in Sutherland, to send him to him to Cromarty, as
he was his hired soldier. Ignorant of Mackay’s design, and desirous
of serving him, Sir Alexander sent two of his men to bring Gun to
Sir Alexander; but on their return they were met by John Sutherland
of Clyne and a party of sixteen men, who seized Gun; and to prevent
a rescue, the laird of Duffus sent his brother, James Sutherland,
Alexander Murray, heir-apparent of Aberscors, and William Neill-son,
chief of the Sliochd-Iain-Abaraich, with 300 men to protect his
brother John. At the same time, as he anticipated an attack from
Sir Alexander Gordon, he sent messengers to his supporters in Ross,
Strathnaver, Caithness, and other places for assistance.
When Sir Alexander Gordon heard of the assembling of such a body
of the Earl of Sutherland’s vassals without his knowledge, he made
inquiry to ascertain the cause; and being informed of Gun’s capture,
he collected 18 men who were near at hand, and hastened with them
from Dunrobin towards Clyne. On arriving at the bridge of Broray,
he found James Sutherland, with his brother John, and their whole
party drawn up in battle array at the east end of the bridge. He,
thereupon, sent a person to the Sutherlands to know the cause of
such an assemblage, and the reason why they had taken Gun from his
servants. As the Sutherlands refused to exhibit their authority, Sir
Alexander made demonstrations for passing the bridge, but he was
met by a shower of shot and arrows which wounded two of his men.
After exchanging shots for some time, Sir Alexander was joined by a
considerable body of his countrymen, by whose aid, notwithstanding
the resistance he met with, he was enabled to cross the bridge. The
Sutherlands were forced to retreat, and as they saw no chance of
opposing, with success, the power of the house of Sutherland, they,
after some hours’ consultation, delivered up Angus Roy Gun to Sir
Alexander Sutherland, who sent him immediately to Mackay, then at
Cromarty.
As such an example of insubordination among the Earl of Sutherland’s
vassals might, if overlooked, lead others to follow a similar course,
Sir Alexander caused the laird of Duffus and his brother of Clyne,
with their accomplices, to be cited to appear at Edinburgh on the
16th of November following, to answer before the Privy Council for
their misdemeanours. The laird of Duffus, however, died in the month
of October, but the laird of Clyne appeared at Edinburgh at the time
appointed, and produced before the Privy Council the letter he had
received from Mackay, as his authority for acting as he had done. Sir
Alexander Gordon also produced the letter sent to him by Sir Donald,
who was thereby convicted of having been the intentional originator
of the difference; but as the lords of council thought that the laird
of Clyne had exceeded the bounds of his commission, he was imprisoned
in the jail of Edinburgh, wherein he was ordered to remain until he
should give satisfaction to the other party, and present some of
his men who had failed to appear though summoned. By the mediation,
however, of James Sutherland, tutor of Duffus, a reconciliation was
effected between Sir Robert and Sir Alexander Gordon, and the laird
of Clyne, who was, in consequence, soon thereafter liberated from
prison.[217]
The year 1628 was marked by the breaking out of an old and deadly
feud among the Grants, which had been transmitted from father to son
for several generations, in consequence of the murder of John Grant
of Ballindalloch, about the middle of the sixteenth century, by John
Roy Grant of Carron, the natural son of John Grant of Glenmoriston,
at the instigation of the laird of Grant, the chief of the tribe,
who had conceived a grudge against his kinsman. Some years before
the period first mentioned, James Grant, one of the Carron family,
happening to be at a fair in the town of Elgin, observed one of the
Grants of the Ballindalloch family eagerly pursuing his (James’s)
brother, Thomas Grant, whom he knocked down in the street and wounded
openly before his eyes. The assailant was in his turn attacked by
James Grant, who killed him upon the spot and immediately decamped.
Ballindalloch then cited James Grant to stand trial for the slaughter
of his kinsman, but, as he did not appear on the day appointed, he
was outlawed. The laird of Grant made many attempts to reconcile the
parties, but in vain, as Ballindalloch was obstinate and would listen
to no proposals. Nothing less than the blood of James Grant would
satisfy Ballindalloch.
This resolution on the part of Ballindalloch almost drove James
Grant to despair, and seeing his life every moment in jeopardy, and
deprived of any hope of effecting a compromise, he put himself at
the head of a party of brigands, whom he collected from all parts
of the Highlands. These freebooters made no distinction between
friends and foes, but attacked all persons of whatever description,
and wasted and despoiled their property. James Grant of Dalnebo,
one of the family of Ballindalloch, fell a victim to their fury,
and many of the kinsmen of that family suffered greatly from the
depredations committed by Grant and his associates. The Earl of
Murray, under the renewed and extended commission which he had
obtained from King Charles, made various attempts to put an end to
these lawless proceedings, but to no purpose; the failure of these
attempts serving only to harden James Grant and his party, who
continued their depredations. As John Grant of Carron, nephew of
James Grant, was supposed to maintain and assist his uncle secretly,
a suspicion for which there seems to have been no foundation, John
Grant of Ballindalloch sought for an opportunity of revenging himself
upon Carron, who was a promising young man. Carron having one day
left his house, along with one Alexander Grant and seven or eight
other persons, to cut down some timber in the woods of Abernethy,
Ballindalloch thought the occasion favourable for putting his design
into execution. Having collected and armed sixteen of his friends,
he went to the forest where Carron was, and under the pretence of
searching for James Grant and some of his associates, against whom he
had a commission, attacked Carron, who fought manfully in defence of
his life, but being overpowered, was killed by Ballindalloch. Before
Carron fell, however, he and Alexander Grant had slain several of
Ballindalloch’s friends, among whom were Thomas Grant of Davey, and
Lauchlan Macintosh of Rockinoyr. Alexander Grant afterwards annoyed
Ballindalloch, killing several of his men, and assisted James Grant
to lay waste Ballindalloch’s lands. “Give me leave heir,” says Sir
R. Gordon, “to remark the providence and secrait judgement of the
Almightie God, who now hath mett Carron with the same measure that
his forefather, John Roy Grant of Carron, did serve the ancestor
of Ballendallogh; for upon the same day of the moneth that John
Roy Grant did kill the great-grandfather of Ballendallogh (being
the eleventh day of September), the verie same day of this month
wes Carron slain by this John Grant of Ballendallogh many yeirs
thereafter. And, besides, as that John Roy Grant of Carron was
left-handed, so is this John Grant of Ballendallogh left-handed
also; and moreover, it is to be observed that Ballendallogh, at the
killing of this Carron, had upon him the same coat-of-armour, or
maillie-coat, which John Roy Grant had upon him at the slaughter
of the great-grandfather of this Ballendallogh, which maillie-coat
Ballendallogh had, a little before this tyme, taken from James
Grant, in a skirmish, that passed betwixt them. Thus wee doe sie that
the judgements of God are inscrutable, and that, in his own tyme, he
punisheth blood by blood.”[218]
The Earl of Murray, when he heard of this occurrence, instead of
taking measures against Ballindalloch for his outrage against the
laws, which he was fully entitled to do by virtue of the commission
he held, took part with Ballindalloch against the friends of Carron.
He not only represented Ballindalloch’s case favourably at court, but
also obtained an indemnity for him for some years, that he might not
be molested. The countenance thus given by his majesty’s lieutenant
to the murderer of their kinsmen, exasperated James and Alexander
Grant in the highest degree against Ballindalloch and his supporters,
whom they continually annoyed with their incursions, laying waste
their lands and possessions, and cutting off their people. To such an
extent was this system of lawless warfare carried, that Ballindalloch
was forced to flee from the north of Scotland, and live for the most
part in Edinburgh, to avoid the dangers with which he was surrounded.
But James Grant’s desperate career was checked by a party of the clan
Chattan, who unexpectedly attacked him at Auchnachyle, in Strathdoun,
under cloud of night, in the latter end of December, 1630, when he
was taken prisoner after receiving eleven wounds, and after four
of his party were killed. He was sent by his captors to Edinburgh
for trial before the lords of the council, and was imprisoned in
the castle of Edinburgh, from which he escaped in the manner to be
afterwards noticed.
About the time that James Grant was desolating the district of the
Highlands, to which his operations were confined, another part of the
country was convulsed by a dispute, ending tragically, which occurred
between James Crichton of Frendret, or Frendraught, and William
Gordon of Rothiemay, whose lands lay adjacent to each other. Part of
Gordon’s lands which marched with those of Crichton were purchased
by the latter; but a dispute having occurred about the right to
the salmon fishings belonging to these lands, an irreconcilable
difference arose between them, which no mediation of friends could
reconcile, although the matter in dispute was of little moment. The
parties having had recourse to the law to settle their respective
claims, Crichton prevailed, and succeeded in getting Gordon denounced
rebel. He had previously treated Rothiemay very harshly, who, stung
by the severity of his opponent, and by the victory he had obtained
over him, would listen to no proposals of peace, nor follow the
advice of his best friends. Determined to set the law at defiance,
he collected a number of loose and disorderly characters, and
annoyed Frendraught, who, in consequence, applied for and obtained
a commission from the Privy Council for apprehending Rothiemay and
his associates. In the execution of this task he was assisted by
Sir George Ogilvy of Banff, George Gordon, brother-german of Sir
James Gordon of Lesmoir, and the uncle of Frendraught, James Leslie,
second son of Leslie of Pitcaple, John Meldrum of Reidhill, and
others. Accompanied by these gentlemen, Crichton left his house of
Frendraught on the 1st of January, 1630, for the house of Rothiemay,
with a resolution either to apprehend Gordon, his antagonist, or
to set him at defiance by affronting him. He was incited the more
to follow this course, as young Rothiemay, at the head of a party,
had come a short time before to the very doors of Frendraught, and
had braved him to his face. When Rothiemay heard of the advance
of Frendraught, he left his house, accompanied by his eldest son,
John Gordon, and about eight men on horseback armed with guns and
lances, and a party of men on foot with muskets, and crossing the
river Deveron, went forward to meet Frendraught and his party. A
sharp conflict immediately took place, in which Rothiemay’s horse
was killed under him; but he fought manfully for some time on foot,
until the whole of his party, with the exception of his son, were
forced to retire. The son, notwithstanding, continued to support his
father against fearful odds, but was at last obliged to save himself
by flight, leaving his father lying on the field covered with wounds,
and supposed to be dead. He, however, was found still alive after the
conflict was over, and being carried home to his house, died within
three days thereafter. George Gordon, brother of Gordon of Lesmoir,
received a shot in the thigh, and died in consequence ten days after
the skirmish. These were the only deaths which occurred, although
several of the combatants on both sides were wounded. John Meldrum,
who fought on Frendraught’s side, was the only person severely
wounded.
The Marquis of Huntly was highly displeased at Frendraught for
having, in such a trifling matter, proceeded to extremities against
his kinsman, a chief baron of his surname, whose life had been thus
sacrificed in a petty quarrel. The displeasure of the marquis was
still farther heightened, when he was informed that Frendraught
had joined the Earl of Murray, and had claimed his protection and
assistance; but the marquis was obliged to repress his indignation.
John Gordon of Rothiemay, eldest son of the deceased laird, resolved
to avenge the death of his father, and having collected a party of
men, he associated himself with James Grant and other freebooters,
for the purpose of laying waste Frendraught’s lands, and oppressing
him in every possible way. Frendraught, who was in the south of
Scotland when this combination against him was formed, no sooner
heard of it than he posted to England, and, having laid a statement
of the case before the king, his majesty remitted the matter to the
Privy Council of Scotland, desiring them to use their best endeavours
for settling the peace of the northern parts of the kingdom. A
commission was thereupon granted by the lords of the council to
Frendraught and others, for the purpose of apprehending John Gordon
and his associates; but, as the commissioners were not able to
execute the task imposed upon them, the lords of the council sent
Sir Robert Gordon, tutor of Sutherland, who had just returned from
England, and Sir William Seaton of Killesmuir, to the north, with
a new commission against the rebels. As it seemed to be entirely
out of the power of the Earl of Murray to quell the disturbances in
the north, the two commissioners received particular instructions
to attempt, with the aid of the Marquis of Huntly, to get matters
settled amicably, and the opposing parties reconciled. The lords
of the council, at the same time, wrote a letter to the Marquis of
Huntly to the same effect. Sir Robert Gordon and Sir William Seaton
accordingly left Edinburgh, on their way north, in the beginning
of May, 1630. The latter stopped at Aberdeen for the purpose of
consulting with some gentlemen of that county, as to the best mode of
proceeding against the rebels; and the former went to Strathbogie to
advise with the Marquis of Huntly.
On Sir Robert’s arrival at Strathbogie, he found that the marquis had
gone to Aberdeen to attend the funeral of the laird of Drum. By a
singular coincidence, James Grant and Alexander Grant descended the
very day of Sir Robert’s arrival from the mountains, at the head of a
party of 200 Highlanders, well armed, with a resolution to burn and
lay waste Frendraught’s lands. As soon as Sir Robert became aware of
this circumstance, he went in great haste to Rothiemay house, where
he found John Gordon and his associates in arms, ready to set out to
join the Grants. By persuasion and entreaties Sir Robert, assisted
by his nephew the Earl of Sutherland, and his brother, Sir Alexander
Gordon, who were then at Frendraught on a visit to the lady of that
place, who was a sister of the earl, prevailed not only upon John
Gordon and his friends to desist, but also upon James Grant and his
companions-in-arms, to disperse.
On the return of the Marquis of Huntly to Strathbogie, Rothiemay
and Frendraught were both induced to meet them in presence of the
marquis, Sir Robert Gordon, and Sir William Seaton, who, after much
entreaty, prevailed upon them to reconcile their differences, and
submit all matters in dispute to their arbitrament. A decree-arbitral
was accordingly pronounced, by which the arbiters adjudged that the
laird of Rothiemay and the children of George Gordon should mutually
remit their father’s slaughter, and, in satisfaction thereof, they
decerned that the laird of Frendraught should pay a certain sum of
money to the laird of Rothiemay, for relief of the debts which he had
contracted during the disturbances between the two families,[219]
and that he should pay some money to the children of George Gordon.
Frendraught fulfilled these conditions most willingly, and the
parties shook hands together in the orchard of Strathbogie, in token
of a hearty and sincere reconciliation.[220]
The laird of Frendraught had scarcely been reconciled to Rothiemay,
when he got into another dispute with the laird of Pitcaple, the
occasion of which was as follows:--John Meldrum of Reidhill had
assisted Frendraught in his quarrel with old Rothiemay, and had
received a wound in the skirmish in which the latter lost his life,
for which injury Frendraught had allowed him some compensation; but,
conceiving that his services had not been fairly requited, he began
to abuse Frendraught, and threatened to compel him to give him a
greater recompense than he had yet received. As Frendraught refused
to comply with his demands, Meldrum entered the park of Frendraught
privately in the night-time, and carried away two horses belonging
to his pretended debtor. Frendraught thereupon prosecuted Meldrum
for theft, but he declined to appear in court, and was consequently
declared rebel. Frendraught then obtained a commission from the Privy
Council to apprehend Meldrum, who took refuge with John Leslie of
Pitcaple, whose sister he had married. Under the commission which
he had procured, Frendraught went in quest of Meldrum, on the 27th
of September, 1630. He proceeded to Pitcaple’s lands, on which he
knew Meldrum then lived, where he met James Leslie, second son of
the laird of Pitcaple, who had been with him at the skirmish of
Rothiemay. Leslie then began to expostulate with him in behalf of
Meldrum, his brother-in-law, who, on account of the aid he had given
him in his dispute with Rothiemay, took Leslie’s remonstrances
in good part; but Robert Crichton of Conland,[221] a kinsman of
Frendraught, grew so warm at Leslie’s freedom that from high words
they proceeded to blows. Conland, then, drawing a pistol from his
belt, wounded Leslie in the arm, who was thereupon carried home,
apparently in a dying state.
This affair was the signal for a confederacy among the Leslies,
the greater part of whom took up arms against Frendraught, who,
a few days after the occurrence, viz., on the 5th of October,
first went to the Marquis of Huntly, and afterwards to the Earl of
Murray, to express the regret he felt at what had taken place, and
to beg their kindly interference to bring matters to an amicable
accommodation. The Earl of Murray, for some reason or other, declined
to interfere; but the marquis undertook to mediate between the
parties. Accordingly, he sent for the laird of Pitcaple to come to
the Bog of Gight to confer with him; but, before setting out, he
mounted and equipped about 30 horsemen, in consequence of information
he had received that Frendraught was at the Bog. At the meeting with
the marquis, Pitcaple complained heavily of the injury his son had
sustained, and avowed, rather rashly, that he would revenge himself
before he returned home, and that, at all events, he would listen
to no proposals for a reconciliation till it should be ascertained
whether his son would survive the wound he had received. The marquis
insisted that Frendraught had done him no wrong, and endeavoured to
dissuade him from putting his threat into execution; but Pitcaple
was so displeased at the marquis for thus expressing himself, that
he suddenly mounted his horse and set off, leaving Frendraught
behind him. The marquis, afraid of the consequences, detained
Frendraught two days with him in the Bog of Gight, and, hearing that
the Leslies had assembled, and lay in wait for Frendraught watching
his return home, the marquis sent his son, John, Viscount of Aboyne,
and the laird of Rothiemay along with him, to protect and defend
him if necessary. They arrived at Frendraught without interruption,
and being solicited to remain all night, they yielded, and, after
partaking of a hearty supper, went to bed in the apartments provided
for them.
[Illustration: Frendraught House, with the ruins of the old Castle in
front.--From a photograph taken for this work.]
The sleeping apartment of the viscount was in the old tower of
Frendraught, leading off from the hall. Immediately below this
apartment was a vault, in the bottom of which was a round hole of
considerable depth. Robert Gordon, a servant of the viscount, and
his page, English Will, as he was called, also slept in the same
chamber. The laird of Rothiemay, with some servants, were put into
an upper chamber immediately above that in which the viscount slept;
and in another apartment, directly over the latter, were laid George
Chalmer of Noth, Captain Rollock, one of Frendraught’s party, and
George Gordon, another of the viscount’s servants. About midnight
the whole of the tower almost instantaneously took fire, and so
suddenly and furiously did the flames consume the edifice, that the
viscount, the laird of Rothiemay, English Will, Colonel Ivat, one of
Aboyne’s friends, and two other persons, perished in the flames.
Robert Gordon, called Sutherland Gordon, from having been born in
that county, who lay in the viscount’s chamber, escaped from the
flames, as did George Chalmer and Captain Rollock, who were in the
third floor; and it is said that Lord Aboyne might have saved himself
also, had he not, instead of going out of doors, which he refused to
do, run suddenly up stairs to Rothiemay’s chamber for the purpose
of awakening him. While so engaged, the stair-case and ceiling of
Rothiemay’s apartment hastily took fire, and, being prevented from
descending by the flames, which filled the stair-case, they ran
from window to window of the apartment piteously and unavailingly
exclaiming for help.
The news of this calamitous event spread speedily throughout the
kingdom, and the fate of the unfortunate sufferers was deeply
deplored. Many conjectures were formed as to the cause of the
conflagration. Some persons laid the blame on Frendraught without
the least reason; for, besides the improbability of the thing,
Frendraught himself was a considerable loser, having lost not only a
large quantity of silver plate and coin, but also the title deeds of
his property and other necessary papers, which were all consumed. The
greater number, however, suspected the Leslies and their adherents,
who were then so enraged at Frendraught that they threatened to burn
the house of Frendraught, and had even entered into a negotiation
to that effect with James Grant the rebel, who was Pitcaple’s
cousin-german, for his assistance.[222]
The Marquis of Huntly, who suspected Frendraught to be the author of
the fire, afterwards went to Edinburgh and laid a statement of the
case before the Privy Council, who, thereupon, issued a commission
to the bishops of Aberdeen and Moray, Lord Ogilvie, Lord Carnegie,
and Colonel Bruce, to investigate the circumstances which led to
the catastrophe. The commissioners accordingly went to Frendraught
on April 13th, 1631, where they were met by Lords Gordon, Ogilvie,
and Deskford, and several barons and gentlemen, along with whom
they examined the burnt tower and vaults below, with the adjoining
premises, to ascertain, if possible, how the fire had originated.
After a minute inspection, they came to the deliberate opinion, which
they communicated in writing to the council, that the fire could not
have been accidental, and that it must have been occasioned either by
some means from without, or raised intentionally within the vaults or
chambers of the tower.[223]
The matter, however, was not allowed to rest here, but underwent
thorough investigation by the Privy Council in Edinburgh, the result
being that John Meldrum, above mentioned, was brought to trial and
condemned to death by the Justiciary Court, in August, 1633, as
having been the perpetrator of the fiendish deed. We give below an
extract from the “dittay” or indictment against Meldrum, showing
the manner in which it was thought he accomplished his devilish
task.[224] The catastrophe roused such intense and wide-spread
excitement among all classes of people at the time, that the grief
and horror which was felt found an outlet in verse.[225]
During James Grant’s confinement within the castle of Edinburgh,
the north was comparatively quiet. On the night of the 15th
October, 1632, he, however, effected his escape from the castle by
descending on the west side by means of ropes furnished to him by
his wife or son, and fled to Ireland. Proclamations were immediately
posted throughout the whole kingdom, offering large sums for his
apprehension, either dead or alive, but to no purpose. His wife
was taken into custody by order of the Marquis of Huntly, but after
undergoing an examination, in which she admitted nothing which could
in the least degree criminate her, she was set at liberty.[226]
James Grant did not remain long in Ireland, but returned again to the
north, where he concealed himself for some time, only occasionally
skulking here and there in such a private manner, that his enemies
were not aware of his presence. By degrees he grew bolder, and at
last appeared openly in Strathdoun and on Speyside. His wife, who
was far advanced in pregnancy, had taken a small house in Carron,
belonging to the heirs of her husband’s nephew, in which she meant
to reside till her accouchement, and in which she was occasionally
visited by her husband. Ballindalloch hearing of this, hired a
person named Patrick Macgregor, an outlaw, to apprehend James Grant.
This employment was considered by Macgregor and his party a piece
of acceptable service, as they expected, in the event of Grant’s
apprehension, to obtain pardon for their offences from the lords of
the council. Macgregor, therefore, at the head of a party of men,
lay in wait for James Grant near Carron, and, on observing him enter
his wife’s house at night, along with his bastard son and another
man, they immediately surrounded the house and attempted to force an
entry. Grant perceiving his danger, acted with great coolness and
determination. Having fastened the door as firmly as he could, he and
his two companions went to two windows, from which they discharged a
volley of arrows upon their assailants, who all shrunk back, and none
would venture near the door except Macgregor himself, who came boldly
forward and endeavoured to force it; but he paid dearly for his
rashness, for Grant, immediately laying hold of a musket, shot him
through both his thighs, when he instantly fell to the ground, and
soon after expired. In the confusion which this occurrence occasioned
among Macgregor’s party, Grant and his two associates escaped.
Shortly after this event, on the night of Sunday, December 7th, 1634,
James Grant apprehended his cousin, John Grant of Ballindalloch, by
stratagem. After remaining a few days at Culquholy, Ballindalloch was
blindfolded and taken to Thomas Grant’s house at Dandeis, about three
miles from Elgin, on the high road between that town and the Spey.
James Grant ordered him to be watched strictly, whether sleeping
or waking, by two strong men on each side of him. Ballindalloch
complained of foul play, but James Grant excused himself for acting
as he had done for two reasons; 1st, Because Ballindalloch had failed
to perform a promise he had made to obtain a remission for him before
the preceding Lammas; and, 2dly, That he had entered into a treaty
with the clan Gregor to deprive him of his life.
Ballindalloch was kept in durance vile for twenty days in a kiln near
Thomas Grant’s house, suffering the greatest privations, without
fire, light, or bed-clothes, in the dead of winter, and without
knowing where he was. He was closely watched night and day by Leonard
Leslie, son-in-law of Robert Grant, brother of James Grant, and
a strong athletic man, named M’Grimmon, who would not allow him
to leave the kiln for a moment even to perform the necessities of
nature. On Christmas, James Grant and his party having gone on some
excursion, leaving Leslie and M’Grimmon behind them, Ballindalloch,
worn out by fatigue, and almost perishing from cold and hunger,
addressed Leslie in a low tone of voice, lamenting his miserable
situation, and imploring him to aid him in effecting his escape,
and promising, in the event of success, to reward him handsomely.
Leslie, tempted by the offer, acceded to Ballindalloch’s request, and
made him acquainted with the place of his confinement. It was then
arranged that Ballindalloch, under the pretence of stretching his
arms, should disengage the arm which Leslie held, and that, having
so disentangled that arm, he should, by another attempt, get his
other arm out of M’Grimmon’s grasp. The morning of Sunday, the 28th
of December, was fixed upon for putting the stratagem into execution.
The plan succeeded, and as soon as Ballindalloch found his arms at
liberty, he suddenly sprung to his feet and made for the door of
the kiln. Leslie immediately followed him, pretending to catch him,
and as M’Grimmon was hard upon his heels, Leslie purposely stumbled
in his way and brought M’Grimmon down to the ground. This stratagem
enabled Ballindalloch to get a-head of his pursuers, and although
M’Grimmon sounded the alarm, and the pursuit was continued by Robert
Grant and a party of James Grant’s followers, Ballindalloch succeeded
in reaching the village of Urquhart in safety, accompanied by Leonard
Leslie.
Sometime after his escape, Ballindalloch applied for and obtained
a warrant for the apprehension of Thomas Grant, and others, for
harbouring James Grant. Thomas Grant, and some of his accomplices,
were accordingly seized and sent to Edinburgh, where they were tried
and convicted. Grant was hanged, and others were banished from
Scotland for life.
After Ballindalloch’s escape, James Grant kept remarkably quiet,
as many persons lay in wait for him; but hearing that Thomas
Grant, brother of Patrick Grant of Colquhoche, and a friend of
Ballindalloch, had received a sum of money from the Earl of Moray,
as an encouragement to seek out and slay James Grant, the latter
resolved to murder Thomas Grant, and thus relieve himself of one
enemy at least. He therefore went to Thomas’s house, but not finding
him at home, he killed sixteen of his cattle; and afterwards learning
that Thomas Grant was sleeping at the house of a friend hard by, he
entered that house and found Thomas Grant and a bastard brother of
his, both in bed. Having forced them out of bed, he took them outside
of the house and put them immediately to death. A few days after
the commission of this crime, Grant and four of his associates went
to the lands of Strathbogie, and entered the house of the common
executioner, craving some food, without being aware of the profession
of the host whose hospitality they solicited. The executioner,
disliking the appearance of Grant and his companions, went to James
Gordon, the bailie of Strathbogie, and informed him that there were
some suspicious looking persons in his house. Judging that these
could be none other but Grant and his comrades, Gordon immediately
collected some well-armed horsemen and foot, and surrounded the
house in which Grant was; but he successfully resisted all their
attempts to enter the house, and killed two servants of the Marquis
of Huntly. After keeping them at bay for a considerable time, Grant
and his brother, Robert, effected their escape from the house, but
a bastard son of James Grant, John Forbes, an intimate associate,
and another person, were taken prisoners, and carried to Edinburgh,
where they were executed, along with a notorious thief, named
Gille-Roy-Mac-Gregor. This occurrence took place in the year 1636.
The laird of Grant had, during the previous year, been ordered by the
council to apprehend James Grant, or to make him leave the kingdom;
and they had obliged him to find caution and surety, in terms of
the general bond[227] appointed by law to be taken from all the
heads of clans, and from all governors of provinces in the kingdom,
but chiefly in the west and north of Scotland; but the laird could
neither perform the one nor the other.[228]
By the judicious management of the affairs of the house of Sutherland
by Sir Robert Gordon, his nephew, the earl, on reaching his majority
in 1630 and entering upon the management of his own affairs, found
the hostility of the enemy of his family either neutralised or
rendered no longer dangerous; but, in the year 1633 he found himself
involved in a quarrel with Lord Lorn, eldest son of the Earl of
Argyle, who had managed the affairs of his family during his father’s
banishment from Scotland. This dispute arose out of the following
circumstances.
In consequence of a quarrel between Lord Berridale, who now acted as
sole administrator of his father’s estates, and William Mac-Iver,
chieftain of the Siol-Mhic-Imheair, in Caithness, the former
removed the latter from the lands and possessions he held of him
in Caithness. Mac-Iver thereupon retired into Argyle, and assuming
the surname of Campbell, as being originally an Argyle man, sought
the favour and protection of Lord Lorn. The latter endeavoured, by
writing to the Earl of Sutherland, Berridale himself, and others, to
bring about a reconciliation between Mac-Iver and Berridale, but to
no purpose. Seeing no hopes of an accommodation, Mac-Iver collected
a party of rebels and outlaws, to the number of about 20, and made
an incursion into Caithness, where, during the space of four or five
years, he did great injury, carrying off considerable spoil, which he
conveyed through the heights of Strathnaver and Sutherland.
To put an end to Mac-Iver’s depredations, Lord Berridale at first
brought a legal prosecution against him, and having got him denounced
rebel, sent out parties of his countrymen to ensnare him; but he
escaped for a long time, and always retired in safety with his
booty, either into the isles or into Argyle. Lord Lorn, however,
publicly disowned Mac-Iver’s proceedings. In his incursions,
Mac-Iver was powerfully assisted by an islander of the name of
Gille-Calum-Mac-Shomhairle, who had married his daughter, and who was
well acquainted with all the passes leading into Caithness.
At last Mac-Iver and his son were apprehended by Lord Berridale,
and hanged, and the race of the Siol-Mhic-Imheair was almost
extinguished; but Gille-Calum-Mac-Shomhairle having associated with
himself several of the men of the Isles and Argyle, and some outlaws
of the clan Mhic-Iain-Dhuinn, who were dependants of Lord Lorn,
continued his incursions into Caithness. Having divided his company
into two parties, one of which, headed by Gille-Calum himself, went
to the higher parts of Ross and Sutherland, there to remain till
joined by their companions. The other party went through the lowlands
of Ross, under the pretence of going to the Lammas fair, then held at
Tain, and thence proceeded to Sutherland to meet the rest of their
associates, under the pretence of visiting certain kinsmen they
said they had in Strathully and Strathnaver. This last-mentioned
body consisted of 16 or 20 persons, most of whom were of the clan
Mhic-Iain-Dhuinn. They were under the command of one Ewen Aird; and
as they passed the town of Tain, on their way to Sutherland, they
stole some horses, which they sold in Sutherland, without being in
the least suspected of the theft.
The owners of the stolen horses soon came into Sutherland in quest
of them, and claimed them from the persons to whom they had been
sold. The Earl of Sutherland, on proof being given of the property,
restored the horses to the true owners, and sent some men in quest
of Ewen Aird, who was still in Strathully. Ewen was apprehended
and brought to Dunrobin. The Earl of Sutherland ordained him to
repay the monies which Ewen and his companions had received for
the horses, the only punishment he said he would inflict on them,
because they were strangers. Ewen assented to the earl’s request,
and remained as a hostage at Dunrobin until his companions should
send money to relieve him; but as soon as his associates heard of
his detention, they, instead of sending money for his release, fled
to Gille-Calum-Mac-Shomhairle and his party, leaving their captain a
prisoner at Dunrobin. In their retreat they destroyed some houses in
the high parts of Sutherland, and on entering Ross they laid waste
some lands belonging to Hutcheon Ross of Auchincloigh. These outrages
occasioned an immediate assemblage of the inhabitants of that part of
the country, who pursued the marauders and took them prisoners. On
the prisoners being sent to the Earl of Sutherland, he assembled the
principal gentlemen of Ross and Sutherland at Dornoch, where Ewen
Aird and his accomplices were tried before a jury, convicted, and
executed at Dornoch, with the exception of two young boys, who were
dismissed.
The Privy Council not only approved of what the Earl of Sutherland
had done, but also sent a commission to him, the Earl of Seaforth,
Hutcheon Ross, and some other gentlemen in Ross and Sutherland,
against the clan Mhic-Iain-Dhuinn, in case they should again make any
incursion into Ross and Sutherland.
Lord Lorn being at this time justiciary of the Isles, had obtained
an act of the Privy Council in his favour, by which it was decreed
that any malefactor, being an islander, upon being apprehended in any
part of the kingdom, should be sent to Lord Lorn, or to his deputies,
to be judged; and that to this effect he should have deputies in
every part of the kingdom. As soon as his lordship heard of the
trial and execution of the men at Dornoch, who were of the clan
Mhic-Iain-Dhuinn, his dependants and followers, he took the matter
highly amiss, and repaired to Edinburgh, where he made a complaint to
the lords of the council against the Earl of Sutherland, for having,
as he maintained, apprehended the king’s free subjects without a
commission, and for causing them to be executed, although they had
not been apprehended within his own jurisdiction. The lords of the
council having heard this complaint, Lord Lorn obtained letters to
charge the Earl of Sutherland and Hutcheon Ross to answer to the
complaint at Edinburgh before the lords of the Privy Council, and,
moreover, obtained a suspension of the earl’s commission against the
clan Mhic-Iain-Dhuinn, on becoming bound, in the meantime, as surety
for their obedience to the laws.
Sir Robert Gordon happening to arrive at Edinburgh from England,
shortly after Lord Lorn’s visit to Edinburgh, in the year 1634,
learned the object of his mission, and the success which had attended
it. He, therefore, being an eye-witness of every thing which had
taken place at Dornoch respecting the trial, condemnation, and
execution of Lord Lorn’s dependents, informed the lords of the
council of all the proceedings, which proceeding on his part had the
effect of preventing Lord Lorn from going on with his prosecution
against the Earl of Sutherland. He, however, proceeded to summon
Hutcheon Ross; but the earl, Sir Robert Gordon, Lord Reay, and all
the gentlemen who were present at the trial at Dornoch, signed
and sent a letter to the lords of the council, giving a detail of
the whole circumstances of the case, and along with this letter
he sent a copy of the proceedings, attested by the sheriff clerk
of Sutherland, to be laid before the council on the day appointed
for Ross’s appearance. After the matter had been fully debated in
council, the conduct of the Earl of Sutherland and Hutcheon Ross
was approved of, and the commission to the earl of Sutherland again
renewed, and Lord Lorn was taken bound, that, in time coming, the
counties of Sutherland and Ross should be kept harmless from the
clan Mhic-Iain-Dhuinn. The council, moreover, decided, that, as the
Earl of Sutherland had the rights of regality and sheriffship within
himself, and as he was appointed to administer justice within his
own bounds, therefore he was not obliged to send criminals, though
islanders, to Lord Lorn or to his deputies. This decision had the
effect of relieving Sutherland and Ross from farther incursions on
the part of Lord Lorn’s followers.[229]
The disaster at Frendraught had made an impression upon the mind of
the Marquis of Huntly, which nothing could efface, and he could never
be persuaded that the fire had not originated with the proprietor of
the mansion himself. He made many unsuccessful attempts to discover
the incendiaries, and on the arrival of King Charles at Edinburgh, in
the year 1633, the marquis made preparations for paying a personal
visit to the king, for the purpose of imploring him to order an
investigation into all the circumstances attending the fire, so as
to lead to a discovery of the criminals. Falling sick, however, on
his journey, and unable to proceed to Edinburgh, he sent forward his
marchioness, who was accompanied by Lady Aboyne and other females
of rank, all clothed in deep mourning, to lay a statement of the
case before his majesty, and to solicit the royal interference. The
king received the marchioness and her attendants most graciously,
comforted them as far as words could, and promised to see justice
done.
After the king’s departure from Scotland, the marchioness and Lady
Aboyne, both of whom still remained in Edinburgh, determining to see
his majesty’s promise implemented, prevailed upon the Privy Council
to bring John Meldrum of Reidhill to trial, the result being as
recorded above. A domestic servant of Frendraught named Tosh, who was
suspected of having been concerned in the fire, was afterwards put
to the torture, for the purpose of extorting a confession of guilt
from him; but he confessed nothing, and was therefore liberated from
prison.
The condemnation and execution of Meldrum, in place of abating,
appear to have increased the odium of Frendraught’s enemies. The
Highlanders of his neighbourhood, as well as the Gordons, considering
his property to be fair game, made frequent incursions upon his
lands, and carried off cattle and goods. In 1633 and 1634 Adam Gordon
of Strathdoun, with a few of his friends and some outlaws, made
incursions upon Frendraught’s lands, wasted them, and endeavoured
to carry off a quantity of goods and cattle. Frendraught, however,
heading some of his tenants, pursued them, secured the booty, and
captured some of the party, whom he hanged.
On another occasion, about 600 Highlanders, belonging to the clan
Gregor, clan Cameron, and other tribes, appeared near Frendraught,
and openly declared that they had come to join Adam Gordon of Park,
John Gordon of Invermarkie, and the other friends of the late
Gordon of Rothiemay, for the purpose of revenging his death. When
Frendraught heard of the irruption of this body, he immediately
collected about 200 foot, and 140 horsemen, and went in quest of
these intruders; but being scattered through the country, they could
make no resistance, and every man provided for his own safety by
flight.
To put an end to these annoyances, Frendraught got these marauders
declared outlaws, and the lords of the Privy Council wrote to
the Marquis of Huntly, desiring him to repress the disorders of
those of his surname, and failing his doing so, that they would
consider him the author of them. The marquis returned an answer to
this communication, stating, that as the aggressors were neither
his tenants nor servants, he could in no shape be answerable for
them,--that he had neither countenanced nor incited them, and that he
had no warrant to pursue or prosecute them.
[Illustration: First Marquis and Marchioness of Huntly. Copied by
permission of His Grace the Duke of Richmond, from the Originals at
Gordon Castle.]
The refusal of the marquis to obey the orders of the Privy Council,
emboldened the denounced party to renew their acts of spoliation and
robbery. They no longer confined their depredations to Frendraught
and his tenants, but extended them to the property of the ministers
who lived upon Frendraught’s lands. In this course of life, they
were joined by some of the young men of the principal families of
the Gordons in Strathbogie, to the number of 40 horsemen, and 60
foot, and to encourage them in their designs against Frendraught,
the lady of Rothiemay gave them the castle of Rothiemay, which they
fortified, and from which they made daily sallies upon Frendraught’s
possessions; burned his corn, laid waste his lands, and killed some
of his people. Frendraught opposed them for some time; but being
satisfied that such proceedings taking place almost under the very
eyes of the Marquis of Huntly, must necessarily be done with his
concurrence he went to Edinburgh, and entered a complaint against
the marquis to the Privy Council. During Frendraught’s absence, his
tenants were expelled by the Gordons from their possessions, without
opposition.[230]
When the king heard of these lawless proceedings, and of the
refusal of the marquis to interfere, he ordered the lords of the
Privy Council to adopt measures for suppressing them; preparatory
to which they cited the marquis, in the beginning of the following
year, to appear before them to answer for these oppressions. He
accordingly went to Edinburgh in the month of February, 1635, where
he was commanded to remain till the matter should be investigated.
The heads of the families whose sons had joined the outlaws also
appeared, and, after examination, Letterfourie, Park, Tilliangus,
Terrisoule, Invermarkie, Tulloch, Ardlogy, and several other persons
of the surname of Gordon, were committed to prison, until their
sons, who had engaged in the combination against Frendraught, should
be presented before the council. The prisoners, who denied being
accessory thereto, then petitioned to be set at liberty, a request
which was complied with on condition that they should either produce
the rebels, as the pillagers were called, or make them leave the
kingdom. The marquis, although nothing could be proved against him,
was obliged to find caution that all persons of the surname of
Gordon within his bounds should keep the peace; and that he should
be answerable in all time coming for any damage which should befall
the laird of Frendraught, or his lands, by whatever violent means;
and also that he should present the rebels at Edinburgh, that justice
might be satisfied, or make them leave the kingdom.
The Marquis of Huntly, thereupon, returned to the north, and the
rebels hearing of the obligation he had come under, immediately
dispersed themselves. The greater part of them fled into Flanders,
and about twelve of them were apprehended by the marquis, and sent by
him to Edinburgh. John Gordon, who lived at Woodhead of Rothiemay,
and another, were executed. Of the remaining two, James Gordon, son
of George Gordon in Auchterless, and William Ross, son of John Ross
of Ballivet, the former was acquitted by the jury, and the latter was
imprisoned in the jail of Edinburgh for future trial, having been a
ringleader of the party. In apprehending these twelve persons, James
Gordon, son of Adam Gordon of Strathdoun, was killed, and to show the
Privy Council how diligent the marquis had been in fulfilling his
obligation, his head was sent to Edinburgh along with the prisoners.
The activity with which the marquis pursued the oppressors of
Frendraught, brought him afterwards into some trouble. Adam Gordon,
one of the principal ringleaders of the confederacy, and second son
of Sir Adam Gordon of the Park, thinking it “hard to be baneishit out
of his native country, resoluit to cum home” and throw himself on the
king’s mercy. For this purpose he made a private communication to
the Archbishop of St. Andrews, then chancellor of Scotland, in which
he offered to submit himself to the king’s pleasure, promising, that
if his majesty would grant him a pardon, he would reveal the author
of the rebellion. The archbishop, eager, it would appear, to fulfil
the ends of justice, readily entered into Gordon’s views, and sent a
special messenger to London to the king, who at once granted Adam a
pardon. On receiving the pardon, Gordon accused the Marquis of Huntly
as the author of the conspiracy against Frendraught, and with having
instigated him and his associates to commit all the depredations
which had taken place. The king, thereupon, sent a commission to
Scotland, appointing a select number of the lords of the Privy
Council to examine into the affair.
As Adam Gordon had charged James Gordon of Letterfourie, with
having employed him and his associates, in name of the marquis,
against the laird of Frendraught, Letterfourie was cited to appear
at Edinburgh for trial. On being confronted with Adam Gordon, he
denied everything laid to his charge, but, notwithstanding this
denial, he was committed a prisoner to the jail of Edinburgh. The
marquis himself, who had also appeared at Edinburgh on the appointed
day, January 15th, 1636, was likewise confronted with Adam Gordon
before the committee of the Privy Council; but although he denied
Adam’s accusation, and “cleared himself with great dexteritie,
beyond admiration,” as Gordon of Sallagh observes, he was, “upon
presumption,” committed a close prisoner to the castle of Edinburgh.
When his majesty was made acquainted with these circumstances by the
commissioners, and that there was no proof to establish the charge
against the marquis, both the marquis and Gordon of Letterfourie
were released by his command, on giving security for indemnifying
the laird of Frendraught for any damage he might sustain in time
coming, from the Gordons and their accomplices. Having so far
succeeded in annoying the marquis, Adam Gordon, after collecting a
body of men, by leave of the Privy Council, went along with them to
Germany, where he became a captain in the regiment of Colonel George
Leslie. To terminate the unhappy differences between the marquis and
Frendraught, the king enjoined Sir Robert Gordon, who was related
to both,--the marquis being his cousin-german, and chief of that
family, and Frendraught the husband of his niece,--to endeavour to
bring about a reconciliation between them. Sir Robert, accordingly,
on his return to Scotland, prevailed upon the parties to enter
into a submission, by which they agreed to refer all questions and
differences between them to the arbitrament of friends; but before
the submission was brought to a final conclusion, the marquis
expired at Dundee on the 13th June, (15th according to Gordon),
1636, at the age of seventy-four, while returning to the north from
Edinburgh. He was interred in the family vault at Elgin, on the
thirtieth day of August following, “having,” says Spalding, “above
his chist a rich mort-cloath of black velvet, wherein was wrought two
whyte crosses. He had torchlights in great number carried be freinds
and gentlemen; the marques’ son, called Adam, was at his head, the
earle of Murray on the right spaik, the earle of Seaforth on the left
spaik, the earle of Sutherland on the third spaik, and Sir Robert
Gordon on the fourth spaik. Besyds thir nobles, many barrons and
gentlemen was there, haveing above three hundred lighted torches at
the lifting. He is carried to the east port, doun the wynd to the
south kirk stile of the colledge kirk, in at the south kirk door,
and buried in his own isle with much murning and lamentation. The
like forme of burriall, with torch light, was not sein heir thir many
dayes befor.”[231]
The marquis was a remarkable man for the age in which he lived, and
there are no characters in that eventful period of Scottish history
so well entitled to veneration and esteem. A lover of justice, he
never attempted to aggrandize his vast possessions at the expense
of his less powerful neighbours; a kind and humane superior and
landlord, he exercised a lenient sway over his numerous vassals and
tenants, who repaid his kindness by sincere attachment to his person
and family. Endowed with great strength of mind, invincible courage,
and consummate prudence, he surmounted the numerous difficulties with
which he was surrounded, and lived to see the many factions which had
conspired against him discomfited and dissolved. While his constant
and undeviating attachment to the religion of his forefathers, raised
up many enemies against him among the professors of the reformed
doctrines, by whose cabals he was at one time obliged to leave the
kingdom, his great power and influence were assailed by another
formidable class of opponents among the turbulent nobility, who
were grieved to see a man who had not imitated their venality and
rapacity, not only retain his predominance in the north, but also
receive especial marks of his sovereign’s regard. But skilful and
intriguing as they were in all the dark and sinister ways of an age
distinguished for its base and wicked practices, their machinations
were frustrated by the discernment and honesty of George Gordon, the
first Marquis of Huntly.
FOOTNOTES:
[211] Spalding says that the party were commanded by Lauchlan
Macintosh, _alias_ Lauchlan Og, uncle of the young chief, and
Lauchlan Macintosh or Lauchlan Angus-son, eldest son of Angus
Macintosh, _alias_ Angus William, son of Auld Tirlie.--_Memorialls of
the Trubles in Scotland and in England_, A.D. 1624-1645.
[212] _Memorials_, vol. i. p. 8.
[213] Founder of the house of Culloden, and great-grandfather of the
celebrated Lord President Forbes.
[214] _Vide_ the petition of Provost Forbes to the king, “in the name
of the inhabitants” of Inverness; printed among the Culloden Papers,
No. 5, p. 4.
[215] Sir R. Gordon, p. 397, et seq.
[216] A considerable number of gentlemen, chiefly from Ross,
Sutherland, and Caithness, joined Mackay, some of whom rose to high
rank in the army of Gustavus Adolphus. Among these were Robert
Monroe of Foulis, and his brother, Hector; Thomas Mackenzie, brother
of the Earl of Seaforth; John Monroe of Obisdell, and his brother
Robert; John Monroe of Assynt, and others of that surname; Hugh Ross
of Priesthill; David Ross and Nicolas Ross, sons of Alexander Ross
of Invercharron; Hugh Gordon, son of Adam Gordon of Culkour; John
Gordon, son of John Gordon of Garty; Adam Gordon and John Gordon,
sons of Adam Gordon George-son; Ive Mackay, William, son of Donald
Mackay of Scourie; William Gun, son of John Gun Rob-son; John
Sinclair, bastard son of the earl of Caithness; Francis Sinclair,
son of James Sinclair of Murkle; John Innes, son of William Innes of
Sanset; John Gun, son of William Gun in Golspie-Kirktown; and George
Gun, son of Alexander Gun Rob-son.
[217] Sir R. Gordon, p. 401, et seq.
[218] _History_, p. 416.
[219] Spalding says that Frendraught was “ordained to pay to the
lady, relict of Rothiemay, and the bairns, fiftie thousand merks, in
composition of the slaughter.”
[220] Sir R. Gordon, p. 416, _et seq._ Spalding, p. 14.
[221] Sir R. Gordon (p. 419) spells this _Couland_ and _Coudland_.
[222] Sir R. Gordon, p. 241.--Spalding, p. 13, et seq.
[223] Spalding, p. 24.
[224] “Johne Meldrum haifing convocat to himselff certane brokin men,
all fugitiues and rebellis, his complices and associattis, upone the
aucht day of October, the yeir of God jai vic and threttie yeiris
under silence and clud of nicht, betwix twelff hours at nycht and
twa eftir mydnycht, come to the place of Frendraucht, and supponeing
and certanely persuading himselff that the said James Creichtoun of
Frendraucht wes lying within the tour of Frendraucht, quhilk was the
only strenth and strongest pairt of the said place, the said Johne
Meldrum, with his saidis complices, in maist tresonabill and feirfull
maner, haifing brocht with thame ane hudge quantitie of powder, pik,
brumstone, flax, and uther combustabill matter provydit be thame for
the purpois, pat and convoyit the samyn in and throw the slittis and
stones of the volt of the said grit tour of Frendraucht, weill knawin
and foirseine be the said Johne Meldrum, quha with his complices at
that instant tyme fyret the samyn pik, powder, brumstone, flax, and
uther combustable matter above writtin, at dyuerse places of the
said volt; quhilk being sua fyret and kindlet, did violentlie flie
to ane hoill in the heid of the said volt and tak vent thairat, the
whilk hoill of the said volt and vent thairof being perfytlie knawin
to the said John Meldrum, be reasone he had remained in houshald
with the said laird of Frendraucht, as his douiefull servand, within
the said hous and place of Frendraucht for ane lang tyme of befoir,
and knew and was previe to all the secreitis of the said house. And
the said volt being sua fyret, the haill tour and houssis quhairof
immediately thaireftir, being foure hous hight, in les space than
ane hour tuik fyre in the deid hour of the night, and was in maist
tresonabill, horrible, and lamentable maner brunt, blawin up, and
consumet.”--Spalding’s _Memorialls_, Appendix, vol. i. p. 390.
[225] A ballad is still sung in the district around Frendraught,
which, says Motherwell, “has a high degree of poetic merit, and
probably was written at the time by an eye-witness of the event which
it records.” We give a few verses from the version in Motherwell’s
_Minstrelsy_, as quoted in the Appendix to Spalding, vol. i. p. 409.
“The eighteenth of October,
A dismal tale to hear,
How good Lord John and Rothiemay
Was both burnt in the fire.
They had not long cast off their cloaths,
And were but now asleep--
When the weary smoke began to rise,
Likewise the scorching heat.
‘O waken, waken, Rothiemay,
O waken, brother dear,
And turn you to our Saviour,
There is strong treason here.’
He did him to the wire-window
As fast as he could gang--
Says--‘Wae to the hands put in the stancheons,
For out we’ll never win.’
Cried--‘Mercy, mercy, Lady Frendraught,
Will ye not sink with sin?
For first your husband killed my father,
And now you burn his son.’
O then out spoke her, Lady Frendraught,
And loudly did she cry--
‘It were great pity for good Lord John,
But none for Rothiemay.
But the keys are casten in the deep draw well,
Ye cannot get away.’
While he stood in this dreadful plight,
Most piteous to be seen,
There called out his servant Gordon,
As he had frantic been.
‘O loup, O loup, my dear master,
O loup and come to me;
I’ll catch you in my arms two,
One foot I will not flee.’
‘But I cannot loup, I cannot come,
I cannot win to thee;
My head’s fast in the wire-window,
My feet burning from me.
‘Take here the rings from my white fingers,
That are so long and small,
And give them to my Lady fair,
Where she sits in her hall.
‘So I cannot loup, I cannot come,
I cannot loup to thee--
My earthly part is all consumed,
My spirit but speaks to thee.’
Wringing her hands, tearing her hair,
His Lady she was seen,
And thus addressed his servant Gordon,
Where he stood on the green.
‘O wae be to you, George Gordon,
An ill death may you die,
So safe and sound as you stand there,
And my Lord bereaved from me.’
‘I bade him loup, I bade him come,
I bade him loup to me,
I’d catch him in my arms two,
A foot I should not flee.’
And aft she cried, ‘Ohon! alas, alas,
A sair heart’s ill to win;
I wan a sair heart when I married him,
And the day it’s well return’d again.’”
[226] Spalding, vol. i. p. 29.
[227] The “Common Band” or “General Band,” was the name given in
popular speech to an Act of the Scottish Parliament of the year 1587,
which was passed with the view of maintaining good order, both on
the Borders and in the Highlands and Isles. The plan on which this
Act chiefly proceeded was, “To make it imperative on all landlords,
bailies, and chiefs of clans, to find sureties to a large amount,
proportioned to their wealth and the number of their vassals or
clansmen, for the peaceable and orderly behaviour of those under
them. It was provided, that, if a superior, after having found the
required sureties, should fail to make immediate reparation of any
injuries committed by persons for whom he was bound to answer, the
injured party might proceed at law against the sureties for the
amount of the damage sustained. Besides being compelled, in such
cases, to reimburse his sureties, the superior was to incur a heavy
fine to the Crown. This important statute likewise contained many
useful provisions for facilitating the administration of justice
in these rude districts.”--Spalding’s _Memorialls_, vol. i. p. 3,
(note). Gregory’s _Western Highlands_, p. 237.
[228] _Continuation of the History of the Earls of Sutherland_, by
Gilbert Gordon of Sallagh, annexed to Sir R. Gordon’s work, p. 460.
Spalding, p. 63.
[229] Gordon of Sallagh’s _Continuation_, p. 464, et seq.
[230] Gordon’s _Continuation_, p. 475. Spalding, vol. i. p. 47, _et
seq._
[231] Spalding, vol. i. p. 50, _et seq._ Gordon’s _Continuation_, p.
476, _et seq._