The Project Gutenberg eBook, The Scottish Highlands, Highland Clans and Highland Regiments, Volume I (of 2), Edited by Sir John Scott Keltie

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook.

Title: The Scottish Highlands, Highland Clans and Highland Regiments, Volume I (of 2)

On the Basis of Browne's "History of the Highlands and Clans," but Entirely Re-Modelled and to a Large Extent Re-Written

Editor: Sir John Scott Keltie

Release Date: May 17, 2019 [eBook #59468]

Language: English

Character set encoding: UTF-8

***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE SCOTTISH HIGHLANDS, HIGHLAND CLANS AND HIGHLAND REGIMENTS, VOLUME I (OF 2)***

E-text prepared by Brian Coe, John Campbell,
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team
(http://www.pgdp.net)
from page images generously made available by
Internet Archive
(https://archive.org)

SUPPLIED TO SUBSCRIBERS ONLY.

PROSPECTUS.

A HISTORY OF

THE SCOTTISH HIGHLANDS,

HIGHLAND CLANS, AND HIGHLAND REGIMENTS;

ON THE BASIS OF BROWNE’S “HISTORY OF THE HIGHLANDS AND CLANS,” BUT ENTIRELY

RE-MODELLED AND TO A LARGE EXTENT RE-WRITTEN.

WITH AN ACCOUNT OF THE GAELIC LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE

WRITTEN FOR THE WORK,

BY THE REV. THOMAS MACLAUCHLAN, LL.D., F.S.A.S.,

One of the Editors of the “Dean of Lismore’s Book,” Author of
“The Early Scottish Church,” &c.;

AND AN ESSAY ON HIGHLAND SCENERY,

BY THE LATE PROFESSOR JOHN WILSON.

EDITED BY JOHN S. KELTIE, F.S.A.S.

During the last thirty years, the patriotic labours of the various Scottish book-clubs,—The Abbotsford, The Bannatyne, The Iona, The Maitland, The Spalding Clubs—the works of the various eminent Scottish antiquaries and historians, not to mention many valuable papers and pamphlets, have not only subjected everything connected with the history of the Highlands to an unsparing and searching criticism, but have also brought to light many new facts, and opened up formerly unthought-of tracks of inquiry. Such a flood of light has thus been thrown on all matters connected with the Highlands, that the publishers feel Browne’s History of the Highlands and Clans,—the work on which this publication is to a certain extent based,—has fallen behind the age, and that, to keep pace with the advanced state of historical research, a NEW WORK IS DEMANDED. Therefore, in preparing the work now presented to the public, it has been found necessary to make such extensive alterations and additions, that the publishers feel justified in calling it a NEW WORK.

The work is divided into three sections:—

I. The General History of the Highlands, including Religion, Literature, and Antiquities.

II. The History of the Highland Clans.

III. The History of the Highland Regiments.

Part I.—The General History of the Highlands.

The whole of this part has been THOROUGHLY REVISED, RE-MODELLED, and to a great extent RE-WRITTEN. All the introductory chapters relating to the Primitive History of the Highlands, are NEW, and in them are treated the much controverted questions as to the Picts and Scots, their RACE and LANGUAGE—the EARLY RACES OF KINGS, all points connected with the early SOCIAL and POLITICAL CONDITION of the Highlanders, their ORIGINAL RELIGION and the SPREAD OF Christianity. The most RECENT INVESTIGATIONS bearing on the Antiquities of the Highlands, the Ancient Manners and Customs of their people, their PECULIAR DRESS, their SOCIAL and POLITICAL RELATIONS, their SUPERSTITIONS, and other interesting antiquarian matters, have been taken advantage of.

As to the rest of this portion of the work, while whatever had no connection with Highland history has been expunged, much new matter has been added in order to make the general narrative COMPLETE and AUTHENTIC. When, at a later period of their history, the Highlanders become a potent element in the settlement of many great disputes, it has been sought to make the reader understand clearly the part they thus took in the stirring and momentous transactions of the times. As examples of these we need only mention here the CIVIL WARS in which Montrose so often led on the Highland army to victory: the Revolution disputes, culminating in Killiecrankie: the unfortunate insurrections of ’15 and ’45, which, but for the romantic enthusiasm of the Highlanders, would never have been even commenced.

In writing these chapters ample use has been made of the various club-publications above referred to, the latest of which, The Book of Deer, issued by the Spalding Club, edited by Dr. Stuart, has proved of great service in throwing light on the EARLY SOCIAL AND POLITICAL CONDITION of the Highlands, as well as on the STATE and CONSTITUTION of the early Scottish Church. Among modern Scottish historians and antiquarians whose labours have been taken advantage of in this part of the work, we may mention the names of George Chalmers, W. F. Skene, Joseph Robertson, Daniel Wilson, Mr. Gregory, John Hill Burton, E. W. Robertson, James Logan, Cosmo Innes, George Grub, Dr. Maclauchlan, and Colonel Forbes-Leslie: this last gentleman has been kind enough to place at our disposal some of the cuts which adorn his valuable work, The Early Races of Scotland. Besides these, books and documents, ancient and modern, too numerous to detail here, have been consulted.

To the Gaelic Language and Literature, which, in the old work, possibly from lack of material, were treated in rather a summary manner, a prominent place has been given. Since the publication of The Dean of Lismore’s Book, and other works on this interesting subject, there can be no complaint of lack of material; and so much importance do the publishers attach to the literature of the Highlands, that they have entered into an arrangement with the Rev. Thomas Maclauchlan, LL.D., F.S.A.S.—one of the editors of The Dean of Lismore’s Book, and one of the most eminent living Gaelic scholars—to write an entirely new account of this subject, into which will be introduced copious examples of genuine old Gaelic Poetry.

In the course of the work will be given the late Professor Wilson’s celebrated Essay on Highland Scenery, of which the copyright belongs to the publishers.

Part II.—The History of the Highland Clans.

In any history of the Highlands, an account of the Clans ought to occupy a place of the first importance, and in the present work, the GREATER PART OF THE SECOND VOLUME is devoted to this part of the subject. Every point of interest connected with this peculiar social system has been noticed:—the ORIGIN OF THE CLAN-SYSTEM, the relation of the chief to the general body of the clan, the various CLAN-DIGNITIES and OFFICES and the duties which belonged to each, the PECULIAR CUSTOMS to which the system gave rise, the difference between CLANSHIP and the FEUDAL SYSTEM, and the influence it had on the progress of the Highlands and on the rest of Scotland. In short, no pains have been spared to enable the reader to form a clear idea of all the ‘outs and ins’ of this primitive system of social government.

After this introductory matter, a DETAILED ACCOUNT is given of EACH SEPARATE CLAN which has any claim to be considered Highland. The origin of each Clan, as far as possible, has been traced back to its FOUNDER, and its claim to be considered purely Gaelic discussed; its history is traced through all its branches and offshoots down to the present day; the part it took in the various clan strifes, in the disputes between the Highlands and Lowlands, and in the general wars of Scotland, is set forth. Every link in the genealogical chain has been carefully traced, and those chiefs and other members of a clan who took a more prominent part in the affairs of the time, have their lives given in considerable detail. Appended to the account of each clan are its ARMORIAL BEARINGS, a description of its CLAN-TARTAN, the name of its BADGE, its peculiar war-cry or SLOGAN, its estimated STRENGTH, and its PRINCIPAL SEAT. In addition to the authorities above referred to, the works of Smibert, Logan, Stewart, and others, as well as the separate histories of those clans that are fortunate enough to have such, this division of the work is greatly indebted to the original researches of the late Mr. Anderson, author of the Scottish Nation, whose examination of many ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS and FAMILY RECORDS brought to light many facts connected with the history of the Highland clans, never before made public.

Part III.—History of the Highland Regiments.

The HISTORY OF THESE REGIMENTS is to a great extent the history of Britain’s battles for more than a century past; and the great military glory which our country has acquired, has been owing, in no small degree, to their UNSURPASSED BRAVERY, PERFECT DISCIPLINE, and HIGH MORALE. In the part of the work devoted to this subject, it has been sought faithfully to record not only the noble services rendered to its country in past times by each regiment in every engagement in which it took part, but also the brave deeds performed by many individual Highland soldiers.

With regard to the later history of the Highland regiments, it has been sought to render this complete and perfectly reliable by applying, for direct information, to the Colonel of each existing regiment; and in every case the publishers have met with the greatest courtesy and willingness to lend all assistance. In addition to this, of course, every accessible published work on the subject has been consulted, including the host of books called forth by the Crimean War and the Indian Mutiny.

From the above statements it will be seen that in no other single publication is it possible to obtain SUCH VARIED and VALUABLE INFORMATION on ALL POINTS OF INTEREST connected with the Scottish Highlands—their History, their Antiquities, their Clans, their Literature, their Military Annals. No pains have been spared to make the work ACCURATE, EXHAUSTIVE, INTERESTING, and CONSISTENT with the MOST RECENT INVESTIGATIONS.

Illustrations.

Besides clan-tartans, the work will be richly embellished with autographs, seals, armorial bearings, objects of antiquarian interest, and many views and portraits on wood and steel, all taken from original or other authentic sources, and executed in the first style of art.

The publishers have spared no pains to obtain original and genuine portraits, and to have them faithfully and beautifully reproduced; and they owe their sincere thanks to those noblemen and gentlemen connected with the Highlands who have allowed them access to their valuable family collections, in order to obtain copies of such original portraits as were required for the work. Many of these portraits have never before been engraved. The publishers would especially mention here the valuable miniature portrait of Prince Charles Edward Stuart in Highland costume, which has been in possession of the Lochiel family for generations, and which has been kindly placed at their disposal by the present representative of the family, Donald Cameron, Esq., M.P. for Inverness-shire. It has the merit of being a faithful likeness, and will be engraved by Holl of London.

Many of the views, illustrative both of the events narrated in the history and of the rich and romantic Highland scenery, are from photographs and drawings taken specially for the work. Others, consisting chiefly of views of towns and fortresses taken at or near the time of the events they are intended to illustrate, are copied from the rare and valuable work of John Slezer, entitled Theatrum Scotiæ, published at the end of the 17th century. The facts that Slezer was a military engineer, and that he was appointed by government to survey the chief towns and strongholds of Scotland, are sufficient guarantees of the faithfulness of these views.

CONDITIONS.

A. FULLARTON & Co.,

STEAD’S PLACE, LEITH WALK, EDINBURGH; AND 18 NEWGATE STREET, LONDON.

PRINCE CHARLES EDWARD STUART.

COPIED BY PERMISSION FROM THE MINIATURE IN POSSESSION OF DONALD CAMERON, ESQR. OF LOCHIEL.

A
HISTORY
OF THE
SCOTTISH HIGHLANDS

HIGHLAND CLANS
AND
HIGHLAND REGIMENTS

WITH AN ACCOUNT OF
THE GAELIC LANGUAGE, LITERATURE, AND MUSIC
By the Rev. THOMAS MACLAUCHLAN, LL.D., F.S.A. Scot.

AND AN ESSAY ON HIGHLAND SCENERY
By the late Professor JOHN WILSON

EDITED BY
JOHN S. KELTIE, F.S.A. Scot.

Illustrated

WITH A SERIES OF PORTRAITS, VIEWS, MAPS, ETC., ENGRAVED ON STEEL,
CLAN TARTANS, AND UPWARDS OF TWO HUNDRED WOODCUTS,
INCLUDING ARMORIAL BEARINGS

VOL. I.

A. FULLARTON & CO.
EDINBURGH AND LONDON
1875

[Pg vii]

PREFACE.

No apology is deemed necessary for bringing this History of the Scottish Highlands before the public. A work under a similar title was brought out by the present publishers upwards of thirty years ago, under the care of Dr. James Browne, and met with a sale so extensive and sustained as to prove that it supplied a real want.

Since the publication of Browne’s History, which it is only the simple truth to say had no rival, research has brought to light so much that is new connected both with the general history of the Highlands and the history of the various clans, and so many new laurels have been added to those already won by the Highland regiments during the past century, and the early part of the present, that the publishers believed the time had come for the preparation and issue of a new work.

In preparing it, the editor has done all in his power to make it complete and accurate. The object of Dr. Browne’s work was to present in one book all that is interesting and valuable concerning the Highlands and Highlanders, a great deal of information on this subject having lain scattered in various quarters inaccessible to the general public. In the preparation of the present work this object has been kept steadily in view; and it may be said of it, with even more force than of Browne’s, that it is a collectanea of information concerning the Scottish Highlands of an extent and kind to be met with in no other single publication.

The general plan of Dr. Browne’s work has been adhered to. In the First Part, that dealing with the General History of the Highlands, which, from the nature of the case, is more a chronicle of clan battles than a homogeneous history, it has been found possible, as might have been expected, to retain much of Browne’s text. This, however, has been subjected to a careful revision and comparison with the original authorities, as well as with the many new ones that have been brought to light during the past thirty years. Moreover, many portions throughout this section have been rewritten, and considerable additions made. One of the largest and most important of these is the continuation of the General History from 1745 down to the present day. The editor felt that, so far as the social history of the Highlands is concerned, the period embraced in the past hundred years was of even more importance than any previous time; he has therefore attempted to do what, so far as he knows, has not been done before, to present a sketch of the progress of the Highlands during that period. For this purpose he has had to consult a multitude of sources, and weigh many conflicting statements, his aim being simply to discover and tell the truth. Such matters have been gone into as Depopulation, Emigration, Agriculture, Large and Small Farms, Sheep and Deer, Fishing, Manufactures, Education, &c. It is hoped, therefore, that the First Part of the work will be found to contain a complete account of the Highlands, historical, antiquarian, and social.

An original and important feature of this part of the work is a history of the Gaelic Language and Literature, by the well known Celtic scholar, the Rev. T. Maclauchlan, LL.D., F.S.A. Scot.

In the Second Part, relating to the History of the Highland Clans, it will be found that, in the case of every clan, modifications and additions have been made. In some instances the histories have been entirely rewritten, and several border clans have been included that were not noticed in Browne’s work. The history of each clan, has, as far as possible, been traced from its founder through all the branches and offshoots down to the present day; the part it took in the various clan strifes, in the disputes between the Highlands and Lowlands, and in the general wars of Scotland, being set forth. In the case of most of the clans, gentlemen who have made a special study of particular clan histories have kindly revised the proofs.

[viii]

The Third Part, the History of the Highland Regiments, occupies a prominent place in the present work. Of these regiments one-half have had their complete history published now for the first time, and in the case of the others so many changes and additions have been made, that this part of the work may be considered as entirely new. The history of each of the nine regiments which now rank as Highland has been gone into from its embodiment, and the trustworthiness of this unique body of military history may be inferred from the fact, that, in the case of every regiment, it is founded upon the original Regimental Record, supplemented in many instances by the diaries and recollections of officers; and in two cases, at least, as will be seen, by materials collected by officers who have made a special study of their regimental histories. The general reader will find this part of the work of very great interest.

With regard to the Illustrations, the publishers feel justified in alluding to them with considerable pride. No attempt has been made to make the present work a mere picture-book; it will be invariably found that the numerous plates, woodcuts, and clan-tartans either add interest to the text, or throw light upon it. Every effort has been made to secure authentic portraits and original views, and to have every illustration executed in a thoroughly artistic style; and it is hoped that, in these respects, the exertions of the editor and publishers have been crowned with success. The specimens of clan-tartans represent in every case those recognised by the heads of the various clans. The illustrations, therefore, will be found both historically and artistically valuable.

Throughout this work the editor has endeavoured to acknowledge the authorities which he has in any way made use of. Were he to mention the names of the numerous individuals to whom he has been indebted for assistance during its preparation, it would add very considerably to the length of this preface; in his own name and that of the publishers, he expresses sincere gratitude to all who have in any way lent a helping hand. Special thanks, however, are due to the Duke of Athole for assistance in various ways, and particularly for permission to engrave the portrait of Lord George Murray; to Lady Elizabeth Pringle for the portrait of the first Earl of Breadalbane, and to Mrs. Campbell of Monzie for that of the “Gentle Lochiel,”—all published in this work for the first time. As mentioned in the text, the beautiful miniature of “Prince Charlie” is copied from the original in possession of Donald Cameron, Esq. of Lochiel, who has also lent assistance in other ways. The originals of other valuable illustrations, as will be seen, have been kindly placed at the publishers’ service by the Duke of Sutherland, the Duke of Richmond, the Earl of Strathmore, the Earl of Crawford and Balcarres, The Mackintosh, The Chisholm, Duncan Forbes, Esq. of Culloden, David Laing, Esq., LL.D., James Drummond, Esq., R.S.A., and many others.

The editor has in the proper place in the text referred to the assistance given him in connection with the important history of “Clan Chattan” by Alexander Mackintosh Shaw, Esq., whose own history of the clan is nearly completed; the narrative in the present work owes its value almost entirely to his kindness. For assistance in the history of this clan the editor was also indebted to the late Rev. W. G. Shaw of Forfar.

To the Colonels-commanding of all the Highland regiments special thanks are due for hearty co-operation in procuring material for the Third Part of the work. Many other officers have, with the greatest readiness, either volunteered assistance or given it when asked. In this connection special mention must be made of Lieutenant-Colonels Wheatley, Clephane, and Sprot, Captain Colin Mackenzie, and Captain Thackeray.

The large and increasing demand for this work during its publication, and the extremely favourable notices of the press, afford good grounds for believing that it will be found to fulfil the purpose for which it has been compiled. May it ever meet with a kindly welcome from all who are in any way interested in the romantic Highlands of Scotland.

JOHN S. KELTIE.

London, February 1875.

[ix]

CONTENTS OF VOLUME I.

[xi]

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

VOLUME I.

[xiii]

REMARKS

ON THE

SCENERY OF THE HIGHLANDS.

BY

PROFESSOR WILSON.

In no other country does Nature exhibit herself in more various forms of beauty and sublimity than in the north of England and the Highlands of Scotland. This is acknowledged by all who, having studied their character, and become familiar with the feelings it inspires, have compared the effects produced on their minds by our own mountainous regions, with what they have experienced among the scenery of the Alps. There, indeed, all objects are on so vast a scale, that we are for a while astonished as we gaze on the gigantic; and all other emotions are sunk in an overwhelming sense of awe that prostrates the imagination. But on recovering from its subjection to the prodigious, that faculty everywhere recognises in those mighty mountains of dark forests, glittering glaciers, and regions of eternal snow—infinite all—the power and dominion of the sublime. True that all these are but materials for the mind to work on, and that to its creative energy Nature owes much of that grandeur which seems to be inherent in her own forms; yet surely she in herself is great, and there is a regality belonging of divine right to such a monarch as Mont Blanc.

Those are the very regions of sublimity, and if brought into immediate comparison with them in their immense magnitude, the most magnificent scenery of our own country would no doubt seem to lose its character of greatness. But such is not the process of the imagination in her intercourse with Nature. To her, sufficient for the day is the good thereof; and on each new glorious sight being shown to her eyes, she employs her God-given power to magnify or irradiate what she beholds, without diminishing or obscuring what she remembers. Thus, to her all things in nature hold their own due place, and retain for ever their own due impressions, aggrandized and beautified by mutual reaction in those visionary worlds, which by a thought she can create, and which, as they arise, are all shadowy representations of realities—new compositions in which the image of the earth we tread is reflected fairer or greater than any realities, but not therefore less, but more true to the spirit of nature. It is thus that poets and painters at once obey and control their own inspirations. They visit all the regions of the earth, but to love, admire, and adore; and the greatest of them all, native to our soil, from their travel or sojourn in foreign lands, have always brought home a clearer insight into the character of the scenery of their own, a profounder affection for it all, and a higher power of imaging its attributes in colours or in words. In our poetry, more than in any other, Nature sees herself reflected in a magic mirror; and though many a various show passes processionally along its lustre, displaying the scenery of “lands and seas, whatever clime the sun’s bright circle warms,” among them all there are none more delightful or elevating to behold than those which genius, inspired by love, has framed of the imagery, which, in all her pomp and prodigality, Heaven has been pleased to shower, through all seasons, on our own beautiful island. It is not for us to say whether our native painters, or the “old masters,” have shown the greatest genius in landscape; but if the palm must be yielded to them whose works have been consecrated[xiv] by a reverence, as often, perhaps, superstitious as religious, we do not fear to say, that their superiority is not to be attributed in any degree to the scenery on which they exercised the art its beauty had inspired. Whatever may be the associations connected with the subjects of their landscapes—and we know not why they should be higher or holier than those belonging to innumerable places in our own land—assuredly in themselves they are not more interesting or impressive; nay, though none who have shared with us the spirit of the few imperfect sentences we have now written, will for a moment suppose us capable of instituting an invidious comparison between our own scenery and that of any other country, why should we hesitate to assert that our own storm-loving Northern Isle is equally rich in all kinds of beauty as the Sunny South, and richer far in all kinds of grandeur, whether we regard the forms or colouring of nature—earth, sea, or air—

What other region in all the world like that of the Lakes in the north of England! And yet how the true lover of nature, while he carries along with him its delightful character in his heart, and can so revive any spot of especial beauty in his imagination, as that it shall seem in an instant to be again before his very eyes, can deliver himself up, after the lapse of a day, to the genius of some savage scene in the Highlands of Scotland, rent and riven by the fury of some wild sea-loch! Not that the regions do not resemble one another, but surely the prevailing spirit of the one—not so of the other—is a spirit of joy and of peace. Her mountains, invested, though they often be, in gloom—and we have been more than once benighted during day, as a thunder-cloud thickened the shadows that for ever sleep in the deepest dungeons of Helvellyn—are yet—so it seems to us—such mountains as in nature ought to belong to “merry England.” They boldly meet the storms, and seen in storms you might think they loved the trouble; but pitch your tent among them, and you will feel that theirs is a grandeur that is congenial with the sunshine, and that their spirit fully rejoices in the brightness of light. In clear weather, verdant from base to summit, how majestic their repose! And as mists slowly withdraw themselves in thickening folds up along their sides, the revelation made is still of more and more of the beautiful—arable fields below, then coppice woods studded with standard trees—enclosed pastures above and among the woods—broad breasts of close-nibbled herbage here and there adorned by rich dyed rocks, that do not break the expanse—till the whole veil has disappeared; and, lo! the long lofty range, with its wavy line, rising and sinking so softly in the blue serenity, perhaps, of an almost cloudless sky. Yet though we have thus characterised the mountains by what we have always felt to be the pervading spirit of the region, chasms and ravines, and cliffs and precipices, are there; in some places you see such assemblages as inspire the fear that quakes at the heart, when suddenly struck in the solitude with a sense of the sublime; and though we have called the mountains green—and during Spring and Summer, in spite of frost or drought, they are green as emerald—yet in Autumn they are many-coloured, and are girdled with a glow of variegated light, that at sunset sometimes seems like fire kindled in the woods.

The larger Vales are all serene and cheerful; and among the sylvan knolls with which their wide levels, highly cultivated, are interspersed, cottages, single or in groups, are frequent, of an architecture always admirably suited to the scenery, because in a style suggested not by taste or fancy, which so often disfigure nature to produce the picturesque, but resorted to for sake of the uses and conveniences of in-door life, to weather-fend it in storms, and in calm to give it the enjoyment of sunshine. Many of these dwellings are not what are properly called cottages, but statesmen’s houses, of ample front, with their many roofs, over-shadowed by a stately grove, and inhabited by the same race for many generations. All alike have their suitable gardens, and the porches of the poorest are often clustered with roses; for everywhere among these hills, even in minds the most rude and uncultivated, there is a natural love of flowers. The villages, though somewhat too much modernised in those days of improvement—and indeed not a[xv] few of them with hardly any remains now of their original architecture—nothing old about them but the church tower, perhaps the parsonage—are nevertheless generally of a pleasing character, and accordant, if not with the great features of nature, which are unchanged and unchangeable, with the increased cultivation of the country, and the many villas and ornamented cottages that have risen and are rising by every lake and river side. Rivers indeed, properly so called, there are none among these mountains; but every vale, great and small, has at all times its pure and undefiled stream or rivulet; every hill has its hundreds of evanescent rills, almost every one its own perennial torrent flowing from spring, marsh, or tarn; and the whole region is often alive with waterfalls, of many of which, in its exquisite loveliness, the scenery is fit for fairy festivals—and of many, in its horrid gloom, for gatherings of gnomes revisiting “the glimpses of the moon” from their subterraneous prisons. One lake there is, which has been called “wooded Winandermere, the river lake;” and there is another—Ulswater—which you might imagine to be a river too, and to have come flowing from afar; the one excelling in isles, and bays, and promontories, serene and gentle all, and perfectly beautiful; the other, matchless in its majesty of cliff and mountain, and in its old forests, among whose hoary gloom is for ever breaking out the green light of young generations, and perpetual renovation triumphing over perpetual decay. Of the other lakes—not river-like—the character may be imagined even from that we have faintly described of the mountains; almost every vale has its lake, or a series of lakes; and though some of them have at times a stern aspect, and have scenes to show almost of desolation, descending sheer to the water’s edge, or overhanging the depth that looks profounder in the gloom, yet even these, to eyes and hearts familiar with their spirit, wear a sweet smile which seldom passes away. Witness Wastwater, with its huge single mountains, and hugest of all the mountains of England, Scawfell, with its terrific precipices—which, in the accidents of storm, gloom, or mist, has seemed, to the lonely passer-by, savage in the extreme—a howling or dreary wilderness—but in its enduring character, is surrounded with all quiet pastoral imagery, the deep glen in which it is embedded being, in good truth, the abode of Sabbath peace. That hugest mountain is indeed the centre from which all the vales irregularly diverge; the whole circumjacent region may be traversed in a week; and though no other district of equal extent contains such variety of the sublime and beautiful, yet the beautiful is so prevalent that we feel its presence, even in places where it is overpowered; and on leaving “The Lakes,” our imagination is haunted and possessed with images, not of dread, but of delight.

We have sometimes been asked, whether the north of England or the Highlands of Scotland should be visited first; but, simple as the question seems, it is really one which it is impossible to answer, though we suspect it would equally puzzle Scotchman or Englishman to give a sufficient reason for his wishing to see any part of any other country, before he had seen what was best worth seeing in his own. His own country ought to be, and generally is, dearest to every man. There, if nothing forbid, he should not only begin his study of nature, but continue his education in her school, wherever it may happen to be situated, till he has taken his first degree. We believe that the love of nature is strong in the hearts of the inhabitants of our island. And how wide and profound may that knowledge of nature be, which the loving heart has acquired, without having studied her anywhere but within the Four Seas! The impulses that make us desire to widen the circle of our observation, are all impulses of delight and love; and it would be strange indeed, did they not move us, first of all, towards whatever is most beautiful belonging to our own land. Were it otherwise, it would seem as if the heart were faithless to the home affections, out of which, in their strength, spring all others that are good; and it is essential, we do not doubt, to the full growth of the love of country, that we should all have our earliest imaginative delights associated with our native soil. Such associations will for ever keep it loveliest to our eyes; nor is it possible that we can ever as perfectly understand the character of any other; but we can afterwards transfer and[xvi] transfuse our feelings in imagination kindled by our own will; and the beauty, born before our eyes, among the banks and braes of our childhood, and then believed to be but there, and nothing like it anywhere else in all the world, becomes a golden light, “whose home is everywhere,” which if we do not darken it, will shine unshadowed in the dreariest places, till “the desert blossom like the rose.”

For our own parts, before we beheld one of “the beautiful fields of England,” we had walked all Scotland thorough, and had seen many a secret place, which now, in the confusion of our crowded memory, seem often to shift their uncertain ground; but still, wherever they glimmeringly re-appear, invested with the same heavenly light in which long ago they took possession of our soul. And now that we are almost as familiar with the fair sister-land, and love her almost as well as Scotland’s self, not all the charms in which she is arrayed—and they are at once graceful and glorious—have ever for a day withdrawn our deeper dreams from the regions where,

unaccompanied but by our own shadow in the wilderness, we first heard the belling of the red deer and the eagle’s cry.

In those days there was some difficulty, if not a little danger, in getting in among some of the noblest regions of our Alps. They could not be traversed without strong personal exertion; and a solitary pedestrian excursion through the Grampians was seldom achieved without a few incidents that might almost have been called adventures. It is very different now; yet the Genius Loci, though tamed, is not subdued; and they who would become acquainted with the heart of the Highlands, will have need of some endurance still, and must care nothing about the condition of earth or sky. Formerly, it was not possible to survey more than a district or division in a single season, except to those unenviable persons who had no other pursuit but that of amusement, and waged a weary war with time. The industrious dwellers in cities, who sought these solitudes for a while to relieve their hearts from worldly anxieties, and gratify that love of nature which is inextinguishable in every bosom that in youth has beat with its noble inspirations, were contented with a week or two of such intercommunion with the spirit of the mountains, and thus continued to extend their acquaintance with the glorious wildernesses, visit after visit, for years. Now the whole Highlands, western and northern, may be commanded in a month. Not that any one who knows what they are will imagine that they can be exhausted in a lifetime. The man does not live who knows all worth knowing there; and were they who made the trigonometrical survey to be questioned on their experiences, they would be found ignorant of thousands of sights, any one of which would be worth a journey for its own sake. But now steam has bridged the Great Glen, and connected the two seas. Salt water lochs the most remote and inaccessible, it has brought within reach of a summer day’s voyage. In a week a joyous company can gather all the mainland shores, leaving not one magnificent bay uncircled; and, having rounded St Kilda and

and heard the pealing anthem of waves in the cave-cathedral of Staffa, may bless the bells of St Mungo’s tolling on the first Sabbath. Thousands and tens of thousands, who but for those smoking sea-horses, had never been beyond view of the city spires, have seen sights which, though passing by almost like dreams, are not like dreams forgotten, but revive of themselves in memory and imagination; and, when the heart is weary with the work of the hand, quicken its pulses with a sudden pleasure that is felt like a renovation of youth.

All through the interior, too, how many hundreds of miles of roads now intersect regions not long ago deemed impracticable!—firm on the fen, in safety flung across the chasm—and winding smoothly amidst shatterings of rocks, round the huge mountain bases, and down the glens once felt as if interminable, now travelled almost with the speed of the raven’s wing!

In the Highlands now, there is no terra incognita. But there are many places yet well worth seeing, which it is not easy for all men[xvii] to find, and to which every man must be his own guide. It is somewhat of a selfish feeling, indeed, but the pride is not a mean one, with which the solitary pedestrian sits down to contemplate some strange, or wild, or savage scene, or some view of surpassing sweetness and serenity, so far removed from the track of men, that he can well believe for a time that his eyes have been the first to behold it, and that for them alone it has now become a visible revelation. The memory of such places is sometimes kept as a secret which we would not communicate but to a congenial friend. They are hallowed by those mysterious “thoughts that, like phantoms, trackless come and go;” no words can tell another how to find his way thither; and were we ourselves to seek to return, we should have to trust to some consciousness mysterious as the instinct of a bird that carries it through the blind night to the place of its desire.

It is well to have in our mind the conception of a route; but without being utterly departed from—nay, without ceasing to control us within certain bounds—it admits of almost any degrees of deviation. We have known persons apparently travelling for pleasure who were afraid to turn a few miles to the right or the left, for fear of subjecting themselves to the reproach of their own conscience for infirmity of purpose. They had “chalked out a route,” and acted as if they had sworn a solemn oath to follow it. This is to be a slave among the boundless dominions of nature, where all are free. As the wind bloweth wherever it listeth, so move the moods of men’s minds, when there is nought to shackle them, and when the burden of their cares has been dropt, that for a while they may walk on air, and feel that they too have wings.

The voice was our own—and yet though but a whisper from the heart, it seemed to come from the front of yon distant precipice—sweet and wild as an echo.

On rising at dawn in the shieling, why think, much less determine, where at night we are to lay down our head? Let this be our thought:

If we obey any powers external to our own minds, let them be the powers of Nature—the rains, the winds, the atmosphere, sun, moon and stars. We must keep a look out—

that next day we may cross the red rivers by bridges, not by fords; and if they roll along unbridged, that we may set our face to the mountain, and wind our way round his shoulder by sheep-tracks, unwet with the heather, till we behold some great strath, which we had not visited but for that storm, with its dark blue river streaked with golden light,—for its source is in a loch among the Eastern Range; and there, during the silent hours, heather, bracken, and greensward rejoiced in the trembling dews.

There is no such climate for all kinds of beauty and grandeur as the climate of the Highlands. Here and there you meet with an old shepherd or herdsman, who has beguiled himself into a belief, in spite of many a night’s unforeseen imprisonment in the mists, that he can presage its changes from fair to foul, and can tell the hour when the long-threatening thunder will begin to mutter. The weather-wise have often perished in their plaids. Yet among a thousand uncertain symptoms, there are a few certain, which the ranger will do well to study, and he will often exult on the mountain to feel that “knowledge is power.” Many a glorious hour has been won from the tempest by him before whose instructed eye—beyond the gloom that wide around blackened all the purple heather—“far off its coming shone.” Leagues of continuous magnificence have gradually unveiled themselves on either side to him, as he has slowly paced, midway between, along the banks of the River of Waterfalls; having been assured by the light struggling through the mist, that it would not be long till there was a break-up of all that ghastly dreariment, and that the sun would call on him to come forth from his cave of shelter, and behold in all its pride the Glen affronting the Sea.

[xviii]

Some Tourists—as they call themselves—are provided with map and compass; and we hope they find them of avail in extremities, though we fear few such understand their use. No map can tell—except very vaguely—how the aspect of the localities, looked at on its lines, is likely to be affected by sunrise, meridian, or sunset. Yet, true it is, that every region has its own happy hours, which the fortunate often find unawares, and know them at once to be so the moment they lift up their eyes. At such times, while “our hearts rejoice in Nature’s joy,” we feel the presence of a spirit that brings out the essential character of the place, be it of beauty or of grandeur. Harmonious as music is then the composition of colours and of forms. It becomes a perfect picture in memory, more and more idealised by imagination, every moment the veil is withdrawn before it; its aërial lineaments never fade; yet they too, though their being be but in the soul, are mellowed by the touch of time—and every glimpse of such a vision, the longer we live, and the more we suffer, seems suffused with a mournful light, as if seen through tears.

It would serve no good purpose, supposing we had the power, to analyse the composition of that scenery, which in the aggregate so moves even the most sluggish faculties, as to make “the dullest wight a poet.” It rises before the mind in imagination, as it does before the eyes in nature; and we can no more speak of it than look at it, but as a whole. We can indeed fix our mental or our visual gaze on scene after scene to the exclusion of all beside, and picture it even in words that shall be more than shadows. But how shall any succession of such pictures, however clear and complete, give an idea of that picture which comprehends them all, and infinite as are its manifestations, nevertheless is imbued with one spirit?

Try to forget that in the Highlands there are any Lochs. Then the sole power is that of the Mountains. We speak of a sea of mountains; but that image has never more than momentary possession of us, because, but for a moment, in nature it has no truth. Tumultuary movements envelope them; but they themselves are for ever steadfast and for ever still. Their power is that of an enduring calm no storms can disturb—and is often felt to be more majestical, the more furious are the storms. As the tempest-driven clouds are franticly hurrying to and fro, how serene the summits in the sky! Or if they be hidden, how peaceful the glimpses of some great mountain’s breast! They disregard the hurricane that goes crashing through their old woods; the cloud-thunder disturbs not them any more than that of their own cataracts, and the lightnings play for their pastime. All minds under any excitation more or less personify mountains. When much moved, that natural process affects all our feelings, as the language of passion awakened by such objects vividly declares; and then we do assuredly conceive of mountains as indued with life—however dim and vague the conception may be—and feel their character in their very names. Utterly strip our ideas of them of all that is attached to them as impersonations, and their power is gone. But while we are creatures of imagination as well as of reason, will those monarchs remain invested with the purple and seated on thrones.

In such imaginative moods as these must every one be, far more frequently than he is conscious of, and in far higher degrees, who, with a cultivated mind and a heart open to the influences of nature, finds himself, it matters not whether for the first or the hundredth time, in the Highlands. We fancy the Neophyte wandering, all by himself, on the “longest day;” rejoicing to think that the light will not fail him, when at last the sun must go down, for that a starry gloaming will continue its gentle reign till morn. He thinks but of what he sees, and that is—the mountains. All memories of any other world but that which encloses him with its still sublimities, are not excluded merely, but obliterated: his whole being is there! And now he stands on table-land, and with his eyes sweeps the horizon, bewildered for a while, for it seems chaos all. But soon the mighty masses begin arranging themselves into order; the confusion insensibly subsides as he comprehends more and more of their magnificent combinations; he discovers centres round which are associated altitudes towering afar off; and finally, he[xix] feels, and blesses himself on his felicity, that his good genius has placed him on the very centre of those wondrous assemblages altogether, from which alone he could command an empire of realities, more glorious far than was ever empire of dreams.

It is a cloudy, but not a stormy day; the clouds occupy but portions of the sky,—and are they all in slow motion together, or are they all at rest? Huge shadows stalking along the earth, tell that there are changes going on in heaven; but to the upward gaze, all seems hanging there in the same repose; and with the same soft illumination the sun to continue shining, a concentration rather than an orb of light. All above is beautiful, and the clouds themselves are like celestial mountains; but the eye forsakes them, though it sees them still, and more quietly now it moves along the pageantry below that endures for ever—till chained on a sudden by that range of cliffs. ’Tis along them that the giant shadows are stalking—but now they have passed by—and the long line of precipice seems to come forward in the light. To look down from the brink might be terrible—to look up from the base would be sublime—but fronting the eye thus, horrid though it be, the sight is most beautiful;—for weather-stains, and mosses, and lichens, and flowering-plants—conspicuous most the broom and the heather—and shrubs that, among their leaves of light, have no need of flowers—and hollies, and birks, and hazels, and many a slender tree besides with pensile tresses, besprinkle all the cliffs, that in no gloom could ever lose their lustre; but now the day though not bright is fair, and brings out the whole beauty of the precipice—call it the hanging garden of the wilderness.

The Highlands have been said to be a gloomy region, and worse gloom than theirs might well be borne, if not unfrequently illumined with such sights as these; but that is not the character of the mountains, though the purple light in which, for usual, they are so richly steeped, is often for a season tamed, or for a short while extinguished, while a strange night-like day lets fall over them all a something like a shroud. Such days we have seen—but now in fancy we are with the pilgrim, and see preparation making for a sunset. It is drawing towards evening, and the clouds that have all this time been moving, though we knew it not, have assuredly settled now, and taken up their rest. The sun has gone down, and all that unspeakable glory has left the sky. Evening has come and gone without our knowing that she had been here; but there is no gloom on any place in the whole of this vast wilderness, and the mountains, as they wax dimmer and dimmer, look as if they were surrendering themselves to a repose like sleep. Day had no voice here audible to human ear—but night is murmuring—and gentle though the murmur be, it filleth the great void, and we imagine that ever and anon it awakens echoes. And now it is darker than we thought, for lo! one soft-burning star! And we see that there are many stars; but not theirs the light that begins again to reveal object after object as gradually as they had disappeared; the moon is about to rise—is rising—has arisen—has taken her place high in heaven; and as the glorious world again expands around us, faintly tinged, clearly illumined, softly shadowed, and deeply begloomed, we say within our hearts,

There are many such table-lands as the one we have now been imagining, and it requires but a slight acquaintance with the country to conjecture rightly where they lie. Independently of the panoramas they display, they are in themselves always impressive; perhaps a bare level that shows but bleached bent, and scatterings of stones, with here and there an unaccountable rock; or hundreds of fairy greensward knolls, fringed with tiny forests of fern that have almost displaced the heather; or a wild withered moor or moss intersected with pits dug not by men’s hands; and, strange to see! a huge log lying half exposed, and as if blackened by fire. High as such places are, on one of them a young gorcock was stricken down by a hawk close to our feet. Indeed, hawks seem to haunt such places, and we have rarely crossed one of them, without either seeing the creature’s stealthy flight, or hearing, whether he be alarmed or preying, his ever-angry cry.

From a few such stations, you get an insight[xx] into the configuration of the whole Western Highlands. By the dip of the mountains, you discover at a glance all the openings in the panorama around you into other regions. Follow your fancies fearlessly wherever they may lead; and if the blue aërial haze that hangs over a pass winding eastward, tempt you from your line of march due north, forthwith descend in that direction, and haply an omen will confirm you—an eagle rising on the left, and sailing away before you into that very spot of sky.

No man, however well read, should travel by book. In books you find descriptions, and often good ones, of the most celebrated scenes, but seldom a word about the vast tracts between; and it would seem as if many Tourists had used their eyes only in those places where they had been told by common fame there was something greatly to admire. Travel in the faith, that go where you will, the cravings of your heart will be satisfied, and you will find it so, if you be a true lover of nature. You hope to be inspired by her spirit, that you may read aright her works. But such inspiration comes not from one object or another, however great or fair, but from the whole “mighty world of eye and ear,” and it must be supported continuously, or it perishes. You may see a thousand sights never before seen by human eye, at every step you take, wherever be your path; for no steps but yours have ever walked along that same level; and moreover, never on the same spot twice rested the same lights or shadows. Then there may be something in the air, and more in your own heart, that invests every ordinary object with extraordinary beauty; old images affect you with a new delight; a grandeur grows upon your eyes in the undulations of the simplest hills; and you feel there is sublimity in the common skies. It is thus that all the stores of imagery are insensibly gathered, with which the minds of men are filled, who from youth have communed with Nature. And it is thus that all those feelings have flowed into their hearts by which that imagery is sanctified; and these are the poets.

It is in this way that we all become familiar with the Mountains. Far more than we were aware of have we trusted to the strong spirit of delight within us, to prompt and to guide. And in such a country as the Highlands, thus led, we cannot err. Therefore, if your desire be for the summits, set your face thitherwards, and wind a way of your own, still ascending and ascending, along some vast brow, that seems almost a whole day’s journey, and where it is lost from your sight, not to end, but to go sweeping round, with undiminished grandeur, into another region. You are not yet half-way up the mountain, but you care not for the summit now; for you find yourself among a number of green knolls—all of them sprinkled, and some of them crowned, with trees—as large almost as our lowland hills—surrounded close to the brink with the purple heather—and without impairing the majesty of the immense expanse, embuing it with pastoral and sylvan beauty;—and there, lying in a small forest glade of the lady-fern, ambitious no longer of a throne on Benlomond or Bennevis, you dream away the still hours till sunset, yet then have no reason to weep that you have lost a day.

But the best way to view the mountains is to trace the Glens. To find out the glens you must often scale the shoulders of mountains; and in such journeys of discovery, you have for ever going on before your eyes glorious transfigurations. Sometimes for a whole day one mighty mass lowers before you unchanged; look at it after the interval of hours, and still the giant is one and the same. It rules the region, subjecting all other altitudes to its sway, though many of them range away to a great distance; and at sunset retains its supremacy, blazing almost like a volcano with fiery clouds. Your line of journey lies, perhaps, some two thousand feet above the level of the sea, and seldom dips down to one thousand; and these are the heights from which all above and all below you look most magnificent, for both regions have their full power over you—the unscaleable cliffs, the unfathomable abysses—and you know not which is the more sublime. The sublimity indeed is one. It is then that you may do well to ascend to the very mountain top. For it may happen to be one of those heavenly days indeed, when the whole Highlands seem to be reposing in the cloudless sky.

[xxi]

But we were about to speak of the Glens. And some of them are best entered by such descents as these—perhaps at their very head—where all at once you are in another world, how still, how gloomy, how profound! An hour ago and the eye of the eagle had not wider command of earth, sea, and sky than yours—almost blinded now by the superincumbent precipices that imprison you, and seem to shut you out from life.

Or you may enter some great glen from the foot, where it widens into vale, or strath—and there are many such—and some into which you can sail up an arm of the sea. For a while it partakes of the cultivated beauty of the lowlands, and glen and vale seem almost one and the same; but gradually it undergoes a strange wild change of character, and in a few miles that similitude is lost. There is little or no arable ground here; but the pasture is rich on the unenclosed plain—and here and there are enclosures near the few houses or huts standing, some of them in the middle of the glen, quite exposed, on eminences above reach of the floods—some more happily placed on the edge of the coppices, that sprinkle the steep sides of the hills, yet barely mountains. But mountains they soon become; and leaving behind you those few barren habitations, you see before you a wide black moor. Beautiful hitherto had been the river, for a river you had inclined to think it, long after it had narrowed into a stream, with many a waterfall, and in one chasm a cataract. But the torrent now has a wild mountain-cry, and though there is still beauty on its banks, they are bare of all trees, now swelling into multitudes of low green knolls among the heather, now composed but of heather and rocks. Through the very middle of the black moor it flows, yet are its waters clear, for all is not moss, and it seems to wind its way where there is nothing to pollute its purity, or tame its lustre. ’Tis a solitary scene, but still sweet; the mountains are of great magnitude, but they are not precipitous; vast herds of cattle are browsing there, on heights from which fire has cleared the heather, and wide ranges of greensward upon the lofty gloom seem to lie in perpetual light.

The moor is crossed, and you prepare to scale the mountain in front, for you imagine the torrent by your side flows from a tarn in yonder cove, and forms that series of waterfalls. You have been all along well pleased with the glen, and here at the head, though there is a want of cliffs of the highest class, you feel nevertheless that it has a character of grandeur. Looking westward, you are astounded to see them ranging away on either side of another reach of the glen, terrific in their height, but in their formation beautiful, for like the walls of some vast temple they stand, roofed with sky. Yet are they but as a portal or gateway of the glen. For entering in with awe, that deepens as you advance almost into dread, you behold beyond mountains that carry their cliffs up into the clouds, seamed with chasms, and hollowed out into coves, where night dwells visibly by the side of day; and still the glen seems winding on beneath a purple light, that almost looks like gloom; such vast forms and such prodigious colours, and such utter stillness, become oppressive to your very life, and you wish that some human being were by, to relieve by his mere presence the insupportable weight of such a solitude.

But we should never have done were we to attempt to sketch, however slightly, the character of all the different kinds of glens. Some are sublime in their prodigious depth and vast extent, and would be felt to be so, even were the mountains that enclose them of no great majesty; but these are all of the highest order, and sometimes are seen from below to the very cairns on their summits. Now we walk along a reach, between astonishing ranges of cliffs, among large heaps of rocks—not a tree—scarcely a shrub—no herbage—the very heather blasted—all lifelessness and desolation. The glen gradually grows less and less horrid, and though its sides are seamed with clefts and chasms, in the gloom there are places for the sunshine, and there is felt to be even beauty in the repose. Descends suddenly on either side a steep slope of hanging wood, and we find ourselves among verdant mounds,[xxii] and knolls, and waterfalls. We come then into what seems of old to have been a forest. Here and there a stately pine survives, but the rest are all skeletons; and now the glen widens, and widens, yet ceases not to be profound, for several high mountains enclose a plain on which armies might encamp, and castellated clouds hang round the heights of the glorious amphitheatre, while the sky-roof is clear, and, as if in its centre, the refulgent sun. ’Tis the plain called “The Meeting of the Glens.” From the east and the west, the north and the south, they come like rivers into the sea.

Other glens there are as long, but not so profound, nor so grandly composed; yet they too conduct us nobly in among the mountains, and up their sides, and on even to their very summits. Such are the glens of Athole, in the neighbourhood of Ben-y-gloe. From them the heather is not wholly banished, and the fire has left a green light without quenching the purple colour native to the hills. We think that we almost remember the time when those glens were in many places sprinkled with huts, and all animated with human life. Now they are solitary; and you may walk from sunrise till sunset without seeing a single soul. For a hundred thousand acres have there been changed into a forest, for sake of the pastime, indeed, which was dear of old to chieftains and kings. Vast herds of red deer are there, for they herd in thousands; yet may you wander for days over the boundless waste, nor once be startled by one stag bounding by. Yet may a herd, a thousand strong, be drawn up, as in battle array, on the cliffs above your head. For they will long stand motionless, at gaze, when danger is in the wind; and then their antlers to unpractised eyes seem but boughs grotesque, or are invisible; and when all at once, with one accord, at signal from the stag, whom they obey, they wheel off towards the corries, you think it but thunder, and look up to the clouds. Fortunate if you see such a sight once in your life. Once only have we seen it; and it was, of a sudden, all by ourselves,

Almost within rifle-shot, the herd occupied a position, high up indeed, but below several ridges of rocks, running parallel for a long distance, with slopes between of sward and heather. Standing still, they seemed to extend about a quarter of a mile; and, as with a loud clattering of hoofs and antlers they took more open order, the line at least doubled its length, and the whole mountain side seemed alive. They might not be going at full speed, but the pace was equal to that of any charge of cavalry; and once and again the flight passed before us, till it overcame the ridges, and then deploying round the shoulder of the mountain, disappeared, without dust or noise, into the blue light of another glen.

We question if there be in the Highlands any one glen comparable with Borrowdale in Cumberland. But there are several that approach it, in that combination of beauty and grandeur, which perhaps no other scene equals in all the world. The “Gorge” of that Dale exhibits the finest imaginable assemblage of rocks and rocky hills, all wildly wooded; beyond them, yet before we have entered into the Dale, the Pass widens, with noble cliffs on one side, and on the other a sylvan stream, not without its abysses; and we see before us some lovely hills, on which—

yet leaves, with lines defined by the steeps that defy the ploughshare, copses and groves; and thus we are brought into the Dale itself, and soon have a vision of the whole—green and golden fields—for though most are in pasture, almost all seem arable—sprinkled with fine single trees, and lying in flats and levels, or swelling into mounds and knolls, and all diversified with every kind of woods; single cottages, with their out-buildings, standing everywhere they should stand, and coloured like the rocks from which in some lights they are hardly to be distinguished—strong-roofed and undilapidated, though many of them very old; villages, apart from one another a mile—and there are three—yet on their sites, distant and different in much though they be, all associated together by the same spirit of beauty that pervades all the Dale. Half way up, and in some places more, the enclosing hills and even mountains are sylvan indeed, and though[xxiii] there be a few inoffensive aliens, they are all adorned with their native trees. The mountains are not so high as in our Highlands, but they are very majestic; and the passes over into Langdale, and Wastdalehead, and Buttermere, are magnificent, and show precipices in which the Golden Eagle himself might rejoice.

No—there is no glen in all the Highlands comparable with Borrowdale. Yet we know of some that are felt to be kindred places, and their beauty, though less, almost as much affects us, because though contending, as it were, with the darker spirit of the mountain, it is not overcome, but prevails; and their beauty will increase with years. For while the rocks continue to frown aloft for ever, and the cliffs to range along the corries, unbroken by trees, which there the tempests will not suffer to rise, the woods and groves below, preserved from the axe, for sake of their needful shelter, shall become statelier till the birch equal the pine; reclaimed from the waste, shall many a fresh field recline among the heather, tempering the gloom; and houses arise where now there are but huts, and every house have its garden:—such changes are now going on, and we have been glad to observe their progress, even though sometimes they had removed, or were removing, objects dear from old associations, and which, had it been possible, but it was not, we should have loved to see preserved.

And one word on those sweet pastoral seclusions into which one often drops unexpectedly, it may be at the close of day, and finds a night’s lodging in the lonely hut. Yet they lie, sometimes, embosomed, in their own green hills, among the most rugged mountains, and even among the wildest moors. They have no features by which you can describe them: it is their serenity that charms you, and their cheerful peace; perhaps it is wrong to call them glens, and they are but dells. Yet one thinks of a dell as deep, however small it may be; but these are not deep, for the hills slope down gently upon them, and leave room perhaps between for a little shallow loch. Often they have not any visible water at all, only a few springs and rivulets, and you wonder to see them so very green; there is no herbage like theirs; and to such spots of old, and sometimes yet, the kine are led in summer, and there the lonely family live in their shieling till the harvest moon.

We have all along used the same word, and called the places we have spoken of—glens. A fine observer—the editor of Gilpin’s Forest Scenery—has said: “The gradation from extreme width downwards should be thus arranged—strath, vale, dale, valley, glen, dell, ravine, chasm. In the strath, vale, and dale, we may expect to find the large, majestic, gently flowing river, or even the deeper or smaller lake. In the glen, if the river be large, it flows more rapidly, and with greater variety. In the dell, the stream is smaller. In the ravine, we find the mountain torrent and the waterfall. In the chasm, we find the roaring cataract, or the rill, bursting from its haunted fountain. The chasm discharges its small tribute into the ravine, while the ravine is tributary to the dell, and thence to the glen; and the glen to the dale.”

These distinctions are admirably expressed, and perfectly true to nature; yet we doubt if it would be possible to preserve them in describing a country, and assuredly they are very often indeed confused by common use in the naming of places. We have said nothing about straths—nor shall we try to describe one—but suggest to your own imagination as specimens, Strath-Spey, Strath-Tay, Strath-Earn. The dominion claimed by each of those rivers, within the mountain ranges that environ their courses, is a strath; and three noble straths they are, from source to sea.

And now we are brought to speak of the Highland rivers, streams, and torrents; but we shall let them rush or flow, murmur or thunder, in your own ears, for you cannot fail to imagine what the waters must be in a land of such glens, and such mountains. The chief rivers possess all the attributes essential to greatness—width—depth—clearness—rapidity—in one word, power. And some of them have long courses—rising in the central heights, and winding round many a huge projection, against which in flood we have seen them dashing like the sea. Highland droughts are not of long duration; the supplies are seldom withheld at once by all the tributaries; and one wild night among the mountains converts[xxiv] a calm into a commotion—the many-murmuring voice into one roar. In flood they are terrible to look at; and every whirlpool seems a place of torment. Winds can make a mighty noise in swinging woods, but there is something to our ears more appalling in that of the fall of waters. Let them be united—and add thunder from the clouds—and we have heard in the Highlands all three in one—and the auditor need not care that he has never stood by Niagara. But when “though not o’er-flowing full,” a Highland river is in perfection; far better do we love to see and hear him rejoicing than raging; his attributes appear more his own in calm and majestic manifestations, and as he glides or rolls on, without any disturbance, we behold in him an image at once of power and peace.

Of rivers—comparatively speaking, of the second and third order—the Highlands are full—and on some of them the sylvan scenery is beyond compare. No need there to go hunting the waterfalls. Hundreds of them—some tiny indeed, but others tall—are for ever dinning in the woods; yet, at a distance from the cataract, how sweet and quiet is the sound! It hinders you not from listening to the cushat’s voice; clear amidst the mellow murmur comes the bleating from the mountain; and all other sound ceases, as you hearken in the sky to the hark of the eagle—rare indeed anywhere, but sometimes to be heard as you thread the “glimmer or the gloom” of the umbrage overhanging the Garry or the Tummel—for he used to build in the cliffs of Ben-Brackie, and if he has shifted his eyrie, a few minutes’ waftage will bear him to Cairn-Gower.

In speaking of the glens, we but alluded to the rivers or streams, and some of them, indeed, even the great ones, have but rivulets; while in the greatest, the waters often flow on without a single tree, shadowed but by rocks and clouds. Wade them, and you find they are larger than they seem to be; for looked at along the bottom of those profound hollows, they are but mere slips of sinuous light in the sunshine, and in the gloom you see them not at all. We do not remember any very impressive glen, without a stream, that would not suffer some diminution of its power by our fancying it to have one; we may not be aware, at the time, that the conformation of the glen prevents its having any waterflow, if but we feel its character aright, that want is among the causes of our feeling; just as there are some scenes of which the beauty would not be so touching were there a single tree.

Thousands and tens of thousands there are of nameless perennial torrents, and “in number without number numberless” those that seldom live a week—perhaps not a day. Up among the loftiest regions you hear nothing, even when they are all aflow; yet, there is music in the sight, and the thought of the “general dance and minstrelsy” enlivens the air, where no insect hums. As on your descent you come within hearing of the “liquid lapses,” your heart leaps within you, so merrily do they sing; the first torrent-rill you meet with you take for your guide, and it leads you perhaps into some fairy dell, where it wantons awhile in waterfalls, and then, gliding along a little dale of its own with “banks of green bracken,” finishes its short course in a stream—one of many that meet and mingle before the current takes the name of river, which in a mile or less becomes a small woodland lake. There are many such of rememberable beauty; living lakes indeed, for they are but pausings of expanded rivers, which again soon pursue their way, and the water-lilies have ever a gentle motion there as if touched by a tide.

It used, not very long ago, to be pretty generally believed by our southern brethren, that there were few trees in the Lowlands of Scotland, and none at all in the Highlands. They had an obscure notion that trees either could not or would not grow in such a soil and climate—cold and bleak enough at times and places, heaven knows—yet not altogether unproductive of diverse stately plants. They know better now; nor were we ever angry with their ignorance, which was nothing more than what was to be expected in persons living perpetually at home so far remote. They rejoice now to visit, and sojourn, and travel here among us, foreigners and a foreign land no more; and we rejoice to see and receive them not as strangers, but friends, and are proud to know they are well pleased to behold our habitation. They do us and our country[xxv] justice now, and we have sometimes thought even more than justice; for they are lost in admiration of our cities—above all, of Edinburgh—and speak with such raptures of our scenery, that they would appear to prefer it even to their own. They are charmed with our bare green hills, with our shaggy brown mountains they are astonished, our lochs are their delight, our woods their wonder, and they hold up their hands and clap them at our cliffs. This is generous, for we are not blind to the fact of England being the most beautiful land on all the earth. What are our woods to hers! To hers, what are our single trees! We have no such glorious standards to show as her indomitable and everlasting oaks. She is all over sylvan—Scotland but here and there; look on England from any point in any place, and you see she is rich, from almost any point in any place in Scotland, and you feel that comparatively she is poor. Yet our Lowlands have long been beautifying themselves into a resemblance of hers; as for our Highlands, though many changes have been going on there too, and most we believe for good, they are in their great features, and in their spirit unalterable by art, stamped and inspired by enduring Nature.

We have spoken, slightly, of the sylvan scenery of the Highlands. In Perthshire, especially, it is of rare and extraordinary beauty, and we are always glad to hear of Englishmen travelling up the Tay and the Earn. We desire that eyes familiar with all that is umbrageous should receive their first impressions of our Scottish trees at Duneira and Dunkeld. Nor will those impressions be weakened as they proceed towards Blair Athole. In that famous Pass they will feel the power possessed by the sweet wild monotony of the universal birch woods—broken but by grey crags in every shape—grotesque, fantastical, majestic, magnificent, and sublime—on the many-ridged mountains, that are loth to lose the green light of their beloved forests, retain it as long as they can, and on the masses of living lustre seem to look down with pride from their skies.

An English forest, meaning thereby any one wide continuous scene of all kinds of old English trees, with glades of pasture, and it may be of heath between, with dells dipping down into the gloom, and hillocks undulating in the light—ravines and chasms too, rills, and rivulets, and a haunted stream, and not without some melancholy old ruins, and here and there a cheerful cottage that feels not the touch of time—such a forest there is not, and hardly can be imagined to be in Scotland. But in the Highlands, there once were, and are still, other forests of quite a different character, and of equal grandeur. In his Forest Scenery, Gilpin shows that he understood it well; all the knowledge, which as a stranger, almost of necessity he wanted, Lauder has supplied in his annotations; and the book should now be in the hands of every one who cares about the woods. “The English forest,” says Gilpin, “is commonly composed of woodland views, interspersed with extensive heaths and lawns. Its trees are oak and beech, whose lively green corresponds better than the gloomy pine with the nature of the scene, which seldom assumes the dignity of a mountain one, but generally exhibits a cheerful landscape. It aspires, indeed, to grandeur; but its grandeur does not depend, like that of the Scottish forest, on the sublimity of the objects, but on the vastness of the whole—the extent of its woods and the wildness of its plains. In its inhabitants also the English forest differs from the Scottish; instead of the stag and the roebuck, it is frequented by cattle and fallow-deer, and exchanges the scream of the eagle and the falcon for the crowing of pheasants and the melody of the nightingale. The Scottish forest, no doubt, is the sublimer scene, and speaks to the imagination in a loftier language than the English forest can reach. The latter, indeed, often rouses the imagination, but seldom in so great a degree, being generally content with captivating the eye. The scenery, too, of the Scottish forest is better calculated to last through ages than that of the English. The woods of both are almost destroyed. But while the English forest hath lost all its beauty with its oaks, and becomes only a desolate waste, the rocks and the mountains, the lakes and the torrents, of the Scottish forest make it still an interesting scene.”

The tree of the Highlands is the pine.[xxvi] There are Scotch firs, indeed, well worth looking at, in the Lowlands, and in England; but to learn their true character you must see them in the glen, among rocks, by the river side, and on the mountain. “We, for our parts,” says Lauder, very finely, “confess that when we have seen it towering in full majesty in the midst of some appropriate Highland scene, and sending its limbs abroad with all unrestrained freedom of a hardy mountaineer, as if it claimed dominion over the savage region round it, we have looked upon it as a very sublime object. People who have not seen it in native climate and soil, and who judge of it from the wretched abortions which are swaddled and suffocated in English plantations, among dark, heavy, and eternally wet clays, may well be called a wretched tree; but when its foot is among its own Highland heather, and when it stands freely in its native knoll of dry gravel, or thinly-covered rock, over which its roots wander afar in the wildest reticulation, whilst its tall, furrowed, and often gracefully-sweeping red and grey trunk, of enormous circumference, rears aloft its high umbrageous canopy, then would the greatest sceptic on this point be compelled to prostrate his mind before it with a veneration which perhaps was never before excited in him by any other tree.” The colour of the pine has been objected to as murky, and murky it often is, or seems to be; and so then is the colour of the heather, and of the river, and of the loch, and of the sky itself thunder-laden, and murkiest of all are the clouds. But a stream of sunshine is let loose, and the gloom is confounded with glory; over all that night-like reign the jocund day goes dancing, and the forest revels in green or in golden light. Thousands and tens of thousands of trees are there; and as you gaze upon the whole mighty array, you fear lest it might break the spell, to fix your gaze on any one single tree. But there are trees there that will force you to look on themselves alone, and they grow before your eyes into the kings of the forest. Straight stand their stems in the sunshine, and you feel that as straight have they stood in the storm. As yet you look not up, for your heart is awed, and you see but the stately columns reddening away into the gloom. But all the while you feel the power of the umbrage aloft, and when thitherwards you lift your eyes, what a roof to such a cathedral! A cone drops at your feet—nor other sound nor other stir—but afar off you think you hear a cataract. Inaudible your footsteps on the soft yellow floor, composed of the autumnal sheddings of countless years. Then it is true that you can indeed hear the beating of your own heart; you fear, but know not what you fear; and being the only living creature there, you are impressed with a thought of death. But soon to that severe silence you are more than reconciled; the solitude, without ceasing to be sublime, is felt to be solemn and not awful, and ere long, utter as it is, serene. Seen from afar, the forest was one black mass; but as you advance, it opens up into spacious glades, beautiful as gardens, with appropriate trees of gentler tribes, and ground-flowering in the sun. But there is no murmur of bee—no song of bird. In the air a thin whisper of insects—intermittent—and wafted quite away by a breath. For we are now in the very centre of the forest, and even the cushat haunts not here. Hither the red deer may come—but not now—for at this season they love the hill. To such places the stricken stag might steal to lie down and die.

And thus for hours may you be lost in the forest, nor all the while have wasted one thought on the outer world, till with no other warning but an uncertain glimmer and a strange noise, you all at once issue forth into the open day, and are standing on the brink of a precipice above a flood. It comes tumbling down with a succession of falls, in a mile-long course, right opposite your stance—rocks, cliffs, and trees, all the way up on either side, majestically retiring back to afford ample channel, and showing an unobstructed vista, closed up by the purple mountain, that seems to send forth the river from a cavern in its breast. ’Tis the Glen of Pines. Nor ash nor oak is suffered to intrude on their dominion. Since the earthquake first shattered it out, this great chasm, with all its chasms, has been held by one race of trees. No other seed could there spring to life; for from the rocks has all soil, ages ago, been washed and swept by the tempests. But there they stand[xxvii] with glossy boles, spreading arms, and glittering crest; and those two by themselves on the summit, known all over Badenoch as “the Giants”—“their statures reach the sky.”

We have been indulging in a dream of old. Before our day the immemorial gloom of Glenmore had perished, and it ceased to be a forest. But there bordered on it another region of night or twilight, and in its vast depths we first felt the sublimity of lonesome fear. Rothiemurchus! The very word blackens before our eyes with necromantic characters—again we plunge into its gulphs desirous of what we dread—again “in pleasure high and turbulent,” we climb the cliffs of Cairngorm.

Would you wish to know what is now the look of Glenmore? One now dead and gone—a man of wayward temper, but of genius—shall tell you—and think not the picture exaggerated—for you would not, if you were there. “It is the wreck of the ancient forest which arrests all the attention, and which renders Glenmore a melancholy—more than a melancholy—a terrific spectacle. Trees of enormous height, which have escaped alike the axe and the tempest, are still standing, stripped by the winds even of the bark, and like gigantic skeletons, throwing far and wide their white and bleached bones to the storms and rains of heaven; while others, broken by the violence of the gales, lift up their split and fractured trunks in a thousand shapes of resistance and of destruction, or still display some knotted and tortuous branches, stretched out, in sturdy and fantastic forms of defiance, to the whirlwind and the winter. Noble trunks also, which had long resisted, but resisted in vain, strew the ground; some lying on the declivity where they have fallen, others still adhering to the precipice where they were rooted, many upturned, with their twisted and entangled roots high in air; while not a few astonish us by the space which they cover, and by dimensions which we could not otherwise have estimated. It is one wide image of death, as if the angel of destruction had passed over the valley. The sight, even of a felled tree, is painful: still more is that of the fallen forest, with all its green branches on the ground, withering, silent, and at rest, where once they glittered in the dew and the sun, and trembled in the breeze. Yet this is but an image of vegetable death. It is familiar, and the impression passes away. It is the naked skeleton bleaching in the winds, the gigantic bones of the forest still erect, the speaking records of former life and of strength still unsubdued, vigorous even in death, which renders Glenmore one enormous charnel house.”

What happened of old to the aboriginal forests of Scotland, that long before these later destructions they had almost all perished, leaving to bear witness what they were, such survivors? They were chiefly destroyed by fire. What power could extinguish chance-kindled conflagrations when sailing before the wind? And no doubt fire was set to clear the country at once of Scotch firs, wolves, wild boars, and outlaws. Tradition yet tells of such burnings; and, if we mistake not, the pines found in the Scottish mosses, the logs and the stocks, all show that they were destroyed by Vulcan, though Neptune buried them in the quagmires. Storms no doubt often levelled them by thousands; but had millions so fallen they had never been missed, and one element only—which has been often fearfully commissioned—could achieve the work. In our own day the axe has indeed done wonders—and sixteen square miles of the forest of Rothiemurchus “went to the ground.” John of Ghent, Gilpin tells us, to avenge an inroad, set twenty-four thousand axes at work in the Caledonian Forest.

Yet Scotland has perhaps sufficient forest at this day. For more has been planted than cut down; Glenmore will soon be populous as ever with self-sown pines, and Rothiemurchus may revive; the shades are yet deeper of Loch Arkaig, Glengarry, Glenmoriston, Strathglass, Glen Strathfarrar, and Loch-Shiel; deeper still on the Findhorn—and deepest of all on the Dee rejoicing in the magnificent pine woods of Invercauld and Braemar.

We feel that we have spoken feebly of our Highland forests. Some perhaps, who have never been off the high roads, may accuse us of exaggeration too; but they contain wondrous beauties of which we have said not a word; and no imagination can conceive what they may be in another hundred[xxviii] years. But, apparently far apart from the forests, though still belonging to them—for they hold in fancy by the tenure of the olden time—how many woods, and groves, and sprinklings of fair trees, rise up during a day’s journey, in almost every region of the North! And among them all, it may be, scarcely a pine. For the oak, and the ash, and the elm, are also all native trees; nowhere else does the rowan flush with more dazzling lustre; in spring, the alder with its vivid green stands well beside the birk—the yew was not neglected of yore, though the bow of the Celt was weak to that of the Saxon; and the holly, in winter emulating the brightness of the pine, flourished, and still flourishes on many a mountain side. There is sufficient sylvan scenery for beauty in a land of mountains. More may be needed for shelter—but let the young plants and seedlings have time to grow—and as for the old trees, may they live for ever. Too many millions of larches are perhaps growing now behind the Tay and the Tilt; yet why should the hills of Perthshire be thought to be disfigured by what ennobles the Alps and the Apennines?

Hitherto we have hardly said a word about Lochs, and have been doing our best to forget them, while imagining scenes that were chiefly characterised by other great features of Highland Landscape. A country thus constituted, and with such an aspect, even if we could suppose it without lochs, would still be a glorious region; but its lochs are indeed its greatest glory; by them its glens, its mountains and its woods are all illumined, and its rivers made to sing aloud for joy. In the pure element, overflowing so many spacious vales and glens profound, the great and stern objects of nature look even more sublime or more beautiful, in their reflected shadows, which appear in that stillness to belong rather to heaven than earth. Or the evanescence of all that imagery at a breath may touch us with the thought that all it represents, steadfast as seems its endurance, will as utterly pass away. Such visions, when gazed on in that wondrous depth and purity they are sometimes seen to assume, on a still summer day, always inspire some such faint feeling as this; and we sigh to think how transitory must be all things, when the setting sun is seen to sink beneath the mountain, and all its golden pomp at the same instant to evanish from the lake.

The first that takes possession of the imagination, dreaming of the Highlands as the region of lochs, is the Queen of them all, Loch Lomond. Wordsworth has said, that “in Scotland, the proportion of diffused water is often too great, as at the Lake of Geneva, for instance, and in most of the Scottish lakes. No doubt it sounds magnificent, and flatters the imagination, to hear at a distance of masses of water so many leagues in length and miles in width; and such ample room may be delightful to the fresh-water sailor, scudding with a lively breeze amid the rapidly shifting scenery. But who ever travelled along the banks of Loch Lomond, variegated as the lower part is by islands, without feeling that a speedier termination of the long vista of blank water would be acceptable, and without wishing for an interposition of green meadows, trees, and cottages, and a sparkling stream to run by his side. In fact, a notion of grandeur as connected with magnitude has seduced persons of taste into a general mistake upon this subject. It is much more desirable for the purposes of pleasure, that lakes should be numerous and small or middle-sized than large, not only for communication by walks and rides, but for variety and for recurrence of similar appearances. To illustrate this by one instance: how pleasing is it to have a ready and frequent opportunity of watching, at the outlet of a lake, the stream, pushing its way among the rocks, in lively contrast with the stillness from which it has escaped; and how amusing to compare its noisy and turbulent motions with the gentle playfulness of the breezes that may be starting up, or wandering here and there over the faintly-rippled surface of the broad water! I may add, as a general remark, that in lakes of great width, the shores cannot be distinctly seen at the same time; and therefore contribute little to mutual illustration and ornament; and if the opposite shores are out of sight of each other, like those of the American and Asiatic lakes, then unfortunately the traveller is reminded of a nobler object; he has the blankness of a sea prospect[xxix] without the grandeur and accompanying sense of power.”

We shall not be suspected of an inclination to dissent, on light grounds, from any sentiments of Wordsworth. But finely felt and expressed as all this is, we do not hesitate to say that it is not applicable to Loch Lomond. Far be it from us to criticise this passage sentence by sentence; for we have quoted it not in a captious, but in a reverent spirit, as we have ever done with the works of this illustrious man. He has studied nature more widely and profoundly than we have; but it is out of our power to look on Loch Lomond without a feeling of perfection. The “diffusion of water” is indeed great; but in what a world it floats! At first sight of it, how our soul expands! The sudden revelation of such majestic beauty, wide as it is and extending afar, inspires us with a power of comprehending it all. Sea-like, indeed, it is—a Mediterranean Sea—enclosed with lofty hills and as lofty mountains—and these, indeed, are the Fortunate Isles! We shall not dwell on the feeling which all must have experienced on the first sight of such a vision—the feeling of a lovely and a mighty calm; it is manifest that the spacious “diffusion of water” more than conspires with the other components of such a scene to produce the feeling; that to it belongs the spell that makes our spirit serene, still, and bright as its own. Nor when such feeling ceases so entirely to possess, and so deeply to affect us, does the softened and subdued charm of the scene before us depend less on the expanse of the “diffusion of water.” The islands, that before had lain we knew not how—or we had only felt that they were all most lovely—begin to show themselves in the order of their relation to one another and to the shores. The eye rests on the largest, and with them the lesser combine; or we look at one or two of the least, away by themselves, or remote from all a tufted rock; and many as they are, they break not the breadth of the liquid plain, for it is ample as the sky. They show its amplitude; as masses and sprinklings of clouds, and single clouds, show the amplitude of the cerulean vault. And then the long promontories—stretching out from opposite mainlands, and enclosing bays that in themselves are lakes—they too magnify the empire of water; for long as they are, they seem so only as our eye attends them with their cliffs and woods from the retiring shores, and far distant are their shadows from the central light. Then what shores! On one side, where the lake is widest, low-lying they seem and therefore lovelier—undulating with fields and groves, where many a pleasant dwelling is embowered, into lines of hills that gradually soften away into another land. On the other side, sloping back, or overhanging, mounts beautiful in their barrenness, for they are green as emerald; others, scarcely more beautiful, studded with fair trees—some altogether woods. They soon form into mountains—and the mountains become more and more majestical, yet beauty never deserts them, and her spirit continues to tame that of the frowning cliffs. Far off as they are, Benlomond and Benvoirlich are seen to be giants; magnificent is their retinue, but the two are supreme, each in his own dominion; and clear as the day is here, they are diademed with clouds.

It cannot be that the “proportion of diffused water is here too great;” and is it then true that no one “ever travelled along the banks of Loch Lomond, variegated as the lower part is by islands, without feeling that a speedier termination to the long vista of blank water would be acceptable, and without wishing for an interposition of green meadows, trees and cottages, and a sparkling stream to run by his side?” We have travelled along them in all weathers, and never felt such a wish. For there they all are—all but the “sparkling stream to run by our side,” and we see not how that well could be in nature. “Streams that sparkle as they run,” cross our path on their own; and brighter never issued from the woods. Along the margin of the water, as far as Luss—ay, and much farther—the variations of the foreground are incessant; “had it no other beauties,” it has been truly said, “but those of its shores, it would still be an object of prime attraction; whether from the bright green meadows sprinkled with luxuriant ash-trees, that sometimes skirt its margin, or its white pebbled shores on which its gentle billows murmur, like a miniature[xxx] ocean, or its bold rocky promontories rising from the dark water rich in wild-flowers and ferns, and tangled with wild roses and honey-suckles, or its retired bays where the waves dash, reflecting, like a mirror, the trees which hang over them, an inverted landscape.” The islands are for ever arranging themselves into new forms, every one more and more beautiful; at least so they seem to be, perpetually occurring, yet always unexpected, and there is a pleasure even in such a series of slight surprises that enhances the delight of admiration. And alongside, or behind us, all the while, are the sylvan mountains, “laden with beauty;” and ever and anon open glens widen down upon us from chasms; or forest glades lead our hearts away into the inner gloom—perhaps our feet; and there, in a field that looks not as if it had been cleared by his own hands, but left clear by nature, a woodsman’s hut.

Half-way between Luss and Tarbet the water narrows, but it is still wide; the new road, we believe, winds round the point of Firkin, the old road boldly scaled the height, as all old roads loved to do; ascend it, and bid the many-isled vision, in all its greatest glory, farewell. Thence upwards prevails the spirit of the mountains. The lake is felt to belong to them—to be subjected to their will—and that is capricious; for sometimes they suddenly blacken it when at its brightest, and sometimes when its gloom is like that of the grave, as if at their bidding, all is light. We cannot help attributing the “skiey influences” which occasion such wonderful effects on the water, to prodigious mountains; for we cannot look on them without feeling that they reign over the solitude they compose; the lights and shadows flung by the sun and the clouds imagination assuredly regards as put forth by the vast objects which they colour; and we are inclined to think some such belief is essential in the profound awe, often amounting to dread, with which we are inspired by the presences of mere material forms. But be this as it may, the upper portion of Loch Lomond is felt by all to be most sublime. Near the head, all the manifold impressions of the beautiful which for hours our mind had been receiving, begin to fade; if some gloomy change has taken place in the air, there is a total obliteration, and the mighty scene before us is felt to possess not the hour merely, but the day. Yet should sunshine come, and abide a while, beauty will glimpse upon us even here, for green pastures will smile vividly, high up among the rocks; the sylvan spirit is serene the moment it is touched with light, and here there is not only many a fair tree by the water-side, but yon old oak wood will look joyful on the mountain, and the gloom become glimmer in the profound abyss.

Wordsworth says, that “it must be more desirable, for the purposes of pleasure, that lakes should be numerous, and small or middle-sized, than large, not only for communication by walks and rides, but for variety, and for recurrence of similar appearances.” The Highlands have them of all sizes—and that surely is best. But here is one which, it has been truly said, is not only “incomparable in its beauty as in its dimensions, exceeding all others in variety as it does in extent and splendour, but unites in itself every style of scenery which is found in the other lakes of the Highlands.” He who has studied, and understood, and felt all Loch Lomond, will be prepared at once to enjoy any other fine lake he looks on; nor will he admire nor love it the less, though its chief character should consist in what forms but one part of that of the Wonder in which all kinds of beauty and sublimity are combined.

We feel that it would be idle, and worse than idle, to describe any number of the Highland lochs, for so many of the finest have been seen by so many eyes, that few persons probably will ever read these pages to whom such descriptions would be, at the best, more than shadowings of scenery that their own imaginations can more vividly recreate.

We may be allowed, however, to say, that there cannot be a greater mistake than to think, as many we believe do who have only heard of the Highland lochs, that, with the exception of those famous for their beauty as well as their grandeur, beauty is not only not the quality by which they are distinguished, but that it is rarely found in them at all. There are few, possessing any very marked character, in which beauty is not either an ingredient or[xxxi] an accompaniment; and there are many “beautiful exceedingly” which, lying out of the way even of somewhat adventurous travellers, or very remote, are known, if even by that, only by name. It does not, indeed, require much, in some situations, to give a very touching beauty to water. A few trees, a few knolls, a few tufted rocks, will do it, where all around and above is stern or sterile; and how strong may be the gentle charm, if the torrent that feeds the little loch chance to flow into it from a lucid pool formed by a waterfall, and to flow out of it in a rivulet that enlivens the dark heather with a vale of verdure over which a stag might bound—and more especially if there be two or three huts in which it is perceived there is human life! We believe we slightly touched before on such scenes; but any little repetition will be excused for the sake of a very picturesque passage, which we have much pleasure in quoting from the very valuable Guide to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, by the brothers Anderson. We well remember walking into the scene here so well painted, many long years ago, and have indeed, somewhere or other, described it. The Fall of Foyers is the most magnificent cataract, out of all sight and hearing, in Britain. The din is quite loud enough in ordinary weather—and it is only in ordinary weather that you can approach the place, from which you have a full view of all its grandeur. When the Fall is in flood—to say nothing of being drenched to the skin—you are so blinded by the sharp spray smoke, and so deafened by the dashing and clashing, and tumbling and rumbling thunder, that your condition is far from enviable, as you cling, “lonely lover of nature,” to a shelf by no means eminent for safety, above the horrid gulf. Nor in former times was there any likelihood of your being comforted by the accommodations of the General’s Hut. In ordinary Highland weather—meaning thereby weather neither very wet nor very dry—it is worth walking a thousand miles for one hour to behold the Fall of Foyers. The spacious cavity is enclosed by “complicated cliffs and perpendicular precipices” of immense height; and though for a while it wears to the eye a savage aspect, yet beauty fears not to dwell even there, and the horror is softened by what appears to be masses of tall shrubs, or single shrubs almost like trees. And they are trees, which on the level plain would look even stately; but as they ascend ledge above ledge the walls of that awful chasm, it takes the eye time to see them as they really are, while on our first discernment of their character, serenely standing among the tumult, they are felt on such sites to be sublime.

“Between the Falls and the Strath of Stratherrik,” says the book we were about to quote, “a space of three or four miles, the river Foyers flows through a series of low rocky hills clothed with birch. They present various quiet glades and open spaces, where little patches of cultivated ground are encircled by wooded hillocks, whose surface is pleasingly diversified by nodding trees, bare rocks, empurpled heath, and bracken bearing herbage.” It was the excessive loveliness of some of the scenery there that suggested to us the thought of going to look what kind of a stream the Foyers was above the Fall. We went, and in the quiet of a summer evening, found it

But here is the promised description of it:—“Before pursuing our way westward, we would wish to direct the traveller’s attention to a sequestered spot of peculiar beauty on the river Foyers. This is a secluded vale, called Killean, which, besides its natural attractions, and these are many, is distinguished as one of the few places where the old practice of resorting to the ‘shieling’ for summer grazing of cattle is still observed. It is encompassed on all sides by steep mountains; but at the north end there is a small lake, about a mile and a half in length, and from one-third to half a mile in breadth. The remainder of the bottom of the glen is a perfectly level tract, of the same width with the lake, and about two miles and a half in length, covered with the richest herbage, and traversed by a small meandering river flowing through it into the lake. The surface of this flat is bedecked with the little huts or bothies, which afford temporary accommodation to the herdsmen and others in charge of the cattle. This portion of the glen is bordered on the west by[xxxii] continuous hills rising abruptly in a uniformly steep acclivity, and passing above into a perpendicular range of precipices, the whole covered with a scanty verdure sprouted with heath. At the bend of the lake near its middle, where it inclines from a northernly course towards the west, a magnificent rounded precipice, which, like the continuous ranges, may be about 1200 feet in height, rises immediately out of the water; and a few narrow and inclined verdant stripes alone preserve it from exhibiting a perfectly mural character. To this noble rock succeeds, along the rest of the lake, a beautiful, lofty, and nearly vertical hill-side, clothed with birch, intermingled with hanging mossy banks, shaded over with the deeper tinted bracken. The eastern side of the plain, and the adjoining portion of the lake, are lined by mountains corresponding in height with those opposed to them; but their lower extremities are, to a considerable extent, strewed with broken fragments of rock, to which succeeds an uninterrupted zone of birch and alder, which is again overtopped in its turn by naked cliffs. An elevated terrace occupies the remainder of this side of the lake; above the wooded face of which is seen a sloping expanse of mingled heath and herbage. About half a mile from the south end, Mr. Fraser of Lovat, the proprietor, has erected a shooting lodge; viewed from which, or from either end, or from the top of the platform on the north-east side of the lake, fancy could scarcely picture a more attractive and fairy landscape than is unfolded by this sequestered vale, to which Dr. Johnson’s description of the ‘Happy Valley’ not inaptly applies. The milch cows, to the number of several hundreds, are generally kept here from the beginning of June to the middle of August, when they are replaced by the yeld cattle. The river sweeps to the northward from Loch Killean through richly birch-clad hills, which rise in swelling slopes from its banks. A large tarn which immediately joins it from the east is crossed at its mouth by a rustic bridge, from which a single footpath conducts across the brow of the hill to Whitebridge, a small public-house or inn, four miles distant.”

There is a loch of a very different character from Killean, almost as little known (a view of it is given at page 708), equal to anything in the Highlands, only two miles distant from Loch Lochy, in the great glen—Loch Arkaig. We first visited it many years since, having been induced to do so by a passage in John Stoddard’s Remarks on the Local Scenery and Manners of Scotland; and it was then a very noble oak and pine forest loch. The axe went to work and kept steadily at it; and a great change was wrought; but it is still a grand scene, with a larger infusion of beauty than it possessed of old. The scenery of the valley separating it from Loch Lochy is very similar to that of the Trossachs; through it there are two approaches to the loch, and the Mile-Dubh, or the dark mile, according to our feeling, is more impressive than any part of the approach to Loch Katrine. The woods and rocks are very solemn, and yet very sweet; for though many old pines, and oaks and ashes are there, and the wall of rocks is immense, young trees prevail now on many places, as well along the heights as among the knolls and hillocks below, where alders and hawthorns are thick; almost everywhere the young are intermingled with the old, and look cheerful under their protection, without danger of being chilled by their shade. The loch, more or less sylvan from end to end, shows on its nearer shores some magnificent remains of the ancient forest, and makes a noble sweep like some great river. There may be more, but we remember but one island—not large, but wooded as it should be—the burying-place of the family of Lochiel. What rest! It is a long journey from Loch Lochy to Kinloch Arkaig—and by the silent waters we walked or sat all a summer’s day. There was nothing like a road that we observed, but the shores are easily travelled, and there it is you may be almost sure of seeing some red deer. They are no better worth looking at from a window than Fallow—no offence to Fallow, who are fine creatures; indeed, we had rather not see them so at all; but on the shores or steeps of Loch Arkaig, with hardly a human habitation within many, many miles, and these few rather known than seen to be there, the huts of Highlanders contented to cultivate here and there some spot that seems cultivatable, but probably is found not to be so after[xxxiii] some laborious years—there they are at home; and you, if young, looking on them feel at home too, and go bounding, like one of themselves, over what, did you choose, were an evitable steep. Roe, too, frequent the copses, but to be seen they must be started; grouse spring up before you oftener than you might expect in a deer forest; but, to be sure, it is a rough and shaggy one, though lovelier lines of verdure never lay in the sunshine than we think we see now lying for miles along the margin of that loch. The numerous mountains towards the head of the loch are very lofty, and glens diverge in grand style into opposite and distant regions. Glen Dessary, with its beautiful pastures, opens on the Loch, and leads to Loch Nevish on the coast of Knoidart—Glen Pæan to Oban-a-Cave on Loch Morer, Glen Canagorie into Glenfinnan and Loch Shiel; and Glen Kingie to Glengarry and Loch Quoich. There is a choice! We chose Glen Kingie, and after a long climb found a torrent that took us down to Glengarry before sunset. It is a loch little known, and in grandeur not equal to Loch Arkaig; but at the close of such a day’s journey, the mind, elevated by the long contemplation of the great objects of nature, cannot fail to feel aright, whatever it may be, the spirit of the scene, that seems to usher in the grateful hour of rest. It is surpassing fair—and having lain all night long on its gentle banks, sleeping or waking we know not, we have never remembered it since but as the Land of Dreams.

Which is the dreariest, most desolate and dismal of the Highland lochs? We should say Loch Ericht. It lies in a prodigious wilderness with which perhaps no man alive is conversant, and in which you may travel for days without seeing even any symptoms of human life. We speak of the regions comprehended between the Forest of Athole, and Bennevis, the Moor of Rannoch, and Glen Spean. There are many Lochs—and Loch Ericht is their grisly Queen. Herdsmen, shepherds, hunters, fowlers, anglers, traverse its borders, but few have been far in the interior, and we never knew anybody who had crossed it from south to north, from east to west. We have ourselves seen more of it, perhaps than any other Lowlander; and had traversed many of its vast glens and moors before we found our way to the southern solitude of Loch Ericht. We came into the western gloom of Ben Alder from Loch Ouchan, and up and down for hours dismal but not dangerous precipices that opened out into what might almost be called passes—but we have frequently to go back for they were blind—contrived to clamber to the edge of one of the mountains that rose from the water a few miles down the Loch. All was vast, shapeless, savage, black, and wrathfully grim; for it was one of those days that keep frowning and lowering, yet will not thunder; such as one conceives of on the eve of an earthquake. At first the sight was dreadful, but there was no reason for dread; imagination remains not longer than she chooses the slave of her own eyes, and we soon began to enjoy the gloom, and to feel how congenial it was in nature with the character of all those lifeless cliffs. Silence and darkness suit well together in solitude at noonday; and settled on huge objects make them sublime. And they were huge; all ranged together, and stretching away to a great distance, with the pitchy water, still as if frozen, covering their feet.

Loch Ericht is many miles long—nearly twenty; but there is a loch among the Grampians not more than two miles round—if so much, which is sublimer far—Loch Aven. You come upon the sight of it at once, a short way down from the summit of Cairngorm, and then it is some two thousand feet below you, itself being as many above the level of the sea. But to come upon it so as to feel best its transcendent grandeur, you should approach it up Glenaven—and from as far down as Inch-Rouran, which is about half-way between Loch Aven and Tomantoul. Between Inch-Rouran and Tomantoul the glen is wild, but it is inhabited; above that house there is but one other—and for about a dozen miles—we have heard it called far more—there is utter solitude. But never was there a solitude at once so wild—so solemn—so serene—so sweet! The glen is narrow; but on one side there are openings into several wider glens, that show you mighty coves as you pass on; on the other side the mountains are without a break, and the only variation with them is from[xxxiv] smooth to shaggy, from dark to bright; but their prevailing character is that of pastoral or of forest peace. The mountains that show the coves belong to the bases of Ben-Aven and Ben-y-buird. The heads of those giants are not seen—but it sublimes the long glen to know that it belongs to their dominion, and that it is leading us on to an elevation that erelong will be on a level with the roots of their topmost cliffs. The Aven is so clear—on account of the nature of its channel—that you see the fishes hanging in every pool; and ’tis not possible to imagine how beautiful in such transparencies are the reflections of its green ferny banks. For miles they are composed of knolls, seldom interspersed with rocks, and there cease to be any trees. But ever and anon, we walk for a while on a level floor, and the voice of the stream is mute. Hitherto sheep have been noticed on the hill, but not many, and red and black cattle grazing on the lower pastures; but they disappear, and we find ourselves all at once in a desert. So it is felt to be, coming so suddenly with its black heather on that greenest grass; but ’tis such a desert as the red-deer love. We are now high up on the breast of the mountain, which appears to be Cairngorm; but such heights are deceptive, and it is not till we again see the bed of the Aven that we are assured we are still in the glen. Prodigious precipices, belonging to several different mountains, for between mass and mass there is blue sky, suddenly arise, forming themselves more and more regularly into circular order, as we near; and now we have sight of the whole magnificence; yet vast as it is, we know not yet how vast; it grows as we gaze, till in a while we feel that sublimer it may not be; and then so quiet in all its terrific grandeur we feel too that it is beautiful, and think of the Maker.

This is Loch Aven. How different the whole regions round from that enclosing Loch Ericht! There, vast wildernesses of more than melancholy moors—huge hollows hating their own gloom that keep them herbless—disconsolate glens left far away by themselves, without any sign of life—cliffs that frown back the sunshine—and mountains, as if they were all dead, insensible to the heavens. Is this all mere imagination—or the truth? We deceive ourselves in what we call a desert. For we have so associated our own being with the appearances of outward things, that we attribute to them, with an uninquiring faith, the very feelings and the very thoughts, of which we have chosen to make them emblems. But here the sources of the Dee seem to lie in a region as happy as it is high; for the bases of the mountains are all such as the soul has chosen to make sublime—the colouring of the mountains all such as the soul has chosen to make beautiful; and the whole region, thus imbued with a power to inspire elevation and delight, is felt to be indeed one of the very noblest in nature.

We have now nearly reached the limits assigned to our Remarks on the Character of the Scenery of the Highlands; and we feel that the sketches we have drawn of its component qualities—occasionally filled up with some details—must be very imperfect indeed, without comprehending some parts of the coast, and some of the sea-arms that stretch into the interior. But even had our limits allowed, we do not think we could have ventured on such an attempt; for though we have sailed along most of the western shores, and through some of its sounds, and into many of its bays, and up not a few of its reaches, yet they contain such an endless variety of all the fairest and greatest objects of nature, that we feel it would be far beyond our powers to give anything like an adequate idea of the beauty and the grandeur that for ever kept unfolding themselves around our summer voyagings in calm or storm. Who can say that he knows a thousandth part of the wonders of “the marine” between the Mull of Cantire and Cape Wrath? He may have gathered many an extensive shore—threaded many a mazy multitude of isles—sailed up many a spacious bay—and cast anchor at the head of many a haven land-locked so as no more to seem to belong to the sea—yet other voyagers shall speak to him of innumerable sights which he has never witnessed; and they who are most conversant with those coasts, best know how much they have left and must leave for ever unexplored.

Look now only at the Linnhe Loch—how it gladdens Argyle! Without it and the[xxxv] sound of Mull how sad would be the shadows of Morven! Eclipsed the splendours of Lorn! Ascend one of the heights of Appin, and as the waves roll in light, you will feel how the mountains are beautified by the sea. There is a majestic rolling onwards there that belongs to no land-loch—only to the world of waves. There is no nobler image of ordered power than the tide, whether in flow or in ebb; and on all now it is felt to be beneficent, coming and going daily, to enrich and adorn. Or in fancy will you embark, and let the “Amethyst” bound away “at her own sweet will,” accordant with yours, till she reach the distant and long-desired loch.

These lines describe but one of innumerable lochs that owe their greatest charm to the sea. It is indeed one of those on which nature has lavished all her infinite varieties of loveliness; but Loch Leven is scarcely less fair, and perhaps grander; and there is matchless magnificence about Loch Etive. All round about Ballachulish and Invercoe the scenery of Loch Leven is the sweetest ever seen overshadowed by such mountains; the deeper their gloom, the brighter its lustre; in all weathers it wears a cheerful smile; and often while up among the rocks the tall trees are tossing in the storm, the heart of the woods beneath is calm, and the vivid fields they shelter look as if they still enjoyed the sun. Nor closes the beauty there, but even animates the entrance into that dreadful glen—Glencoe. All the way up its river, Loch Leven would be fair, were it only for her hanging woods. But though the glen narrows, it still continues broad, and there are green plains between her waters and the mountains, on which stately trees stand single, and there is ample room for groves. The returning tide tells us, should we forget it, that this is no inland loch, for it hurries away back to the sea, not turbulent, but fast as a river in flood. The river Leven is one of the finest in the Highlands, and there is no other such series of waterfalls, all seen at once, one above the other, along an immense vista; and all the way up to the farthest there are noble assemblages of rocks—nowhere any want of wood—and in places, trees that seem to have belonged to some old forest. Beyond, the opening in the sky seems to lead into another region, and it does so; for we have gone that way, past some small lochs, across a wide wilderness, with mountains on all sides, and descended on Loch Treag,

but overflowing in our memory with all pleasantest images of pastoral contentment and peace.

Loch Etive, between the ferries of Connel and Bunawe, has been seen by almost all who have visited the Highlands but very imperfectly; to know what it is you must row or sail up it, for the banks on both sides are often richly wooded, assume many fine forms, and are frequently well embayed, while the expanse of water is sufficiently wide to allow you from its centre to command a view of many of the distant heights. But above Bunawe it is not like the same loch. For a couple of miles it is not wide, and it is so darkened by enormous shadows that it looks even less like a strait than a gulf—huge overhanging rocks on both sides ascending high, and yet felt to belong but to the bases of mountains that[xxxvi] sloping far back have their summits among clouds of their own in another region of the sky. Yet are they not all horrid; for nowhere else is there such lofty heather—it seems a wild sort of brushwood; tall trees flourish, single or in groves, chiefly birches, with now and then an oak—and they are in their youth or their prime—and even the prodigious trunks, some of which have been dead for centuries, are not all dead, but shoot from their knotted rhind symptoms of life inextinguishable by time and tempest. Out of this gulf we emerge into the Upper Loch, and its amplitude sustains the majesty of the mountains, all of the highest order, and seen from their feet to their crests. Cruachan wears the crown, and reigns over them all—king at once of Loch Etive and of Loch Awe. But Buachaille Etive, though afar off, is still a giant, and in some lights comes forwards, bringing with him the Black Mount and its dependents, so that they all seem to belong to this most magnificent of all Highland lochs. “I know not,” says Macculloch, “that Loch Etive could bear an ornament without an infringement on that aspect of solitary vastness which it presents throughout. Nor is there one. The rocks and bays on the shore, which might elsewhere attract attention, are here swallowed up in the enormous dimensions of the surrounding mountains, and the wide and ample expanse of the lake. A solitary house, here fearfully solitary, situated far up in Glen Etive, is only visible when at the upper extremity; and if there be a tree, as there are in a few places on the shore, it is unseen; extinguished as if it were a humble mountain flower, by the universal magnitude around.” This is finely felt and expressed; but even on the shores of Loch Etive there is much of the beautiful; Ardmatty smiles with its meadows, and woods, and bay, and sylvan stream; other sunny nooks repose among the grey granite masses; the colouring of the banks and braes is often bright; several houses or huts become visible no long way up the glen; and though that long hollow—half a day’s journey—till you reach the wild road between Inveruran and King’s House—lies in gloom, yet the hillsides are cheerful, and you delight in the greensward, wide and rock-broken, should you ascend the passes that lead into Glencreran or Glencoe. But to feel the full power of Glen Etive you must walk up it till it ceases to be a glen. When in the middle of the moor, you see far off a solitary dwelling indeed—perhaps the loneliest house in all the Highlands—and the solitude is made profounder, as you pass by, by the voice of a cataract, hidden in an awful chasm, bridged by two or three stems of trees, along which the red-deer might fear to venture—but we have seen them and the deer-hounds glide over it, followed by other fearless feet, when far and wide the Forest of Dalness was echoing to the hunter’s horn.

We have now brought our Remarks on the Scenery of the Highlands to a close, and would fain have said a few words on the character and life of the people; but are precluded from even touching on that most interesting subject. It is impossible that the minds of travellers through those wonderful regions can be so occupied with the contemplation of mere inanimate nature, as not to give many a thought to their inhabitants, now and in the olden time. Indeed, without such thoughts, they would often seem to be but blank and barren wildernesses in which the heart would languish, and imagination itself recoil; but they cannot long be so looked at, for houseless as are many extensive tracts, and at times felt to be too dreary even for moods that for a while enjoyed the absence of all that might tell of human life, yet symptoms and traces of human life are noticeable to the instructed eye almost every where, and in them often lies the spell that charms us, even while we think that we are wholly delivered up to the influence of “dead insensate things.” None will visit the Highlands without having some knowledge of their history; and the changes that have long been taking place in the condition of the people will be affectingly recognised wherever they go, in spite even of what might have appeared the insuperable barriers of nature.

[1]

PART FIRST.

GENERAL HISTORY OF THE HIGHLANDS.

CHAPTER I.

B.C. 55—A.D. 446.

As it is generally acknowledged that the physical character of a country influences in a great degree the moral and physical character of its inhabitants, and thus to a certain extent determines their history, it may not be deemed out of place to define here the application of the term Highlands, so far as Scotland is concerned, and briefly to describe the general physical aspect of that part of our native land. If it hold good at all that there subsists a relation between a people and the country which they have inhabited for centuries, the following history will show that this is peculiarly the case with the Scottish Highlanders.

Most of those who have thought of the matter at all, have doubtless formed to themselves a general notion of the northern half of Scotland as a

and of its inhabitants as a brawny, rugged, indomitable, impulsive race, steadfast in their friendship and loyalty, and relentless but generous in their enmity. Although the popular and poetic notion of the country is on the whole correct, and although the above epithets may express the main features of the character of the people, still it requires a close acquaintance with this interesting race, both historically and by personal intercourse, to form an adequate notion of their character in all its aspects.

To speak roughly, nearly the whole of the country north of a line connecting the heads of the estuaries of the Clyde, Forth, and Tay, may be included under the designation of the Highlands, and, in fact, popularly is so. Indeed, at the time at which the northern half of Scotland—the ancient and proper Caledonia—emerges from its pristine gloom, and for the first time glimmers in the light of history, the line indicated by the forts of Agricola, and afterwards by the wall of Antonine, marked the southern boundary of the region which was then, and for centuries afterwards, regarded by the Romans, and also, probably, by the southern Britons, as occupying the same position in relation to the rest of the country as the Highlands proper did at a subsequent period. In course of time the events which fall to be recorded in the following pages gradually altered this easily perceived boundary, so that for centuries before the present day, a much more intricate but still distinct line has marked the limits of what is now strictly and correctly regarded as the Highlands of Scotland.

The definition of this territory which best suits the purposes of history, and in all respects most nearly accords with those of political and social geography, is one which makes it commensurate with the country or locations of the ancient Highland clans. This definition assigns to the Highlands all the continental[2] territory north of the Moray frith, and all the territory, both insular and continental, westward of an easily traceable line from that frith to the frith of Clyde. The line commences at the mouth of the river Nairn: thence, with the exception of a slight north-eastward or outward curve, the central point of which is on the river Spey, it runs due south-east till it strikes the river Dee at Tullach, nearly on the third degree of longitude west of Greenwich; it then runs generally south till it falls upon Westwater, or the southern large head-water of the North Esk; thence, over a long stretch, it runs almost due south-west, and with scarcely a deviation, till it falls upon the Clyde at Ardmore in the parish of Cardross; and now onward to the Atlantic ocean, it moves along the frith of Clyde, keeping near to the continent, and excluding none of the Clyde islands except the comparatively unimportant Cumbraes. All the Scottish territory west and north-west of this line is properly the Highlands. Yet both for the convenience of topographical description, and because, altogether down to the middle of the 13th century, and partially down to the middle of the 16th, the Highlands and the Western Islands were politically and historically distinct regions, the latter are usually viewed apart under the name of the Hebrides. The mainland Highlands, or the Highlands after the Hebrides are deducted, extend in extreme length from Duncansby Head, or John o’ Groat’s on the north, to the Mull of Kintyre on the south, about 250 miles; but over a distance of 90 miles at the northern end, they have an average breadth of only about 45 miles,—over a distance of 50 or 55 miles at the southern end, they consist mainly of the Clyde islands, and the very narrow peninsula of Kintyre,—and even at their broadest part, from the eastern base of the Grampians to Ardnamurchan Point on the west, they do not extend to more than 120 miles. The district comprehends the whole of the counties of Caithness, Sutherland, Ross, Cromarty, Inverness, and Argyle, large parts of Nairn, Perth, Dumbarton, and Bute, and considerable portions of Elgin, Banff, Aberdeen, Forfar, and Stirling. Considerable parts of this district, however, such as Caithness-shire, the island of Bute, and some large tracts of moor or valley or flanking plain, do not exhibit the physical features which are strictly Highland.

A district so extensive can be but faintly pictured in a general and rapid description. Mountains, chiefly covered with heath or ling, but occasionally, on the one hand, displaying sides and summits of naked rock, and on the other, exhibiting a dress of verdure, everywhere rise, at short intervals, in chains, ridges, groups, and even solitary heights. Their forms are of every variety, from the precipitous and pinnacled acclivity, to the broad-based and round-backed ascent; but, in general, are sharp in outline, and wild or savagely grand in feature. Both elongated ridges, and chains or series of short parallel ridges, have a prevailing direction from north-east to south-west, and send up summits from 1,000 to upwards of 4,000 feet above the level of the sea. Glens, valleys, and expanses of lowland stretch in all directions among the mountains, and abound in voluminous streams, and large elongated lakes of picturesque appearance,—nearly all the inland lakes extending in stripes either north-eastward and south-westward, or eastward and westward. Along the whole west coast, at remarkably brief intervals, arms of the sea, long, narrow, and sometimes exceedingly rugged in outline, run north-eastward or south-eastward into the interior, and assist the inland fresh water lakes in cleaving it into sections. The rivers of the region are chiefly impetuous torrents, careering for a while along mountain-gorges, and afterwards either expanding themselves into beautiful lakes and flowing athwart delightful meadows, or ploughing long narrow valleys, green and ornate with grasses, trefoils, daisies, ranunculi, and a profuse variety of other herbage and flowers. Native woods, principally of pine and birch, and occasionally clumps and expanses of plantation, climb the acclivities of the gentler heights, or crowd down upon the valley, and embosom the inland lakes. On the east side, along the coast to the Moray frith, and towards the frontier in the counties of Nairn, Elgin, and Perth, gentle slopes and broad belts of lowland, fertile in soil and favourable in position, are carpeted with agricultural luxuriance, and thickly dotted with human dwellings, and successfully vie with the south of Scotland in towns and population, and in[3] the pursuit and display of wealth. But almost everywhere else, except in the fairyland of Loch Fyne, and the southern shore of Loch Etive, the Highlands are sequestered,—sinless of a town,—a semi-wilderness, where a square mile is a more convenient unit of measurement than an acre.

A district characterized by such features as we have named necessarily exhibits, within very circumscribed limits, varieties of scenery of the most opposite descriptions; enabling the admirer of nature to pass abruptly from dwelling on the loveliness of an extensive marine or champaign landscape into the deep solitude of an ancient forest, or the dark craggy fastnesses of an alpine ravine; or from lingering amid the quiet grassy meadows of a pastoral strath or valley, watered by its softly-flowing stream, to the open heathy mountain-side, whence ‘alps o’er alps arise,’ whose summits are often shrouded with mists and almost perennial snows, and their overhanging precipices furrowed by foaming cataracts. Lakes and long arms of the sea, either fringed with woods or surrounded with rocky barren shores, now studded with islands, and anon extending their silvery arms into distant receding mountains, are met in every district; while the extreme steepness, ruggedness, and sterility of many of the mountain-chains impart to them as imposing and magnificent characters as are to be seen in the much higher and more inaccessible elevations of Switzerland. No wonder, then, that this ‘land of mountain and of flood’ should have given birth to the song of the bard, and afforded material for the theme of the sage, in all ages; and that its inhabitants should be tinctured with deep romantic feelings, at once tender, melancholy, and wild; and that the recollection of their own picturesque native dwellings should haunt them to their latest hours. Neither, amid such profusion and diversity of all that is beautiful and sublime in nature, can the unqualified admiration of strangers, from every part of Europe, of the scenery of the Highlands fail of being easily accounted for; nor can any hesitate in recommending them to visit the more remote or unknown solitudes.[1]

Such are the main features of the Highlands of Scotland at the present day, and, to a considerable extent, the description might have applied to the country at the time of the Roman invasion. Still, in the graphic words of Stuart,[2] “To form an idea of the general aspect of Scotland, as it was some eighteen hundred years ago, we must, in imagination, restore to its now varied surface the almost unbroken gloom of the primeval forest; her waving mantle of sombre hue, within which the genius loci may be supposed to have brooded over the seclusion and the poverty of ‘ancient Caledon.’ In a bird’s-eye view, if such a thought may be indulged, the greatest part of the country presented, in all probability, the appearance of one continuous wood; a mass of cheerless verdure resting on hill and dale—the sameness of its dark extent broken only where some lake or green-clad morass met the view, or where the higher mountains lifted their summits above the line of vegetation. In some districts, considerable tracks of open moorland might, doubtless, be seen clad in the indigenous heather of the North; while, in others, occasional spots of pasture-land would here and there appear;—but, on the whole, these must have formed a striking contrast to the wide expanse of the prevailing forest.”

As the present work is concerned only with the Highlands of Scotland, it would of course be out of place to give any minute account of the transactions of the Romans in the other parts of the island. Suffice it to say that from the time, B.C. 55, when Julius Cæsar first landed on the coast of South Britain, until A.D. 78, when, under the Emperor Vespasian, Cnæus Julius Agricola assumed the command in Great Britain, the greater part of midland and south England had been brought under the sway of the Romans. This able commander set himself with vigour and earnestness to confirm the conquests which had been already made, to reduce the rest of the country to subjection, to conciliate the Britons by mild measures, and to attach them to the Roman power by introducing among them Roman manners, literature, luxuries, and dress.

Agricola was appointed to the command in Britain in the year 78 A.D., but appears not[4] to have entered Scotland till his third campaign in the year 80. He employed himself in the years 80, 81, and 82, in subduing the country south of the friths of Forth and Clyde,—the Bodotria and Glotta of Tacitus,—erecting, in 81, a series of forts between these two estuaries. Having accomplished this, Agricola made preparations for his next campaign, which he was to open beyond the friths in the summer of 83, he in the meantime having heard that the Caledonians—as Tacitus calls the people north of the Forth—had formed a confederacy to resist the invader.

Fig. 1. Sculptured Stone in the Church of Meigle.

Fig. 2. From a Sculptured Stone found at St. Andrews.

These Caledonians appear to have been divided into a number of tribes or clans, having little or no political connection, and almost constantly at war among themselves. It was only when a foreign foe threatened their much-prized freedom that a sense of danger forced them to unite for a time under the command of a military leader. Some writers, on the authority of Ptolemy of Alexandria, but chiefly on that of the pseudo-Richard of Cirencester,[3] give a list of the various tribes which, during the Roman period, inhabited North Britain, and define the locality which each occupied with as much exactness as they might do a modern English county. “There was one thing,” says Tacitus, “which gave us an advantage over these powerful nations, that they never consulted together for the advantage of the whole. It was rare that even two or three of them united against the common enemy.” Their whole means of subsistence consisted in the milk and flesh of their flocks and the produce of the chase. They lived in a state almost approaching to nudity; but whether from necessity or from choice cannot be satisfactorily determined. Dio represents the Caledonians as being naked, but Herodian speaks of them as wearing a partial covering. They appear, at all events, if the stone dug up at Blackness in the year 1868 (see p. 11), be taken as an authority, to have gone naked into battle. Their towns, which were few, consisted of huts covered with turf or skins, and for better security they were erected in the centre of some wood or morass. “What the Britons call a town,” says Cæsar, “is a tract of woody country surrounded by a vallum and ditch, for the security of themselves and cattle against the incursions of an enemy; for, when they have enclosed a very large circuit with felled trees, they build within it houses for[5] themselves, and hovels for their cattle.”[4] Notwithstanding, perhaps owing to the scantiness of their covering, which left their bodies exposed to the rigour of a cold and variable climate, the Caledonians were a remarkably hardy race, capable of enduring fatigue, cold, and hunger to an extent which their descendants of the present day could not encounter without risk of life. They were decidedly a warlike people, and are said, like the heroes of more ancient times, to have been addicted to robbery. The weapons of their warfare consisted of small spears, long broadswords, and hand daggers; and they defended their bodies in combat by a small target or shield,—all much of the same form and construction as those afterwards used by their posterity in more modern times. It would appear from the stone above referred to that the shields of the Caledonians were oblong, with a boss in the centre, and their swords short and pointed,—not long and blunt, as represented by Tacitus. The use of cavalry appears not to have been so well understood among the Caledonians as among the more southern tribes; but in battle they often made use of cars, or chariots, which were drawn by small, swift, and spirited horses; and it is conjectured that, like those used by the southern Britons, they had iron scythes projecting from the axle. It is impossible to say what form of government obtained among these warlike tribes. When history is silent, historians should either maintain a cautious reserve or be sparing in their conjectures; but analogy may supply materials for well-grounded speculations, and it may therefore be asserted, without any great stretch of imagination, that, like most of the other uncivilized tribes we read of in history, the Northern Britons or Caledonians were under the government of a leader or chief to whom they yielded a certain degree of obedience. Dio, indeed, insinuates that the governments of these tribes were democratic; but he should have been aware that it is only when bodies of men assume, in an advanced state of civilization, a compact and united form that democracy can prevail; and the state of barbarism in which he says the inhabitants of North Britain existed at the period in question seems to exclude such a supposition. We have no certain information from any contemporary, and conjecture is therefore groundless. Later fable-loving historians and chroniclers, indeed, give lists of Kings of Scotland—or, rather, of Pictland—extending back for centuries before the Christian era, but these by general consent are now banished to the realm of myths. It is probable, as we have already said, that the Caledonians were divided into a number of independent tribes, and that each tribe was presided over by a chief, but how he obtained his supremacy it is impossible to say. We have one instance, at least, of a number of tribes uniting under one leader, viz., at the battle of Mons Grampius, when the Caledonians were commanded by a chief or leader called by Tacitus, Galgacus, “inter plures duces virtute et genere præstans.”[5] “The earliest bond of union may probably be traced to the time when they united under one common leader to resist or assail the Roman legionaries; and out of the Dux or Toshach elected for the occasion, like Galgacus, and exercising a paramount though temporary authority, arose the Ardrigh or supreme king, after some popular or ambitious chieftain had prolonged his power by successful wars, or procured his election to this prominent station for life.”[6]

Whatever may have been the relation of the members of the different tribes, and the relation of the tribes to each other, it is certain, from the general tone of the works of Tacitus and other Roman historians in which those early inhabitants of the Scottish Highlands are mentioned, that they offered a far more formidable resistance to the Roman arms than had hitherto been done by any other of the British tribes.

In personal stature, the natives of Caledonia, like those of other parts of Britain, appear to have excelled their Roman invaders, and from Tacitus we learn that those with whom his father-in-law came into contact were distinguished by ruddy locks and lusty limbs. It is also certain that for the sake of ornament, or for the purpose of making their appearance more terrible in war, they resorted to the barbarous[6] practice of tattooing their bodies. Indeed it may be taken as a proof of their never having to any great extent come under the power and influence of Rome and Roman customs, that they retained this practice for long after the other Britons had abandoned it, and on this account, in all probability, afterwards acquired the name of Picts.

British War-Chariot.

The people whom Agricola encountered in Scotland cannot have been otherwise than tolerable proficients in the common branches of art; how else can we suppose them to have been supplied with all that matériel of war with which they are said to have appeared before him? Indolent and uninformed as were the bulk of the people, they must have had among them artificers both in wood and in iron, not unskilled in their respective trades—able to construct the body of a car—to provide for it axles of great strength—above all, able to construct the wheels and arm them with those sharp-edged instruments that were destined to cut down whatever opposed their course.[7]

Agricola, in the summer of 83, after having obtained information as to the nature of the country and the aspect of its inhabitants from exploring parties and prisoners, transported his army across the Frith of Forth to the shores of Fife by means of his fleet, and marched along the coast eastwards, keeping the fleet in sight. It cannot with certainty be ascertained at what part of the Forth this transportation of the forces took place, although some bold antiquarians assert that it must have been not far from Queensferry. The fleet, Tacitus tells us,[8] now acting, for the first time, in concert with the land-forces, proceeded in sight of the army, forming a magnificent spectacle, and adding terror to the war. It frequently happened that in the same camp were seen the infantry and cavalry intermixed with the marines, all indulging their joy, full of their adventures, and magnifying the history of their exploits; the soldier describing, in the usual style of military ostentation, the forests which he had passed, the mountains which he climbed, and the barbarians whom he put to the rout; while the sailor had his storms and tempests, the wonders of the deep, and the spirit with which he conquered winds and waves.

The offensive operations of the sixth campaign were commenced by the Caledonian Britons, who, from the higher country, made a furious attack upon the trans-Forthan fortifications, which so alarmed some of Agricola’s officers, who were afraid of being cut off from a retreat, that they advised their general to recross the Forth without delay; but Agricola resisted this advice, and made preparations for the attack which he expected would soon be made upon his army. As Agricola had received information that the enemy intended to fall upon him from various quarters, he divided his army into three bodies and continued his march. Some antiquarians have attempted to trace the route taken by each division, founding their elaborate theories on the very slender remains of what they suppose to have been Roman fortifications and encampments. As it would serve no good purpose to encumber our pages with these antiquarian conjectures, detailed accounts of which will be found in Chalmers, Stuart, Roy, and others, we shall only say that, with considerable plausibility, it is supposed that the Ninth Legion encamped on the north side of Loch Ore, about two miles south of Loch Leven in Kinross-shire. Another legion, it is said, encamped near Dunearn Hill, about a mile distant from Burntisland, near which hill are still to be seen remains of a strength called Agricola’s camp. At all events the divisions[7] do not seem to have been very far apart, as will be seen from the following episode.

The enemy having watched the proceedings of the Roman army made the necessary preparations for attack, and during the night made a furious assault on the Ninth Legion at Loch Ore. They had acted with such caution that they were actually at the very camp before Agricola was aware of their movements; but with great presence of mind he despatched a body of his lightest troops to turn their flank and attack the assailants in the rear. After an obstinate engagement, maintained with varied success in the very gates of the camp, the Britons were at length repulsed by the superior skill of the Roman veterans. This battle was so far decisive, that Agricola did not find much difficulty afterwards in subduing the surrounding country, and, having finished his campaign, he passed the winter of 83 in Fife; being supplied with provisions from his fleet in the Forth, and keeping up a constant correspondence with his garrisons on the southern side.

By this victory, according to Tacitus, so complete and glorious, the Roman army was inspired with confidence to such a degree, that they now pronounced themselves invincible, and desired to penetrate to the extremity of the island.

The Caledonians now began to perceive the danger of their situation from the proximity of such a powerful enemy, and a sense of this danger impelled them to lay aside the feuds and jealousies which had divided and distracted their tribes, to consult together for their mutual safety and protection, and to combine their scattered strength into a united and energetic mass. The proud spirit of independence which had hitherto kept the Caledonian tribes apart, now made them coalesce in support of their liberties, which were threatened with utter annihilation. In this eventful crisis, they looked around them for a leader or chief under whom they might fight the battle of freedom, and save their country from the dangers which threatened it. A chief, named Galgacus by Tacitus, was pitched upon to act as generalissimo of the Caledonian army; and, from the praises bestowed upon him by that historian, this warrior appears to have well merited the distinction thus bestowed. Preparatory to the struggle they were about to engage in, they sent their wives and children into places of safety, and, in solemn assemblies in which public sacrifices were offered up, ratified the confederacy into which they had entered against their common enemy.

Having strengthened his army with some British auxiliaries from the south, Agricola marched through Fife in the summer of 84, making for a spot called by Tacitus Mons Grampius; sending at the same time his fleet round the eastern coast, to support him in his operations, and to distract the attention of the Caledonians. Various conjectures have been broached as to the exact line of Agricola’s march and the exact position of the Mons Grampius. The most plausible of these is that of General Roy,[9] who supposes that the march of Agricola was regulated by the course of the Devon; that he turned to the right from Glendevon through the opening of the Ochil hills, along the course of the rivulet which runs along Gleneagles; leaving the braes of Ogilvie on his left, and passing between Blackford and Auchterarder towards the Grampian hills, which he saw at a distance before him as he debouched from the Ochils. By an easy march he reached the moor of Ardoch, from which he descried the Caledonian army, to the number of 30,000 men, encamped on the declivity of the hill which begins to rise from the north-western border of the moor of Ardoch. Agricola took his station at the great camp which adjoins the fort of Ardoch on the northward. If the Roman camp at Ardoch does mark the spot where the disastrous engagement about to be noticed took place between these brave and determined Caledonians and the invincible Roman legions, it is highly probable that Agricola drew out his army on the neighbouring moor, having a large ditch or trench of considerable length in front, the Caledonian host under Galgacus being already disposed in battle array on the heights beyond. The Roman army is supposed to have numbered about 20,000 or 30,000, the auxiliary infantry, in number about 8,000,[10] occupying the centre, the wings[8] consisting of 3,000 horse. The legions were stationed in the rear, at the head of the entrenchments, as a body of reserve to support the ranks, if necessary, but otherwise to remain inactive, that a victory, obtained without the effusion of Roman blood, might be of higher value. Previous to the commencement of this interesting light, according to “the fashion of historical literature at that time,” a speech is put into the mouth of each general by the historian Tacitus. “How much more valuable would it have been to us had Tacitus deigned to tell us something about the tongue in which the leader of the barbarians spoke, or even his name, and the name of the place where he fought, as the natives uttered it! Yet, for the great interests of its day, the speech of Galgacus was far removed from a mere feat of idle pedantry. It was a noble rebuke on the empire and the Roman people, who, false to the high destiny assigned to them by Virgil, of protecting the oppressed and striking down the oppressors, had become the common scourge of all mankind. The profligate ambition, the perfidy, the absorbing pride, the egotism, and the cruelty of the dominant people—how could all be so aptly set forth as in the words of a barbarian chief, ruling over the free people who were to be the next victims.”[11]

The narrative of the battle we give mainly in the words of the Roman commander’s son-in-law, Tacitus, who no doubt had the story from Agricola’s own mouth.[12] The battle began, and at first was maintained at a distance. The Britons wanted neither skill nor resolution. With their long swords, and targets of small dimension, they had the address to elude the missive weapons of the Romans, and at the same time to discharge a thick volley of their own. To bring the conflict to a speedy decision, Agricola ordered three Batavian and two Tungrian cohorts to charge the enemy sword in hand. To this mode of attack those troops had been long accustomed, but to the Britons it was every way disadvantageous. Their small targets afforded no protection, and their unwieldy swords, not sharpened to a point, could do but little execution in a close engagement. The Batavians rushed to the attack with impetuous fury; they redoubled their blows, and with the bosses of their shields bruised the enemy in the face, and, having overpowered all resistance on the plain, began to force their way up the ascent of the hill in regular order of battle. Incited by their example, the other cohorts advanced with a spirit of emulation, and cut their way with terrible slaughter. Eager in pursuit of victory, they pressed forward with determined fury, leaving behind them numbers wounded, but not slain, and others not so much as hurt.

The Roman cavalry, in the mean time, was forced to give ground. The Caledonians, in their armed chariots, rushed at full speed into the thick of the battle, where the infantry were engaged. Their first impression struck a general terror, but their career was soon checked by the inequalities of the ground, and the close embodied ranks of the Romans. Nothing could less resemble an engagement of the cavalry. Pent up in narrow places, the barbarians crowded upon each other, and were driven or dragged along by their own horses. A scene of confusion followed. Chariots without a guide, and horses without a rider, broke from the ranks in wild disorder, and flying every way, as fear and consternation urged, they overwhelmed their own files, and trampled down all who came in their way.

Meanwhile the Britons, who had hitherto kept their post on the hills, looking down with contempt on the scanty numbers of the Roman army, began to quit their station. Descending slowly, they hoped, by wheeling round the field of battle, to attack the victors in the rear. To counteract their design, Agricola ordered four squadrons of horse, which he had kept as a body of reserve, to advance to the charge. The Britons poured down with impetuosity, and retired with equal precipitation. At the same time, the cavalry, by the directions of the general, wheeled round from the wings, and fell with great slaughter on the rear of the enemy, who now perceived that their own stratagem was turned against themselves.

The field presented a dreadful spectacle of carnage and destruction. The Britons fled; the Romans pursued; they wounded, gashed, and mangled the runaways; they seized their[9] prisoners, and, to be ready for others, butchered them on the spot. Despair and horror appeared in various shapes; in one part of the field the Caledonians, sword in hand, fled in crowds from a handful of Romans; in other places, without a weapon left, they faced every danger, and rushed on certain death. Swords and bucklers, mangled limbs and dead bodies, covered the plain. The field was red with blood. The vanquished Britons had their moments of returning courage, and gave proofs of virtue and of brave despair. They fled to the woods, and, rallying their scattered numbers, surrounded such of the Romans as pursued with too much eagerness.

Night coming on, the Romans, weary of slaughter, desisted from the pursuit. Ten thousand of the Caledonians fell in this engagement: on the part of the Romans, the number of slain did not exceed three hundred and forty.

The Roman army, elate with success, and enriched with plunder, passed the night in exultation. The Britons, on the other hand, wandered about, uncertain which way to turn, helpless and disconsolate. The mingled cries of men and women filled the air with lamentations. Some assisted to carry off the wounded; others called for the assistance of such as escaped unhurt; numbers abandoned their habitations, or, in their frenzy, set them on fire. They fled to obscure retreats, and, in the moment of choice, deserted them; they held consultations, and, having inflamed their hopes, changed their minds in despair; they beheld the pledges of tender affection, and burst into tears; they viewed them again, and grew fierce with resentment. It is a fact well authenticated, that some laid violent hands upon their wives and children, determined with savage compassion to end their misery.

After obtaining hostages from the Horestians, who in all probability inhabited what is now the county of Fife, Agricola garrisoned the stations on the isthmus and elsewhere, recrossed the Forth, and took up his winter-quarters in the north of England, about the Tyne and Solway. In the meantime he gave orders to the fleet, then lying probably in the Frith of Forth or Tay, to proceed on a voyage of discovery to the northward. The enterprise appears to have been successfully accomplished by the Roman navy, which proceeded coastwise as far as the Orkneys, whence it sailed by the Western Islands and the British Channel ad Portum Trutulensem, Richborough in Kent, returning to the point from which it started. This is the first voyage on record that determined Britain to be an island.

The Emperor Domitian now resolved to supersede Agricola in his command in North Britain; and he was accordingly recalled in the year 85, under the pretence of promoting him to the government of Syria, but in reality out of envy on account of the glory which he had obtained by the success of his arms. He died on the 23d of August, 93, some say, from poison, while others attribute his death to the effects of chagrin at the unfeeling treatment of Domitian. His countrymen lamented his death, and Tacitus, his son-in-law, preserved the memory of his actions and his worth in the history of his life.

During the remainder of Domitian’s reign, and that of Hadrian his successor, North Britain appears to have enjoyed tranquillity; an inference which may be fairly drawn from the silence of the Roman historians. Yet as Hadrian in the year 121 built a wall between the Solway and the Tyne, some writers have supposed that the Romans had been driven by the Caledonians out of North Britain, in the reign of that Emperor. But if such was the case, how did Lollius Urbicus, the Roman general, about nineteen years after Hadrian’s wall was erected, penetrate without opposition to Agricola’s forts between the Clyde and the Forth? May we not rather suppose that the wall of Hadrian was built for the purpose of preventing incursions into the south by the tribes which inhabited the country between that wall and the Friths? But, be this as it may, little is known of the history of North Britain from the time of Agricola’s recall till the year 138, when Antoninus Pius assumed the imperial purple. That good and sagacious emperor was distinguished by the care which he took in selecting the fittest officers for the government of the Roman provinces; and his choice, for that of Britain, fell on Lollius Urbicus.

[10]

The positive information concerning the transactions of this general in North Britain is as meagre as could possibly be, the only clearly ascertained fact in connection with his command being that he built a wall between the Forth and Clyde, very nearly on a line with the forts established by Agricola. “The meagreness of all ancient record,” says Burton,[13] “of the achievements of Lollius Urbicus is worthy of emphatic mention and recollection, because his name has got into the ordinary abridged histories which speak of it, and of ‘his campaign in the north’ as well-known events, of which people naturally expect fuller information elsewhere. The usual sources for reference regarding him will however be found utterly dumb.” The story commonly given is that he proceeded north as far as the Moray Frith, throwing the extensive country between Forth and Clyde and the Moray Frith into the form of a regular Roman province, which, on the worthless authority of the pseudo-Richard, was named Vespasiana. All this may have been the case, and the remains[14] of Roman stations found throughout the wide tract just mentioned give some plausibility to the conjecture; but there is only the most slender grounds for connecting them with any northern expedition of Lollius Urbicus. At all events we may very safely conclude, from the general tone of the records which remain of his and of subsequent expeditions, as well as from the fact that they found it necessary to divide the Lowlands from the Highlands by a fortified wall, that the Romans considered the Caledonians of their time very troublesome, and found it exceedingly difficult if not impossible to bring them under their otherwise universal yoke.

Map and Profile of Antonine’s Wall.

It may not be out of place to give here some account of the wall of Antonine. The wall or rampart extended from Carriden on the Forth, two miles west from Blackness, and about the same distance east from Bo’ness, to West Kilpatrick on the Clyde. The date, which may be depended on, assigned to the building of the wall is between 138 and 140 A.D. Taking the length of this wall from Kilpatrick on the Clyde to Caeridden or Carriden on the Forth, its extent would be 39,726 Roman paces, which exactly agrees with the modern measurement of 36 English miles and 620 yards. This rampart, which was of earth, and rested on a stone foundation, was upwards of twenty feet high and four and twenty feet thick. Along the whole extent of the wall there was a vast ditch or prætentura on the outward or north side, which was generally twenty feet deep and forty feet wide, and which, there is reason to believe, might be filled with water when occasion required.[15][11] This ditch and rampart were strengthened at both ends, and throughout its whole extent, by about twenty forts, three being at each extremity, and the remainder placed between at the distance of about two English miles from one another; and it is highly probable that these stations were designedly placed on the previous fortifications of Agricola. The following, going from east to west, are the names and sites of some of the stations which have been identified:—Rough Castle, Castlecary, Westerwood, Bunhill, Auchindinny, Kirkintilloch, Bemulie, East Kilpatrick, Castlehill, Duntocher, West Kilpatrick. It will be seen that to a certain extent they are on the line of the Edinburgh and Glasgow railway, and throughout nearly its whole length that of the Forth and Clyde canal. Its necessary appendage, a military road, ran behind the rampart from end to end, for the use of the troops and for keeping up the usual communication between the stations or forts. From inscriptions on some of the foundation stones, which have been dug up, it appears that the Second legion, with detachments from the sixth and twentieth legions and some auxiliaries, executed these vast military works, equally creditable to their skill and perseverance. Dunglas near the western extremity, and Blackness near the eastern extremity of the rampart, afforded the Romans commodious harbours for their shipping, as also did Cramond, about five miles west from Edinburgh. This wall is called in the popular language of the country Grime’s or Graham’s Dyke.[16] In 1868 a large oblong slab, in first-rate preservation, was dug up at Bo’ness, in the parish of Kinneil (Bede’s Peanfahel, “the head of the wall”), containing an inscription as distinct as it was on the day when it came from a Roman chisel. We give here a cut of this remarkable stone, which is now in the Scottish Antiquarian Museum.

Stone from Antonine’s Wall. (Copied and engraved specially for the present work.)

We have no distinct mention of the Caledonians again until the reign of Commodus, when, about the year 183, these troublesome barbarians appear to have broken through the northern wall, slain the general in command of the Roman forces, and pillaged the lowland country beyond. They were, however, driven back by Ulpius Marcellus, who succeeded by prudent management in maintaining peace for a number of years. In the beginning of the reign of Severus, however, the Caledonians again broke out, but were kept in check by Virius Lupus, who appears to have bribed rather than beaten the barbarians into conformity.

The irrepressible Highlanders again broke out about the year 207, and this time the Emperor Severus himself, notwithstanding his bad health and old age, came from Rome to Britain, determined apparently to “stamp out” the rebellion. On hearing of his arrival the tribes sent deputies to him to negotiate for peace, but the emperor, who was of a warlike disposition, and fond of military glory, declined to entertain any proposals.

After making the necessary preparations,[12] Severus began his march to the north in the year 208. He traversed the whole of North Britain, from the wall of Antoninus to the very extremity of the island, with an immense army. The Caledonians avoided coming to a general engagement with him, but kept up an incessant and harassing warfare on all sides. He, however, brought them to sue for peace; but the honours of this campaign were dearly earned, for fifty thousand of the Romans fell a prey to the attacks of the Caledonians, to fatigue, and to the severity of the climate. The Caledonians soon disregarded the treaty which they had entered into with Severus, which conduct so irritated him that he gave orders to renew the war, and to spare neither age nor sex; but his son, Caracalla, to whom the execution of these orders was intrusted, was more intent in plotting against his father and brother than in executing the revengeful mandate of the dying emperor, whose demise took place at York on the 4th February, 211, in the sixty-sixth year of his age, and in the third year of his administration in Britain.

It is in connection with this invasion that we first hear of the Meats or Mæatæ, who are mentioned by Dion Cassius, or rather his epitomiser Xiphiline, and who are supposed by some to have inhabited the country between the two walls, while others think it more likely that they were a part of the Caledonians, and inhabited the district between the Grampians and the wall of Antonine. We shall not, however, enter into this question here, but endeavour, as briefly as possible, to record all that is known of the remaining transactions of the Romans in the north of Scotland, reserving other matters for the next chapter.

It was not consistent with the policy by which Caracalla was actuated, to continue a war with the Caledonians; for the scene of his ambition lay in Rome, to which he made hasty preparations to depart on the death of his father. He therefore entered into a treaty with the Caledonians by which he gave up the territories surrendered by them to his father, and abandoned the forts erected by him in their fastnesses. The whole country north of the wall of Antonine appears in fact to have been given up to the undisputed possession of the Caledonians, and we hear of no more incursions by them till the reign of the emperor Constantius Chlorus, who came to Britain in the year 306, to repel the Caledonians and other Picts.[17] Their incursions were repelled by the Roman legions under Constantius, and they remained quiet till about the year 345, when they again entered the territories of the provincial Britons; but they were compelled, it is said, again to retreat by Constans, son of Constantine the Great.

Although these successive inroads had been always repelled by the superior power and discipline of the Romans, the Caledonians of the fourth century no longer regarded them in the formidable light in which they had been viewed by their ancestors, and their genius for war improving every time they came in hostile contact with their enemies, they meditated the design of expelling the intruders altogether from the soil of North Britain. The wars which the Romans had to sustain against the Persians in the East, and against the Germans on the frontiers of Gaul, favoured the plan of the Caledonians; and having formed a treaty with the Scots, whose name is mentioned for the first time in history in this connection by Ammianus Marcellinus, they, in conjunction with their new allies, about the year 360 invaded the Roman territories and committed many depredations. Julian, who commanded the Roman army on the Rhine, despatched Lupicinus, an able military commander, to defend the province against the Scots and Picts, but he was recalled before he had done much to repel them.

The Picts—who on this occasion are mentioned by Ammianus Marcellinus[18] as being divided into two nations, the Dicaledones and Vecturiones—and Scots, being joined by the Attacots, “a warlike race of men,” and the Saxons, numbers of whom appear at this early period to have settled in Britain, made another attack on the Roman provinces in the year[13] 364, on the accession of Valentinian. These appear to have made their way as far south as London, and it required all the valour and skill of Theodosius the Elder, father of the emperor of that name, who was sent to Britain in the year 367, to repel this aggression, and to repair the great ravages committed by the barbarians. The next outbreak occurred about the year 398, when the Picts and Scots again broke loose and ravaged the provinces, being repelled by a legion sent over by the great Stilicho, in answer to the petition of the helpless provincials for assistance.

In the beginning of the fifth century the enervated Romanized Britons again appear to have been subjected to the tender mercies of their wicked northern neighbours; and in reply to their cry for help, Honorius, in 416, sent over to their relief a single legion, which drove back the intruders. The Romans, as is well known, engrossed by overwhelming troubles nearer home, finally abandoned Britain about the year 446, advising the inhabitants, who were suffering from the ravages of the Picts and Scots, to protect themselves by retiring behind and keeping in repair the wall of Severus.

Such is a brief account of the transactions of the Romans in Britain so far as these were connected with the Highlands of Scotland. That energetic and insatiable people doubtless left their mark on the country and its inhabitants south of the Forth and Clyde, as the many Roman remains which exist there at the present day testify. The British provincials, indeed, appear in the end to have been utterly enervated, and, in the worst sense, Romanized, so that they became an easy prey to their Saxon helpers. It is quite evident, however, that the inhabitants of Caledonia proper, the district beyond the wall of Antonine, were to a very slight extent, if at all, influenced by the Roman invasion. Whether it was from the nature of the people, or from the nature of the country which they inhabited, or from both combined, they appear to have been equally impervious to Roman force and Roman culture. The best services that their enemies rendered to the Caledonians or Picts were that they forced them to unite against the common foe thus contributing towards the foundation of a future kingdom; and that they gave them a training in arms such as the Caledonians could never have obtained, had they not been brought into collision with the best-trained soldiers of the world in their time.

We have in what precedes mainly followed only one thread in the very intricate web formed by the early history of the Highlands, which, to a certain extent at this period, is the history of Scotland; but, as will have been seen, there are various other threads which join in from time to time, and which, after giving a short account of the traces of the Roman invasion still existing in the Highlands, we shall endeavour to catch up and follow out as far as possible.

It is not necessary in a history of the Highlands of Scotland, as we have defined that term, that much space should be given to an account of Roman remains; for, as we have already said, these Italian invaders appear never to have obtained anything like a firm footing in that rugged district, or made any definite or characteristic impression on its inhabitants. “The vestiges whence it is inferred that the Empire for a time had so far established itself in Scotland as to bring the natives over to the habits of peaceful citizens, belong almost exclusively to the country south of Antonine’s wall, between the Forth and Clyde. Coins and weapons have been found farther north, but scarcely any vestige of regular settlement. None of the pieces of Roman sculpture found in Scotland belong to the districts north of the wall. It is almost more significant still, that of the very considerable number of Scottish Roman inscriptions in the various collections, only one was found north of the wall, and that in the strongly-fortified station of Ardoch, where it commemorated that it was dedicated to the memory of a certain Ammonius Damionis.[19] On the other hand, it is in that unsubdued district that the memorials of Roman conquest chiefly abound.”[20]

The whole of Britain was intersected by Roman ways, and as, wherever a Roman army went, it was preceded by pioneers who cleared and made a durable road to facilitate its march, there can be no doubt that the north of Scotland[14] was to a considerable extent intersected by highways during the invasion of Agricola, Lollius Urbicus, and Severus. One road at least can be traced as far north as Aberdeenshire, and is popularly known in some districts as the Lang Causeway. This road appears to have issued from the wall of Antonine, passed through Camelon, the Roman port on the Carron, and pushing straight forward, according to the Roman custom, across the Carron, it pursued its course in a general north-east direction through Stirling, Perth, by Ardoch, through Forfar and Kincardine, to about Stonehaven.

It would appear that there are traces of Roman roads even farther north. Between the rivers Don and Urie in Aberdeenshire, on the eastern side of Bennachee, there exists an ancient road known in the country by the name of the Maiden Causeway, a name by which some of the Roman roads in the north of England are distinguished. This proceeds from Bennachee whereon there is said to have been a hill-fort, more than the distance of a mile into the woods of Pitodrie, when it disappears: it is paved with stones, and is about fourteen feet wide. Still farther north, from Forres to the ford of Cromdale on the Spey, there has been long known a road of very ancient construction, pointing to Cromdale, where the Romans may have forded the Spey. Various traces of very ancient roads are still to be seen by Corgarf and through Braemar: the tradition of the people in Strathdee and Braemar, supports the idea that there are remains of Roman roads which traverse the country between the Don and the Dee. Certain it is, that there are obvious traces of ancient roads which cross the wild districts between Strathdon and Strathdee, though it is impossible to ascertain when or by whom these ancient roads were constructed, in such directions, throughout such a country.

Along these roads there were without doubt many camps and stations, as it is well known that the Romans never halted even for a single night, without entrenching themselves behind secure fortifications. There are many remains of what are supposed to have been Roman camps still pointed out in various places north of the line occupied by Antonine’s wall. These are well known even to the peasantry, and are generally treated with respect. The line of these camps reaches as far as the counties of Aberdeen and Inverness, the most important of them, however, being found in Strathallan, Strathearn, and Strathmore. Besides the most important of these camps, that at Ardoch, traces of many others have been found. There was one on the river Earn, about six miles east of Ardoch, which would command the middle part of Strathearn lying between the Ochil hills on the south and the river Almond on the north. Another important station is supposed to have been established near Callander, where, on a tongue of land formed by the junction of the rivers Strathgartney and Strathyre, the two sources of the Teith, are seen the embankments referred to by Scott[21] as

Another camp is placed at Dalgenross, near the confluence of the Ruchel and the Earn, which, with Bochastle, would command the western district of Strathearn. Another important station was the East Findoch, at the south side of the Almond; it guarded the only practicable passage through the mountains northward, to an extent of thirty miles from east to west. The Roman camp here was placed on a high ground, defended by water on two sides, and by a morass with a steep bank on the other two sides. It was about one hundred and eighty paces long, and eighty broad, and was surrounded by a strong earthen wall nearly twelve feet thick, part of which still remains. The trenches are still entire, and in some places six feet deep.

On the eastern side of Strathearn, and between it and the Forth, are the remains of Roman posts; and at Ardargie a Roman camp was established with the design, it is supposed, of guarding the passage through the Ochil hills, by the valley of May water. Another camp at Gleneagles secured the passage of the same hills through Glendevon. With the design of guarding the narrow, but useful passage from[15] the middle Highlands, westward through Glenlyon to Argyle, the Romans fixed a post at Fortingal, about sixteen miles north-west from the station at East-Findoch.

A different line of posts became necessary to secure Angus and the Mearns. At Coupar Angus, on the east side of the Isla, about seven miles east from Inchtuthel, stood a Roman camp, of a square form, of twenty acres within the ramparts. This camp commanded the passage down Strathmore, between the Siedlaw hills on the south-east, and the Isla on the north-west. On Campmoor, little more than a mile south from Coupar Angus, appear the remains of another Roman fort. The great camp of Battledyke stood about eighteen miles north-east from Coupar Angus, being obviously placed there to guard the passage from the Highlands through Glen Esk and Glen Prosen. About eleven and a-half miles north-east of the camp at Battledykes was another Roman camp, the remains of which may still be traced near the mansion-house of Keithock. This camp is known by the name of Wardikes. The country below the Siedlaw hills, on the north side of the estuary of Tay, was guarded by a Roman camp near Invergowrie, which had a communication on the north-east with the camp at Harefaulds. This camp, which was about two hundred yards square, and fortified with a high rampart and a spacious ditch, stood about two miles west from Dundee.

Roman Camp at Ardoch as it appeared in 1755.
(Stuart’s Caledonia Romana.)

Traces of a number of others have been found, but we need not go farther into detail. This account of the Roman transactions in Scotland would, however, be incomplete without a more particular notice of the well-known camp at Ardoch. Ardoch village, in Perthshire, lies on the east side of Knaigwater, ten miles north from Stirling, and is about two miles from the Greenloaning station of the Caledonian railway, the site of the camp being a little distance to the north-west of the village. As this station guarded the principal inlet into the interior of Caledonia, the Romans were particularly anxious to fortify so advantageous a position. “The situation of it,” says the writer of the Old Statistical Account of Muthill, “gave it many advantages; being on the north-west side of a deep moss that runs a long way eastward. On the west side, it is partly defended by the steep bank of the water of Knaik; which bank rises perpendicularly between forty and fifty feet. The north and east sides were most exposed; and there we find very particular care was taken to secure them. The ground on the east is pretty regular, and descends by a gentle slope from the lines of fortification, which, on that side, consists of five rows of ditches, perfectly entire, and running parallel to one another. These altogether are about fifty-five yards in breadth. On the north side, there is an equal number of lines and ditches, but twenty yards broader than the former. On the west, besides the steep precipices above mentioned, it was defended by at least two ditches. One is still visible; the others have probably been filled up, in making the great military road from Stirling to the north. The side of the camp, lying to the southward, exhibits to the antiquary a less pleasing prospect. Here the peasant’s rugged hand has laid in ruins a great part of the lines; so that it may be with propriety said, in the words of a Latin poet, ‘Jam seges est, ubi Troja fuit.’ The area of the camp is an oblong of 140 yards, by 125 within the lines. The general’s quarter rises above the level of the camp, but is not in the centre. It is a regular square, each side being exactly twenty yards. At present it exhibits evident marks of having been enclosed with a stone wall, and contains the foundation of a house, ten yards by seven.” There are two other encampments adjoining, having a communication with one another, and containing about 130 acres of ground. A subterranean passage is[16] said to have extended from the prætorium under the bed of the Knaik. Not far north of this station, on the way to Crieff, may be traced three temporary Roman camps of different sizes. Portions of the ramparts of these camps still exist. A mile west of Ardoch, an immense cairn lately existed, 182 feet long, 45 broad at the base, and 30 feet in sloping height. A human skeleton, 7 feet long, in a stone coffin, was found in it.[23]

CHAPTER II.

The preceding chapter has been occupied almost entirely with an account of the transactions of the Romans in the north of Scotland, and it is now our duty to go back and narrate what is known of the internal history of the Highlands during the time of the Romans. In doing so we are brought face to face with certain much agitated questions which have for centuries engaged the attention of antiquaries, and in the discussion of which many bulky tomes have been written and incredible acrimony displayed. To enter with anything like minuteness into this discussion would occupy more space than can be devoted to the entire history, and, moreover, would be out of place in a popular work like the present, and distasteful to most of its readers. The following are some of the much-discussed questions referred to:—Who were the original inhabitants of Caledonia? To what race did they belong—were they Gothic or Celtic? and if Celtic, were they Cymric or Gaelic? When did they enter Scotland, and whence did they come—from the opposite continent, or from the south of Britain? Was the whole of Scotland, in the time of Agricola, occupied by one people, or by a mixed race, or by various races? Were the Picts and Caledonians the same people? What is the meaning and origin of Pict, and was Caledonia a native appellation? What were the localities of the Northern and Southern Picts? Who were the Scots? What was the nature of the union of the Scots and Picts under Kenneth Macalpin?

The notices of the early inhabitants of the Highlands in the contemporary Roman historians are so few, the information given so meagre and indefinite, and the ecclesiastical historians of a later time are so full of miracle, myth, and hearsay, and so little to be depended on, that it appears to us almost impossible, with the materials at present within the historian’s reach, to arrive at anything like a satisfactory answer to the above questions. The impression left after reading much that has been written on various sides, is one of dissatisfaction and bewilderment,—dissatisfaction with the far-fetched and irrelevant arguments frequently adduced, and the unreliable authorities quoted, and bewilderment amid the dust-cloud of words with which any one who enters this debatable land is sure to be enveloped. “It is scarcely necessary to observe, that there are few points of ethnology on which historians and antiquaries have been more at variance with each other, than respecting the real race of those inhabitants of a portion of Caledonia popularly known by the designation of Picts. The difficulty arising from this discrepancy of opinion is increased by the scanty and unsatisfactory nature of the materials now available to those who wish to form an independent judgment. No connected specimen of the Pictish language has been preserved; nor has any ancient author who knew them from personal observation, stated in direct terms that they approximated to one adjoining tribe more than another. They are indeed associated with the Scots or Irish as joint plunderers of the colonial Britons; and the expression of Gildas that they differed in some degree from the Scots in their customs, might seem to imply that they did bear an analogy to that nation in certain respects. Of course, where there is such a lack of direct evidence, there is more scope for conjecture;[17] and the Picts are pronounced by different investigators of their history to have been Germans, Scandinavians, Welsh, Gael, or something distinct from all the four. The advocates of the German hypothesis rest chiefly on Tacitus’s description of their physical conformation. Dr. Jamieson, assuming that the present Lowland Scotch dialect was derived from them, sets them down as Scandinavians; Bishop Lloyd and Camden conceive them to have been of Celtic race, probably related to the Britons; Chalmers, the author of ‘Caledonia,’ regards them as nothing more than a tribe of Cambrians or Welsh; while Skene, one of the latest authors on the subject, thinks he has proved that they were the ancestors of the present race of Scottish Highlanders.”[24]

The earliest known name applied to Britain is found in a treatise on the World ascribed to Aristotle, in which the larger island is called Albinn, and Ireland referred to as Ierne; and it is worthy of notice that at the present day the former is the name applied to Scotland by the Highlanders, who call themselves the Gael Albinnich. The first author, however, who gives us any information about the early inhabitants of the north part of Scotland is Tacitus, who, in his Life of Agricola, devotes a few lines, in a parenthetical way, to characterising each of the great divisions of the people who, in the time of that general, inhabited Britain. Tacitus tells us that in his time the inhabitants of Britain differed in the habit and make of their bodies, and from the ruddy locks and large limbs of the Caledonians he inferred that they were of German origin.[25] This glimpse is clear enough, but tantalizing in its meagreness and generality. What does Tacitus mean by German—does he use it in the same sense as we do at the present day? Does he mean by Caledonia the whole of the country north of the Forth and Clyde, or does it apply only to that district—Fife, Forfar, the east of Perth, &c.—with the inhabitants of which his father-in-law came in contact? We find Ptolemy the geographer, who flourished about the middle of the 2d century A.D., mentioning the Caledonians as one of the many tribes which in his time inhabited the north of Scotland. The term Caledonians is supposed by some authorities to have been derived from a native word signifying “men of the woods,” or the inhabitants of the woody country; this, however, is mere conjecture.

The next writer who gives any definite information as to the inhabitants of Caledonia is Dion Cassius, who flourished in the early part of the 3d century, and who wrote a history of Rome which has come down to us in a very imperfect state. Of the latter part, containing an account of Britain, we possess only an epitome made by Xiphilinus, an ecclesiastic of the 11th century, and which of course is very meagre in its details. The following are the particulars given by this writer concerning the early inhabitants of north Britain. “Of the Britons the two most ample nations are the Caledonians and the Mæatæ; for the names of the rest refer for the most part to these. The Mæatæ inhabit very near the wall[26] which divides the island into two parts; the Caledonians are after these. Each of them inhabit mountains, very rugged and wanting water, and also desert fields, full of marshes: they have neither castles nor cities, nor dwell in any: they live on milk and by hunting, and maintain themselves by the fruits of the trees: for fishes, of which there is a very great and numberless quantity, they never taste: they dwell naked in tents and without shoes: they use wives in common, and whatever is born to them they bring up. In the popular state they are governed, as for the most part: they rob on the highway most willingly: they war in chariots: horses they have, small and fleet; their infantry, also, are as well most swift at running, as most brave in pitched battle. Their arms are a shield and a short spear, in the upper part whereof is an apple of brass, that, while it is shaken, it may terrify the enemies with the sound: they have likewise daggers. They are able to bear hunger, cold, and all afflictions; for they merge themselves in marshes, and there remain many days, having only their head out of water: and in woods are nourished by the bark and roots of trees. But a certain kind of food they prepare for all occasions, of which if they take as much as ‘the[18] size’ of a single bean, they are in nowise ever wont to hunger or thirst.”[27]

From this we learn that in the 3d century there were two divisions of the inhabitants of the Highlands, known to the Romans as the Caledonians and Mæats or Mæatæ, the latter very probably inhabiting the southern part of that territory, next to the wall of Antonine, and the former the district to the north of this. As to whether these were Latinized forms of native names, or names imposed by the Romans themselves, we have no means of judging. The best writers on this subject think that the Caledonians and Mæats were two divisions of the same people, both living to the north of the Forth and Clyde, although Innes,[28] and one or two minor writers, are of opinion that the Mæats were provincial Britons who inhabited the country between the wall of Hadrian and that of Antonine, known as the province of Valentia. However, with Skene,[29] Mr. Joseph Robertson, and other able authorities, we are inclined to think that the evidence is in favour of their being the inhabitants of the southern portion of Caledonia proper.

Herodian,[30] who wrote about A.D. 240, tells us that the Caledonians were in the habit of marking or painting their bodies with figures of animals, and that they wore no clothes in order that these figures might be preserved and exhibited.

The next reference made by a Roman writer to the inhabitants of Caledonia we find in a panegyric pronounced in his presence on the Emperor Constantius Chlorus, by Eumenius, a professor of rhetoric at Augustodunum (Autun) in Gaul, in the year 296 or 297, who speaks of the Britons, in the time of Cæsar, having been attacked by the half-naked Picts and Irish. To what people the orator meant to apply the term Picts, around which there has clustered so much acrimonious disputation, we learn from another oration pronounced by him on the same emperor, before his son Constantine, in the year 309, in which, recording the actions of Constantius, he speaks of the woods and marshes of the Caledonians and other Picts.

After this no further mention is made of the Caledonians by any Roman writer, but towards the end of the 4th century Ammianus Marcellinus, in his account of the Roman transactions in Britain, speaks of the Picts in conjunction with the Saxons, Scots, and Attacots harassing the provincial Britons about the year 364. Further on he informs us that at this time the Picts were divided into two tribes or nations, the Dicaledones and Vecturiones, remarking, at the same time, that “the Attacots were a warlike race of men, and the Scots a people much given to wandering, and in the habit of ravaging or laying waste the districts into which they came.”[31]

Claudian the poet, writing, about 397, in praise of Honorius, mentions, among other actions of Theodosius, the grandfather of that emperor, his having subdued the Picts, who were fitly so named,[32] and makes various other references to this people and the Scots, which show that these two in combination were troubling the Roman provincials not a little.[33]

Such are most of the scanty details given by the only contemporary historians who take any notice of the inhabitants of North Britain; and the unprejudiced reader will see that the foundation thus afforded upon which to construct any elaborate theory is so narrow that every such theory must resemble a pyramid standing on its apex, liable at the slightest touch to topple over and be shattered to pieces. It appears to us that all the conclusions which it is safe to draw from the few facts stated by the contemporary Roman historians are, that at the commencement of the Christian era Caledonia proper, or the Highlands, was inhabited by a people or peoples apparently considerable in number, and who in all probability had been settled there for a considerable time, part of whom at least were known to the Romans by the name of Caledonians. That these Caledonians,[19] those of them at any rate with whom Agricola came in contact in the first century, were red or fair haired and large limbed, from which Tacitus inferred that they were of German extraction. In the beginning of the third century there were at least two divisions of the inhabitants of Caledonia,—the Caledonians and Mæats,—the former inhabiting the country to the north of the Grampians, and the latter, in all probability, that to the south and south-east of these mountains. They appear to have been in many respects in a condition little removed from that of savages, although they must have made wonderful attainments in the manufacture of implements of war.

In the latter part of the third century we found the Highlanders spoken of under a new name, Picti, which the Roman historians at least, undoubtedly understood to be the Latin word meaning ‘painted,’[34] and which all the best modern writers believe to have been imposed by the Romans themselves, from the fact that the indomitable Caledonians had retained the custom of self-painting after all the Romanized Britons had given it up. There is the strongest probability that the Caledonians spoken of as Picts by Eumenius were the same as the Caledonians of Tacitus, or that the Caledonians and Picts were the same people under different names. The immediate cause for this change of name we have no means of ascertaining. It is in every way improbable that the Picts were a new people, who had come in upon the Caledonians, and supplanted them some time after Agricola’s invasion. The Romans were constantly coming into contact with the Caledonians from the time of Agricola till they abandoned Britain entirely, and had such a supplantation taken place, it certainly could not have been done quietly, and without the cognizance of the Romans. But we find no mention in any contemporary historian of any such commotion, and we know that the inhabitants of the Highlands never ceased to harass the British provincials, showing that they were not much taken up with any internal disturbance. Indeed, writers who adopt the most diverse opinions on other points in connection with the Pictish question are all agreed as to this, that the Caledonians and Picts were the same people.[35]

We learn further from our authorities, that towards the end of the fourth century the inhabitants of Caledonia were known to the Romans under the names of Dicaledones and Vecturiones, it being conjectured that these correspond to the Caledonians and Mæats of Dio, and the Northern and Southern Picts of a later period. The connection of the latter part of the word Di-caledones with Caledonii is evident, although the significance of the first syllable is doubtful,—some authorities conjecturing that it is the Gaelic word du, meaning “genuine.” It appears at all events to be established that during the early history of the Highlands, whatever other divisions may have existed among the inhabitants, those dwelling to the north and those dwelling to the south of the Grampians were two separate confederacies, and were known by distinct names.

Another not unimportant fact to be learned from the Roman historians in relation to the Picts or Caledonians is, that about the middle of the 4th century they were assisted by the Attacots, Saxons, and Scots. As to who the Attacots were it is now impossible to conjecture with anything like certainty, there being no sufficient reason for believing that they were allied to the Irish Scots. It is well enough known who the Saxons were, but how they came at this early period to be acting in concert with the Picts it is difficult to say. It is possible that numbers of them may have effected a settlement, even at this early period, in North Britain, although it is more likely that they were roving adventurers, who had left their homes, from choice or on compulsion, to try their fortune in Britain. They were probably the first droppings of the abundant shower that overwhelmed South Britain a century later. The Romans at this period had an officer with the title of “Comes litoris Saxonici per Britanniam;” and Claudian, in his praises of Stilicho, introduces Britain, saying—

[20]

It is interesting to notice that this[36] is the first mention made of the Scots in connection with what is now Scotland; but whether there were settlements of them at this time among the Picts, or whether they had come over from Ireland for the purpose of assisting the latter to harass the Romans, it is difficult to say. Probably, as was the case with the Saxons, these were the harbingers of the great migration that reached its culmination about a century and a half later. They appear, from what Ammianus says, to have been at this time a set of destructive vagabonds. We shall have more to say about them further on.

From the general tone of these contemporary Roman historians we learn that, whether Celtic or Gothic, these Picts or Caledonians were a hardy, indomitable, determined race, with a strong love of liberty and of the country in which they dwelt, and a resolution never to be subject to the greedy Roman. Comparatively few and barbarous as they were, they caused the Romans far more trouble than all the rest of Britain together; to conquer the latter and Romanize it appears to have been comparatively smooth work, but the Italians acknowledged the Highlanders invincible by building walls and other fortifications, and maintaining extra garrisons to protect the provincials from their fierce and wasting inroads. Whether the present Highlanders are the descendants of these or not, they certainly possess many of their qualities.

It will have been seen that the Roman historians give us almost no clue to what we now deem of most interest and importance, the place of the early inhabitants among the families of men, the time and manner of their arrival, the language they spoke, and their internal history generally. Of course the records of contemporaries stand in the first place of importance as evidences, and although we have other sources, historical, linguistic, and antiquarian, which shed a little light upon the subject, these, for various reasons, must be used with great caution. The only statement approaching to anything like a hint as to the origin of the Caledonians is that of Tacitus, referring to their ruddy locks and large limbs as an evidence of their German origin. There is no reason to doubt that those with whom Agricola came in contact were of this make and complexion, which, at the present day, are generally held to be indicative of a Teutonic origin; whereas the true Celt is popularly believed to be of a small make and dark complexion.[37] It may have been, that in Agricola’s time the part of the country into which he penetrated was occupied by considerable numbers of Teutons, who had effected a settlement either by force, or by favour of the prior inhabitants. The statement of Tacitus, however, those who uphold the Celtic theory endeavour to explain away.

We may safely say then, that with regard to all the most important points that have excited the curiosity of modern enquirers, the only contemporary historians to whom we can appeal, leave us almost entirely in the dark.

The writers, next in order of importance to whom an appeal is made as witnesses in this perplexing case, are the ecclesiastical chroniclers, the chief of whom are Gildas, Adamnan, Bede, Nennius. “Much of the error into which former writers have been led, has arisen from an improper use of these authors; they should be consulted exclusively as contemporary historians—whatever they assert as existing or occurring in their own time, or shortly before it, we may receive as true; but when we consider the perverted learning of that period, and the little information which they appear to have possessed of the traditions of the people around them, we ought to reject their fables or fanciful origins as altogether undeserving of credit.”[38] Though this dictum may perhaps be too sweeping, still any one who examines the authors referred to for himself, must admit that it is in the main just. It is well known that these writers exercise little or no discrimination in the composition of their narratives, that tradition, miracle, and observed fact are placed side by side, as all equally worthy of belief. Even Bede, the most reliable and[21] cautious of these early chroniclers, lived as long after some of the events of which he professes to give an account, as we of the present day do after the time of the Crusades; almost his sole authority being tradition or hearsay. Moreover, the knowledge which these writers had of the distinction between the various races of mankind was so very hazy, the terms they use are to us so comparatively unintelligible, and the information they do contain on the points in dispute so brief, vague, and parenthetical, that their value as authorities is reduced almost to a minimum.

Whoever was the author of the work De Excidio Britanniæ, one of the latest and most acute writers[39] on ethnology has shown that he is almost totally unworthy of credit, the sources of his information being exceedingly suspicious, and his statements proved to be false by comparison with trustworthy contemporary Roman historians. There is every reason to believe that the so-called Gildas—for by Mr. Wright[40] he has been reduced to a nominis umbra—lived and wrote about the middle of the 6th century A.D., so that, had he used ordinary diligence and discrimination, he might have been of considerable assistance in enabling us to solve the perplexing mystery of the Pictish question. But indeed we have no right to look for much history in the work of Gildas, as it professes to be merely a complaint “on the general destruction of every thing that is good, and the general growth of evil throughout the land;” it is his purpose, he says, “to relate the deeds of an indolent and slothful race, rather than the exploits of those who have been valiant in the field.”[41] So far as the origin and early history of the Picts is concerned, Gildas is of almost no value whatever, the only time he mentions the Picts being incidentally to notice an invasion they had made into the Roman provinces.[42] If we can trust him, the Picts and their allies, the Scots, must have been very fierce enemies to deal with. They went about, he tells us, almost entirely destitute of clothes, having their faces covered with bushy hair, and were in the habit of dragging the poor enervated Britons from the top of their protecting wall with hooked weapons, slaughtering them without mercy. Some writers infer from this narrative that, during the Roman occupation, no permanent settlement of Scots had been effected in present Scotland, but that the Scots who assisted the Picts came over from their native Scotland (Ireland) for that purpose; he tells us that the Scots came from the north-west, and the Picts from the north.[43] “North-west” here, however, would apply quite as well to Argyle as to Ireland.

The writer next in chronological order from whom we derive any information of consequence concerning the Picts is Adamnan, a member of the early Irish Church, who was born in the county of Donegal about the year 625, elected abbot of Iona in 679, and who died in the year 704. Adamnan wrote a life of his great predecessor St. Columba, in which is contained much information concerning that great missionary’s labours among the Northern Picts; and although he narrates many stories which are palpably incredible, still the book contains much which may with confidence be accepted as fact. In connection with the questions under consideration, we learn that, in the time of Columba and Adamnan, there were—as formerly, in the time of the Roman writers—two divisions of the Picts, known in the 7th century and afterwards as the Northern and Southern Picts. Adamnan informs us that Columba’s mission was to the Northern Picts alone,—the southern division having been converted by St. Ninian in the 5th century. There has been much disputation as to the precise district inhabited by each of these two divisions of the Picts,—some maintaining that the southern division occupied the country to the south of the Forth and Clyde, while the Northern Picts occupied the whole district to the north of these estuaries. The best authorities, however, are of opinion that both divisions dwelt to the north of Antonine’s wall, and were divided from each other by the Grampians.

What more immediately concerns our present purpose is a passage in Adamnan’s work in which he speaks of Columba preaching to the Picts through an interpreter. Now Columba[22] was an Irish Scot, whose native tongue was Gaelic, and it is from this argued that the Picts to whom he preached must have spoken a different language, or at least dialect, and belonged to a different race or tribe from the saint himself. Mr. Skene,[44] who ably advocates the Gaelic origin of the Picts, perceiving this difficulty, endeavours to explain away the force of the passage by making it mean that Columba “interpreted or explained the word of God, that is, the Bible, which, being written in Latin, would doubtless require to be interpreted to them.” The passage as quoted by Skene is, “Verbo Dei per interpretorem recepto.” Garnett, however, one of the most competent and candid writers on this question in its philological aspect, and who maintains, with the greatest clearness and ability, the Cymric origin of the Picts, looks at the passage in a different light. The entire passage, he says,[45] as it stands in Colganus, is as follows:—“Alio in tempore quo sanctus Columba in Pictorum provincia per aliquot demorabatur dies, quidam cum tota plebeius familia, verbum vitæ per interpretorem, Sancto prædicante viro, audiens credidit, credensque baptizatus est.”[46] “Here it will be observed,” continues Garnett, “Adamnan does not say, ‘verbum Dei,’ which might have been construed to mean the Scripture, but ‘verbum vitæ, Sancto prædicante viro,’ which can hardly mean anything but ‘the word of life, as it was preached by the Saint.’” Certainly, we think, the unprejudiced reader must admit that, so far as this point is concerned, Mr. Garnett has the best of it. Although at that time the Gaelic and Cymric dialects may have had much more in common than they have at the present day, nevertheless it appears to be beyond a doubt that the difference between the two was so great that a Gael would be unintelligible to a speaker of Cymric.[47]

The next and most important authority of this class on this quæstio vexata is the Venerable Bede, who, considering the age in which he lived, exercised so much caution and discrimination, that he deserves to be listened to with respect. Bede was born about 673. He was educated in the Monastery of Wearmouth, whence he removed to Jarrow, where he was ordained deacon in his nineteenth year, and priest in his thirtieth, and where he spent the rest of his days, dying in 735. He wrote many works, but the most important is the Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum, the materials for which he obtained chiefly from native chronicles and biographies, records and public documents, and oral and written communications from contemporaries.

We shall transcribe most of the passage in which Bede speaks of the ancient inhabitants of Britain; so that our readers may be able to judge for themselves of the nature and value of the testimony borne by this venerable author. It must, however, be kept in mind that Bede does not pretend to give any but the ecclesiastical history of the English nation, everything else being subsidiary to this.

“This island at present, following the number of the books in which the Divine law was written, contains five nations, the English, Britons, Scots, Picts, and Latins, each in its own peculiar dialect cultivating the sublime study of Divine truth. The Latin tongue is, by the study of the Scriptures, become common to all the rest. At first this island had no other inhabitants but the Britons, from whom it derived its name, and who coming over into Britain, as is reported, from Armorica, possessed themselves of the southern parts thereof. When they, beginning at the south, had made themselves master of the greatest part of the island, it happened, that the nation of the[23] Picts coming into the ocean from Scythia, as is reported, in a few tall ships, were driven by the winds beyond the shores of Britain and arrived off Ireland, on the northern coasts, where, finding the nation of the Scots, they requested to be allowed to settle among them, but could not succeed in obtaining their request. The Scots answered, that the island could not contain them both; but ‘we can give you good advice,’ said they, ‘what to do; we know there is another island, not far from ours, to the eastward, which we often see at a distance, when the days are clear. If you will repair thither, you may be able to obtain settlements; or if they should oppose you, you may make use of us as auxiliaries.’ The Picts accordingly sailing over into Britain, began to inhabit the northern parts thereof, for the Britons were possessed of the southern. Now the Picts having no wives, and asking them of the Scots, they would not consent to grant them upon any other terms, than that when any difficulty should arise, they should rather choose themselves a king from the female royal race than from the male; which custom, as is well known, has been observed among the Picts to this day. In process of time, Britain, besides the Britons and the Picts, received a third nation, the Scots, who, departing out of Ireland under their leader Reuda, either by fair means, or by force of arms, secured to themselves those settlements among the Picts which they still possess. From the name of their commander, they are to this day called Dalreudins; for in their language Dal signifies a part.... It is properly the country of the Scots, who, migrating from thence, as has been said, added a third nation in Britain to the Britons and the Picts. There is a very large gulf of the sea, which formerly divided the nation of the Picts from the Britons; which gulf runs from the west very far into the land, where, to this day, stands the strong city of the Britons, called Alcluith. The Scots arriving on the north side of this bay, settled themselves there.”[48]

Here then Bede informs us that in his time the common report was that the Picts came into Scotland from Scythia, which, like the Germania of Tacitus, may be taken to mean the northern countries of Europe generally. This is substantially the same statement as that of the author of the Historia Britonum, commonly called Nennius, who lived in the 9th century, and who informs us that the Picts coming to Scotland about 300 B.C., occupied the Orkney Islands, whence issuing, they laid waste many regions, and seized those on the left-hand side, i.e. the north of Britain, where they still remained in the writer’s time, keeping possession of a third part of Britain.[49]

Supposing that Bede’s report was quite in accordance with truth, still it gives us but small help in coming to a conclusion as to the place of these Picts among the families of men. It is certain that by far the greater part of Europe had at one time a Celtic population who preceded, but ultimately gave way to another wave of emigrants from the east. Now, if we knew the date at which this so-called migration of the Picts took place it might be of considerable assistance to us; but as we cannot now find out whether these emigrants proceeded from a Celtic or a Teutonic stock, the statement of Bede, even if reliable, helps us not at all towards a solution of the question as to the race of the Picts. Innes[50] remarks very justly on this point—“Now, supposing that there were any good ground for the opinion of these two writers, which they themselves give only as a conjecture or hearsay, and that we had any certainty of the Caledonians, or Picts, having had their origin from the more northern parts of the European continent, it were an useless, as well as an endless discussion, to examine in particular from which of all the northern nations of the continent the first colony came to Caledonia; because that these nations of the north were almost in perpetual motion, and changing habitations, as Strabo remarks; and he assigns for it two reasons: the one, because of the barrenness of the soil, they tilled not the ground, and built habitations only for a day; the other, because being often overpowered by their neighbours, they were forced to remove. Another reason why it is impossible to know from which of[24] those nations the northern parts of Britain, (supposing they came from thence) were at first peopled, is because we have but very lame accounts of these northern nations from the Greek or Roman writers, (from whom alone we can look for any thing certain in those early times) especially of those of Scandia, to the north of the Baltic sea, as the same Strabo observes. Besides, it appears that Caledonia was peopled long before the inhabitants of these northern parts of the continent were mentioned, or even known by the most ancient writers we have; and perhaps before the first nations mentioned by them were settled in those parts.”

There is, however, another statement made by Bede in the passage quoted, upon which, as it refers to his own time, much more reliance can be placed; it is, that in his time Britain contained five nations, each having its own peculiar dialect, viz., the English, Britons, Scots, Picts, and Latins. We know that the English spoke in the main Saxon; the Britons, i.e., the inhabitants of Wales, Cumbria, &c., Welsh; the Scots, Gaelic; the Latins, we suppose, being the Romanized Britons and ecclesiastics. What language then did the Picts speak? As we know that Bede never travelled, he must have got his information from an informant or by hearsay, which circumstance rather detracts from its value. But supposing we take the passage literally as it stands, we learn that in Bede’s time there were five distinct peoples or nations, whose names he gives, sharing among them the island. He does not say there were five distinct tongues, which would have been quite a different statement; he speaks of them not so much in respect of their language as in respect of their being the separate items which composed the inhabitants of Britain. In his time they were all quite distinct, in a measure independent of and at enmity with each other. He does not classify them in respect of the race to which they belonged, but with reference to the particular districts which they inhabited, and perhaps with regard to the time and means of their conversion to Christianity, each having been converted at a different time and by a different saint. The substance then of what he says appears to be, that there were in his time five distinct tribes or congregations of people in Britain, each converted to Christianity, and each having the gospel preached in its own tongue. Supposing that the Picts and Scots, or Picts and Britons, or Picts and English did speak exactly the same tongue, it is not at all likely that Bede, in the present case, would have classed them together as both being one nation. Moreover, suppose we allow that Bede did mean that each of these nations spoke a language quite distinct from all the others, then his statement cuts equally at the Gothic and Celtic theory. The conclusion we are forced to is, that from this passage nothing can be gained to help us out of our difficulty.

There is a statement at the end of the passage quoted to which we would draw the reader’s attention, as being Bede’s way, and no doubt the universal way in his time, of accounting for a peculiar law which appears to have regulated the succession to the Pictish throne, and which ultimately, according to some, was the means of placing on that throne a Scottish monarch; thus accounting to some extent for the sudden disappearance and apparent destruction of the Pictish people and language.

We shall here refer to one other passage in the same historian, which has perhaps given rise to greater and more acrimonious contention than any other point in connection with this wordy discussion. The only word that has come down to us, which, with the exception of the names of the Pictish kings, we can be sure is a remnant of the Pictish language, is the name said by Bede to have been given to the eastern termination of the wall of Antonine. Bede,[51] in speaking of the turf wall built by the Britons of Valentia in the beginning of the 5th century, says, “it begins at about two miles distance from the monastery of Abercorn on the west, at a place called in the Pictish language Peanfahel, but in the English tongue Penneltum.” This statement of Bede’s is straightforward and clear enough, and has never been disputed by any writer on any one of the three sides of the question. Nevertheless it has been used by the advocates respectively of the Gothic, Gaelic, and[25] Cymric origin of the Picts, as an undoubted proof of the correctness of each of these theories. Pinkerton, whose dishonesty and acrimoniousness are well known, and must detract considerably from the force of his arguments, claims it as being entirely Gothic or Teutonic. “The Pictish word,” he says,[52] “is broad Gothic; Paena ‘to extend,’ Ihre; and Vahel, a broad sound of veal, the Gothic for ‘wall,’ or of the Latin vallum, contracted val; hence it means ‘the extent or end of the wall.’” This statement of Pinkerton’s may be dismissed as too far-fetched and awkward to merit much consideration, and we may safely regard the word as capable of satisfactory explanation only in Celtic. Innes, who upholds the British, i.e. the Cymric, origin of the Picts, says,[53] “we nowhere find a clearer proof of the Pictish language being the same as the British [Welsh], than in Bede, where he tells us that Penuahel in Pictish signifies the head of the wall, which is just the signification that the same two words Pen and Uahel have in the British.” In this opinion Chalmers and other advocates of the Cymric theory coincide. Mr. Garnett, who essentially agrees with Innes and Chalmers as to the Cymric origin of the Picts, lays little stress upon this word as furnishing an argument in support of his theory. “Almost the only Pictish word given us by an ancient writer is the well-known Pen val (or as it appears in the oldest MSS. of Bede (Peann fahel)), the name given by the Picts to the Wall’s End, or eastern termination of the Vallum of Antoninus. It is scarcely necessary to say the first part of the word is decidedly Cymric; pen, head, being contrary to all Gaelic analogy. The latter half might be plausibly claimed as the Gaelic fal; gwall being the more common termination in Welsh for a wall or rampart. Fal, however, does occur in Welsh in the sense of inclosure, a signification not very remote.”[54]

The two most recent and able supporters[55] of the Gaelic theory are of much the same mind as Garnett, and appear to regard this tantalizing word as affording no support to either side. Burton[56] cannot admit that anything has been made out of this leading to a historical conclusion.

We may safely conclude, then, that this so called Pictish word, or, indeed, any information which we find in Bede, affords us no key to the perplexing question of the origin and race of the Picts.

We learn, however, one fact from Bede[57] which is so far satisfactory, viz., that in his time there were two divisions of the Picts, known as the Northern and Southern Picts, which were separated from each other by steep and rugged mountains. On reading the passage in Bede, one very naturally supposes that the steep and rugged mountains must be the Grampians, to which the expression applies more aptly than to any other mountain-chain in Scotland. Even this, however, has been made matter of dispute, it being contended by some that the locality of the Southern Picts was in the south-west and south of Scotland, where some writers set up a powerful Pictish kingdom. Mr. Grub,[58] however, has clearly shown that the locality of the Southern Picts was to the north of the Forth and Clyde, and to the south of the Grampians. “The mistake formerly so common in regard to the country of the Southern Picts converted by St. Ninian, was in part owing to the situation of Candida Casa. It was supposed that his see must have been in the country of those whom he converted.” He clearly proves that it was not so in reality, and that there was nothing so unusual in the situation as to justify the conclusion which was drawn from it. “It was, no doubt, the case that the teachers by whom the chief Celtic and Teutonic nations were converted generally fixed their seat among those whom they instructed in the faith. But there was no necessity for this, especially when the residence of the teacher was in the neighbourhood of his converts. St. Columba was primate of all the churches of the Northern Picts, but he did not permanently reside among that nation. St. Ninian had ready access to his[26] Pictish converts, and could govern them as easily from his White Church on the Solway, as Columba could instruct and rule the Northern Picts from his monastery in Iona.”[59]

Other authorities appealed to by the upholders of each of the Celtic theories are the Welsh traditions, the Irish Annals, the Chronicles of the Picts and Scots, and various legendary documents of more or less value and authenticity. As these are of no greater authority than the writers with whom we have been dealing, and as the partisans of each theory claim the various passages as either confirming, or, at any rate, not contradicting their views, we shall not further trouble the reader with specimens of the manner in which they are dealt with. There is one passage, however, in the Welsh Triads, which the advocates of the Gaelic hypothesis claim as strongly confirmatory of their theory. After referring to the coming in of the Cymry, the Britons, etc., the Triads[60] go on to say, “Three tribes came, under protection, into the Island of Britain, and by the consent and permission of the nation of the Cymry, without weapon, without assault. The first was the tribe of the Caledonians in the north. The second was the Gwyddelian Race, which are now in Alban (Scotland). The third were the men of Galedin, who came into the Isle of Wight. Three usurping tribes came into the Island of Britain and never departed out of it. The first were the Coranied, who came from the land of Pwyl. The second were the Gwyddelian Ffichti, who came into Alban over the sea of Llychlyn (Denmark). The third were the Saxons.” “The Triads,” says Skene[61] in connection with this, “appear distinctly to have been written previous to the Scottish conquest in the ninth century, and they mention among the three usurping tribes of Britain the ‘Gwyddyl Ffichti,’ and add immediately afterwards, ‘and these Gwyddyl Ffichti are in Alban, along the shore of the sea of Llychlyn.’ In another place, among the treacherous tribes of Britain, the same Triads mention the ‘Gwyddyl coch o’r Werddon a ddaethant in Alban,’ that is ‘the Red Gwyddyl from Ireland, who came into Alban,’ plainly alluding to the Dalriads, who were an Irish colony, and who have been acknowledged by all to have been a Gaelic race. It will be observed from these passages that the Welsh Triads, certainly the oldest and most unexceptionable authority on the subject, apply the same term of Gwyddyl to the Picts and to the Dalriads, and consequently they must have been of the same race, and the Picts a Gaelic people. Farther, the Welsh word ‘Gwyddyl,’ by which they distinguish that race, has been declared by all the best authorities to be exactly synonymous with the word Gael, the name by which the Highlanders have at all times been distinguished, and the Welsh words ‘Gwyddyl Ffichti’ cannot be interpreted to mean any thing else than ‘The Gaelic Picts,’ or ‘Pictish Gael.’”

The following is the substance of the information given by the Irish writers as to the origin, race, and early history of the Picts. The greater part of it is, of course, mere tradition, accumulating as it grew older, and heightened by the imagination of the writers themselves.[62] The Picts were called by the Irish writers Cruithnidh, which O’Brien considers to be the same as Britneigh, or Britons; but according to others the name was derived from Cruthen, who founded the kingdom of the Picts in North Britain, in the first century; others derive the name from Cruit, a harp, hence Cruitneach, the Irish for Pict, also signifies a harper, as they are said to have been celebrated harpers. The ancient Britons are mentioned by Cæsar, and other Roman writers, to have painted their bodies of a blue colour, with the juice of a plant called woad, hence the painted Britons were called by the Romans Picti. The Picts or Cruthneans, according to the Psalter of Cashel, and other ancient annals, came from Thrace, in the reign of the Milesian monarch Heremon, nearly a thousand years before the Christian era, and landed at Inver Slainge, now the Bay of Wexford, under two chief commanders named Gud and Cathluan, but not being permitted to settle in Ireland, they sailed to Albain, or that part of North Britain, now Scotland, their chiefs having been kindly[27] supplied with wives of Irish birth. The Cruthneans became possessed of North Britain, and founded there the kingdom of the Picts. A colony of the Cruthneans, or Picts, from North Britain, settled in Ulster in early times, and are often mentioned from the first to the ninth century; they resided chiefly in Dalaradia and Tir Eogain, or parts of Down, Antrim, and Derry, and became mixed by intermarriages with the old Irish of the Irian race, and were ruled over by their own princes and chiefs; and some of those Picts, also settled in Connaught, in the county of Roscommon. According to the Irish writers, the Picts, in their first progress to Ireland from Thrace, settled a colony in Gaul, and the tribes called Pictones and Pictavi, in that country, were descended from them, and they gave name to Pictavia, or the city of Poictiers, and the province of Poitou; and from these Picts were descended the Vendeans of France. The Caledonians, or first inhabitants of Scotland, are considered to have been the same as the Picts, and mixed with Cimbrians or Britons, and some of the Milesian Scots from Ireland.

The advocates of the various theories, apparently aware of how little can be made of the meagre and suspicious information afforded by these early histories and chronicles, have latterly made language the principal battle-ground on which to fight out this endless and profitless strife. Most of them take for granted that if the language spoken by any people can be found out, a sure indication is afforded of the race to which that people belonged; and that the topography of a country must necessarily have been imposed by the earliest inhabitants of whom we have record; and that, if so, the limits of their territory must have been co-extensive with the limits of such topography. This, however, is going too far. All the length to which we are permitted in fairness to go, when we find in any district or country an abundance of names of natural objects, as rivers and mountains, which can with certainty be traced to any particular language, is, that at one time or other, a race of people speaking this language must have passed over and dwelt for some time in that particular district or country. We find Celtic names of rivers and mountains scattered all over Europe, in the midst of peoples who are admitted on all hands to have little or none of the Celtic element in them.[63] So that an unprejudiced judge must admit that the fact of Cymric and Gaelic words being found in certain districts of the north of Scotland argues only that at one time people speaking these dialects must have dwelt in these districts. It affords no proof by itself that the people whom we first meet with in these districts are the people who spoke these dialects, and who imposed these names; nor indeed, if we could be sure that the people whom we first meet with as inhabitants also spoke the dialect to which such names belong, does it prove that they were the imposers of these names, that the dialect was their native and original tongue, and that they had not acquired it either as conquerors or conquered. Nor can it be adduced as a proof of sameness of race, that the present inhabitants of any particular district speak the same language as those who inhabited that district 1800 years ago or less. “He who trusts to language, and especially to written language, alone, as an index to race, must be prepared to maintain that the Gallic nation emigrated from the seven hills of Rome, and that the Franks came with them; that the Romans extirpated the Celts and Iberians of Spain, and that the Goths and Moors spoke nearly the same language as the Romans; that the Negroes of the United States and Jamaica were exported from England when in their infancy. So would Philology, if left to herself, interpret phenomena, of which we know, from other sources of information, that the causes are totally different.”[64] “The clearest proof that a mountain or river has a Celtic name, only shows that at some time or other Celts had been there; it does not tell us when they were there. Names, as the experience of the world amply shows, live after the people who bestowed them have long disappeared, and that through successive races of occupants.”[65]

The materials which have been wrought up into a linguistic argument by the upholders of each of the three Pictish theories, Gothic, Gaelic, and Cymric, are chiefly a list of Pictish[28] kings which, we believe, may be depended on as authentic, and the topography of the country to the east and south-east of the Grampians, together with the single so-called Pictish word Peanfahel, which we have already considered. The theorists differ as much in their interpretation of the significance of what remains of the Pictish language, as we have seen they do in their interpretation of any references to the subject in dispute in ancient chronicles. The names of the kings, and the names of places have been traced by the disputants to Gothic, Gaelic and Cymric roots. As an amusing specimen of the ingenuity displayed in this hunt after roots, we give below a small table from Burton, comparing the different etymologies of names of kings given by Pinkerton, Chalmers, and Jamieson.[66]

It is, however, generally admitted at the present day, that so far as language is concerned, the Gothic theory has not the remotest chance; that names of places and of kings are most satisfactorily and straightforwardly explained by Cymric roots. As the Gothic or Teutonic theory cannot stand the test of modern criticism, we shall content ourselves with giving specimens of the manner in which the linguistic, or, more strictly, topographical argument is used by the advocates of the Cymric and Gaelic hypotheses respectively.

The Cymric argument is clearly, ably, and succinctly stated by Mr. Garnett in his essay on “The Relation of the Pict and Gael;” he, however, it must be remembered, looked at the whole question mainly in its philological aspect. In stating the argument we shall use chiefly his own words.[67] “That the Picts were actually Celts, and not of Teutonic race, is proved to a demonstration by the names of their kings; of whom a list, undoubtedly genuine from the fifth century downwards, was published by Innes, from a manuscript in the Colbertine library. Some of those appellations are, as far as we know at present, confined to the Pictish sovereigns; but others are well-known Welsh and Gaelic names. They differ, however, slightly in their forms, from their Cymric equivalents; and more decidedly so from the Gaelic ones; and, as far as they go, lead to the supposition that those who bore them spoke a language bearing a remote analogy to the Irish with its cognates, but a pretty close one to the Welsh.

“In the list furnished by Innes the names Maelcon, Elpin, Taran (i.e. thunder), Uven (Owen), Bargoit, are those of personages well known in British history or tradition. Wrgust, which appears as Fergus in the Irish annals, is the Welsh Gwrgust. Talorg, Talorgan, evidently contain the British word Tal, forehead, a common element in proper names; ex. gr. Talhaiarn, Iron Forehead; Taliesin, splendid forehead, &c. Taleurgain would signify in Welsh golden or splendid front. Three kings are represented as sons of Wid, in the Irish annals of Foit or Foith. In Welsh orthography it would be Gwydd, wild; a common name in Brittany at the present day, under the form of Gwez. The names Drust, Drostan, Wrad, Necton (in Bede Naitan), closely resemble the Welsh Trwst, Trwstan, Gwriad, Nwython. It will be sufficient to compare the entire list with the Irish or Highland genealogies, to be convinced that there must have been a material distinction between the two [29]branches. Most of the Pictish names are totally unknown in Irish or Highland history, and the few that are equivalent, such as Angus and Fergus, generally differ in form. The Irish annalists have rather obscured the matter, by transforming those names according to their national system of orthography; but it is remarkable that a list in the ‘Book of Ballymote,’ partly given by Lynch in his ‘Cambrensis Eversus,’ agrees closely with Innes, even preserving the initial w or u where the Gaelic would require f. The philological inferences to be deduced from this document may be thus briefly summed up:—1. The names of the Pictish kings are not Gaelic, the majority of them being totally unknown both in the Irish and Highland dialects, while the few which have Gaelic equivalents decidedly differ from them in form. Cineod (Kenneth) and Domhnall or Donnel, appear to be the only exceptions. 2. Some of them cannot be identified as Welsh; but the greater number are either identical with or resemble known Cymric names; or approach more nearly to Welsh in structure and orthography than to any other known language. 3. There appears nevertheless to have been a distinction, amounting, at all events, to a difference in dialect. The Pictish names beginning with w would in Welsh have gw, as Gwrgust for Wrgust, and so of the rest. There may have been other differences sufficient to justify Bede’s statement that the Pictish language was distinct from the British, which it might very well be without any impeachment of its claim to be reckoned as closely cognate.”

We have already referred to the use made of the Pictish word Peannfahel, preserved by Bede, and to the phrase in Adamnan concerning Columba’s preaching by means of an interpreter. It is contended by the upholders of the Cymric theory that the ancient topographical appellations of the Pictish territory can in general only be explained by the Cymric dialects, one strong point being the number of local names beginning with the Welsh prefix aber, which, according to Chalmers, was in several instances subsequently changed by the Gael into inver. Skene,[68] who felt the force of this argument, tried to get rid of it by contending that aber is essentially a Gaelic word, being compounded of ath, ford, and bior, water. Garnett thinks this explanation utterly gratuitous, and observes that the term may be much more satisfactorily accounted for by a different process. “There are,” he observes,[69] “three words in Welsh denoting a meeting of waters—aber, cynver, and ynver,—respectively compounded of the particles a, denoting juxtaposition, cyn (Lat. con), and yn, with the root ber, flowing, preserved in the Breton verb beri, to flow, and all virtually equivalent to our word confluence. Inver is the only term known in any Gaelic dialect, either as an appellative or in proper names; and not a single local appellation with the prefix aber occurs either in Ireland or the Hebrides, or on the west coast of Scotland. Indeed, the fact that inver was substituted for it after the Gaelic occupation of the Pictish territories, is decisive evidence on the point; for, if aber was a term familiar to the Gael, why should they change it?”

“In Scotland,” says Isaac Taylor,[70] who upholds the Cymric hypothesis, “the invers and abers are distributed in a curious and instructive manner. If we draw a line across the map from a point a little south of Inverary, to one a little north of Aberdeen, we shall find that (with very few exceptions) the invers lie to the north west of the line, and the abers to the south-east of it. This line nearly coincides with the present southern limit of the Gaelic tongue, and probably also with the ancient division between the Picts and Scots. Hence we may conclude that the Picts, a people belonging to the Cymric branch of the Celtic stock, and whose language has now ceased to be anywhere vernacular, occupied the central and eastern districts of Scotland, as far as the Grampians; while the Gadhelic Scots have retained their language, and have given their name to the whole country. The local names prove, moreover, that in Scotland the Cymry did not encroach on the Gael, but the Gael on the Cymry. The intrusive names are invers, which invaded the land of the abers. Thus on the shore of the Frith of Forth we find a few invers among the abers. The Welsh word uchel, high, may also[30] be adduced to prove the Cymric affinities of the Picts. This word does not exist in either the Erse or the Gaelic languages, and yet it appears in the name of the Ochil Hills, in Perthshire. Again, the Erse bally, a town, occurs in 2,000 names in Ireland; and, on the other hand, is entirely absent in Wales and Brittany. In Scotland this most characteristic test-word is found frequently in the inver district, while it never appears among the abers. The evidence of these names makes it impossible to deny that the Celts of the Scottish Lowlands must have belonged to the Cymric branch of the Celtic stock.”

We infer from what Mr. Taylor says, that he is of opinion that at one time the language of the whole of the north of Scotland was Cymric, but that the district in which the Scots obtained a settlement afterwards underwent a change of topography. But it is admitted on all hands that the Scottish Dalriada comprehended no more than the modern Argyllshire, extending no farther north than Loch Leven and Loch Linnhe; and that the Irish Scots had little influence on the people or their language to the north-west of the Grampians. Indeed, Skene[71] maintains that this district, in which he places the Northern Picts, was never subjected to the Scots, and that it was only the Southern Picts who latterly came under their sway. Yet we find that the abers here are few and far between, or, indeed, any indications of Cymric possession such as we find in the southern district. Is it possible that the Northern and Southern Picts were representatives of the two great divisions of the Celts,—the former claiming a Gaelic origin, and the latter a Cymric? Perhaps after all the Welsh Triads may in course of time be of some help in the solution of this dark problem, as, according to them, there was more than one Celtic settlement in Scotland before the migration of the Scots. The passages above quoted are, to all appearance, much more favourable to the Gaelic than to the Cymric hypothesis, and have been made much of by Skene and other supporters of that side of the question.

The Cymric origin of the Picts, besides Garnett and Taylor, is supported by such names as Innes, Chalmers, Ritson, Whittaker, Grub, and others.

Pinkerton, it is well known, is the great and unscrupulous upholder of the Gothic origin of the Picts; while the Gaelic theory has for its supporters such writers, of undoubted ability and acuteness, as Skene, E. W. Robertson, Forbes-Leslie, &c. Burton[72] is of opinion that the Highlanders of the present day are the true representatives of the Dalriadic Scots of the West.

We shall, as we have done in the case of the other side, allow the upholders of the Gaelic hypothesis to state for themselves the Gaelic topographical argument. We shall use the words of Colonel Forbes-Leslie, who, in his invaluable work on the “Early Races of Scotland,”[73] says, “The Celtic words Inver and Aber have nearly the same meaning; and the relative position in which they occur in names of places has been employed as if it were a sufficient argument for defining the presence or preponderance of the British or Gaelic Celts in certain districts. In this way Aber, prefixed to names of places, has been urged as adequate proof that the Picts of Caledonia were Celts of the British branch. The value of these and some other words requires examination. Inver is to be found in names of places in Wales. It may possibly be a British word. It certainly is a Gaelic one. Aber, although undoubtedly British, is also Gaelic—compounded of the two words Ath and Bior—and signifying the same as Inver, viz., the confluence of two streams, or the entrance to a river. If the word Aber had been unknown to the Gaelic scholars of modern days, its former existence in that language might have been presumed from the ancient names of places in the districts of Caledonia, where it occurs most frequently, being generally Gaelic and not British.

“Beyond the limits of Caledonia on the south of the Forth and Clyde, but within the boundary of modern Scotland, the word Inver, generally pronounced Inner, is of common occurrence, and bears witness to a Gaelic nomenclature. Thus, Inner or Inverkip, in the county of Renfrew; Innerwell, in the county of Wigton;[31] Innerwick, in the county of Haddington; Innerleithen, in the county of Peebles; Inverleith and Inveresk, in the county of Edinburgh, derive their names from their situation in regard to the rivers Kip, Leithen, Esk, &c. &c.

“From the Moray Frith to the Forth, in the eastern counties of Caledonia, the prefix Inver or Aber is used indiscriminately in contiguous places. At the confluence of lesser streams with the river Dee, in Aberdeenshire, we find Inverey, Abergeldie, Invercauld, Invercanny, Aberdeen. Yet in those counties—viz., Aberdeen, Kincardine, Forfar, Perth, and Fife, in which were situated the capitals, and which were the richest provinces of the southern Picts—the number of names of places beginning with Inver is three times as numerous as those commencing with Aber; there being, in a list taken from land-registers, which do not go farther back than the middle of the sixteenth century, seventy-eight with Inver to twenty-four with Aber. It may, however, be admitted that, although Aber is Gaelic, its use is far more general by Celts of the British tribes; and that the predominance of Inver in the districts north of the Spey, and the intermixture of places the names of which commence with Inver or Aber, not unfrequently used in records of nearly the same date for the same place in the country lying between the Moray and the Solway Friths, is, to a certain extent, evidence of a British element of population extending into Caledonia. The Britons, in earlier times, may have been pressing on to the north by gradual intrusion, and were probably afterwards increased by bodies of exiles escaping from the severity of Roman bondage and the punishment of unsuccessful revolt.

“That names of places containing the words Bal, from Bail, a place or residence, and Ard, a height or rising ground, are so common in Ireland, and comparatively rare, so it is alleged, in Caledonia, has also been used as an argument to prove that the language of the Picts and other Caledonians of the southern and eastern districts was British, not Gaelic. But the foundation of the argument has been assumed, and is easily disproved. It is true that of large towns and places that appear in gazeteers, names commencing with Bal and Ard are not numerous. But in fact such names are extremely common. In the lowlands of Aberdeenshire—that is, in the portion of one county, and in the part of Caledonia farthest removed from the settlements of the intrusive Gaels, viz., the Scots from Ireland—registers of land show upwards of fifty places the names of which commence with Bal, and forty which commence with Ard. In the Pictish territory, from the Moray Frith to the Forth, I soon collected upwards of four hundred names of places beginning with Bal, and upwards of one hundred with Ard; and the number might easily be doubled.”

Mr. E. W. Robertson, one of the latest and ablest upholders of this theory, thinks[74] there is scarcely sufficient evidence to justify any very decided conclusion as to the pre-existence of a Cymric population; and that, whilst it would be unquestionably erroneous to ascribe a Cymric origin to the Picts, the existence of a Celtic element akin to the Cymri, amongst the population of Alban before the arrival of the Gwyddel Ffichti, must remain to a certain extent an open question.

Of all a priori theories that have hitherto been advanced as to how Scotland was likely to have been at first peopled, that of Father Innes, the first writer who investigated the subject thoroughly and critically, appears to us to be the most plausible and natural, although even it is beset with many difficulties. It appears to him more natural and probable that the Caledonian Britons, or Picts, were of the same origin as the Britons of the south; that as these came in originally from the nearest coast of Gaul, as they multiplied in the island, they advanced to the north and settled there, carrying with them the customs and language of the South Britons.[75]

We have thus endeavoured to lay before the reader, as fully as space permits, and as clearly and unprejudicedly as possible, the materials at present existing by means of which to form an opinion on the Pictish question, and the arguments pro and con, mainly in their own words, urged by the partisans of the different theories. It appears to us that[32] the data within reach are far too scanty to justify any one in coming to a settled conclusion, and that we must wait for more light before we can be justified in finally making up our minds on this perplexing subject.[76]

At the present day we find that nearly the whole of the territory said to have been originally occupied by the Picts, is inhabited, and has been for centuries, by a population which in appearance is far more Teutonic than Celtic, and which undoubtedly speaks a broad Teutonic dialect.[77] And even in the district where the Gaelic language has been triumphant for ages, it is acknowledged even by the most devoted partisans of the Gaelic theory, that among the population there is a very considerable intermixture of the Teutonic element. Burton thinks, from a general view of the whole question, that the proportion of the Teutonic race that came into the use of the Gaelic, was much greater than the proportion of the Gaelic that came into the use of the Teutonic or Saxon, and that this may account for the contrasts of physical appearance to be seen in the Highlands.

We certainly have not exhausted the statement of the question, have not stated fully and completely all the points in dispute; nor do we pretend to have given with fulness all the arguments pro and con on the various sides. We have, however, given as much as will enable any ordinary reader to form for himself a fair idea of the present state of the Pictish question, and indicated the sources whence more information may be derived, should any one wish to pursue the subject farther. In the words of the latest and greatest Scottish historian “this brief survey of the great Pictish controversy leaves nothing but a melancholy record of wasted labour and defeated ambition. It has been more fruitless than a polemical or a political dispute, for these leave behind them, either for good or evil, their marks upon the conduct and character of the populations among whom they have raged; while here a vast outlay of learning, ingenuity, enthusiasm, and, it must be added, temper, have left no visible monument but a pile of forbidding volumes, in which should any one who has not studied the matter fundamentally expect to find instructive information, he will assuredly be led into a tangled maze of unintelligible pedantry, from which he will come forth with no impression but a nightmare feeling of hopeless struggle with difficulties.”[78]

CHAPTER III.

A.D. 446–843.

As we have already said, the materials for the internal history of the Highlands during the Roman occupation are of the scantiest, nearly all that can be recorded being the struggles of the northern tribes with the Roman invaders, and the incursions of the former and their allies into the territories of the Romanized Britons. Doubtless many events as worthy of record as these, an account of which has been[33] preserved, were during this period being transacted in the northern part of Scotland, and we have seen that many additions, from various quarters, must have been made to the population. However, there are no records extant which enable us to form any distinct notion of the nature of these events, and history cannot be manufactured.

After the departure of the Romans, the provincial Britons of the south of Scotland were completely at the mercy of the Picts as well as the Saxons, who had been invited over by the South Britons to assist them against the northern barbarians. These Saxons, we know, very soon entered into alliance with those whom they came to repel, and between them the Britons south of the friths were eventually driven into the West, where for centuries they appear to have maintained an independent kingdom under the name of Strathclyde, until ultimately they were incorporated with the Scots.[79]

Although both the external and internal history of the Highlands during this period is much better known than in the case of the Roman period, still the materials are exceedingly scanty. Scottish historians, from Fordun and Boece downwards, made it their business to fill up from their own imaginations what is wanting, so that, until the simple-minded but acute Innes put it in its true light, the early history of Scotland was a mass of fable.

Undoubtedly the two most momentous events of this period are the firm settlement in Argyle of a colony of Scots from Ireland and some of the neighbouring isles in 503,[80] and the conversion of the Northern Picts to Christianity by Columba about 563.

At the time of the Roman abandonment of Britain the Picts were under the sway of a king or chieftain named Drust, son of Erp, concerning whom the only record remaining is, that he lived a hundred years and fought a hundred battles. In fact, little is known with certainty of the Pictish history for upwards of one hundred years after the departure of the Romans, although some ancient chronicles afford us lists of Pictish kings or princes, a chronological table of whom, from Drust downwards, will be found at the end of this chapter. The Pictish chronicle contains the names of thirty-six others who are said to have reigned before Drust, but these are generally regarded as almost entirely spurious.

Before proceeding farther with the Pictish history, it may be proper to give a brief account of the settlement of the Irish Scots or Dalriads, as they are frequently called, in the Pictish territory.

The time of the settlement of the Scots in present Scotland was for long a subject of disputation, the early Scottish historians, from a false and unscrupulous patriotism, having pushed it back for many centuries before its actual occurrence. This dispute is now, however, fairly set at rest, there being no foundation for believing that the Scots found their way from Ireland to Scotland earlier than a century or two before the birth of Christ. As we have already seen, we find the first mention of the Scots in Ammianus Marcellinus about the year 360 A.D.; and their name occurs in the same connection frequently afterwards, during the Roman occupation of Scotland. Burton[81] is of opinion that the migration did not take place at any particular time or under any particular leader, but that it was gradual, that the Scots “oozed” out of Ireland upon the western coast of Scotland.

It belongs to the history of Ireland to trace the origin and fix the race of the Scots, to settle the time of their coming into Ireland, and discover whence they came. Some suppose that they migrated originally from Britain to Ireland, while Innes and others bring them either from Scandinavia or Spain, and connect them with the Scyths, asserting that Scot is a mere corruption of Scyth, and dating the settlement at about the commencement of the Christian era. The Irish traditions connect them with a certain Scota, daughter of Pharaoh, and date their coming to Ireland upwards of 1,000 years B.C. E. W. Robertson[82] and others consider them to have been Irish Picts or Cruithne.

Wherever the Scots came from and to whatever race they belong, whether Teutonic or[34] Celtic, they certainly appear not to have been the first settlers in Ireland, and at the time at which they first appear in authentic history occupied a district in Ireland corresponding to Connaught, Leinster, and part of Munster. They were also one of the most powerful of the Irish tribes, seeing that for many centuries Ireland was, after them, called Scotia or Scotland. It is usually said that a particular corner in the north-east of Ireland, about 30 miles in extent, corresponding to the modern county of Antrim, was the kingdom of the particular band of Scots who migrated to Scotland; and that it received its name, Dal-Riada (‘the portion of Riada’), from Carbre-Riada, a leader of the Scots who conquered this particular part, previously inhabited by Cruithne or Irish Picts. Robertson,[83] however, considers all this fable and the kingdom of Dalriada as mythical, Tighernach and the early Irish annalists never applying the name to any other locality than British Dalriada. At all events, this particular district was spoken of by the later chroniclers under the name of Dalriada, there being thus a Dalriada both in Scotland and Ireland.[84] At the time of the migration of the Scots from Ireland to Scotland, they were to all intents and purposes a Celtic race, speaking Trish Gaelic, and had already been converted to Christianity.

The account of the Scottish migration usually given is, that in the year 503 A.D.,[85] a new colony of Dalriads or Dalriadic Scots, under the leadership of Fergus son of Erc, a descendant of Carbre-Riada, along with his brothers Lorn and Angus, left Ireland and settled on the western coast of Argyle and the adjacent islands. “The territories which constituted the petty kingdoms of Dalriada can be pretty well defined. They were bounded on the south by the Frith of Clyde, and they were separated on the east from the Pictish kingdom by the ridge of the great mountain chain called Drumalban. They consisted of four tribes,—the genus or Cinel Lorn, descended from Lorn, the elder of the three brothers; the Cinel Gabran and Cinel Comgall, descended from two sons of Domangart, son of Fergus, the second of the brothers; and the Cinel Angus, descended from the third brother, Angus. The Cinel Comgall inhabited the district formerly called Comgall, now corrupted into Cowall. The Cinel Gabran inhabited what was called the Airgiallas, or the district of Argyle proper, and Kintyre. The Cinel Angus inhabited the islands of Islay and Jura, and the Cinel Lorn, the district of Lorn. Beyond this, on the north, the districts between Lorn and the promontory of Ardnamurchan, i.e., the island of Mull, the district of Morven, Ardgower, and probably part of Lochaber, seem to have formed a sort of debatable ground, the population of which was Pictish, while the Scots had settlements among them. In the centre of the possessions of the Cinel Gabran, at the head of the well-sheltered loch of Crinan, lies the great Moss of Crinan, with the river Add flowing through it. In the centre of the moss, and on the side of the river, rises an isolated rocky hill called Dunadd, the top of which is strongly fortified. This was the capital of Dalriada, and many a stone obelisk in the moss around it bears silent testimony to the contests of which it was the centre. The picturesque position of Dunolly Castle, on a rock at the entrance of the equally sheltered bay of Oban, afforded another fortified summit, which was the chief stronghold of the tribe of Lorn. Of Dunstaffnage, as a royal seat, history knows nothing.”[86]

It would appear that Lorn and Fergus at first reigned jointly, the latter becoming sole monarch on the decease of the former. The succession appears not to have been confined to any particular line, and a disputed succession not unfrequently involved the Scots in civil war.

There is no portion of history so obscure or so perplexing as that of the Scoto-Irish kings, and their tribes, from their first settlement, in the year 503, to their accession to the Pictish throne in 843. Unfortunately no contemporaneous[35] written records appear ever to have existed of that dark period of our annals, and the efforts which the Scotch and Irish antiquaries have made to extricate the truth from the mass of contradictions in which it lies buried, have rather been displays of national prejudice than calm researches by reasonable inquirers. The annals, however, of Tigernach, and of Ulster, along with the brief chronicles and historical documents first brought to light by the industrious Innes, in his Critical Essay, have thrown some glimpses of light on a subject which had long remained in almost total darkness.[87]

The next authentic event of importance that falls to be recorded in connection with the history of the Highlands, is the conversion of the Northern Picts to Christianity, about the year 563. The Southern Picts, i.e. those living to the south and east of the Grampians, were converted by St. Ninian (360–432) about the beginning of the 5th century; but the Northern Picts, until the date above-mentioned, continued Pagans. That there were no Christians among them till that time appears very improbable, considering their close neighbourhood and constant intercourse with the Southern Picts and the Scots of Dalriada; but there can be no doubt that the court and the great bulk of the people adhered to their ancient superstitions.

The religion of the Picts before their conversion is supposed by the majority of writers on this subject to have been that which prevailed in the rest of Britain and in Celtic Gaul, Druidism. The incredulous Burton, however, if we may judge from his History of Scotland,[88] as well as from an article of his in the Edinburgh Review, seems to believe that the whole system of Druidism has been elaborated by the imaginations of modern historians. That the Picts previous to their conversion had a religion, and a religion with what may be called priests and religious services, cannot be doubted, if we may trust Tacitus and Adamnan, the biographer of Columba; the former of whom tells us that, previous to the battle of the Grampians, the union of the various tribes was ratified by solemn rites and sacrifices, and the latter, that Columba’s efforts at conversion were strenuously opposed by the diabolical arts and incantations of the Magi. It appears from Adamnan that fountains were particularly objects of veneration; the superstitious awe with which many fountains and wells are regarded at the present day, being doubtless a remnant of the ancient Pictish religion. Trees, rivers, and lakes, as well as the heavenly bodies, appear also to have been objects of religious regard, and not a few of the customs which exist in Scotland at the present day have been inherited from our Pictish ancestors. Such are many of the rites performed on Hallowe’en, Beltane, Midsummer, &c., and many every-day superstitions still prevalent in the country districts of Scotland.

“Druidism is said to have acknowledged a Supreme Being, whose name was synonymous with the Eastern Baal, and if so, was visibly represented by the sun; and such remnants of the ancient worship as are still traceable in the language of the people, would indicate its having been a species of sun-worship. To this day the four leading points of the compass bear, in the terms which designate them among the Gael, marks of this. The east is ear, like the Latin oriens, from the Gaelic eiridh, ‘to rise;’ the west is iar, ‘after,’ used also as a preposition; the south is deas, and the north tuath; and it is in the use of these terms that the reverence for the solar luminary chiefly appears. Deas, ‘the south,’ is in all circumstances right; it is the right hand, which is easily intelligible, from the relation of that hand to the south when the face looks eastward; and it is expressive of whatever is otherwise right. Deas also means complete, trim, ready; whatever is deas, or southerly, is just as it should be. Tuath, ‘north,’ is the very opposite. Tuathaisd is a ‘stupid fellow;’ Tuathail is ‘wrong’ in every sense: south and north, then, as expressed in the words deiseal and tuathail, are, in the Gaelic language, the representatives of right and wrong. Thus everything that is to move prosperously among many of the Celts, must move sunwise: a boat going to sea must turn sunwise; a man or woman immediately after marriage, must make a turn sunwise. There are relics of fire-worship too;[36] certain days are named from fire-lighting; Beallteine, or ‘the first day of summer,’ and saimhtheine, ‘the first day of winter,’—the former supposed to mean the fire of Baal or Bel, the latter closing the saimhré, or summer period of the year, and bringing in the geamhré, or winter period, are sufficient evidence of this. There are places in Scotland where within the memory of living men the teine eigin, or ‘forced fire,’ was lighted once every year by the rubbing of two pieces of wood together, while every fire in the neighbourhood was extinguished in order that they might be lighted anew from this sacred source.”[89]

Stonehenge.—Copied by permission from Col. Forbes-Leslie’s Early Races of Scotland.

Many of the antiquities which are scattered over the north of Scotland, such as stone circles, monoliths, sculptured stones, rocking stones, &c., are very generally supposed to have been connected with religion. From the resemblance of the circles especially, to those which exist in South Britain and in France, it has been supposed that one religion prevailed over these countries. As Druidism is so commonly believed to have prevailed among the Picts as well as among the other inhabitants of Britain, we shall here give a very brief account of that system, chiefly as we find it given in Cæsar.[90] The following is the account given by Cæsar of the character and functions of the Druids:—“They attend to divine worship, perform public and private sacrifices, and expound matters of religion. A great number of youths are gathered round them for the sake of education, and they enjoy the highest honour in that nation; for nearly all public and private quarrels come under their jurisdiction; and when any crime has been committed, when a murder has been perpetrated, when a controversy arises about a legacy, or about landmarks, they are the judges too. They fix rewards and punishments; and should any one, whether a private individual or a public man, disobey their decrees, then they exclude him from the sacrifices. All these Druids have one chief, who enjoys the highest authority amongst them. When he dies, he is succeeded by the member of the order who is most prominent amongst the others, if there be any such single individual; if, however, there are several men equally distinguished, the successor is elected by the Druids. Sometimes they even go to war about this supremacy.

“The Druids take no part in warfare; nor do they pay taxes like the rest of the people; they are exempt from military service, and from all public burdens. Attracted by such rewards, many come to be instructed by their own choice, while others are sent by their parents. They are reported to learn in the school a great number of verses, so that some remain there twenty years. They think it an unhallowed thing to commit their lore to writing, though in the other public and private[37] affairs of life they frequently make use of the Greek alphabet.... Beyond all things, they are desirous to inspire a belief that men’s souls do not perish, but transmigrate after death from one individual to another; and besides, they hold discourses about the stars, about the size of the world and of various countries, about the nature of things, and about the power and might of the immortal gods.”

Among the objects of druidical veneration the oak is said to have been particularly distinguished; for the Druids imagined that there was a supernatural virtue in the wood, in the leaves, in the fruit, and above all in the mistletoe. Hence the oak woods were the first places of their devotion; and the offices of their religion were there performed without any covering but the broad canopy of heaven. The part appropriated for worship was inclosed in a circle, within which was placed a pillar of stone set up under an oak, and sacrifices were offered thereon. The pillars which mark the sites of these places of worship are still to be seen; and so great is the superstitious veneration paid by the country people to these sacred stones, as they are considered, that few persons have ventured to remove them.

Circle of Callernish in Lewis.—Copied by permission from Col. Forbes-Leslie’s Early Races of Scotland.

Besides the immunities before-mentioned enjoyed by the Druids, they also possessed both civil and criminal jurisdiction, they decided all controversies among states as well as among private persons; and whoever refused to submit to their awards was exposed to the most severe penalties. The sentence of excommunication was pronounced against him; he was debarred all intercourse with his fellow-citizens; his company was universally shunned as profane and dangerous; he was refused the protection of law; and death itself became an acceptable relief from the misery and infamy to which he was exposed.

St. Columba was born in the county of Donegal, in Ireland, in the year 521, and was connected both on his father’s and mother’s side with the Irish royal family. He was carefully educated for the priesthood, and, after having finished his ecclesiastical studies, founded monasteries in various parts of Ireland. The year of his departure from Ireland is, on good authority, ascertained to have been 563, and it is generally said that he fled to save his life, which was in jeopardy on account of a feud in which his relations were involved. Mr. Grub[91] believes that “the love of God and of his brethren was to him a sufficient motive for entering on the great work to which he was called. His immediate objects were the instruction of the subjects of Conal, king of the British Scots, and the conversion of their neighbours the heathen Picts of the North.” In the year 563, when Columba was 42 years of age, he arrived among his kindred on the shores of Argyle, and immediately set himself to fix on a suitable site for a monastery which he meant to erect, from which were to issue forth the apostolic missionaries destined to assist him in the work of conversion, and in which also the youth set apart for the office of the holy ministry were to be educated. St. Columba espied a solitary isle lying apart from the rest of the Hebridean group, near the south-west angle of Mull, then known by the simple name I, whose etymology is doubtful, afterwards changed by Bede into Hy, latinized by the monks into Iova or Iona, and again honoured with the name of I-columb-cil,[38] the island of St. Columba of the church. This island, Conal, who was then king of the Christian Scots of Argyle, presented to Columba, in order that he might erect thereon a monastery for the residence of himself and his disciples. No better station could have been selected than this islet during such barbarous times.

Ruins on Iona.

In pursuance of his plan, St. Columba settled with twelve disciples in Hy. “They now,” says Bede, “neither sought, nor loved, anything of this world,”—true traits in the missionary character. For two years did they labour with their own hands erecting huts and building a church of logs and reeds. “The monastery of Iona, like those previously founded by Columba in Ireland, was not a retreat for solitaries whose chief object was to work out their own salvation; it was a great school of Christian education, and was specially designed to prepare and send forth a body of clergy trained to the task of preaching the Gospel among the heathen.”[92] Having established his missionary institution, and having occupied himself for some time in the instruction of his countrymen the Scots of Argyle, the pious Columba set out on his apostolic tour among the Picts, probably in the year 565. At this time Bridei or Brude, whose reign extended from 536 to 586, the son of Mailcon, a powerful and influential prince, reigned over the Northern Picts, and appears also to have had dominion over those of the south. Judging well that if he could succeed in converting Brude, who, when Columba visited him was staying at one of his residences on the banks of the Ness, the arduous task he had undertaken of bringing over the whole nation to the worship of the true God would be more easily accomplished, he first began with the king, and by great patience and perseverance succeeded in converting him.

The first Gaelic entry in the Book of Deer lets us see the great missionary on one of his tours, and describes the founding of an important mission-station which became the centre of instruction for all the surrounding country. The following is the translation given of the Gaelic original:—“Columcille, and Drostán son of Cosgrach, his pupil, came from Hí, as God had shown to them, unto Abbordoboir, and Bede the Pict was mormaer of Buchan before them, and it was he that gave them that town in freedom for ever from mormaer and toisech. They came after that to the other town, and it was pleasing to Columcille because it was[39] full of God’s grace, and he asked of the mormaer, to wit Bede, that he should give it to him; and he did not give it, and a son of his took an illness after [or in consequence of] refusing the clerics, and he was nearly dead [lit. he was dead but if it were a little]. After this the mormaer went to entreat the clerics that they should make prayer for the son, that health should come to him; and he gave in offering to them from Cloch in tiprat to Cloch pette meic Garnait. They made the prayer, and health came to him. After that Columcille gave to Drostán that town, and blessed it, and left as (his) word, ‘Whosoever should come against it, let him not be many-yeared [or] victorious.’ Drostán’s tears came on parting from Columcille. Said Columcille, ‘Let Déar be its name henceforward.’”

The Abbordoboir here spoken of is Aberdour on the north coast of Aberdeenshire, and Dear probably occupied the site of what is now Old Deer, about twelve miles inland from Aberdour. There is every reason for believing in the substantial truth of the narrative. The two saints, probably from the banks of the Ness, came to Aberdour and “tarried there for a time and founded a monastery on the land which had been granted them. In later times the parish church of Aberdour was dedicated to St. Drostan.” One would almost be inclined to suppose, from the manner in which the missionaries were apparently received, that Christianity had been heard of there before; possibly Bede the Pictish mormaer had been converted at the court of King Brude, and had invited Columba to pay him a visit in Buchan and plant the gospel among the inhabitants. Possibly St. Ninian, the apostle of the southern Picts, may, during his mission among them, have penetrated as far north as Buchan. On the side of the choir of the old parish church of Turriff, a few miles west of Deer, was found painted the figure of St. Ninian, which was probably as old as the 16th century. At all events, Columba and his companion appear to have been made most welcome in Buchan, and were afforded every facility for prosecuting their sacred work. The above record doubtless gives us a fair notion of Columba’s mode of procedure in prosecuting his self-imposed task of converting the inhabitants of Alba. As was the case in Buchan, he appears to have gone from district to district along with his missionary companions, seen the work of conversion fairly begun, planted a monastery in a suitable place, and left one or more of his disciples as resident missionaries to pursue the work of conversion and keep Christianity alive in the district.[93]

Columba soon had the happiness of seeing the blessings of Christianity diffusing themselves among a people who had hitherto sat in the darkness of paganism. Attended by his disciples he traversed the whole of the Pictish territories, spreading everywhere the light of faith by instructing the people in the truths of the Gospel. To keep up a succession of the teachers of religion, he established, as we have seen, monasteries in every district, and from these issued, for many ages, men of apostolic earnestness, who watered and tended the good seed planted by Columba, and carried it to the remotest parts of the north of Scotland and its islands, so that, in a generation or two after Columba, Christianity became the universal religion. These monasteries or cells were long subject to the Abbey of Iona, and the system of church government which proceeded from that centre was in many respects peculiar, and has given rise to much controversy between presbyterians and episcopalians.

St. Columba died on the 9th of June, 597, after a glorious and well-spent life, thirty-four years of which he had devoted to the instruction of the nation he had converted. His influence was very great with the neighbouring princes, and they often applied to him for advice, and submitted to him their differences, which he frequently settled by his authority. His memory was long held in reverence by the Scots and Caledonians.

Conal, the fifth king of the Scots in Argyle, the kinsman of St. Columba, and under whose auspices he entered on the work of conversion, and to whom it is said he was indebted for Hy, died in 571. His successor Aidan went over to Iona in 574, and was there ordained and inaugurated by the Abbot according to the ceremonial of the liber vitreus,[40] the cover of which is supposed to have been encrusted with crystal.

To return to the history of the Picts, we have already observed that little is known of Pictish history for more than a hundred years after the Roman abdication; and even up to the union of the Picts and Scots, the materials for the history of both are about as scarce as they could possibly be, consisting mostly of meagre chronicles containing the names of kings, the dates of their accession and death, and occasionally the names of battles and of the contending nations. Scotland during this period appears to have been the scene of unceasing war between the Scots, Picts, Britons of Strathclyde, English, and Danes, the two first being continually at strife not only with each other but among themselves. We shall endeavour to give, as clearly and as faithfully as possible, the main reliable facts in the history of the Scots and Picts until the union of these two nations.

The reign of Brude was distinguished by many warlike exploits, but above all, as we have seen, by his conversion and that of his people to Christianity, which indeed formed his greatest glory. His chief contests were with the Scoto-Irish or Dalriads, whom he defeated in 557, and slew Gauran their king. Brude died in 586, and for several ages his successors carried on a petty system of warfare, partly foreign and partly domestic. Passing over a domestic conflict, at Lindores in 621, under Kenneth, son of Luthrin, we must notice the important battle of Dun-Nechtan, fought in 685, between the Picts under Brude, the son of Bili,[94] and the Saxons, under the Northumbrian Egfrid. The Saxon king, it is said, greedy of conquest, attacked the Picts without provocation, and against the advice of his court. Crossing the Forth from Lothian, he entered Strathearn and penetrated through the defiles of the Pictish kingdom, leaving fire and desolation in his train. His career was stopt at Dun-Nechtan, the hill of Nechtan, a hill in the parish of Dunnichen, about the centre of Forfarshire; and by a neighbouring lake, long known by the name of Nechtan’s mere, a short distance east from the town of Forfar, did Egfrid and his Saxons fall before Brude and his exasperated Picts. This was a sad blow to the Northumbrian power; yet the Northumbrians, in 699, under Berht, an able leader, again ventured to try their strength with the Picts, when they were once more defeated by Brude, the son of Dereli, who had recently mounted the Pictish throne.

The wars between the Picts and Northumbrians were succeeded by various contests for power among the Pictish princes, which gave rise to a civil war. Ungus, honoured by the Irish Annalists with the title of great, and Elpin, at the head of their respective partisans, tried their strength at Monacrib, supposed by some to be Moncrieff in Strathearn, in the year 727, when the latter was defeated; and the conflict was renewed at Duncrei (Crieff), when victory declared a second time against Elpin, who was obliged to flee from the hostility of Ungus. Nechtan next tried his strength with Ungus, in 728, at a place called Monacurna by the Annalists—possibly Moncur in the Carse of Gowrie—but he was defeated, and many of his followers perished. Talorgan, the son of Congus, was defeated by Brude, the son of Ungus, in 730, and in the same year the Picts appear to have entered into a treaty of peace with the English nation.

The victorious Ungus commenced hostilities against the Dalriads, or Scoto-Irish, in the year 736, and appears to have got the better of the latter. The Scots were again worsted in another battle in 740 by Ungus, who in the same year repulsed an attack of the Northumbrians under Eadbert. In the year 750 he defeated the Britons of the Cumbrian kingdom in the battle of Cato or Cath-O, in which his brother Talorgan was killed. Ungus, who appears to have been a powerful and able monarch, but whom Bede[95] characterizes as having conducted himself “with bloody wickedness, a tyrant and an executioner,” died about 760. A doubtful victory was gained by Ciniod, or Kenneth, the Pictish king, over Aodh-fin, the Scottish king, in 767. Constantine, having overcome Conall, the son of Tarla, in 789, succeeded him in the throne.[96]

[41]

Up to this period the Norsemen from Scandinavia, or the Vikingr, i.e. men of the voes or bays, as they were termed, had confined their ravages to the Baltic; but, in the year 787 they for the first time appeared on the east coast of England. Some years afterwards they found their way to the Caledonian shores, and in 795 made their first attack on Iona, which frequently afterwards, along with the rest of the Hebrides, suffered grievously from their ravages. In 839 the Vikingr entered the Pictish territories. A murderous conflict ensued between them and the Picts under Uen their king, in which both he and his only brother Bran, as well as many of the Pictish chiefs, fell. This event, no doubt, hastened the downfall of the Pictish monarchy; and as the Picts were unable to resist the arms of Kenneth, the Scottish king, he carried into execution, in the year 843, a project he had long entertained, of uniting the Scots and Picts, and placing both crowns on his head. That anything like a total extermination of the Picts took place is now generally discredited, although doubtless there was great slaughter both of princes and people. Skene[97] asserts indeed that it was only the Southern Picts who became subject to Kenneth, the Northern Picts remaining for long afterwards independent of, but sometimes in alliance with, the Scots. This is substantially the opinion of Mr. E. W. Robertson,[98] who says, “the modern shires of Perth, Fife, Stirling, and Dumbarton, with the greater part of the county of Argyle, may be said to have formed the actual Scottish kingdom to which Kenneth succeeded.” The Picts were recognised as a distinct people even in the tenth century, but before the twelfth they lost their characteristic nominal distinction by being amalgamated with the Scots, their conquerors.

The Scoto-Irish after their arrival in Argyle did not long continue under the separate authority of the three brothers, Lorn, Fergus, and Angus. They were said to have been very far advanced in life before leaving Ireland, and the Irish chroniclers assert that St. Patrick gave them his benediction before his death, in the year 493. The statement as to their advanced age derives some support from their speedy demise after they had laid the foundations of their settlements, and of a new dynasty of kings destined to rule over the kingdom of Scotland. Angus was the first who died, leaving a son, Muredach, who succeeded him in the small government of Ila. After the death of Lorn the eldest brother, Fergus, the last survivor, became sole monarch of the Scoto-Irish; but he did not long enjoy the sovereignty, for he died in 506.

Fergus was succeeded by his son Domangart, or Dongardus, who died in 511, after a short but troubled reign of about five years. His two sons Comgal and Gabhran or Gauran, successively enjoyed his authority. Comgal had a peaceful reign of four and twenty years, during which he extended his settlements. He left a son named Conal, but Gauran his brother, notwithstanding, ascended the throne in the year 535 without opposition. Gauran reigned two and twenty years, and, as we have already observed, was slain in a battle with the Picts under Bridei their king.

Conal, the son of Comgal, then succeeded in 557, and closed a reign of fourteen years in 571. It was during his reign that Columba’s mission to the Picts took place. A civil war ensued between Aodhan or Aidan, the son of Gauran, and Duncha or Duncan, the son of Conal, for the vacant crown, the claim to which was decided on the bloody field of Loro or Loco in Kintyre in 575, where Duncha was slain. Aidan, the son of Gauran, had been formally inaugurated by St. Columba in Iona, in 574. In the time of Aidan there were frequent wars between the Dalriads and the English Saxons. Many battles were fought in which the Scots were generally defeated, the principal being that of Degsastan or Dalston near Carlisle, in 603, in which nearly the whole of the Scottish army was defeated. The wars with the Saxons weakened the power of the Dalriads very considerably, and it was not till after a long period of time that they again ventured to meet the Saxons in the field.

During a short season of repose, Aidan, attended by St. Columba, went to the celebrated council of Drum-keat in Ulster, in the year 590. In this council he claimed the principality of Dalriada, the land of his fathers, and[42] obtained an exemption from doing homage to the kings of Ireland, which his ancestors, it would appear, had been accustomed to pay. Aidan died in 605 or 608, at the advanced age of eighty, and was buried In the church of Kil-keran, the ruins of which are still to be seen in the midst of Campbelton.

Aidan was succeeded in the throne by his son Eocha-bui, or the “yellow,” who reigned sixteen years. He carried on war with the Cruithne of Ulster. After him came his brother Kenneth-Cear, or the “left-handed,” who was followed by Ferchar, son of Eogan, of the race of Lorn.

Donal, surnamed breac or freckled, the son of Eocha’-bui, of the race of Gauran, succeeded Ferchar about 637. He was a warlike prince and had distinguished himself in the wars against the Cruithne of Ireland. Congal-Claon, the son of Scanlan, the king of the Cruithne in Ulster, having slain Suibne-Mean, a powerful king of Ireland, was attacked by Domnal II., supreme king of Ireland, who succeeded Suibne, and was defeated in the battle of Duncetheren, in 629. Congal sought refuge in Cantyre, and having persuaded Donal-breac, the kinsman of Domnal, to join him in a war against the latter, they invaded Ireland with a heterogeneous mass of Scoto-Irish, Picts, Britons, and Saxons, commanded by Donal and his brothers. Cealach, the son of Maelcomh, the nephew of the reigning king, and as tanist or heir-apparent, the leader of his army, attacked Donal-breac in the plain of Magh Rath or Moyra in Down, in 637, and completely defeated him after an obstinate and bloody engagement. Congal, the murderer of his sovereign, met his merited fate, and Donal-breac was obliged to secure his own and his army’s safety by a speedy return to Cantyre. St. Columba had always endeavoured to preserve an amicable understanding between the Cruithne of Ulster and the Scoto-Irish, and his injunctions were, that they should live in constant peace; but Donal disregarded the wise advice of the saint, and paid dearly for so doing. He was not more successful in an enterprise against the Picts, having been defeated by them in the battle of Glinne Mairison, Glenmairison, or Glenmoreson, probably in West Lothian,[99] during the year 638. He ended his days at Straith-cairmaic or Strathcarron, possibly in the neighbourhood of Falkirk, by the sword of Hoan or Owen, one of the reguli of Strathcluyd, in the year 642. His son Cathasuidh fell by the same hand in 649.

Conal II., the grandson of Conal I., who was also of the Fergusian race of Congal, next ruled over the tribes of Cantyre and Argyle; but Dungal, of the race of Lorn, having obtained the government of the tribe of Lorn, questioned the right of Conal. He did not, however, carry his pretensions far, for Conal died, in undisturbed possession of his dominions, in 652, after a reign of ten years. To Donal-duin, or the brown, son of Conal, who reigned thirteen years, succeeded Maolduin, his brother, in 665. The family feuds which had long existed between the Fergusian races of Comgal and Tauran, existed in their bitterest state during the reign of Maolduin. Domangart, the son of Donal-breac, was murdered in 672, and Conal, the son of Maolduin, was assassinated in 675.

Ferchar-fada, or the tall, apparently of the race of Lorn, and either the son or grandson of Ferchar, who died in 637, seized the reins of government upon the death of Maolduin. On the death of Ferchar, in 702, the sceptre passed again to the Fergusian race in the person of Eocha’-rineval, remarkable for his Roman nose, the son of Domangart. The reign of this prince was short and unfortunate. His sceptre was seized by Ainbhcealach, the son of Ferchar-fada, who succeeded Eocha’ in 705. He was of an excellent disposition, but after reigning one year, was dethroned by his brother, Selvach, and obliged, in 706, to take refuge in Ireland. Selvach attacked the Britons of Strathcluyd, and gained two successive victories over them, the one at Longecoleth in 710, and the other at the rock of Mionuirc in 716. At the end of twelve years, Ainbhcealach returned from Ireland, to regain a sceptre which his brother had by his cruelties shown himself unworthy to wield, but he perished in the battle of Finglein, perhaps Glen Fyne at the head of Loch Fyne, in 719. Selvach met a more formidable rival in Duncha-beg, who was descended from Fergus, by the line of Congal; he assumed the government of Cantyre and[43] Argail, and confined Selvach to his family settlement of Lorn. These two princes appear to have been fairly matched in disposition and valour, and both exerted themselves for the destruction of one another, thus bringing many miseries upon their tribes. In an attempt which they made to invade the territories of each other in 719 by means of currachs, a naval combat ensued off Airdeanesbi, (probably Ardaness on the coast of Argyle,) in which Selvach was overcome by Duncha; but Selvach was not subdued. The death of Duncha in 721 put an end to his designs; but Eocha’ III., the son of Eocha’-rineval, the successor of Duncha, being as bent on the overthrow of Selvach as his predecessor, continued the war. The rival chiefs met at Irroisfoichne in 727, where a battle was fought, which produced nothing but irritation and distress. This lamentable state of things was put an end to by the death of Selvach in 729. This event enabled Eocha to assume the government of Lorn, and thus the Dalriadan kingdom which had been alternately ruled by chiefs of the houses of Fergus and Lorn became again united under Eocha. He died in 733, after a reign of thirteen years, during nine of which he ruled over Cantyre and Argyle, and four over all the Dalriadic tribes.

Eocha was succeeded in the kingdom by Muredach, the son of Ainbhceallach, of the race of Lorn. His reign was short and unfortunate. In revenge for an act of perfidy committed by Dungal, the son of Selvach, who had carried off Forai or Torai, the daughter of Brude, and the niece of Ungus, the great Pictish king, the latter, in the year 736, led his army from Strathearn, through the passes of the mountains into Lorn, which he wasted with fire and sword. He seized Dunad, in Mid-Lorn, and burned Creic, another fortress in the Ross of Mull, taking Dungal and Feradach, the two sons of Selvach, prisoners. Muredach went in pursuit of his enemy, and having overtaken him at Knock Cairpre, at Calatros, on the shores of the Linne,[100] a battle ensued, in which the Scots were repulsed with great slaughter. Talorgan, the brother of Ungus, commanded the Picts on this occasion, and pursued the flying Scots. In this pursuit Muredach is supposed to have perished, after a reign of three years.

Eogban or Ewan, the son of Muredach, took up the fallen succession in 736, and died in 739, in which year the Dalriadic sceptre was assumed by Aodh-fin, the son of Eocha’ III., and grandson of Eocha’-rineval, descended from the Fergusian race of Gauran. In 740 he measured his strength with the celebrated Ungus; but victory declared for neither, and during the remainder of Ungus’ reign, he did not attempt to renew hostilities. After the death of Ungus, in 761, Aodh-fin declared war against the Picts, whose territories he entered from Upper Lorn, penetrating through the passes of Glenorchy and Breadalbane. In 767 he reached Forteviot, the Pictish capital in Strathearn, where he fought a doubtful battle with Ciniod the Pictish king. Aodh-fin died in 769, after a splendid reign of thirty years.[101]

Fergus II., son of Aodh-fin, succeeded to the sceptre on the demise of his father, and died after an unimportant reign of three years. Selvach II., the son of Eogan, assumed the government in 772. His reign, which lasted twenty-four years, presents nothing very remarkable in history.

A new sovereign of a different lineage, now mounted the throne of the Scots in 796, in the person of Eocha or Auchy, the son of Aodh-fin[44] of the Gauran race. Eocha’ IV. is known also by the latinized appellation of Achaius. The story of the alliance between Achaius and Charlemagne has been shown to be a fable; although it is by no means improbable that he entered into an important treaty with the Picts, by marrying Urgusia, the daughter of Urguis, an alliance which, it is said, enabled his grandson Kenneth afterwards to claim and acquire the Pictish sceptre, in right of Urgusia his grandmother. Eocha died in 826, after a happy and prosperous reign of thirty years. He was succeeded by Dungal, the son of Selvach II., of the race of Lorn, being the last of that powerful family who swayed the Dalriadic sceptre. After a feeble but stormy reign of seven years, he died in 833.

Alpin, the last of the Scoto-Irish kings, and the son of Eocha IV. and of Urgusia, now mounted the throne. He was killed in 836, near the site of Laicht castle, on the ridge which separates Kyle from Galloway. The fiction that Alpin fell in a battle with the Picts, when asserting his right to the Pictish throne, has long been exploded.

In 836 Kenneth, the son of Alpin, succeeded his father. He was a prince of a warlike disposition, and of great vigour of mind and body. He avenged the death of his father by frequent inroads among the people dwelling to the south of the Clyde; but the great glory of his reign consists in his achievements against the Picts, which secured for him and his posterity the Pictish sceptre. The Pictish power had, previous to the period of Kenneth’s accession, been greatly enfeebled by the inroads of the Danish Vikingr; but it was not till after the death of Uven, the Pictish king, in 839, after a distracted reign of three years, that Kenneth made any serious attempt to seize the Pictish diadem. On the accession of Wred, Kenneth, in accordance with the principle of succession said by Bede to have prevailed among the Picts, claimed the Pictish throne in right of Urgusia, his grandmother; Wred died in 842, and after an arduous struggle, Kenneth wrested the sceptre from Bred, his successor, in 843, after he had reigned over the Scots seven years.

Burton[102] thinks there can be no doubt that the two countries were prepared for a fusion whenever a proper opportunity offered, but that this was on account of a matrimonial alliance between the two royal houses cannot with certainty be ascertained.[103] As we have said already, it is extremely improbable that Kenneth gained his supremacy by extermination. The Picts certainly appear to have suffered severe defeat, but the likelihood is that after Kenneth succeeded to the throne, a gradual fusion of the two people took place, so that in course of time they became essentially one, speaking one language, obeying the same laws, and following the same manners and customs. If we knew for certain to what race the Picts belonged, and what language they spoke, it might help us not a little to understand the nature and extent of the amalgamation; but as we know so little about these, and as the chroniclers, in speaking of this event, are so enigmatical and meagre, we are left almost entirely to conjecture. We are certain, at any rate, that from some cause or other, the kings of the Dalriadic Scots, about the middle of the 9th century, obtained supremacy over at least the Southern Picts, who from that time forward ceased to be a separate nation.[104]

[45]

The history of the Scoto-Irish kings affords few materials either amusing or instructive; but it was impossible, from the connexion between that history and the events that will follow in detail, to pass it over in silence. The Scoto-Irish tribes appear to have adopted much the same form of government as existed in Ireland at the time of their departure from that kingdom; the sovereignty of which, though nominally under one head, was in reality a pentarchy, which allowed four provincial kings to dispute the monarchy of the fifth. This system was the prolific source of anarchy, assassinations, and civil wars. The Dalriads were constantly kept in a state of intestine commotion and mutual hostility by the pretensions of their rival chiefs, or princes of the three races, who contended with the common sovereign for pre-eminence or exemption. The dlighe-tanaiste, or law of tanistry, which appears to have been generally followed as in Ireland, as well in the succession of kings as in that of chieftains, rather increased than mitigated these disorders; for the claim to rule not being regulated by any fixed law of hereditary succession, but depending upon the capricious will of the tribe, rivals were not found wanting to dispute the rights so conferred. There was always, both in Ireland and in Argyle, an heir presumptive to the Crown chosen, under the name of tanist, who commanded the army during the life of the reigning sovereign, and who succeeded to him after his demise. Budgets, and committees of supply, and taxes, were wholly unknown in those times among the Scots, and the monarch was obliged to support his dignity by voluntary contributions of clothes, cattle, furniture, and other necessaries.

There is reason to believe that tradition supplied the place of written records for many ages after the extinction of the Druidical superstition. Hence among the Scots, traditionary usages and local customs long supplied the place of positive or written laws. It is a mistake to suppose, as some writers have done,[46] that the law consisted in the mere will of the Brehon or judge. The office of Breitheamhuin or Brehon was hereditary, and it is quite natural to infer, that under such a system of jurisprudence, the dictum of the judge might not always comport with what was understood to be the common law or practice; but from thence, to argue that the will of the judge was to be regarded as the law itself, is absurd, and contrary to every idea of justice. As the principle of the rude jurisprudence of the Celtic tribes had for its object the reparation, rather than the prevention of crimes, almost every crime, even of the blackest kind, was commuted by a mulct or payment. Tacitus observes in allusion to this practice, that it was “a temper wholesome to the commonwealth, that homicide and lighter transgressions were settled by the payment of horses or cattle, part to the king or community, part to him or his friends who had been wronged.” The law of Scotland long recognised this system of compensation. The fine was termed, under the Brehon law, eric, which not only signifies a reparation, but also a fine, a ransom, a forfeit. Among the Albanian Scots it was called cro, a term preserved in the Regiam Majestatem, which has a whole chapter showing “the cro of ilk man, how mikil it is.”[105] This law of reparation, according to O’Connor, was first promulgated in Ireland, in the year 164.[106] According to the Regiam Majestatem, the cro of a villain was sixteen cows; of an earl’s son or thane, one hundred; of an earl, one hundred and forty; and that of the king of Scots, one thousand cows, or three thousand oras, that is to say, three oras for every cow.

Besides a share of the fines imposed, the Brehon or judge obtained a piece of arable land for his support. When he administered justice, he used to sit sometimes on the top of a hillock or heap of stones, sometimes on turf, and sometimes even on the middle of a bridge, surrounded by the suitors, who, of course, pleaded their own cause. We have already seen that, under the system of the Druids, the offices of religion, the instruction of youth, and the administration of the laws, were conducted in the open air; and hence the prevalence of the practice alluded to. But this practice was not peculiar to the Druids; for all nations, in the early stages of society, have followed a similar custom. The Tings of the Scandinavians, which consisted of circular enclosures of stone, without any covering, and within which both the judicial and legislative powers were exercised, afford a striking instance of this. According to Pliny,[107] even the Roman Senate first met in the open air, and the sittings of the Court of the Areopagus, at Athens, were so held. The present custom of holding courts of justice in halls is not of very remote antiquity in Scotland, and among the Scoto-Irish, the baron bailie long continued to dispense justice to the baron’s vassals from a moothill or eminence, which was generally on the bank of a river, and near to a religious edifice.

Of the various customs and peculiarities which distinguished the ancient Irish, as well as the Scoto-Irish, none has given rise to greater speculation than that of fosterage; which consisted in the mutual exchange, by different families, of their children for the purpose of being nursed and bred. Even the son of the chief was so entrusted during pupilarity with an inferior member of the clan. An adequate reward was either given or accepted in every case, and the lower orders, to whom the trust was committed, regarded it as an honour rather than a service. “Five hundred kyne and better,” says Campion, “were sometimes given by the Irish to procure the nursing of a great man’s child.” A firm and indissoluble attachment always took place among foster-brothers, and it continues in consequence to be a saying among Highlanders, that “affectionate to a man is a friend, but a foster-brother is as the life-blood of his heart.” Camden observes, that no love in the world is comparable by many degrees to that of foster-brethren in Ireland.[108] The close connexion which the practice of fosterage created between families, while it frequently prevented civil feuds, often led to them. But the strong attachment thus created was not confined to foster-brothers, it also extended to their parents. Spenser relates of the foster-mother to Murrough O’Brien, that, at his execution, she sucked the blood from his[47] head, and bathed her face and breast with it, saying that it was too precious to fall to the earth.

It is unnecessary, at this stage of our labours, to enter upon the subject of clanship; we mean to reserve our observations thereon till we come to the history of the clans, when we shall also notice some peculiarities or traits of the Highlanders not hitherto mentioned. We shall conclude this chapter by giving lists of the Pictish and Scoto-Irish Kings, which are generally regarded as authentic. A great many other names are given by the ancient chroniclers previous to the points at which the following lists commence, but as these are considered as totally untrustworthy, we shall omit them.

A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE PICTISH KINGS, CHIEFLY ACCORDING TO THE PICTISH CHRONICLE.

[48]

A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE SCOTO-IRISH KINGS, FROM THE YEAR 503 TO 843.

It is right to mention that the Albanic Duan omits the names between Ainbhcealach and Dungal (17–27), most of which, however, are contained in the St. Andrews’ list.

CHAPTER IV.

A.D. 843–1107.

For about two centuries after the union of the two kingdoms, the principal facts to be recorded are the extension of the Scottish dominion southwards beyond the Forth and Clyde, towards the present border, and northwards beyond Inverness, and the fierce contests that took place with the “hardy Norsemen” of Scandinavia and Denmark, who during this period continued not only to pour down upon the coasts and islands of Scotland, but to sway the destinies of the whole of Europe. During this time the history of the Highlands is still to a great extent the history of Scotland, and it was not till about the 12th century that the Highlanders became, strictly speaking, a peculiar people, confined to the territory whose boundaries were indicated in the first chapter, having for their neighbours on the east and south a population of undoubtedly Teutonic origin. The Norse invasions not only kept Scotland in continual commotion at the time, but must have exercised an important influence on its whole history, and contributed a new and vigorous element to its population. These Vikingr, about the end of the[49] 9th century, became so powerful as to be able to establish a separate and independent kingdom in Orkney and the Western Islands, which proved formidable not only to the king of Scotland, but also to the powerful king of Norway. “It is difficult to give them distinctness without risk of error, and it is even hard to decide how far the mark left by these visitors is, on the one hand, the brand of the devastating conqueror; or, on the other hand, the planting among the people then inhabiting Scotland of a high-conditioned race—a race uniting freedom and honesty in spirit with a strong and healthy physical organization. It was in the north that the inroad preserved its most distinctive character, probably from its weight, as most completely overwhelming the original population, whatever they might be; and though, in the histories, the king of Scots appears to rule the northern end of Britain, the territory beyond Inverness and Fort-William had aggregated in some way round a local magnate, who afterwards appears as a Maormor. He was not a viceroy of the king of Norway: and if he was in any way at the order of the King of Scotland, he was not an obedient subordinate.”[109]

Up to the time of Macbeda or Macbeth, the principle of hereditary succession to the throne, from father to son, appears not to have been recognised; the only principle, except force, which seems to have been acted upon being that of collateral succession, brother succeeding to brother, and nephew to uncle. After the time of Macbeth, however, the hereditary principle appears to have come into full force, to have been recognised as that by which alone succession to the throne was to be regulated.

The consolidation of the Scottish and Pictish power under one supreme chief, enabled these nations not only to repel foreign aggression, but afterwards to enlarge their territories beyond the Forth, which had hitherto formed, for many ages, the Pictish boundary on the south.

Although the power of the tribes to the north of the Forth was greatly augmented by the union which had taken place, yet all the genius and warlike energy of Kenneth were necessary to protect him and his people from insult. Ragnor Lodbrog (i.e., Ragnor of the Shaggy Bones,) with his fierce Danes infested the country round the Tay on the one side, and the Strathclyde Britons on the other, wasted the adjoining territories, and burnt Dunblane. Yet Kenneth overcame these embarrassments, and made frequent incursions into the Saxon territories in Lothian, and caused his foes to tremble. After a brilliant and successful reign, Kenneth died at Forteviot, the Pictish capital, 7 miles S.W. of Perth, on the 6th of February, 859, after a reign of twenty-three years. Kenneth, it is said, removed the famous stone which now sustains the coronation chair at Westminster Abbey, from the ancient seat of the Scottish monarchy in Argyle, to Scone. Kenneth (but according to some Constantine, the Pictish king, in 820), built a church at Dunkeld, to which, in 850, he removed the relics of St. Columba from Iona, which at this time was frequently subjected to the ravages of the Norsemen. He is celebrated also as a legislator, but no authentic traces of his laws now appear, the Macalpine laws attributed to the son of Alpin being clearly apocryphal.

The sceptre was assumed by Donald III., son of Alpin. He died in the year 863, after a short reign of four years. It is said he restored the laws of Aodh-fin, the son of Eocha III. They were probably similar to the ancient Brehon laws of Ireland.

Constantine, the son of Kenneth, succeeded his uncle Donald, and soon found himself involved in a dreadful conflict with the Danish pirates. Having, after a contest which lasted half a century, established themselves in Ireland, and obtained secure possession of Dublin, the Vikingr directed their views towards the western coasts of Scotland, which they laid waste. These ravages were afterwards extended to the whole of the eastern coast, and particularly to the shores of the Frith of Forth; but although the invaders were often repulsed, they never ceased to renew their attacks. In the year 881, Constantine, in repelling an attack of the pirates, was slain at a place called Merdo-fatha, or Werdo, probably the present Perth, according to Maclauchlan.

Aodh or Hugh, the fair-haired, succeeded his brother Constantine. His reign was unfortunate,[50] short, and troublesome. Grig, who was Maormor, or chief, of the country between the Dee and the Spey, having become a competitor for the crown, Aodh endeavoured to put him down, but did not succeed; and having been wounded in a battle fought at Strathallan, (or possibly Strathdon,) he was carried to Inverurie, where he died, after lingering two months, having held the sceptre only one year.

Grig now assumed the crown, and, either to secure his possession, or from some other motive, he associated with him in the government Eocha, son of Ku, the British king of Strathclyde, and the grandson, by a daughter, of Kenneth Macalpin. After a reign of eleven years, both Eocha and Grig were forced to abdicate, and gave way to Donald IV., who succeeded them in 893.

During his reign the kingdom was infested by the piratical incursions of the Danes. Although they were defeated by Donald in a bloody action at Collin, said to be on the Tay, near Scone, they returned under Ivar O’Ivar, from Ireland, in the year 904, but were gallantly repulsed, and their leader killed in a threatened attack on Forteviot, by Donald, who unfortunately also perished, after a reign of eleven years. In his reign the kings of present Scotland are no longer called reges Pictorum by the Irish Annalists, but Ri Alban, or kings of Alban; and in the Pictish Chronicle Pictavia gives place to Albania.

Constantine III., the son of Aodh, a prince of a warlike and enterprising character, next followed. He had to sustain, during an unusually long reign, the repeated attacks of the Danes. In one invasion they plundered Dunkeld, and in 908, they attempted to obtain the grand object of their designs, the possession of Forteviot in Strathearn, the Pictish capital; but in this design they were again defeated, and forced to abandon the country. The Danes remained quiet for a few years, but in 918 their fleet entered the Clyde, from Ireland, under the command of Reginald, where they were attacked by the Scots in conjunction with the Northern Saxons, whom the ties of common safety had now united for mutual defence. Reginald is said to have drawn up his Danes in four divisions; the first headed by Godfrey O’Ivar; the second by Earls; the third by Chieftains; and the fourth by Reginald himself, as a reserve. The Scots, with Constantine at their head, made a furious attack on the first three divisions, which they forced to retire. Reginald’s reserve not being available to turn the scale of victory against the Scots, the Danes retreated during the night, and embarked on board their fleet.

After this defeat of the Danes, Constantine enjoyed many years’ repose. A long grudge had existed between him and Æthelstane, son of Edward, the elder, which at last came to an open rupture. Having formed an alliance with several princes, and particularly with Anlof, king of Dublin as well as of Northumberland, and son-in-law of Constantine, the latter collected a large fleet in the year 937, with which he entered the Humber. The hope of plunder had attracted many of the Vikingr to Constantine’s standard, and the sceptre of Æthelstane seemed now to tremble in his hand. But that monarch was fully prepared for the dangers with which he was threatened, and resolved to meet his enemies in battle. After a long, bloody, and obstinate contest at Brunanburg, near the southern shore of the Humber, victory declared for Æthelstane. Prodigies of valour were displayed on both sides, especially by Turketel, the Chancellor of England; by Anlof, and by the son of Constantine, who lost his life. The confederates, after sustaining a heavy loss, sought for safety in their ships. This, and after misfortunes, possibly disgusted Constantine with the vanities of this world, for, in the fortieth year of his reign, he put into practice a resolution which he had formed of resigning his crown and embracing a monastic life. He became Abbot of the Monastery of St. Andrews in 943, and thus ended a long and chequered, but vigorous, and, on the whole, successful reign in a cloister, like Charles V. Towards the end of this reign the term Scotland was applied to this kingdom by the Saxons, a term which before had been given by them to Ireland. Constantine died in 952.

Malcolm I., the son of Donald IV., obtained the abdicated throne. He was a prince of great abilities and prudence, and Edmund of England courted his alliance by ceding Cumbria, then consisting of Cumberland and part of Westmoreland, to him, in the year 945, on[51] condition that he would defend that northern county, and become the ally of Edmund. Edred, the brother and successor of Edmund, accordingly applied for, and obtained the aid of Malcolm against Anlaf, king of Northumberland, whose country, according to the barbarous practice of the times, he wasted, and carried off the people with their cattle. Malcolm, after putting down an insurrection of the Moray-men under Cellach, their Maormor, or chief, whom he slew, was sometime thereafter slain, as is supposed, at Ulurn or Auldearn in Moray, by one of these men, in revenge for the death of his chief.

Indulph, the son of Constantine III., succeeded the murdered monarch in the year 953. He sustained many severe conflicts with the Danes, and ultimately lost his life in 961, after a reign of eight years, in a successful action with these pirates, on the moor which lies to the westward of Cullen.

Duff, the son of Malcolm I., now mounted the throne; but Culen, the son of Indulf, laid claim to the sceptre which his father had wielded. The parties met at Drum Crup (probably Crieff), and, after a doubtful struggle, in which Doncha, the Abbot of Dunkeld, and Dubdou, the Maormor of Athole, the partisans of Culen, lost their lives, victory declared for Duff. But this triumph was of short duration, for Duff was afterwards obliged to retreat from Forteviot into the north, and was assassinated at Forres in the year 965, after a brief and unhappy reign of four years and a half.

Culen, the son of Indulf, succeeded, as a matter of course, to the crown of Duff, which he stained by his vices. He and his brother Eocha were slain in Lothian, in an action with the Britons of Strathclyde in 970, after an inglorious reign of four years and a half. During his reign Edinburgh was captured from the English, this being the first known step in the progress of the gradual extension of the Scottish kingdom between the Forth and the Tweed.[110]

Kenneth III., son of Malcolm I., and brother of Duff, succeeded Culen the same year. He waged a successful war against the Britons of Strathclyde, and annexed their territories to his kingdom. During his reign the Danes meditated an attack upon Forteviot, or Dunkeld, for the purposes of plunder, and, with this view, they sailed up the Tay with a numerous fleet. Kenneth does not appear to have been fully prepared, being probably not aware of the intentions of the enemy; but collecting as many of his chiefs and their followers as the spur of the occasion would allow, he met the Danes at Luncarty, in the vicinity of Perth. Malcolm, the Tanist, prince of Cumberland, it is said, commanded the right wing of the Scottish army; Duncan, the Maormor of Athole, had the charge of the left: and Kenneth, the king, commanded the centre. The Danes with their battle-axes made dreadful havoc, and compelled the Scottish army to give way; but the latter was rallied by the famous Hay, the traditional ancestor of the Kinnoul family, and finally repulsed the Danes, who, as usual, fled to their ships. Burton thinks the battle of Luncarty “a recent invention.”

The defeat of the Danes enabled Kenneth to turn his attention to the domestic concerns of his kingdom. He appears to have directed his thoughts to bring about a complete change in the mode of succession to the crown, in order to perpetuate in and confine the crown to his own descendants. This alteration could not be well accomplished as long as Malcolm, the son of Duff, the Tanist of the kingdom, and prince of Cumberland, stood in the way; and, accordingly, it has been said that Kenneth was the cause of the untimely death of prince Malcolm, who is stated to have been poisoned. It is said that Kenneth got an act passed, that in future the son, or nearest male heir, of the king, should always succeed to the throne; and that in case that son or heir were not of age at the time of the king’s demise, that a person of rank should be chosen Regent of the kingdom, until the minor attained his fourteenth year, when he should assume the reins of government; but whether such a law was really passed on the moot-hill of Scone or not, of which we have no evidence, certain it is that two other princes succeeded to the crown before Malcolm the son of Kenneth. Kenneth, after a reign of twenty-four years, was, it is said, in 994 assassinated at Fettercairn by[52] Finella,[111] the wife of the Maormor of the Mearns, and the daughter of Cunechat, the Maormor of Angus, in revenge for having put her only son to death. It has been thought that till this time the Maormorship of Angus was in some measure independent of the Scottish crown, never having thoroughly yielded to its supremacy, that the death of the young chief took place in course of an effort on the part of Kenneth for its reduction, and that Kenneth himself was on a visit to the quarter at the time of his death, for exacting the usual royal privileges of cain and cuairt, or a certain tax and certain provision for the king and his followers when on a journey, due by the chiefs or landholders of the kingdom.[112]

Constantine IV., son of Culen, succeeded; but his right was disputed by Kenneth, the Grim, i.e. strong, son of Duff. The dispute was decided at Rathveramon, i.e. the castle at the mouth of the Almond, near Perth, where Constantine lost his life in the year 995.

Kenneth IV., the son of Duff, now obtained the sceptre which he had coveted; but he was disturbed in the possession thereof by Malcolm, the son of Kenneth III., heir presumptive to the crown. Malcolm took the field in 1003, and decided his claim to the crown in a bloody battle at Monivaird, in Strathearn, in which Kenneth, after a noble resistance, received a mortal wound.

Malcolm II. now ascended the vacant throne, but was not destined to enjoy repose. At the very beginning of his reign he was defeated at Durham by the army of the Earl of Northumberland, under his son Uchtred, who ordered a selection of good-looking Scotch heads to be stuck on the walls of Durham.

The Danes, who had now obtained a firm footing in England, directed their attention in an especial manner to Scotland, which they were in hopes of subduing. Sigurd, the Earl of Orkney, carried on a harassing and predatory warfare on the shores of the Moray Frith, which he continued even after a matrimonial alliance he formed with Malcolm, by marrying his daughter; but this was no singular trait in the character of a Vikingr, who plundered friends and foes with equal pleasure. The scene of Sigurd’s operations was chosen by his brother northmen for making a descent, which they effected near Speymouth. They carried fire and sword through Moray, and laid siege to the fortress of Nairn, one of the strongest in the north. The Danes were forced to raise the siege for a time, by Malcolm, who encamped his army in a plain near Kilflos or Kinloss. In this position he was attacked by the invaders, and, after a severe action, was forced to retreat, after being seriously wounded.

Malcolm, in 1010, marched north with his army, and encamped at Mortlach. The Danes advanced to meet the Scots, and a dreadful and fierce conflict ensued, the result of which was long dubious. At length the northmen gave way and victory declared for Malcolm. Had the Danes succeeded they would in all probability have obtained as permanent a footing in North Britain as they did in England; but the Scottish kings were determined, at all hazards, never to suffer them to pollute the soil of Scotland by allowing them even the smallest settlement in their dominions. In gratitude to God for his victory, Malcolm endowed a religious house at Mortlach, with its church erected near the scene of action. Maclauchlan, however, maintains that this church was planted by Malcolm Ceanmore.

Many other conflicts are narrated with minute detail by the later chroniclers as having taken place between Malcolm and the Danes, but it is very doubtful how far these are worthy of credit. That Malcolm had enough to do to prevent the Danes from overrunning Scotland and subduing the inhabitants can readily be believed; but as we have few authentic particulars concerning the conflicts which took place, it would serve no purpose to give the imaginary details invented by comparatively recent historians.

Some time after this Malcolm was engaged in a war with the Northumbrians, and, having led his army, in 1018, to Carham, near Werk, on the southern bank of the Tweed, where he was met by Uchtred, the Earl of Northumberland, a desperate battle took place, which was[53] contested with great valour on both sides.[113] The success was doubtful on either side, though Uchtred claimed a victory; but he did not long enjoy the fruits of it, as he was soon thereafter assassinated when on his road to pay obeisance to the great Canute. Endulf, the brother and successor of Uchtred, justly dreading the power of the Scots, was induced to cede Lothian to Malcolm for ever, who, on this occasion, gave oblations to the churches and gifts to the clergy, and they in return transmitted his name to posterity. He was designed, par excellence, by the Latin chroniclers, rex victoriosissimus; by St. Berchan, the Forranach or destroyer.

The last struggle with which Malcolm was threatened, was with the celebrated Canute, who, for some cause or other not properly explained, entered Scotland in the year 1031; but these powerful parties appear not to have come to action. Canute’s expedition appears, from what followed, to have been fitted out to compel Malcolm to do homage for Cumberland, for it is certain that Malcolm engaged to fulfil the conditions on which his predecessors had held that country, and that Canute thereafter returned to England.

But the reign of Malcolm was not only distinguished by foreign wars, but by civil contests between rival chiefs. Finlegh, the Maormor of Ross, and the father of Macbeth, was assassinated in 1020, and about twelve years thereafter, Maolbride, the Maormor of Moray, grandfather of Lulach, was, in revenge for Finlegh’s murder, burnt within his castle, with fifty of his men.

At length, after a splendid reign of thirty years, Malcolm slept with his fathers, and his body was transferred to Iona, and interred with due solemnity among the remains of his predecessors. By some authorities he is said to have been assassinated at Glammis.

Malcolm was undoubtedly a prince of great acquirements. He made many changes and some improvements in the internal policy of his kingdom, and in him religion always found a guardian and protector. But although Malcolm is justly entitled to this praise, he by no means came up to the standard of perfection assigned him by fiction. In his reign Scotland appears to have reached its present boundary on the south, the Tweed, and Strathclyde was incorporated with the rest of the kingdom. Malcolm was the first who was called Rex Scotiæ, and might justly claim to be so designated, seeing that he was the first to hold sway over nearly the whole of present Scotland,—the only portions where his authority appears to have been seriously disputed being those in which the Danes had established themselves.

Duncan, son of Bethoc or Beatrice, daughter of Malcolm II., succeeded his grandfather in the year 1033. “In the extreme north, dominions more extensive than any Jarl of the Orkneys had hitherto acquired, were united under the rule of Thorfinn, Sigurd’s son, whose character and appearance have been thus described:—‘He was stout and strong, but very ugly, severe and cruel, but a very clever man.’ The extensive districts then dependant upon the Moray Maormors were in the possession of the celebrated Macbeth.”[114] Duncan, in 1033, desiring to extend his dominions southwards, attacked Durham, but was forced to retire with considerable loss. His principal struggles, however, were with his powerful kinsman, Thorfinn, whose success was so great that he extended his conquests as far as the Tay. “His men spread over the whole conquered country,” says the Orkneyinga Saga,[115] “and burnt every hamlet and farm, so that not a cot remained. Every man that they found they slew; but the old men and women fled to the deserts and woods, and filled the country with lamentation. Some were driven before the Norwegians and made slaves. After this Earl Thorfinn returned to his ships, subjugating the country everywhere in his progress.” Duncan’s last battle, in which he was defeated, was in the neighbourhood of Burghead, near the Moray Frith; and shortly after this, on the 14th August, 1040, he was assassinated in Bothgowanan,—which, in Gaelic, is said to mean “the smith’s hut,”—by his kinsman the[54] Maormor Macbeda or Macbeth. Duncan had reigned only five years when he was assassinated by Macbeth, leaving two infant sons, Malcolm and Donal, by a sister of Siward, the Earl of Northumberland. The former fled to Cumberland, and the latter took refuge in the Hebrides, on the death of their father.

Macbeth, “snorting with the indigested fumes of the blood of his sovereign,” immediately seized the gory sceptre. As several fictions have been propagated concerning the history and genealogy of Macbeth, we may mention that, according to the most authentic authorities, he was by birth Thane of Ross, and by his marriage with the Lady Gruoch,—who had a claim to the throne, as granddaughter of Kenneth,—became also Thane of Moray, during the minority of Lulach, the infant son of that lady, by her former marriage with Gilcomgain, the Maormor or Thane of Moray. Lady Gruoch was the daughter of Boedhe, son of Kenneth IV.; and thus Macbeth united in his own person many powerful interests which enabled him to take quiet possession of the throne of the murdered sovereign. He, of course, found no difficulty in getting himself inaugurated at Scone, under the protection of the clans of Moray and Ross, and the aid of those who favoured the pretensions of the descendants of Kenneth IV.

Various attempts were made on the part of the partisans of Malcolm, son of Duncan, to dispossess Macbeth of the throne. The most formidable was that of Siward, the powerful Earl of Northumberland, and the relation of Malcolm, who, at the instigation or command of Edward the Confessor, led a numerous army into Scotland in the year 1054. They marched as far north as Dunsinnan, where they were met by Macbeth, who commanded his troops in person. A furious battle ensued, but Macbeth fled from the field after many displays of courage. The Scots lost 3,000 men, and the Saxons 1,500, including Osbert, the son of Siward. Macbeth retired to his fastnesses in the north, and Siward returned to Northumberland; but Malcolm continued the war till the death of Macbeth, who was slain by Macduff, Thane of Fife, in revenge for the cruelties he had inflicted on his family, at Lumphanan, in Aberdeenshire, in the year 1056, although, according to Skene (Chronicles), it was in August, 1057.

Macbeth was unquestionably a man of great vigour, and well fitted to govern in the age in which he lived; and had it not been for the indelible character bestowed upon him by Shakespere (who probably followed the chronicle of Holinshed), his character might have stood well with posterity. “The deeds which raised Macbeth and his wife to power were not in appearance much worse than others of their day done for similar ends. However he may have gained his power, he exercised it with good repute, according to the reports nearest to his time.”[116] Macbeth, “in a manner sacred to splendid infamy,” is the first king of Scotland whose name appears in the ecclesiastical records as a benefactor of the church, and, it would appear, the first who offered his services to the Bishop of Rome. According to the records of St. Andrews, he made a gift of certain lands to the monastery of Lochleven, and certainly sent money to the poor of Rome, if, indeed, he did not himself make a pilgrimage to the holy city.

After the reign of Macbeth, the former irregular and confusing mode of succession ceased, and the hereditary principle was adopted and acted upon.

Lulach, the great-grandson of Kenneth IV., being supported by the powerful influence of his own family, and that of the deceased monarch, ascended the throne at the age of twenty-five or twenty-six; but his reign lasted only a few months, he having fallen in battle at Essie, in Strathbogie, in defending his crown against Malcolm. The body of Lulach was interred along with that of Macbeth, in Iona, the common sepulchre, for many centuries, of the Scottish kings.

Malcolm III., better known in history by the name of Malcolm Ceanmore, or great head, vindicated his claim to the vacant throne, and was crowned at Scone, 25th April, 1057. His first care was to recompense those who had assisted him in obtaining the sovereignty, and it is said that he created new titles of honour, by substituting earls for thanes; but this has been disputed, and there are really no[55] data from which a certain conclusion can be drawn.

In the year 1059 Malcolm paid a visit to Edward the Confessor, during whose reign he lived on amicable terms with the English; but after the death of that monarch he made a hostile incursion into Northumberland, and wasted the country. He even violated the peace of St. Cuthbert in Holy Island.

William, Duke of Normandy, having overcome Harold in the battle of Hastings, on the 14th October, 1066, Edgar Ætheling saw no hopes of obtaining the crown, and left England along with his mother and sisters, and sought refuge in Scotland. Malcolm, on hearing of the distress of the illustrious strangers, left his royal palace at Dunfermline to meet them, and invited them to Dunfermline, where they were hospitably entertained. Margaret, one of Edgar’s sisters, was a princess of great virtues and accomplishments; and she at once won the heart of Malcolm.

The offer of his hand was accepted, and their nuptials were celebrated with great solemnity and splendour. This queen was a blessing to the king and to the nation, and appears to have well merited the appellation of Saint. There are few females in history who can be compared with Queen Margaret.

It is quite unnecessary, and apart from the object of the present work, to enter into any details of the wars between Malcolm and William the Conqueror, and William Rufus. Suffice it to say that both Malcolm and his eldest son Edward were slain in a battle on the Alne, on the 13th November, 1093, after a reign of thirty-six years. Queen Margaret, who was on her death-bed when this catastrophe occurred, died shortly after she received the intelligence with great composure and resignation to the will of God. Malcolm had six sons, viz., Edward, who was killed along with his father, Edmund, Edgar, Ethelred, Alexander, and David, and two daughters, Maud, who was married to Henry I. of England, and Mary, who married Eustache, Count of Boulogne. Of the sons, Edgar, Alexander, and David, successively came to the crown.

Thorfinn, Earl of Orkney, died in 1064, and his extensive possessions in Scotland did not revert to his descendants, but to the native chiefs, who had had the original right to possess them. These chiefs appear to have been independent of the Scottish sovereign, and to have caused him no small amount of trouble. A considerable part of Malcolm’s reign was spent in endeavouring to bring them into subjection, and before his death he had the satisfaction of seeing the whole of Scotland, with perhaps the exception of Orkney, acknowledging him as sole monarch. The Norwegian conquest appears to have effected a most important change in the character of the population and language of the eastern lowlands of the north of Scotland. The original population must in some way have given way to a Norwegian one, and, whatever may have been the original language, we find after this one of a decidedly Teutonic character prevailing in this district, probably introduced along with the Norse population. “In the more mountainous and Highland districts, however, we are warranted in concluding that the effect must have been very different, and that the possession of the country by the Norwegians for thirty years could have exercised as little permanent influence on the population itself, as we are assured by the Saga it did upon the race of their chiefs.

“Previously to this conquest the northern Gaelic race possessed the whole of the north of Scotland, from the western to the eastern sea, and the general change produced by the conquest must have been, that the Gael were for the first time confined within those limits which they have never since exceeded, and that the eastern districts became inhabited by that Gothic race, who have also ever since possessed them.”[117]

On the demise of Malcolm, Donal-bane his brother assumed the government; but Duncan, the son of Malcolm, who had lived many years in England, and held a high military rank under William Rufus, invaded Scotland with a large army of English and Normans, and forced Donal to retire for safety to the Hebrides. Duncan, whom some writers suppose to have been a bastard, and others a legitimate son of Malcolm by a former wife, enjoyed the crown only six months, having been assassinated by[56] Maolpeder, the Maormor of the Mearns, at Menteith, at the instigation, it is believed, of Donal. Duncan left, by his wife Ethreda, daughter of Gospatrick, a son, William, sometimes surnamed Fitz-Duncan.

Donal-bane again seized the sceptre, but he survived Duncan only two years. Edgar Ætheling having assembled an army in England, entered Scotland, and made Donal prisoner in an action which took place in September 1097. He was imprisoned by orders of Edgar, and died at Roscobie in Forfarshire, after having been deprived of his eyesight, according to the usual practice of the age. The series of the pure Scoto-Irish kings may be said to have ended with Donal-bane.

Seal of Edgar.

The reign of Edgar, who appears to have been of a gentle and peaceful disposition, is almost devoid of incident, the principal events being the marriage of his sister Matilda to the English Henry, and the wasting and conquest of the Western Islands by Magnus Olaveson and his Norwegians. This last event had but little effect on Scotland proper, as these Islands at that time can hardly be said to have belonged to it. These Norsemen appear to have settled among and mixed with the native inhabitants, and thus to have formed a population, spoken of by the Irish Annalists under the name of Gallgael, “a horde of pirates, plundering on their own account, and under their own leaders, when they were not following the banner of any of the greater sea-kings, whose fleets were powerful enough to sweep the western seas, and exact tribute from the lesser island chieftains.”[118] Edgar died in 1107, and was succeeded by his brother Alexander, whom he enjoined to bestow upon his younger brother David the district of Cumbria.

We have now arrived at an era in our history, when the line of demarcation between the inhabitants of the Lowlands and Highlands of Scotland begins to appear, and when, by the influx of a Gothic race into the former, the language of that part of North Britain is completely revolutionized, when a new dynasty or race of sovereigns ascends the throne, and when a great change takes places in the laws and constitution of the kingdom.

Although the Anglo-Saxon colonization of the Lowlands of Scotland does not come exactly within the design of the present work; yet, as forming an important feature in the history of the Lowlands of Scotland, as contradistinguished from the Highlands, a slight notice of it may not be uninteresting.

Shortly after the Roman abdication of North Britain in the year 446, which was soon succeeded by the final departure of the Romans from the British shores, the Saxons, a people of Gothic origin, established themselves upon the Tweed, and afterwards extended their settlements to the Frith of Forth, and to the banks of the Solway and the Clyde. About the beginning of the sixth century the Dalriads, as we have seen, landed in Kintyre and Argyle from the opposite coast of Ireland; and colonized these districts, whence, in the course of little more than two centuries, they overspread the Highlands and western islands, which their descendants have ever since continued to possess. Towards the end of the eighth century, a fresh colony of Scots from Ireland settled in Galloway among the Britons and Saxons, and having overspread the whole of that country, were afterwards joined by detachments of the Scots of Kintyre and Argyle, in connection with whom they peopled that[57] peninsula. Besides these three races, who made permanent settlements in Scotland, the Scandinavians colonized the Orkney and Shetland islands, and also established themselves on the coasts of Caithness and Sutherland, and in the eastern part of the country north of the Frith of Tay.

But notwithstanding these early settlements of the Gothic race, the era of the Saxon colonization of the Lowlands of Scotland is, with more propriety, placed in the reign of Malcolm Ceanmore, who, by his marriage with a Saxon princess, and the protection he gave to the Anglo-Saxon fugitives who sought an asylum in his dominions from the persecutions of William the Conqueror and his Normans, laid the foundations of those great changes which took place in the reigns of his successors. Malcolm, in his warlike incursions into Northumberland and Durham, carried off immense numbers of young men and women, who were to be seen in the reign of David I. in almost every village and house in Scotland. The Gaelic population were quite averse to the settlement of these strangers among them, and it is said that the extravagant mode of living introduced by the Saxon followers of Queen Margaret, was one of the reasons which led to their expulsion from Scotland, in the reign of Donal-bane, who rendered himself popular with his people by this unfriendly act.

This expulsion was, however, soon rendered nugatory, for on the accession of Edgar, the first sovereign of the Scoto-Saxon dynasty, many distinguished Saxon families with their followers settled in Scotland, to the heads of which families the king made grants of land of considerable extent. Few of these foreigners appear to have come into Scotland during the reign of Alexander I., the brother and successor of Edgar; but vast numbers of Anglo-Saxons, Anglo-Normans, and Flemings, established themselves in Scotland in the reign of David I. That prince had received his education at the court of Henry I., and had married Maud or Matilda, the only child of Waltheof, Earl of Northumberland and Huntingdon, by Judith, niece to William the Conqueror on the mother’s side. This lady had many vassals, and when David came to the throne, in the year 1124, he was followed by a thousand Anglo-Normans, to whom he distributed lands, on which they and their followers settled. Many of the illustrious families in Scotland originated from this source.

Malcolm Ceanmore had, before his accession to the throne, resided for some time in England as a fugitive, under the protection of Edward the Confessor, where he acquired a knowledge of the Saxon language; which language, after his marriage with the princess Margaret, became that of the Scottish court. This circumstance made that language fashionable among the Scottish nobility, in consequence of which and of the Anglo-Saxon colonization under David I., the Gaelic language was altogether superseded in the Lowlands of Scotland in little more than two centuries after the death of Malcolm. A topographical line of demarcation was then fixed as the boundary between the two languages, which has ever since been kept up, and presents one of the most singular phenomena ever observed in the history of philology.

The change of the seat of government by Kenneth, on ascending the Pictish throne, to Abernethy, also followed by the removal of the marble chair, the emblem of sovereignty, from Dunstaffnage to Scone, appears to have occasioned no detriment to the Gaelic population of the Highlands; but when Malcolm Ceanmore transferred his court, about the year 1066, to Dunfermline,—which also became, in place of Iona, the sepulchre of the Scottish kings,—the rays of royal bounty, which had hitherto diffused their protecting and benign influence over the inhabitants of the Highlands, were withdrawn, and left them a prey to anarchy and poverty. “The people,” says General David Stewart, “now beyond the reach of the laws, became turbulent and fierce, revenging in person those wrongs for which the administrators of the laws were too distant and too feeble to afford redress. Thence arose the institution of chiefs, who naturally became the judges and arbiters in the quarrels of their clansmen and followers, and who were surrounded by men devoted to the defence of their rights, their property, and their power; and accordingly the chiefs established within their own territories a jurisdiction almost wholly independent of their liege lord.”

[58]

The connection which Malcolm and his successors maintained with England, estranged still farther the Highlanders from the dominion of the sovereign and the laws; and their history, after the population of the Lowlands had merged into and adopted the language of the Anglo-Saxons, presents, with the exception of the wars between rival clans which will be noticed afterwards, nothing remarkable till their first appearance on the military theatre of our national history in the campaigns of Montrose, Dundee, and others.

On the accession of Alexander I., then, Scotland was divided between the Celt and the Saxon, or more strictly speaking, Teuton, pretty much as it is at the present day, the Gaelic population having become gradually confined very nearly to the limits indicated in the first chapter. They never appear, at least until quite recently, to have taken kindly to Teutonic customs and the Teutonic tongue, and resented much the defection of their king in court, in submitting to Saxon innovations. Previous to this the history of the Highlands has been, to a very great extent, the history of Scotland, and even for a considerable time after this, Scotia was applied strictly to the country north of the Forth and Clyde, the district south of that being known by various other names. During and after Edgar’s time, the whole of the country north of the Tweed became more and more a counterpart of England, with its thanes, its earls, and its sheriffs; and even the Highland maormors assumed the title of earl, in deference to the new customs. The Highlanders, however, it is well known, for centuries warred against these Saxon innovations, becoming more and more a peculiar people, being, up till the end of the last century, a perpetual thorn in the flesh of their Saxon rulers and their Saxon fellow-subjects. They have a history of their own, which we deem worthy of narration.[119]

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE SCOTTISH KINGS, FROM 843 TO 1097, ADJUSTED FROM THE BEST AUTHORITIES.

MACINTYRE.

[59]

CHAPTER V.

A.D. 1107–1411.

KINGS OF SCOTLAND DURING THE PERIOD:—

The reign of Alexander I. was disturbed, about the year 1116, by an attempt made by the men of Moray and Merne to surprise the king while enjoying himself at his favourite residence at Invergowrie, on the north bank of the Tay, not far from its mouth. The king, however, showed himself more than a match for his enemies, as he not only defeated their immediate purpose, but, pursuing them with his army across the Moray Frith, chastised them so effectually as to keep them quiet for the remainder of his reign, which ended by his death, in April, 1124. In 1130, six years after the accession of King David I. to the Scottish throne, while he was in England, the Moraymen again rose against the semi-Saxon king, but were defeated at Strickathrow, in Forfarshire, by Edward the Constable, son of Siward Beorn, Angus the Earl of Moray being left among the dead, Malcolm his brother escaping to carry on the conflict. In 1134 David himself took the field against these Highlanders, and, with the assistance of the barons of Northumberland, headed by Walter L’Espec, completely subdued the Moraymen, confiscated the whole district, and bestowed it upon knights in whose fidelity he could place confidence, some of these being Normans.

This was manifestly, according to Dr. Maclauchlan, the period of the dispersion of the ancient Moravienses. Never till then was the power of the Moray chiefs thoroughly broken, and only then were the inhabitants proscribed, and many of them expelled. The Murrays, afterwards so powerful, found their way to the south, carrying with them the name of their ancient country, and some of the present tribes of Sutherland, as well as of Inverness-shire, who, there is reason to believe, belonged to the Scoto-Pictish inhabitants of Moray, removed their dwellings to those portions of the country which they have occupied ever since. The race of Mac Heth may appear among the Mac Heths or Mac Aoidhs, the Mackays of Sutherland, nor is this rendered less probable by the Morganaich or sons of Morgan, the ancient name of the Mackays, appearing in the Book of Deer as owning possessions and power in Buchan in the 10th or 11th century.[121]

The next enterprise of any note was undertaken by Somerled, thane of Argyle and the Isles, against the authority of Malcolm IV., who, after various conflicts, was repulsed, though not subdued, by Gilchrist, Earl of Angus. A peace, concluded with this powerful chieftain in 1153, was considered of such importance as to form an epoch in the dating of Scottish charters. A still more formidable insurrection broke out among the Moraymen, under Gildominick, on account of an attempt, on the part of the Government, to intrude the Anglo-Norman jurisdiction, introduced into the Lowlands, upon their Celtic customs, and the settling of Anglo-Belgic colonists among them. These insurgents laid waste the neighbouring counties; and so regardless were they of the royal authority, that they actually hanged the heralds who were sent to summon them to lay down their arms. Malcolm despatched the gallant Earl Gilchrist with an army to subdue them, but he was defeated, and forced to re-cross the Grampians.

This defeat aroused Malcolm, who was naturally of an indolent disposition. About the year 1160 he marched north with a powerful army, and found the enemy on the moor of Urquhart, near the Spey, ready to give him battle. After passing the Spey, the noblemen in the king’s army reconnoitred the enemy;[60] but they found them so well prepared for action, and so flushed with their late success, that they considered the issue of a battle rather doubtful. On this account, the commanders advised the king to enter into a negotiation with the rebels, and to promise, that in the event of a submission their lives would be spared. The offer was accepted, and the king kept his word. According to Fordun,[122] the king, by the advice of his nobles, ordained that every family in Moray which had been engaged in the rebellion should, within a limited time, remove out of Moray to other parts of the kingdom, where lands would be assigned to them, and that their places should be supplied with people from other parts of the kingdom. For the performance of this order, they gave hostages, it is said,[123] and at the time appointed transplanted themselves, some into the northern, but the greater number into the southern counties. Chalmers considers this removal of the Moray men as “an egregious improbability,” because “the dispossessing of a whole people is so difficult an operation, that the recital of it cannot be believed without strong evidence;”[124] it is very probable that only the ringleaders and their families were transported. The older historians say that the Moraymen were almost totally cut off in an obstinate battle, and strangers brought into their place.[125]

About this time Somerled, the ambitious and powerful lord of the Isles, made another and a last attempt upon the king’s authority, Having collected a large force, chiefly in Ireland, he landed, in 1164, near Renfrew; but he was defeated by the brave inhabitants and the king’s troops in a decisive battle, in which he and his son Gillecolum were slain.

The reign of William the Lion, who succeeded his brother in 1165, was marked by many disturbances in the Highlands. The Gaelic population could not endure the new settlers whom the Saxon colonization had introduced among them, and every opportunity was taken to vex and annoy them. An open insurrection broke out in Ross-shire, headed by Donald Bane, known also as MacWilliam, which obliged William, in the year 1181, to march into the north, where he built the two castles of Eddirton and Dunscath to keep the people in check. He restored quiet for a few years; but, in 1187, Donald Bane again renewed his pretensions to the crown, and raised the standard of revolt in the north. He took possession of Ross, and wasted Moray. William lost no time in leading an army against him. While the king lay at Inverness with his army, a party of 3,000 faithful men, under the command of Roland, the brave lord of Galloway, and future Constable of Scotland, fell in with Donald Bane and his army upon the Mamgarvy moor, on the borders of Moray. A conflict ensued in which Donald and five hundred of his followers were killed. Roland carried the head of Donald to William, “as a savage sign of returning quiet.” After this comparative quietness prevailed in the north till the year 1196, when Harold, the powerful Earl of Orkney and Caithness, disturbed its peace. William dispersed the insurgents at once; but they again appeared the following year near Inverness, under the command of Torphin, the son of Harold. The rebels were again overpowered. The king seized Harold, and obliged him to deliver up his son, Torphin, as an hostage. Harold was allowed to retain the northern part of Caithness, but the king gave the southern part of it, called Sutherland, to Hugh Freskin, the progenitor of the Earls of Sutherland. Harold died in 1206; but as he had often rebelled, his son suffered a cruel and lingering death in the castle of Roxburgh, where he had been confined.

[61]

During the year 1211 a new insurrection broke out in Ross, headed by Guthred or Godfrey, the son of Donald Bane or MacWilliam, as he was called. Great depredations were committed by the insurgents, who were chiefly freebooters from Ireland, the Hebrides, and Lochaber. For a long time they baffled the king’s troops; and although the king built two forts to keep them in check, and took many prisoners, they maintained for a considerable period a desultory and predatory warfare. Guthred even forced one of the garrisons to capitulate, and burnt the castle; but being betrayed by his followers into the hands of William Comyn, Earl of Buchan, the Justiciary of Scotland, he was executed in the year 1212.

Shortly after the accession of Alexander II. in 1214, the peace of the north was attempted to be disturbed by Donald MacWilliam, who made an inroad from Ireland into Moray; but he was repulsed by the tribes of that country, led by M’Intagart, the Earl of Ross. In 1222, notwithstanding the formidable obstacles which presented themselves from the nature of the country, Alexander carried an army into Argyle, for the purpose of enforcing the homage of the western chiefs. His presence so alarmed the men of Argyle, that they immediately made their submission. Several of the chiefs fled for safety, and to punish them, the king distributed their lands among his officers and their followers. After this invasion Argyle was brought under the direct jurisdiction of the Scottish king, although the descendants of the race of Somerled, Lord of the Isles, still continued to be the chief magnates.

During the same year a tumult took place in Caithness, on account of the severity with which the tithes were exacted by Adam, the bishop, who, with his adviser, Serlo, was murdered by the bonders. The king, who was at the time at Jedburgh, hearing of this murder, immediately hastened to the north with a military force, and inflicted the punishment of death upon the principal actors in this tragedy, who amounted, it is said, to four hundred persons; and that their race might become extinct, their children were emasculated, a practice very common in these barbarous times. The Earl of Caithness, who was supposed to have been privy to the murder, was deprived of half of his estate, which was afterwards restored to him on payment of a heavy fine. The Earl is said to have been murdered by his own servants in the year 1231, and in order to prevent discovery, they laid his body into his bed and set fire to the house.

In 1228 the country of Moray became the theatre of a new insurrection, headed by a Ross-shire freebooter, named Gillespoc M’Scolane. He committed great devastations by burning some wooden castles in Moray, and spoiling the crown lands. He even attacked and set fire to Inverness. A large army of horse and foot, under the command of John Comyn, Earl of Buchan, Justiciary of Scotland, was, in 1229, sent against this daring rebel, who was captured, with his two sons, and their heads sent to the king.

The lords of Argyle usually paid homage to the king of Norway for some of the Hebrides which belonged to that monarch, but Ewen, on succeeding his father Duncan of Argyle in 1248, refused his homage to the Scottish king, who wished to possess the whole of the Western Isles. Though Ewen was perfectly loyal, and indeed was one of the most honourable men of his time, Alexander marched an army against him to enforce obedience, but his Majesty died on his journey in Kerrera, a small island near the coast of Argyle opposite Oban, on July 8, 1249, in the fifty-first year of his age, and the thirty-fifth of his reign.

According to the custom of the times, his son, Alexander III., then a boy only in his eighth year, was seated on the royal chair, or sacred stone of Scone, which was placed before the cross that stood within the burying-ground. Immediately before his inauguration, the bishop of St. Andrews girded him with the sword of state, and explained to him, first in Latin and afterwards in Norman French, the nature of the compact he and his subjects were about to enter into. The crown, after the king had been seated, was placed on his head, and the sceptre put into his hand. He was then covered with the royal mantle, and received the homage of the nobles on their knees, who, in token of submission, threw their robes beneath his feet. On this occasion, agreeably to ancient practice, a Gaelic sennachy, or bard, clothed in a red mantle, and venerable for his great age and[62] hoary locks, approached the king, and in a bended and reverential attitude, recited, from memory, in his native language, the genealogy of all the Scottish kings, deducing the descent of the youthful monarch from Gathetus, the fabulous founder of the nation.[126] The reign of this prince was distinguished by the entire subjugation of the western islands to the power of the Scottish crown. The Scandinavian settlers were allowed to leave the islands, if inclined, and such of them as remained were bound to observe the Scottish laws.

Alexander III.—From Pinkerton’s Scottish Gallery.

Shortly after the accession of Alexander III., an insurrection broke out against the Earl of Ross, of some of the people of that province. The Earl apprehended their leader or captain, whom he imprisoned at Dingwall. In revenge, the Highlanders seized upon the Earl’s second son at Balnagown, took him prisoner, and detained him as a hostage till their captain should be released. The Monroes and the Dingwalls immediately took up arms, and having pursued the insurgents, overtook them at a place called Bealligh-ne-Broig, between Ferrandonald and Loch Broom, where a bloody conflict ensued. “The Clan Iver, Clan-Talvich, and Clan-Laiwe,” says Sir Robert Gordon, “wer almost uterlie extinguished and slain.” The Monroes and Dingwalls lost a great many men. Dingwall of Kildun, and seven score of the surname of Dingwall, were killed. No less than eleven Monroes of the house of Foulis, who were to succeed one after another, fell, so that the succession of Foulis opened to an infant then lying in his cradle. The Earl’s son was rescued, and to requite the service performed, he made various grants of lands to the Monroes and Dingwalls.[127]

In 1263, Haco, the aged king of Norway, sailed with a large and powerful fleet, determined to enforce acknowledgment of his claims as superior of the Western Islands on their chiefs, as well as upon the king of Scotland. Sailing southwards among the islands, one chief after another acknowledged his supremacy, and helped to swell his force, the only honourable exception being the stanch Ewen of Argyle. Meantime Haco brought his fleet to anchor in the Frith of Clyde, between Arran and the Ayrshire coast, his men committing ravages on the neighbouring country, as, indeed, they appear to have done during the whole of his progress. Negotiations entered into between Haco and Alexander III. came to nothing, and as winter was approaching, and his fleet had suffered much from several severe storms which caught it, the former was fain to make his way homewards. A number of his men, however, contrived to effect a landing near Largs, where they were met by a miscellaneous Scottish host, consisting of cavalry and country people, and finally completely routed. The date of this skirmish, which is known as the battle of Largs, is October 2d, 1263. Haco died in the end of the same year in Orkney, and in 1266 Magnus IV., his successor, ceded the whole of the[63] Scottish Islands held by Norway, except Orkney and Shetland, the Scottish king paying a small annual rent. Those of the islesmen who had proved unfaithful to the Scottish king were most severely and cruelly punished.

No event of any importance appears to have occurred in the Highlands till the time of King Robert Bruce, who was attacked, after his defeat at Methven, by Macdougall of Lorn, and defeated in Strathfillan. But Bruce was determined that Macdougall should not long enjoy his petty triumph. Having been joined by his able partisan, Sir James Douglas, he entered the territory of Lorn. On arriving at the narrow pass of Ben Cruachan, beween Loch Awe and Loch Etive, Bruce was informed that Macdougall had laid an ambuscade for him. Bruce divided his army into two parts. One of these divisions, consisting entirely of archers who were lightly armed, was placed under the command of Douglas, who was directed to make a circuit round the mountain, and to attack the Highlanders in the rear. As soon as Douglas had gained possession of the ground above the Highlanders, Bruce entered the pass, and, as soon as he had advanced into its narrow gorge, he was attacked by the men of Lorn, who, from the surrounding heights, hurled down stones upon him accompanied with loud shouts. They then commenced a closer attack, but, being instantly assailed in the rear by Douglas’s division, and assaulted by the king with great fury in front, they were thrown into complete disorder, and defeated with great slaughter. Macdougall, who was, during the action, on board a small vessel in Loch Etive, waiting the result, took refuge in his castle of Dunstaffnage. After ravaging the territory of Lorn, and giving it up to indiscriminate plunder, Bruce laid siege to the castle, which, after a slight resistance, was surrendered by the lord of Lorn, who swore homage to the king; but John, the son of the chief, refused to submit, and took refuge in England.

During the civil wars among the competitors for the Scottish crown, and those under Wallace and Bruce for the independence of Scotland, the Highlanders scarcely ever appear as participators in those stirring scenes which developed the resources, and called forth the chivalry of Scotland; but we are not to infer from the silence of history that they were less alive than their southern countrymen to the honour and glory of their country, or that they did not contribute to secure its independence. General Stewart says that eighteen Highland chiefs[128] fought under Robert Bruce at Bannockburn; and as these chiefs would be accompanied by their vassals, it is fair to suppose that Highland prowess lent its powerful aid to obtain that memorable victory which secured Scotland from the dominion of a foreign yoke.

After Robert Bruce had asserted the independence of his country by the decisive battle of Bannockburn, the whole kingdom, with the exception of some of the western islands, under John of Argyle, the ally of England, submitted to his authority. He, therefore, undertook an expedition against those isles, in which he was accompanied by Walter, the hereditary high-steward of Scotland, his son-in-law, who, by his marriage with Marjory, King Robert’s daughter, laid the foundation of the Stewart dynasty. To avoid the necessity of doubling the Mull of Kintyre, which was a dangerous attempt for the small vessels then in use, Robert sailed up Loch-Fyne to Tarbert with his fleet, which he dragged across the narrow isthmus between the lochs of East and West Tarbert, by means of a slide of smooth planks of trees laid parallel to each other. It had long been a superstitious belief amongst the inhabitants of the Western Islands, that they should never be subdued till their invaders sailed across this neck of land, and it is said that Robert was thereby partly induced to follow the course he did to impress upon the minds of the islanders a conviction that the time of their subjugation had arrived. The islanders were quickly subdued, and John of Lorn, who, for his services to Edward of England, had been invested with the title of Admiral of the Western fleet of England, was captured and imprisoned first in Dumbarton[64] castle, and afterwards in the castle of Loch Leven, where he died.

The feeble and effeminate reign of David II. was disturbed by another revolt by the Lord of the Isles, who was backed in his attempt to throw off his dependence by a great number of the Highland chiefs. David, with “an unwonted energy of character, commanded the attendance of the steward, with the prelates and barons of the realm, and surrounded by this formidable body of vassals and retainers, proceeded against the rebels in person. The expedition was completely successful. The rebel prince, John of the Isles, with a numerous train of those wild Highland chieftains who followed his banner, and had supported him in his attempt to throw off his dependence, met the king at Inverness, and submitted to his authority. He engaged in the most solemn manner, for himself and his vassals, that they should yield themselves faithful and obedient subjects to David, their liege lord; and not only give due and prompt obedience to the ministers and officers of the king in suit and service, as well as in the payment of taxes and public burdens, but that they would coerce and put down all others, of whatever rank or degree, who dared to raise themselves in opposition to the royal authority, and would compel them either to submit, or would pursue and banish them from their territories: for the fulfilment of which obligation the Lord of the Isles not only gave his own oath, under the penalty of forfeiting his whole principality if it was broken, but offered the high-steward, his father-in-law, as his security, and delivered his lawful son, Donald, his grandson, Angus, and his natural son, also named Donald, as hostages for the strict performance of the articles of the treaty.”[129] The deed by which John of the Isles bound himself to the performance of these stipulations is dated 15th November, 1369.[130]

To enable him the better to succeed in reducing the inhabitants of the Highlands and islands to the obedience of the laws, it is stated by an old historian,[131] that David used artifice by dividing the chiefs, and promising high rewards to those who should slay or capture their brother chiefs. The writer says that this diabolical plan, by implanting the seeds of disunion and war amongst the chiefs, succeeded; and that they gradually destroyed one another, a statement, to say the least of it, highly improbable. Certain it is, however, that it was in this reign that the practice of paying manrent began, when the powerful wished for followers, and the weak wanted protection, a circumstance which shows that the government was too weak to afford protection to the oppressed, or to quell the disputes of rival clans.

In the year 1333,[132] John Monroe, the tutor of Foulis, in travelling homeward, on his journey from Edinburgh to Ross, stopped on a meadow in Stratherdale that he and his servants might get some repose. While they were asleep, the owner of the meadow cut off the tails of their horses. Being resolved to wipe off this insult, he immediately, on his return home to Ross, summoned his whole kinsmen and followers, and, after informing them how he had been used, craved their aid to revenge the injury. The clan, of course, complied; and, having selected 350 of the best and ablest men among them, he returned to Stratherdale, which he wasted and spoiled; killed some of the inhabitants, and carried off their cattle. In passing by the isle of Moy, on his return home, Macintosh, the chief of the clan Chattan, being urged by some person who bore Monroe a grudge, sent a message to him demanding a share of the spoil. This was customary among the Highlanders when a party drove cattle which had been so taken through a gentleman’s land, and the part so exacted was called a Staoig Rathaid, or Staoig Creich, that is, a Road Collop. Monroe, not being disposed to quarrel, offered Macintosh a reasonable share, but this he was advised not to accept, and demanded the half of the booty. Monroe refused to comply with such an unreasonable demand, and proceeded on his journey. Macintosh, determined to enforce compliance, immediately collected his clansmen, and went in pursuit of Monroe, whom he overtook at Clach-na-Haire, near Inverness.[65] As soon as Monroe saw Macintosh approaching, he sent home five of his men to Ferrindonald with the cattle, and prepared for action. But Macintosh paid dearly for his rapacity and rashness, for he and the greater part of his men were killed in the conflict. Several of the Monroes also were slain, and John Monroe himself was left for dead in the field of battle, and might have died if the predecessor of Lord Lovat had not carried him to his house in the neighbourhood, where he was cured of his wounds. One of his hands was so mutilated, that he lost the use of it the remainder of his life, on which account he was afterwards called John Bac-laimh, or Ciotach.[133]

Besides the feuds of the clans in the reign of David II., the Highlands appear to have been disturbed by a formidable insurrection against the government, for, in a parliament which was held at Scone, in the year 1366, a resolution was entered into to seize the rebels in Argyle, Athole, Badenoch, Lochaber, and Ross, and all others who had risen up against the royal authority, and to compel them to submit to the laws. The chief leaders in this commotion (of which the bare mention in the parliamentary record is the only account which has reached us,) were the Earl of Ross, Hugh de Ross, John of the Isles, John of Lorn, and John de Haye, who were all summoned to attend the parliament and give in their submission, but they all refused to do so in the most decided manner; and as the government was too weak to compel them, they were suffered to remain independent.

In the year 1386, a feud having taken place between the clan Chattan and the Camerons, a battle took place in which a great number of the clan Chattan were killed, and the Camerons were nearly cut off to a man. The occasion of the quarrel was as follows. The lands of Macintosh[134] in Lochaber, were possessed by the Camerons, who were so tardy in the payment of their rents that Macintosh was frequently obliged to levy them by force by carrying off his tenants’ cattle. The Camerons were so irritated at having their cattle poinded and taken away, that they resolved to make reprisals, preparatory to which they marched into Badenoch to the number of about 400 men, under the command of Charles Macgilony. As soon as Macintosh became acquainted with this movement he called his clan and friends, the Macphersons and Davidsons, together. His force was superior to that of the Camerons, but a dispute arose among the chiefs which almost proved fatal to them. To Macintosh, as captain of the clan Chattan, the command of the centre of the army was assigned with the consent of all parties; but a difference took place between Cluny and Invernahavon, each claiming the command of the right wing. Cluny demanded it as the chief of the ancient clan Chattan, of which the Davidsons of Invernahavon were only a branch; but Invernahavon contended that to him, as the oldest branch, the command of the right wing belonged, according to the custom of the clans. The Camerons came up during this quarrel about precedency, on which Macintosh, as umpire, decided against the claim of Cluny. This was a most imprudent award, as the Macphersons exceeded both the Macintoshes and Davidsons in numbers, and they were, besides, in the country of the Macphersons. These last were so offended at the decision of Macintosh that they withdrew from the field, and became, for a time, spectators of the action. The battle soon commenced, and was fought with great obstinacy. Many of the Macintoshes, and almost all the Davidsons, were cut off by the superior number of the Camerons.[66] The Macphersons seeing their friends and neighbours almost overpowered, could no longer restrain themselves, and friendship got the better of their wounded pride. They, therefore, at this perilous crisis, rushed in upon the Camerons, who, from exhaustion and the loss they had sustained, were easily defeated. The few that escaped, with their leader, were pursued from Invernahavon, the place of battle, three miles above Ruthven, to Badenoch. Charles Macgilony was killed on a hill in Glenbenchir, which was long called Torr-Thearlaich, i.e., Charles’-hill.[136]

In the opinion of Shaw this quarrel about precedency was the origin of the celebrated judicial conflict, which took place on the North Inch of Perth, before Robert III., his queen, Annabella Drummond, and the Scottish nobility, and some foreigners of distinction, in the year 1396, and of which a variety of accounts have been given by our ancient historians. The parties to this combat were the Macphersons, properly the clan Chattan, and the Davidsons of Invernahavon, called in the Gaelic Clann-Dhaibhidh. The Davidsons were not, as some writers have supposed, a separate clan, but a branch of the clan Chattan. These rival tribes had for a long period kept up a deadly enmity with one another, which was difficult to be restrained; but after the award by Macintosh against the Macphersons, that enmity broke out into open strife, and for ten years the Macphersons and the Davidsons carried on a war of extermination, and kept the country in an uproar.

To put an end to these disorders, it is said that Robert III. sent Dunbar, Earl of Moray, and Lindsay of Glenesk, afterwards Earl of Crawford, two of the leading men of the kingdom, to endeavour to effect an amicable arrangement between the contending parties; but having failed in their attempt, they proposed that the differences should be decided in open combat before the king. Tytler[137] is of opinion that, the notions of the Norman knights having by this time become familiar to the fierce mountaineers, they adopted the singular idea of deciding their quarrel by a combat of 30 against 30. Burton, however, with his usual sagacity, remarks that, “for a whole race to submit to the ordeal of battle would imply the very highest devotion to those rules of chivalry which were an extravagant fashion in all the countries under the Norman influence, but were utterly unknown to the Highlanders, who submitted when they must submit, and retaliated when they could. That such an adjustment could be effected among them is about as incredible as a story about a parliamentary debate in Persia, or a jury trial in Timbuctoo.”[138] The beautiful and perfectly level meadow on the banks of the Tay at Perth, known as the North Inch, was fixed on, and the Monday before Michaelmas was the day appointed for the combat. According to Sir Robert Gordon, who is followed by Sir Robert Douglas and Mr. Mackintosh, it was agreed that no weapon but the broad sword was to be employed, but Wyntoun, who lived about the time, adds bows, battle-axes, and daggers.

The numbers on each side have been variously reported. By mistaking the word triceni, used by Boece and Buchanan, for treceni, some writers have multiplied them to 300. Bower, the continuator of Fordun and Wyntoun, however, mentions expressly 60 in all, or 30 on either side.

On the appointed day the combatants made their appearance on the North Inch of Perth, to decide, in presence of the king, his queen, and a large concourse of the nobility, their respective claims to superiority. Barriers had been erected on the ground to prevent the spectators from encroaching, and the king and his party took their stations upon a platform from which they could easily view the combat. At length the warriors, armed with sword and target, bows and arrows, short knives and battle-axes, advanced within the barriers, and eyed one another with looks of deadly revenge. When about to engage, a circumstance occurred which postponed the battle, and had well-nigh prevented it altogether. According to some accounts, one of the Macphersons fell sick; but Bower says, that when the troops had been[67] marshalled, one of the Macphersons, panic-struck, slipped through the crowd, plunged into the Tay and swam across, and, though pursued by thousands, effected his escape. Sir Robert Gordon merely observes, that, “at their entrie into the feild, the clan Chattan lacked one of their number, who wes privilie stolne away, not willing to be pertaker of so deir a bargane.” A man being now wanting on one side, a pause ensued, and a proposal was made that one of the Davidsons should retire, that the number on both sides might be equal, but they refused. As the combat could not proceed from this inequality of numbers, the king was about to break up the assembly, when a diminutive and crooked, but fierce man, named Henry Wynd, a burgher of Perth, better known to readers of Scott as Hal o’ the Wynd, and an armourer by trade, sprung within the barriers, and, as related by Bower, thus addressed the assembly: “Here am I. Will any one fee me to engage with these hirelings in this stage play? For half a mark will I try the game, provided, if I escape alive, I have my board of one of you so long as I live. Greater love, as it is said, hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. What, then, shall be my reward, who stake my life for the foes of the commonwealth and realm?” This demand of Gow Crom, “Crooked Smith,” as Henry was familiarly styled, adds Bower, was granted by the king and nobles. A murderous conflict now began. The armourer, bending his bow, and sending the first arrow among the opposite party, killed one of them. After showers of arrows had been discharged on both sides, the combatants, with fury in their looks, and revenge in their hearts, rushed upon one another, and a terrific scene ensued, which appalled the heart of many a valorous knight who witnessed the bloody tragedy. The violent thrusts of the daggers, and the tremendous gashes inflicted by the two-handed swords and battle-axes, hastened the work of butchery and death. “Heads were cloven asunder, limbs were lopped from the trunk. The meadow was soon flooded with blood, and covered with dead and wounded men.”[139]

After the crooked armourer had killed his man, as already related from Bower, it is said that he either sat down or drew aside, which being observed by the leader of Cluny’s band, he asked his reason for thus stopping; on which Wynd said, “Because I have fulfilled my bargain, and earned my wages.”—“The man,” exclaimed the other, “who keeps no reckoning of his good deeds, without reckoning shall be repaid,” an observation which tempted the armourer to earn, in the multiplied deaths of his opponents, a sum exceeding by as many times the original stipulation. This speech of the leader has been formed into the Gaelic adage,

which Macintosh thus renders,

Victory at last declared for the Macphersons, but not until 29 of the Davidsons had fallen prostrate in the arms of death. Nineteen of Cluny’s men also bit the dust, and the remaining 11, with the exception of Henry Wynd, who by his excellence as a swordsman had mainly contributed to gain the day, were all grievously wounded. The survivor of the clan Davidson escaped unhurt. Mackintosh following Buchanan, relates that this man, after all his companions had fallen, threw himself into the Tay, and making the opposite bank, escaped; but this is most likely a new version of Bower’s account of the affrighted champion before the commencement of the action.

The leader of the clan Kay or Davidsons is called by Bower Schea-beg, and by Wyntoun, Scha-Ferquharis son, Boece calls him Strat-berge. Who Christi-Mac-Iain, or Christi-Jonson was genealogically, we are not informed; but one thing is pretty clear, that he, not Schea-beg, or Shaw Oig,—for these are obviously one and the same,—commanded the clan Chattan, or “Clann-a-Chait.”[140] Both the principals seem to have been absent, or spectators merely of the battle; and as few of the leading men of the clan, it is believed, were parties[68] in the combat, the savage policy of the government, which, it is said, had taken this method to rid itself of the chief men of the clan, by making them destroy one another, was completely defeated. This affair seems to have produced a good effect, as the Highlanders remained quiet for a considerable time thereafter.

Effigy of “the Wolf of Badenoch”
in Dunkeld Cathedral.

The disorders in the Highlands occasioned by the feuds of the clans were, about the period in question, greatly augmented by Alexander of Badenoch, fourth son of Robert II., whom he had constituted Lieutenant or governor from the limits of Moray to the Pentland Frith. This person, from the ferocity of his disposition, obtained the appropriate appellation of “the Wolf of Badenoch.” Avaricious as well as cruel, the Wolf seized upon the lands of Alexander Barr, bishop of Moray, and as he persisted in keeping violent possession of them, he was excommunicated. The sentence of excommunication not only proved unavailing, but tended to exasperate the Lord of Badenoch to such a degree of fury that, in the month of May, 1390, he descended from his heights and burnt the town of Forres, with the choir of the church and the manse of the archdeacon. And in June following, he burnt the town of Elgin, the church of Saint Giles, the hospital of Maison-Dieu, and the cathedral, with eighteen houses of the canons and chaplains in the college of Elgin. He also plundered these churches of their sacred utensils and vestments, which he carried off. For this horrible sacrilege the Lord of Badenoch was prosecuted, and obliged to make due reparation. Upon making his submission he was absolved by Walter Trail, bishop of St. Andrews, in the church of the Black Friars, in Perth. He was first received at the door, and afterwards before the high altar, in presence of the king (Robert III. his brother,) and many of the nobility, on condition that he should make full satisfaction to the bishop of Moray, and obtain absolution from the pope.[141]

The Lord of Badenoch had a natural son, named Alexander Stewart, afterwards Earl of Mar, who inherited the vices of his father. Bent upon spoliation and bloodshed, and resolved to imitate his father’s barbarous exploits, he collected, in 1392, a vast number of caterans, armed only with the sword and target, and with these he descended from the range of hills which divides the county of Aberdeen and Forfar, devastated the country, and murdered the inhabitants indiscriminately. A force was instantly collected by Sir Walter Ogilvy, sheriff of Angus, Sir Patrick Gray, and Sir David Lindsay of Glenesk, to oppose him, and although inferior in numbers, they attacked Stewart and his party of freebooters at Gasklune, near the water of Ila. A desperate conflict took place, which was of short duration. The caterans fought with determined bravery, and soon overpowered their assailants. The sheriff, his brother, Wat of Lichtoune, Young of Ouchterlony, the lairds of Cairncross, Forfar, and Guthry, and 60 of their followers, were slain. Sir Patrick Gray and Sir David Lindsay were severely wounded, and escaped with difficulty. Winton has preserved an anecdote illustrative of the fierceness of the Highlanders. Lindsay had run one of them, a strong and brawny man, through the body with a spear, and brought him to the earth; but although in the agonies of death, he writhed himself up, and with the spear sticking in his body, struck Lindsay a desperate blow with his sword, which cut him through the stirrup and boot into the bone, on which he instantly fell and expired.[142]

Nicolas, Earl of Sutherland, had a feud with Y-Mackay of Far, in Strathnaver, chief of the Clan-wig-worgm, and his son Donald Mackay, in which many lives were lost, and great depredations committed on both sides. In order[69] to put an end to this difference, the Earl proposed a meeting of the parties at Dingwall, to be held in presence of the Lord of the Isles, his father-in-law, and some of the neighbouring gentry, the friends of the two families. The meeting having been agreed to, the parties met at the appointed time, in the year 1395, and took up their residence in the castle of Dingwall in apartments allotted for them. A discussion then took place between the Earl and Mackay, regarding the points in controversy, in which high and reproachful words were exchanged, which so incensed the Earl, that he killed Mackay and his son with his own hands. Having with some difficulty effected his escape from the followers and servants of the Mackays, he immediately returned home and prepared for defence, but the Mackays were too weak to take revenge. The matter was in some degree reconciled between Robert, the successor of Nicolas, and Angus Mackay, the eldest son of Donald.[143]

Some years after this event a serious conflict took place between the inhabitants of Sutherland and Strathnaver, and Malcolm Macleod of the Lewis, which arose out of the following circumstances. Angus Mackay above mentioned, had married a sister of Malcolm Macleod, by whom he had two sons, Angus Dow, and Roriegald. On the death of Angus, Houcheon Dow Mackay, a younger brother, became tutor to his nephews, and entered upon the management of their lands. Malcolm Macleod, understanding that his sister, the widow of Angus, was ill treated by Houcheon Dow, went on a visit to her, accompanied by a number of the choicest men of his country, with the determination of vindicating her cause either by entreaty or by force. He appears not to have succeeded in his object, for he returned homeward greatly discontented, and in revenge laid waste Strathnaver and a great part of the Breachat in Sutherland, and carried off booty along with him. As soon as Houcheon Dow and his brother Neill Mackay learnt this intelligence, they acquainted Robert, Earl of Sutherland, between whom and Angus Mackay a reconciliation had been effected, who immediately despatched Alexander Ne-Shrem-Gorme (Alexander Murray of Cubin,) with a number of stout and resolute men, to assist the Mackays. They followed Macleod with great haste, and overtook him at Tittim-Turwigh, upon the marches between Ross and Sutherland. The pursuing party at first attempted to recover the goods and cattle which had been carried off, but this being opposed by Macleod and his men, a desperate conflict ensued, in which great valour was displayed on both sides. It “was long, furious, cruel, and doubtful,” says Sir Robert Gordon, and was “rather desperate than resolute.” At last the Lewismen, with their commander, Malcolm Macleod, nick-named Gilealm Beg M’Bowen, were slain, and the goods and cattle were recovered. One man alone of Macleod’s party, who was sorely wounded, escaped to bring home the sorrowful news to the Lewis, which he had scarcely delivered when he expired.[144]

These feuds were followed by a formidable insurrection, or more correctly, invasion, in 1411, by Donald, Lord of the Isles, of such a serious nature as to threaten a dismemberment of the kingdom of Scotland. The male succession to the earldom of Ross having become extinct, the honours of the peerage devolved upon a female, Euphemia Ross, wife of Sir Walter Lesley. Of this marriage there were two children, Alexander, afterwards Earl of Ross, and Margaret, afterwards married to the Lord of the Isles. Earl Alexander married a daughter of the Duke of Albany. Euphemia, Countess of Ross, was the only issue of this marriage, but becoming a nun she resigned the earldom of Ross in favour of her uncle John Stewart, Earl of Buchan. The Lord of the Isles conceiving that the countess, by renouncing the world, had forfeited her title and estate, and, moreover, that she had no right to dispose thereof, claimed both in right of Margaret his wife. The Duke of Albany, governor of Scotland, at whose instigation the countess had made the renunciation, of course refused to sustain the claim of the prince of the islands. The Lord of the Isles having formed an alliance with England, whence he was to be supplied with a fleet far superior to the Scottish, at the head of an army of 10,000 men, fully[70] equipped and armed after the fashion of the islands with bows and arrows, pole-axes, knives, and swords, in 1411 burst like a torrent upon the earldom, and carried everything before him. He, however, received a temporary check at Dingwall, where he was attacked with great impetuosity by Angus Dubh Mackay of Farr, or Black Angus, as he was called; but Angus was taken prisoner, and his brother Roderic Gald and many of his men were killed.

Flushed with the progress he had made, Donald now resolved to carry into execution a threat he had often made to burn the town of Aberdeen. For this purpose he ordered his army to assemble at Inverness, and summoned all the men capable of bearing arms in the Boyne and the Enzie, to join his standard on his way south. This order being complied with, the Lord of the Isles marched through Moray without opposition. He committed great excesses in Strathbogie and in the district of Garioch, which belonged to the Earl of Mar. The inhabitants of Aberdeen were in dreadful alarm at the near approach of this marauder and his fierce hordes; but their fears were allayed by the speedy appearance of a well-equipped army, commanded by the Earl of Mar, who bore a high military character, assisted by many brave knights and gentlemen in Angus and the Mearns. Among these were Sir Alexander Ogilvy, sheriff of Angus, Sir James Scrymgeour, constable of Dundee and hereditary standard-bearer of Scotland, Sir William de Abernethy of Salton, nephew to the Duke of Albany, Sir Robert Maule of Panmure, Sir Alexander Irving of Drum, and Sir Robert Melville. The Earl was also joined by Sir Robert Davidson, the Provost of Aberdeen, and a party of the burgesses.

Advancing from Aberdeen, Mar marched by Inverury, and descried the Highlanders stationed at the village of Harlaw, on the water of Ury, near its junction with the Don. Mar soon saw that he had to contend with tremendous odds; but although his forces were, it is said, only a tenth of those opposed to him, he resolved, from the confidence he had in his steel-clad knights, to risk a battle. Having placed a small but select body of knights and men-at-arms in front, under the command of the constable of Dundee and the sheriff of Angus, the Earl drew up the main strength of his army in the rear, including the Murrays, the Straitons, the Maules, the Irvings, the Lesleys, the Lovels, the Stirlings, headed by their respective chiefs. The Earl then placed himself at the head of this body. At the head of the Islesmen and Highlanders was the Lord of the Isles, subordinate to whom were Macintosh and Maclean and other Highland chiefs, all bearing the most deadly hatred to their Saxon foes, and panting for revenge.

On a signal being given, the Highlanders and Islesmen, setting up those terrific shouts and yells which they were accustomed to raise on entering into battle, rushed forward upon their opponents; but they were received with great firmness and bravery by the knights, who, with their spears levelled, and battle-axes raised, cut down many of their impetuous but badly armed adversaries. After the Lowlanders had recovered themselves from the shock which the furious onset of the Highlanders had produced, Sir James Scrymgeour, at the head of the knights and bannerets who fought under him, cut his way through the thick columns of the Islesmen, carrying death everywhere around him; but the slaughter of hundreds by this brave party did not intimidate the Highlanders, who kept pouring in by thousands to supply the place of those who had fallen. Surrounded on all sides, no alternative remained for Sir James and his valorous companions but victory or death, and the latter was their lot. The constable of Dundee was amongst the first who suffered, and his fall so encouraged the Highlanders, that seizing and stabbing the horses, they thus unhorsed their riders, whom they despatched with their daggers. In the meantime the Earl of Mar, who had penetrated with his main army into the very heart of the enemy, kept up the unequal contest with great bravery, and, although he lost during the action almost the whole of his army, he continued the fatal struggle with a handful of men till nightfall. The disastrous result of this battle was one of the greatest misfortunes which had ever happened to the numerous respectable families in Angus and the Mearns. Many of these families lost not only their head, but every male in the house. Lesley of Balquhain is said to have[71] fallen with six of his sons. Besides Sir James Scrymgeour, Sir Alexander Ogilvy the sheriff of Angus, with his eldest son George Ogilvy, Sir Thomas Murray, Sir Robert Maule of Panmure, Sir Alexander Irving of Drum, Sir William Abernethy of Salton, Sir Alexander Straiton of Lauriston, James Lovel, and Alexander Stirling, and Sir Robert Davidson, Provost of Aberdeen, with 500 men-at-arms, including the principal gentry of Buchan, and the greater part of the burgesses of Aberdeen who followed their Provost, were among the slain. The Highlanders left 900 men dead on the field of battle, including the chiefs Maclean and Mackintosh. This memorable battle was fought on the eve of the feast of St. James the Apostle, July 25th, 1411. It was the final contest for supremacy between the Celt and the Teuton, and appears to have made at the time an inconceivably deep impression on the national mind. For more than a hundred years, it is said, the battle of Harlaw continued to be fought over again by schoolboys in their play. “It fixed itself in the music and the poetry of Scotland; a march, called the ‘Battle of Harlaw,’ continued to be a popular air down to the time of Drummond of Hawthornden, and a spirited ballad, on the same event, is still repeated in our age, describing the meeting of the armies, and the deaths of the chiefs, in no ignoble strain.”[145]

Mar and the few brave companions in arms who survived the battle, passed the night on the field; when morning dawned, they found that the Lord of the Isles had retreated during the night, by Inverury and the hill of Benochy. To pursue him was impossible, and he was therefore allowed to retire without molestation, and to recruit his exhausted strength.[146]

As soon as the news of the disaster at Harlaw reached the ears of the Duke of Albany, then regent of Scotland, he set about collecting an army, with which he marched in person to the north in autumn, with a determination to bring the Lord of the Isles to obedience. Having taken possession of the castle of Dingwall, he appointed a governor, and from thence proceeded to recover the whole of Ross. Donald retreated before him, and took up his winter-quarters in the islands. Hostilities were renewed next summer, but the contest was not long or doubtful—notwithstanding some little advantages obtained by the King of the Isles—for he was compelled to give up his claim to the earldom of Ross, to become a vassal to the Scottish crown, and to deliver hostages to secure his future good behaviour. A treaty to this effect was entered into at Pilgilbe or Polgillip, the modern Loch-Gilp, in Argyle.

CHAPTER VI.

A.D. 1424–1512.

KINGS OF SCOTLAND:—

On the return of James I., in 1424, from his captivity in England, he found Scotland, and[72] particularly the Highlands, in a state of the most fearful insubordination. Rapine, robbery, and an utter contempt of the laws prevailed to an alarming extent, which required all the energy of a wise and prudent prince, like James, to repress. When these excesses were first reported to James, by one of his nobles, on entering the kingdom, he thus expressed himself:—“Let God but grant me life, and there shall not be a spot in my dominions where the key shall not keep the castle, and the furze-bush the cow, though I myself should lead the life of a dog to accomplish it.”[147] “At this period, the condition of the Highlands, so far as is discoverable from the few authentic documents which have reached our times, appears to have been in the highest degree rude and uncivilized. There existed a singular combination of Celtic and of feudal manners. Powerful chiefs, of Norman name and Norman blood, had penetrated into the remotest districts, and ruled over multitudes of vassals and serfs, whose strange and uncouth appellatives proclaim their difference of race in the most convincing manner.[148] The tenure of lands by charter and seisin, the feudal services due by the vassal to his lord, the bands of friendship or of manrent which indissolubly united certain chiefs and nobles to each other, the baronial courts, and the complicated official pomp of feudal life, were all to be found in full strength and operation in the northern counties; but the dependence of the barons, who had taken up their residence in these wild districts, upon the king, and their allegiance and subordination to the laws, were less intimate and influential than in the Lowland divisions of the country; and as they experienced less protection, we have already seen, that in great public emergencies, when the captivity of the sovereign, or the payment of his ransom, called for the imposition of a tax upon property throughout the kingdom, these great northern chiefs thought themselves at liberty to resist the collection within their mountainous principalities.

“Besides such Scoto-Norman barons, however, there were to be found in the Highlands and Isles, those fierce aboriginal chiefs, who hated the Saxon and the Norman race, and offered a mortal opposition to the settlement of all intruders within a country which they considered their own. They exercised the same authority over the various clans or septs of which they were the chosen heads or leaders, which the baron possessed over his vassals and military followers; and the dreadful disputes and collisions which perpetually occurred between these distinct ranks of potentates, were accompanied by spoliations, ravages, imprisonments, and murders, which had at last become so frequent and so far extended, that the whole country beyond the Grampian range was likely to be cut off, by these abuses, from all regular communication with the more pacific parts of the kingdom.”[149]

Having, by a firm and salutary, but perhaps severe, course of policy, restored the empire of the laws in the Lowlands, and obtained the enactment of new statutes for the future welfare and prosperity of the kingdom, James next turned his attention to his Highland dominions, which, as we have seen, were in a deplorable state of insubordination, that made both property and life insecure. The king determined to visit in person the disturbed districts, and by punishing the refractory chiefs, put an end to those tumults and enormities which had, during his minority, triumphed over the laws. James, in the year 1427, arrived at Inverness, attended by his parliament, and immediately summoned the principal chiefs there to appear before him. From whatever motives—whether from hopes of effecting a reconciliation by a ready compliance with the mandate of the king, or from a dread, in case of refusal, of the fate of the powerful barons of the south who had fallen victims to James’s severity—the order of the king was obeyed, and the chiefs repaired to Inverness. No sooner, however, had they entered the hall where the parliament was sitting, than they were by order of the king arrested, ironed, and imprisoned in different apartments, and debarred all communication with each other, or with their followers. It has been supposed that these chiefs may have been entrapped by some fair promises on the part of James, and the joy[73] which, according to Fordun, he manifested at seeing these turbulent and haughty spirits caught in the toils which he had prepared for them, favours this conjecture. The number of chiefs seized on this occasion is stated to have amounted to about forty; but the names of the principal ones only have been preserved. These were Alaster or Alexander Macdonald, Lord of the Isles; Angus Dubh Mackay, with his four sons, who could bring into the field 4,000 fighting men; Kenneth More and his son-in-law, Angus of Moray, and Macmathan, who could muster 2,000 men; Alexander Macreiny of Garmoran and John Macarthur, each of whom could bring into the field 1,000 followers. Besides these were John Ross, James Campbell, and William Lesley. The Countess of Ross, the mother of Alexander, the Lord of the Isles, and heiress of Sir Walter Lesley, was also apprehended and imprisoned at the same time.[150]

James I.

The king now determined to inflict summary vengeance upon his captives. Those who were most conspicuous for their crimes were immediately executed; among whom were James Campbell, who was tried, convicted, and hanged for the murder of John of the Isles; and Alexander Macreiny and John Macarthur, who were beheaded. Alexander of the Isles and Angus Dubh, after a short confinement, were both pardoned; but the latter was obliged to deliver up, as a hostage for his good behaviour, his son Neill, who was confined on the Bass rock, and, from that circumstance, was afterwards named Neill-Wasse-Mackay.[151] Besides these, many others who were kept in prison in different parts of the kingdom, were afterwards condemned and executed.

The royal clemency, which had been extended so graciously to the Lord of the Isles, met with an ungrateful return; for shortly after the king had returned to his lowland dominions, Alexander collected a force of ten thousand men in Ross and the Isles, and with this formidable body laid waste the country; plundered and devastated the crown lands, against which his vengeance was chiefly directed, and razed the royal burgh of Inverness to the ground. On hearing of these distressing events, James, with a rapidity rarely equalled, collected a force, the extent of which has not been ascertained, and marched with great speed into Lochaber, where he found the enemy, who, from the celerity of his movements, was taken almost by surprise. Alexander prepared for battle; but, before its commencement, he had the misfortune to witness the desertion of the clan Chattan, and the clan Cameron, who, to a man, went over to the royal standard. The king, thereupon, attacked Alexander’s army, which he completely routed, and the latter sought safety in flight.

Reduced to the utmost distress, and seeing the impossibility of evading the active vigilance of his pursuers, who hunted him from place to place, this haughty lord, who considered himself on a par with kings, resolved to throw himself entirely on the mercy of the king, by an act of the most abject submission. Having arrived in Edinburgh, to which he had travelled in the most private manner, the humbled chief suddenly presented himself before the king, on Easter-Sunday, in the church of Holyrood, when he and his queen, surrounded by the nobles of the court, were employed in[74] their devotions before the high altar. The extraordinary appearance of the fallen prince denoted the inward workings of his troubled mind. Without bonnet, arms, or ornament of any kind, his legs and arms quite bare, his body covered with only a plaid, and holding a naked sword in his hand by the point, he fell down on his knees before the king, imploring mercy and forgiveness, and, in token of his unreserved submission, offered the hilt of his sword to his majesty. At the solicitation of the queen and nobles, James spared his life, but committed him immediately to Tantallan castle, under the charge of William Earl of Angus, his nephew. This took place in the year 1429. The Countess of Ross was kept in close confinement in the ancient monastery of Inchcolm, on the small island of that name, in the Frith of Forth.[152] The king, however, relented, and released the Lord of the Isles and his mother, after about a year’s imprisonment.

About this period happened another of those bloody frays, which destroyed the internal peace of the Highlands, and brought ruin and desolation upon many families. Thomas Macneill, son of Neill Mackay, who was engaged in the battle of Tuttum Turwigh, possessed the lands of Creigh, Spaniziedaill, and Palrossie, in Sutherland. Having conceived some displeasure at Mowat, the laird of Freshwick, the latter, with his party, in order to avoid his vengeance, took refuge in the chapel of St. Duffus, near the town of Tain, as a sanctuary. Thither they were followed by Thomas, who not only slew Mowat and his people, but also burnt the chapel to the ground. This outrage upon religion and humanity exasperated the king, who immediately ordered a proclamation to be issued, denouncing Thomas Macneill as a rebel, and promising his lands and possessions as a reward to any one that would kill or apprehend him. Angus Murray, son of Alexander Murray of Cubin, immediately set about the apprehension of Thomas Macneill. To accomplish his purpose, he held a secret conference with Morgan and Neill Macneill, the brothers of Thomas, at which he offered, provided they would assist him in apprehending their brother, his two daughters in marriage, and promised to aid them in getting peaceable possession of such lands in Strathnaver as they claimed. This, he showed them, might be easily accomplished, with little or no resistance, as Neill Mackay, son of Angus Dubh, from whom the chief opposition might have been expected, was then a prisoner in the Bass, and Angus Dubh, the father, was unable, from age and infirmity, to defend his pretensions. Angus Murray also promised to request the assistance of the Earl of Sutherland. As these two brothers pretended a right to the possessions of Angus Dubh in Strathnaver, they were easily allured by these promises; they immediately apprehended their brother Thomas at Spaniziedaill in Sutherland, and delivered him up to Murray, by whom he was presented to the king. Macneill was immediately executed at Inverness, and Angus Murray obtained, in terms of the royal proclamation, a grant of the lands of Palrossie and Spaniziedaill from the king. The lands of Creigh fell into the hands of the Lord of the Isles, as superior, by the death and felony of Macneill.[153]

MACNEILL.

In pursuance of his promise, Murray gave his daughters in marriage respectively to Neill and Morgan Macneill, and with the consent and approbation of Robert Earl of Sutherland, he invaded Strathnaver with a party of Sutherland men, to take possession of the lands of Angus Dubh Mackay. Angus immediately collected his men, and gave the command of them to John Aberigh, his natural son, as he was unable to lead them in person. Both parties met about two miles from Toung, at a place called Drum-ne-Coub; but, before they came to blows, Angus Dubh Mackay sent a message to Neill and Morgan, his cousins-german, offering to surrender them all his lands and possessions in Strathnaver, if they would allow him to retain Keantayle. This fair offer was, however, rejected, and an appeal was therefore immediately made to arms. A desperate conflict then took place, in which many were killed on both sides; among whom were Angus Murray and his two sons-in-law, Neill and Morgan Macneill. John Aberigh, though he gained the victory, was severely wounded, and lost one of his arms. After the battle[75] Angus Dubh Mackay was carried, at his own request, to the field, to search for the bodies of his slain cousins, but he was killed by an arrow from a Sutherland man who lay concealed in a bush hard by.

James I. made many salutary regulations for putting an end to the disorders consequent upon the lawless state of the Highlands, and the oppressed looked up to him for protection. The following remarkable case will give some idea of the extraordinary barbarity in which the spoliators indulged:—A notorious thief, named Donald Ross, who had made himself rich with plunder, carried off two cows from a poor woman. This woman having expressed a determination not to wear shoes again till she had made a complaint to the king in person, the robber exclaimed, “It is false: I’ll have you shod before you reach the court;” and thereupon, with a brutality scarcely paralleled, the cruel monster took two horse shoes, and fixed them on her feet with nails driven into the flesh. The victim of this savage act, as soon as she was able to travel, went to the king and related to him the whole circumstances of her case, which so exasperated him, that he immediately sent a warrant to the sheriff of the county, where Ross resided, for his immediate apprehension; which being effected, he and a number of his associates were sent under an escort to Perth, where the court was then held. Ross was tried and condemned, he and his friends being treated in the same manner as he had treated the poor woman; and before his execution a linen shirt, on which was painted a representation of his crime, was thrown over him, in which dress he was paraded through the streets of the town, afterwards dragged at a horse’s tail, and hanged on a gallows.[154]

The commotions in Strathnaver, and other parts of the Highlands, induced the king to make another expedition into that part of his dominions; previous to which he summoned a Parliament at Perth, which was held on the 15th of October, 1431, in which a land-tax, or “zelde,” was laid upon the whole lands of the kingdom, to defray the expenses of the undertaking. No contemporary record of this expedition exists; but it is said that the king proceeded to Dunstaffnage castle, to punish those chiefs who had joined in Donald Balloch’s insurrection; that, on his arrival there, numbers of these came to him and made their submission, throwing the whole odium of the rebellion upon the leader, whose authority, they alleged, they were afraid to resist; and that, by their means, three hundred thieves were apprehended and put to death.

For several years after this expedition the Highlands appear to have been tranquil; but, on the liberation of Neill Mackay from his confinement on the Bass, in the year 1437, fresh disturbances began. This restless chief had scarcely been released, when he entered Caithness, and spoiled the country. He was met at a place called Sandsett; but the people who came to oppose his progress were defeated, and many of them were slain. This conflict was called Ruaig Hanset; that is, the flight, or chase at Sandsett.

About the same time a quarrel took place between the Keiths and some others of the inhabitants of Caithness. As the Keiths could not depend upon their own forces, they sought the aid of Angus Mackay, son of Neill last mentioned, who had recently died. Angus agreed to join the Keiths; and accordingly, accompanied by his brother, John Roy, and a chieftain named Iain-Mor-Mac-Iain-Riabhaich, with a company of men, he went into Caithness, and, joining the Keiths, invaded that part of Caithness hostile to the Keiths. The people of Caithness lost not a moment in assembling together, and met the Strathnaver men and the Keiths at a place called Blare-Tannie. Here a sanguinary contest took place; but victory declared for the Keiths, whose success, it is said, was chiefly owing to the prowess of Iain-Mor-Mac-Iain-Riabhaich, whose name was, in consequence, long famous in that and the adjoining country.[155]

After the defeat of James, Earl of Douglas, who had renounced his allegiance to James II., at Arkinholme, in 1454, he retired into Argyleshire, where he was received by the Earl of Ross, with whom, and the Lord of the Isles, he entered into an alliance. The ocean prince,[76] having a powerful fleet of 500 galleys at his command, immediately assembled his vassals, to the amount of 5,000 fighting men, and, having embarked them in his navy, gave the command of the whole to Donald Balloch, Lord of Isla, his near kinsman, a chief who, besides his possessions in Scotland, had great power in the north of Ireland. This potent chief, whose hereditary antipathy to the Scottish throne was as keen as that of his relation, entered cheerfully into the views of Douglas. With the force under his command he desolated the western coast of Scotland from Innerkip to Bute, the Cumbrays and the Island of Arran; yet formidable as he was both in men and ships, the loss was not so considerable as might have been expected, from the prudent precautions taken by the king to repel the invaders. The summary of the damage sustained is thus related in a contemporary chronicle:—“There was slain of good men fifteen; of women, two or three; of children, three or four. The plunder included five or six hundred horse, ten thousand oxen and kine, and more than a thousand sheep and goats. At the same time, they burnt down several mansions in Innerkip around the church; harried all Arran; stormed and levelled with the ground the castle of Brodick; and wasted, with fire and sword, the islands of the Cumbrays. They also levied tribute upon Bute; carrying away a hundred bolls of malt, a hundred marts, and a hundred marks of silver.”[156]

While Donald Balloch was engaged in this expedition, the Lord of the Isles, with his kinsmen and followers to the number of five or six hundred, made an incursion into Sutherland, and encamped before the castle of Skibo. What his object was has not been ascertained; but, as a measure of precaution, the Earl of Sutherland sent Neill Murray, son of Angus Murray, who was slain at Drum-na-Coub, to watch his motions. The Lord of the Isles immediately began to commit depredations, whereupon he was attacked by Murray, and compelled to retreat into Ross with the loss of one of his captains, named Donald Dubh-na-Soirn, and fifty of his men. Exasperated at this defeat, Macdonald sent another party of his islanders, along with a company of men from Ross, to Strathfleet in Sutherland to lay waste the country, and thus wipe off the disgrace of his late defeat. On hearing of this fresh invasion, the Earl of Sutherland despatched his brother Robert with a sufficient force to attack the Clandonald. They met on the sands of Strathfleet, and, after a fierce and bloody struggle, the islanders and their allies were overthrown with great slaughter. Many perished in the course of their flight. This was the last hostile irruption of the Clandonald into Sutherland, as all the disputes between the Lord of the Isles and the Sutherland family were afterwards accommodated by a matrimonial alliance.

The vigorous administration of James II., which checked and controlled the haughty and turbulent spirit of his nobles, was also felt in the Highlands, where his power, if not always acknowledged, was nevertheless dreaded; but upon the death of that wise prince in 1460, and the accession of his infant son to the crown, the princes of the north again abandoned themselves to their lawless courses. The first who showed the example was Allan of Lorn of the Wood, as he was called, a nephew of Donald Balloch by his sister. Coveting the estate of his elder brother, Ker of Lorn, Allan imprisoned him in a dungeon in the island of Kerrera, with the view of starving him to death that he might the more easily acquire the unjust possession he desired; but Ker was liberated, and his property restored to him by the Earl of Argyle, to whom he was nearly related, and who suddenly attacked Allan with a fleet of galleys, defeated him, burnt his fleet, and slew the greater part of his men. This act, so justifiable in itself, roused the revengeful passions of the island chiefs, who issued from their ocean retreats and committed the most dreadful excesses.[157]

After the decisive battle of Touton, Henry VI. and his Queen retired to Scotland to watch the first favourable opportunity of seizing the sceptre from the house of York. Edward IV., anticipating the danger that might arise to his crown by an alliance between his rival, the exiled monarch, and the king of Scotland, determined to counteract the effects of such a[77] connection by a stroke of policy. Aware of the disaffected disposition of some of the Scottish nobles, and northern and island chiefs, he immediately entered into a negotiation with John, Earl of Ross, and Donald Balloch, to detach them from their allegiance. On the 19th of October, 1461, the Earl of Ross, Donald Balloch, and his son John de Isle, held a council of their vassals and dependants at Astornish, at which it was agreed to send ambassadors to England to treat with Edward. On the arrival of these ambassadors a negotiation was entered into between them and the Earl of Douglas, and John Douglas of Balveny, his brother, both of whom had been obliged to leave Scotland for their treasons in the previous reign. These two brothers, who were animated by a spirit of hatred and revenge against the family of their late sovereign James II., warmly entered into the views of Edward, whose subjects they had become; and they concluded a treaty with the northern ambassadors which assumed as its basis nothing less than the entire conquest of Scotland. Among other conditions, it was stipulated that, upon payment of a specified sum of money to himself, his son, and ally, the Lord of the Isles should become for ever the vassal of England, and should assist Edward and his successors in the wars in Ireland and elsewhere. And, in the event of the entire subjugation of Scotland by the Earls of Ross and Douglas, the whole of the kingdom on the north of the Frith of Forth was to be divided equally between these Earls and Donald Balloch, and the estates which formerly belonged to Douglas between the Frith of Forth and the borders were to be restored to him. This singular treaty is dated London, 18th February, 1462.[158]

Pending this negotiation, the Earl of Angus, at that time one of the most powerful of the Scottish nobles, having, by the promise of an English dukedom from the exiled Henry, engaged to assist in restoring him to his crown and dominions, the Earl of Ross, before the plan had been organized, in order to counteract the attempt, broke out into open rebellion, which was characterized by all those circumstances of barbarous cruelty which distinguished the inroads of the princes of the islands. He first seized the castle of Inverness at the head of a small party, being admitted unawares by the governor, who did not suspect his hostile intentions. He then collected a considerable army, and proclaimed himself king of the Hebrides. With his army he entered the country of Athole, denounced the authority of the king, and commanded all taxes to be paid to him; and, after committing the most dreadful excesses, he stormed the castle of Blair, dragged the Earl and Countess of Athole from the chapel of St. Bridget, and carried them off to Isla as prisoners. It is related that the Earl of Ross thrice attempted to set fire to the holy pile, but in vain. He lost many of his war-galleys, in a storm of thunder and lightning, in which the rich booty he had taken was consigned to the deep. Preparations were immediately made by the regents of the kingdom for punishing this rebellious chief; but these became unnecessary, for, touched with remorse, he collected the remains of his plunder, and stripped to his shirt and drawers, and barefooted, he, along with his principal followers, in the same forlorn and dejected condition, went to the chapel of St. Bridget which they had lately desecrated, and there performed a penance before the altar. The Earl and Countess of Athole were thereupon voluntarily released from confinement, and the Earl of Ross was afterwards assassinated in the castle of Inverness, by an Irish harper who bore him a grudge.[159]

Although at this period an account of Orkney and Shetland does not properly belong to a history of the Highlands, as these islands had for long been the property of the king of Norway, and had a population almost purely Teutonic, with a language, manners, and customs widely differing from those of the Highlanders proper; still it will not be out of place to mention here, that these islands were finally made over to Scotland in 1469, as security for the dowry of Margaret of Norway, the wife of James III.

The successor of the Lord of the Isles—who was generally more like an independent sovereign[78] than a subject of the Scottish king—not being disposed to tender the allegiance which his father had violated, the king, in the month of May, 1476, assembled a large army on the north of the Forth, and a fleet on the west coast, for the purpose of making a simultaneous attack upon him by sea and land. Seeing no hopes of making effectual resistance against such a powerful force as that sent against him, he tendered his submission to the king on certain conditions, and resigned the earldom of Ross, and the lands of Kintyre and Knapdale, into his majesty’s hands. By this act he was restored to the king’s favour, who forgave him all his offences, and “infeft him of new” in the lordship of the Isles and the other lands which he did not renounce. The Earl of Athole, who commanded the royal army, was rewarded for this service by a grant of the lands and forest of Cluny.[160]

After the Lord of the Isles had thus resigned the earldom of Ross into the king’s hands, that province was perpetually molested by incursions from the islanders, who now considered it a fit theatre for the exercise of their predatory exploits. Gillespie, cousin of the Lord of the Isles, at the head of a large body of the islanders, invaded the higher part of Ross and committed great devastation. The inhabitants, or as many as the shortness of the time would permit, amongst whom the Clankenzie were chiefly distinguished, speedily assembled, and met the islanders on the banks of the Connan, where a sharp conflict took place. The Clankenzie fought with great valour, and pressed the enemy so hard that Gillespie Macdonald was overthrown, and the greater part of his men were slain or drowned in the river, about two miles from Braile, thence called Blar-na-Pairc. The predecessor of the Laird of Brodie, who happened to be with the chief of the Mackenzies at the time, fought with great courage.

For a considerable time the district of Sutherland had remained tranquil, but on the 11th of July, 1487, it again became the scene of a bloody encounter between the Mackays and the Rosses. To revenge the death of a relation, or to wipe away the stigma of a defeat, were considered sacred and paramount duties by the Highlanders; and if, from the weakness of the clan, the minority of the chief, or any other cause, the day of deadly reckoning was delayed, the feeling which prompted revenge was never dormant, and the earliest opportunity was embraced of vindicating the honour of the clan. Angus Mackay, son of the famous Neill of the Bass, having been killed at Tarbert by a Ross, his son, John Riabhaich Mackay, applied to John Earl of Sutherland, on whom he depended, to assist him in revenging his father’s death. The Earl promised his aid, and accordingly sent his uncle, Robert Sutherland, with a company of chosen men, to assist John Mackay. With this force, and such men as John Mackay and his relation Uilleam-Dubh-Mac-Iain-Abaraich, son of John Aberigh who fought at Drum-na-Coub, could collect, they invaded Strath-oy-kell, carrying fire and sword in their course, and laying waste many lands belonging to the Rosses. As soon as the Laird of Balnagown, the chief of the Rosses, heard of this attack, he collected all his forces, and attacked Robert Sutherland and John Riabhaich Mackay, at a place called Aldv-charrish. A long and obstinate battle took place; but the death of Balnagown and seventeen of the principal landed gentlemen of Ross decided the combat, for the people of Ross, being deprived of their leader, were thrown into confusion, and utterly put to flight, with great slaughter.

ROSS.

The fruit of this victory was a large quantity of booty, which the victors divided the same day; but the avarice of the men of Assynt, induced them to instigate John Mackay to resolve to commit one of the most perfidious and diabolical acts ever perpetrated by men who had fought on the same side. The design of the Assynt men was, to cut off Robert Sutherland and his whole party, and possess themselves of their share of the spoil, before the Earl of Sutherland could learn the result of the battle, that he might be led to suppose that his uncle and his men had all fallen in the action with the Rosses. When this plan was divulged to Uilleam-Dubh-Mac-Iain-Abaraich, he was horrified at it, and immediately sent notice to Robert Sutherland of it, that he might be upon his guard. Robert assembled his men upon receipt of this extraordinary intelligence, told them of the base intentions of John Mackay,[79] and put them in order, to be prepared for the threatened attack; but on John Riabhaich Mackay perceiving that Robert and his party were prepared to meet him, he slunk off, and went home to Strathnaver.[161]

The lawless state of society in the Highlands, which followed as a consequence from the removal of the seat of government to the Lowlands, though it often engaged the attention of the Scottish sovereigns, never had proper remedies applied to mend it. At one time the aid of force was called in, and when that was found ineffectual, the vicious principle of dividing the chiefs, that they might the more effectually weaken and destroy one another, was adopted. Both plans, as might be supposed, proved abortive. If the government had, by conciliatory measures, and by a profusion of favours, suitable to the spirit of the times, secured the attachment of the heads of the clans, the supremacy of the laws might have been vindicated, and the sovereign might have calculated upon the support of powerful and trustworthy auxiliaries in his domestic struggles against the encroachments of the nobles. Such ideas appear never to have once entered the minds of the kings, but it was reserved for James IV., who succeeded to the throne in 1488, to make the experiment. “To attach to his interest the principal chiefs of these provinces, to overawe and subdue the petty princes who affected independence, to carry into their territories, hitherto too exclusively governed by their own capricious or tyrannical institutions, the same system of a severe, but regular and rapid, administration of civil and criminal justice, which had been established in his Lowland dominions, was the laudable object of the king; and for this purpose he succeeded, with that energy and activity which remarkably distinguished him, in opening up an intercourse with many of the leading men in the northern counties. With the captain of the Clanchattan, Duncan Mackintosh; with Ewan, the son of Alan, captain of the Clancameron; with Campbell of Glenurqhay; the Macgilleouns of Duart and Lochbuy; Mackane of Ardnamurchan; the lairds of Mackenzie and Grant; and the Earl of Huntley, a baron of the most extensive power in those northern districts—he appears to have been in habits of constant and regular communication—rewarding them by presents, in the shape either of money or of grants of land, and securing their services in reducing to obedience such of their fellow chieftains as proved contumacious, or actually rose in rebellion.”[162]

But James carried his views further. Rightly judging how much the personal presence of the sovereign would be valued by his distant subjects, and the good effects which would result therefrom, he resolved to visit different parts of his northern dominions. Accordingly, in the year 1490, accompanied by his court, he rode twice from Perth across the chain of mountains which extends across the country from the border of the Mearns to the head of Loch Rannoch, which chain is known by the name of the “Mount.” Again, in 1493, he twice visited the Highlands, and went as far as Dunstaffnage and Mengarry, in Ardnamurchan. In the following year he visited the isles no less than three times. His first voyage to the islands, which took place in April and May, was conducted with great state. He was attended by a vast suite, many of whom fitted out vessels at their own expense. The grandeur which surrounded the king impressed the islanders with a high idea of his wealth and power; and his condescension and familiarity with all classes of his subjects, acquired for him a popularity which added strength to his throne. During these marine excursions the youthful monarch indulged his passion for sailing and hunting, and thereby relieved the tediousness of business by the recreation of agreeable and innocent pleasures.

The only opposition which James met with during these excursions was from the restless Lord of the Isles, who had the temerity to put the king at defiance, notwithstanding the repeated and signal marks of the royal favour he had experienced. But James was not to be trifled with, for he summoned the island prince to stand his trial for “treason in Kintyre;” and in a parliament held in Edinburgh shortly after the king’s return from the north, “Sir John of the Isles,” as he is named in the treasurer’s[80] accounts, was stripped of his power, and his possessions were forfeited to the crown.

One of those personal petty feuds which were so prevalent in the Highlands, occurred about this time. Alexander Sutherland of Dilred, being unable or unwilling to repay a sum of money he had borrowed from Sir James Dunbar of Cumnock, the latter took legal measures to secure his debt by appraising part of Dilred’s lands. This proceeding vexed the laird of Dilred exceedingly, and he took an umbrage at the Dunbars, who had recently settled in Sutherland, “grudgeing, as it were,” says Sir R. Gordon, “that a stranger should brawe (brave) him at his owne doors.” Happening to meet Alexander Dunbar, brother of Sir James, who had lately married Lady Margaret Baillie, Countess Dowager of Sutherland, high words passed between them, a combat ensued, and, after a long contest, Alexander Dunbar was killed. Sir James Dunbar thereupon went to Edinburgh, and laid the matter before King James IV., who was so exasperated at the conduct of Alexander Sutherland, that he immediately proclaimed him a rebel, sent messengers everywhere in search of him, and promised his lands to any person that would apprehend him. After some search he was apprehended with ten of his followers by his uncle, Y-Roy-Mackay, brother of John Reawigh Mackay already mentioned, who sent him to the king. Dilred was tried, condemned, and executed, and his lands declared forfeited. For this service, Y-Roy-Mackay obtained from the king a grant of the lands of Armdall, Far, Golspietour, Kinnald, Kilcolmkill, and Dilred, which formerly belonged to Alexander Sutherland, as was noted in Mackay’s infeftment, dated in 1449.[163] “Avarice,” says Sir R. Gordon, “is a strange vyce, which respects neither blood nor freindship. This is the first infeftment that any of the familie of Macky had from the king, so far as I can perceave by the records of this kingdom; and they wer untill this tyme possessors onlie of ther lands in Strathnaver, not careing much for any charters or infeftments, as most pairts of the Highlanders have alwise done.”

The grant of the king as to the lands over which Sir James Dunbar’s security extended, was called in question by Sir James, who obtained a decree before the lords of council and session, in February, 1512, setting aside the right of Y-Roy-Mackay, and ordaining the Earl of Sutherland, as superior of the lands, to receive Sir James Dunbar as his vassal.

A lamentable instance of the ferocity of these times is afforded in the case of one of the Earls of Sutherland, who upon some provocation slew two of his nephews. This earl, who was named John, had a natural brother, Thomas Moir, who had two sons, Robert Sutherland and the Keith, so called on account of his being brought up by a person of that name. The young men had often annoyed the Earl, and on one occasion they entered his castle of Dunrobin to brave him to his face, an act which so provoked the Earl, that he instantly killed Robert in the house. The Keith, after receiving several wounds, made his escape, but he was overtaken and slain at the Clayside, near Dunrobin, which from that circumstance was afterwards called Ailein-Cheith, or the bush of the Keith.

In 1513 a troop of Highlanders helped to swell the Scotch army on the ever-memorable and disastrous field of Flodden, but from their peculiar mode of fighting, so different from that of the Lowlanders, appear to have been more a hindrance than a help.

CHAPTER VII.

A.D. 1516–1588.

KINGS OF SCOTLAND:—

In the year 1516, Adam Earl of Sutherland, in anticipation of threatened dangers in the north, entered into bonds of friendship and alliance with the Earl of Caithness for mutual protection and support. The better to secure the goodwill and assistance of the Earl of Caithness, Earl Adam made a grant of some lands upon the east side of the water of Ully; but the Earl of Caithness, although he kept possession of the lands, joined the foes of his ally and friend. The Earl of Sutherland, however, would have found a more trustworthy supporter in the person of Y-Roy-Mackay, who had come under a written obligation to serve him the same year; but Mackay died, and a contest immediately ensued in Strathnaver, between John and Donald Mackay his bastard sons, and Neill-Naverigh Mackay, brother of Y-Roy, to obtain possession of his lands. John took possession of all the lands belonging to his father in Strathnaver; but his uncle Neill laid claim to them, and applied to the Earl of Caithness for assistance to recover them. The Earl, after many entreaties, put a force under the command of Neill and his two sons, with which they entered Strathnaver, and obtaining an accession of strength in that country, they dispossessed John Mackay, who immediately went to the clan Chattan and clan Kenzie, to crave their aid and support, leaving his brother Donald Mackay to defend himself in Strathnaver as he best could. Donald not having a sufficient force to meet his uncle and cousins in open combat, had recourse to a stratagem which succeeded entirely to his mind. With his little band he, under cloud of night, surprised his opponents at Delreavigh in Strathnaver, and slew both his cousins and the greater part of their men, and thus utterly destroyed the issue of Neill. John Mackay, on hearing of this, immediately joined his brother, and drove out of Strathnaver all persons who had favoured the pretensions of his uncle Neill-Naverigh. This unfortunate old man, after being abandoned by the Earl of Caithness, threw himself upon the generosity of his nephews, requesting that they would merely allow him a small maintenance to keep him from poverty during the remainder of his life; but these unnatural relatives, regardless of mercy and the ties of blood, ordered Neill to be beheaded in their presence by the hands of Claff-na-Gep, his own foster brother.[164]

In the year 1517, advantage was taken by John Mackay of the absence of the Earl of Sutherland, who had gone to Edinburgh to transact some business connected with his estates, to invade the province of Sutherland, and to burn and spoil every thing which came in his way. He was assisted in this lawless enterprise by two races of people dwelling in Sutherland, called the Siol-Phaill, and the Siol-Thomais, and by Neil-Mac-Iain-Mac-Angus of Assynt, and his brother John Mor-Mac-Iain, with some of their countrymen. As soon as the Countess of Sutherland, who had remained at home, heard of this invasion, she prevailed upon Alexander Sutherland, her bastard brother, to oppose Mackay. Assisted chiefly by John Murray of Aberscors, and Uilleam Mac-Sheumais-Mhic-Chruner, chief of the clan Gun in Sutherland, Alexander convened hastily the inhabitants of the country and went in search of the enemy. He met John Mackay and his brother Donald, at a place called Torran-Dubh or Cnocan-Dubh, near Rogart in Strathfleet. Mackay’s force was prodigious, for he had assembled not only the whole strength of Strathnaver, Durines, Edderachillis, and Assynt, with the Siol-Phaill and Siol-Thomais; but also all the disorderly and idle men of the whole diocese of Caithness, with all such as he could entice to join him from the west and north-west isles, to accompany him in his expedition, buoyed up with the hopes of plunder. But the people of Sutherland were nowise dismayed at the appearance of this formidable host, and made preparations for an attack. A desperate struggle commenced, and after a long contest, Mackay’s vanguard was driven back upon the position occupied by himself. Mackay having rallied the retreating party, selected a number of the best and ablest men he could find, and having placed the remainder of his army under[82] the command of his brother Donald, to act as a reserve in case of necessity, he made a furious attack upon the Sutherland men, who received the enemy with great coolness and intrepidity. The chiefs on both sides encouraged their men to fight for the honour of their clans, and in consequence the fight was severe and bloody; but in the end the Sutherland men, after great slaughter, and after prodigies of valour had been displayed by both parties, obtained the victory. Mackay’s party was almost entirely cut off, and Mackay himself escaped with difficulty. The victors next turned their attention to the reserve under the command of Donald Mackay; but Donald dreading the fate of his brother, fled along with his party, which immediately dispersed. They were, however, closely pursued by John Murray and Uilleam Mac-Sheumais, till the darkness of the night prevented the pursuit. In this battle, two hundred of the Strathnaver men, thirty-two of the Siol-Phaill, and fifteen of the Siol-Thomais, besides many of the Assynt men, and their commander, Niall-Mac-Iain-Mac-Aonghais, a valiant chieftain, were slain. John Mor-Mac-Iain, the brother of this chief, escaped with his life after receiving many wounds. Of the Sutherland men, thirty-eight only were slain. Sir Robert Gordon says that this “was the greatest conflict that hitherto hes been fought in between the inhabitants of these cuntreyes, or within the diocy of Catteynes, to our knowlege.”[165]

Shortly after the battle of Torran-Dubh, Uilleam Mac-Sheumais, called Cattigh, chief of the clan Gun, killed George Keith of Aikregell with his son and twelve of their followers, at Drummoy, in Sutherland, as they were travelling from Inverugie to Caithness. This act was committed by Mac-Sheumais to revenge the slaughter of his grandfather (the Cruner,) who had been slain by the Keiths, under the following circumstances. A long feud had existed between the Keiths and the clan Gun, to reconcile which, a meeting was appointed at the chapel of St. Tayr in Caithness, near Girnigoe, of twelve horsemen on each side. The Cruner, then chief of the clan Gun, with some of his sons and his principal kinsmen, to the number of twelve in all, came to the chapel at the appointed time. As soon as they arrived, they entered the chapel and prostrated themselves in prayer before the altar. While employed in this devotional act, the laird of Inverugie and Aikregell arrived with twelve horses, and two men on each horse. After dismounting, the whole of this party rushed into the chapel armed, and attacked the Cruner and his party unawares. The Clan Gun, however, defended themselves with great intrepidity, and although the whole twelve were slain, many of the Keiths were also killed. For nearly two centuries the blood of the slain was to be seen on the walls of the chapel, which it had stained. James Gun, one of the sons of the Cruner, being absent, immediately on hearing of his father’s death, retired with his family into Sutherland, where he settled, and where his son William Mac-Sheumais, or Mac-James otherwise William Cattigh, was born.

As John Mackay imputed his defeat at Torran-Dubh mainly to John Murray of Aberscors, he resolved to take the first convenient opportunity of revenging himself, and wiping off the disgrace of his discomfiture. He, therefore, not being in a condition himself to undertake an expedition, employed two brothers, William and Donald, his kinsmen, chieftains of the Sliochd-Iain-Abaraich, with a company of men, to attack Murray. The latter having mustered his forces, the parties met at a place called Loch-Salchie, not far from the Torran-Dubh, where a sharp skirmish took place, in which Murray proved victorious. The two Strathnaver chieftains and the greater part of their men were slain, and the remainder were put to flight. The principal person who fell on Murray’s side was his brother John-Roy, whose loss he deeply deplored.

Exasperated at this second disaster, John Mackay sent John Croy and Donald, two of his nephews, sons of Angus Mackay, who was killed at Morinsh in Ross, at the head of a number of chosen men, to plunder and burn the town of Pitfour, in Strathfleet, which belonged to John Murray; but they were equally unsuccessful, for John Croy Mackay and some of his men were slain by the Murrays, and Donald was taken prisoner. In consequence of these repeated reverses, John Mackay submitted himself to the Earl of Sutherland on[83] his return from Edinburgh, and granted him his bond of service, in the year 1518. But, notwithstanding this submission, Mackay afterwards tampered with Alexander Sutherland, the bastard, and having gained his favour by giving his sister to Sutherland in marriage, he prevailed upon him to rise against the Earl of Sutherland. All these commotions in the north happened during the minority of King James V., when, as Sir R. Gordon says, “everie man thought to escape unpunished, and cheiflie these who were remotest from the seat of justice.”[166]

This Alexander Sutherland was son of John, the third of that name, Earl of Sutherland, and as he pretended that the Earl and his mother had entered into a contract of marriage, he laid claim, on the death of the Earl, to the title and estates, as a legitimate descendant of Earl John, his father. By the entreaties of Adam Gordon, Lord of Aboyne, who had married Lady Elizabeth, the sister and sole heiress of Earl John, Alexander Sutherland judicially renounced his claim in presence of the sheriff of Inverness, on the 25th of July, 1509. He now repented of what he had done, and, being instigated by the Earl of Caithness and John Mackay, mortal foes to the house of Sutherland, he renewed his pretensions. Earl Adam, perceiving that he might incur some danger in making an appeal to arms, particularly as the clans and tribes of the country, with many of whom Alexander had become very popular, were broken into factions and much divided on the question betwixt the two, endeavoured to win him over by offering him many favourable conditions, again to renounce his claims, but in vain. He maintained the legitimacy of his descent, and alleged that the renunciation he had granted at Inverness had been obtained from him contrary to his inclination, and against the advice of his best friends.

Old Dunrobin Castle.

Having collected a considerable force, he, in absence of the earl, who was in Strathbogie, attacked Dunrobin castle, the chief strength of the earl, which he took. In this siege he was chiefly supported by Alexander Terrell of the Doill, who, in consequence of taking arms against the earl, his superior, lost all his lands, and was afterwards apprehended and executed. As soon as the earl heard of the insurrection, he despatched Alexander Lesley of Kinninuvy, with a body of men, into Sutherland to assist John Murray of Aberscors, who was already at the head of a force to support the earl. They immediately besieged Dunrobin, which surrendered. Alexander had retired to Strathnaver, but he again returned into Sutherland with a fresh body of men, and laid waste the country. After putting to death several of his[84] own kinsmen who had joined the earl, he descended farther into the country, towards the parishes of Loth and Clyne. Meeting with little or no opposition, the bastard grew careless, and being observed wandering along the Sutherland coast, flushed with success and regardless of danger, the earl formed the design of cutting him entirely off. With this view, he directed Alexander Lesley of Kinninuvy, John Murray, and John Scorrigh-Mac-Finlay, one of the Siol-Thomais, to hover on Sutherland’s outskirts, and to keep skirmishing with him till he, the earl, should collect a sufficient force with which to attack him. Having collected a considerable body of resolute men, the earl attacked the bastard at a place called Ald-Quhillin, by East Clentredaill, near the sea side. A warm contest ensued, in which Alexander Sutherland was taken prisoner, and the most of his men were slain, including John Bane, one of his principal supporters, who fell by the hands of John Scorrigh-Mac-Finlay. After the battle Sutherland was immediately beheaded by Alexander Lesley on the spot, and his head sent to Dunrobin on a spear, which was placed upon the top of the great tower, “which shews us” (as Sir Robert Gordon, following the superstition of his times, curiously observes), “that whatsoever by fate is allotted, though sometymes forshewed, can never be avoyded. For the witches had told Alexander the bastard that his head should be the highest that ever wes of the Southerlands; which he did foolishlye interpret that some day he should be Earl of Southerland, and in honor above all his predicessors. Thus the divell and his ministers, the witches, deceaving still such as trust in them, will either find or frame predictions for everie action or event, which doeth ever fall out contrarie to ther expectations; a kynd of people to all men unfaithfull, to hopers deceatful, and in all cuntries allwise forbidden, allwise reteaned and manteaned.”[167]

The Earl of Sutherland being now far advanced in life, retired for the most part to Strathbogy and Aboyne, to spend the remainder of his days amongst his friends, and intrusted the charge of the country to Alexander Gordon, his eldest son, a young man of great intrepidity and talent. The restless chief John Mackay, still smarting under his misfortunes, and thirsting for revenge, thought the present a favourable opportunity for retrieving his losses. With a considerable force, therefore, he invaded Sutherland, and entered the parish of Creigh, which he intended to ravage, but the Master of Sutherland hastened thither, attacked Mackay, and forced him to retreat into Strathnaver with some loss. Mackay then assembled a large body of his countrymen and invaded the Breachat. He was again defeated by Alexander Gordon at the Grinds after a keen skirmish. Hitherto Mackay had been allowed to hold the lands of Grinds, and some other possessions in the west part of Sutherland, but the Master of Sutherland now dispossessed him of all these as a punishment for his recent conduct. Still dreading a renewal of Mackay’s visits, the Master of Sutherland resolved to retaliate, by invading Strathnaver in return, and thereby showing Mackay what he might in future expect if he persevered in continuing his visits to Sutherland. Accordingly, he collected a body of stout and resolute men, and entered Strathnaver, which he pillaged and burnt, and, having collected a large quantity of booty, returned into Sutherland. In entering Strathnaver, the Master of Sutherland had taken the road to Strathully, passing through Mackay’s bounds in the hope of falling in with and apprehending him, but Mackay was absent on a creach excursion into Sutherland. In returning, however, through the Diric Moor and the Breachat, Alexander Gordon received intelligence that Mackay with a company of men was in the town of Lairg, with a quantity of cattle he had collected in Sutherland, on his way home to Strathnaver. He lost no time in attacking Mackay, and such was the celerity of his motions, that his attack was as sudden as unexpected. Mackay made the best resistance he could, but was put to the rout, and many of his men were killed. He himself made his escape with great difficulty, and saved his life by swimming to the island of Eilean-Minric, near Lairg, where he lay concealed during the rest of the day. All the cattle which Mackay had carried away were rescued and carried back into Sutherland. The following day Mackay left the island, returned home to his country,[85] and again submitted himself to the Master and his father, the Earl, to whom he a second time gave his bond of service and manrent in the year 1522.[168]

As the Earl of Caithness had always taken a side against the Sutherland family in these different quarrels, the Earl of Sutherland brought an action before the Lords of Council and Session against the Earl of Caithness, to recover back from him the lands of Strathully, on the ground, that the Earl of Caithness had not fulfilled the condition on which the lands were granted to him, viz., to assist the Earl of Sutherland against his enemies. There were other minor points of dispute between the earls, to get all which determined they both repaired to Edinburgh. Instead, however, of abiding the issue of a trial at law before the judges, both parties, by the advice of mutual friends, referred the decision of all the points in dispute on either side to Gavin Dunbar,[169] bishop of Aberdeen, who pronounced his award at Edinburgh, on the 11th March, 1524, his judgment appearing to have satisfied both parties, as the earls lived in peace with one another ever after.

The year 1526 was signalized by a great dissension among the clan Chattan. The chief and head of that clan was Lauchlan Macintosh of Dunnachtan, “a verrie honest and wyse gentleman,” says Bishop Lesley, “an barroun of gude rent, quha keipit hes hole ken, friendes and tennentis in honest and guid rewll;”[170] and according to Sir Robert Gordon, “a man of great possessions, and of such excellencies of witt and judgement, that with great commendation he did conteyn all his followers within the limits of ther dueties.”[171] The strictness with which this worthy chief curbed the lawless and turbulent dispositions of his clan raised up many enemies, who, as Bishop Lesley says, were “impacient of vertuous living.” At the head of this restless party was James Malcolmeson, a near kinsman of the chief, who, instigated by his worthless companions, and the temptation of ruling the clan, murdered the good chief. Afraid to face the well-disposed part of the clan, to whom the chief was beloved, Malcolmeson, along with his followers, took refuge in the island in the loch of Rothiemurchus; but the enraged clan followed them to their hiding places and despatched them.

As the son of the deceased chief was of tender age, and unable to govern the clan, with common consent they made choice of Hector Macintosh, a bastard brother of the late chief, to act as captain till his nephew should arrive at manhood. In the meantime the Earl of Moray, who was uncle to young Macintosh, the former chief having been married to the earl’s sister, took away his nephew and placed him under the care of his friends for the benefit of his education, and to bring him up virtuously. Hector Macintosh was greatly incensed at the removal of the child, and used every effort to get possession of him; but meeting with a refusal he became outrageous, and laid so many plans for accomplishing his object, that his intentions became suspected, as it was thought he could not wish so ardently for the custody of the child without some bad design. Baffled in every attempt, Hector, assisted by his brother William, collected a body of followers, and invaded the Earl of Moray’s lands. They overthrew the fort of Dykes, and besieged the castle of Tarnoway, the country surrounding which they plundered, burnt the houses of the inhabitants, and slew a number of men, women, and children. Raising the siege of Tarnoway, Hector and his men then entered the country of the Ogilvies and laid siege to the castle of Pettens, which belonged to the Laird of Durnens, one of the families of the Ogilvies, and which, after some resistance, surrendered. No less than twenty-four gentlemen of the name of Ogilvie were massacred on this occasion. After this event the Macintoshes and the party of banditti they had collected, roamed over the whole of the adjoining country, carrying terror and dismay into every bosom, and plundering, burning, and destroying everything within their reach. To repress disorders which called so loudly for redress, King James V., by the advice of his council, granted a commission to the Earl of[86] Moray to take measures accordingly. Having a considerable force put under his command, the earl went in pursuit of Macintosh and his party, and having surprised them, he took upwards of 300 of them[172] and hanged them, along with William Macintosh, the brother of Hector. A singular instance of the fidelity of the Highlanders to their chiefs is afforded in the present case, where, out of such a vast number as suffered, not one would reveal the secret of Hector Macintosh’s retreat, although promised their lives for the discovery. “Ther faith wes so true to ther captane, that they culd not be persuaded, either by fair meanes, or by any terror of death, to break the same or to betray their master.”[173]

Seeing no hopes of escaping the royal vengeance but by a ready submission, Hector Macintosh, by advice of Alexander Dunbar, Dean of Moray, tendered his obedience to the king, which was accepted, and he was received into the royal favour. He did not, however, long survive, for he was assassinated in St. Andrews by one James Spence, who was in consequence beheaded. After the death of Hector, the clan Chattan remained tranquil during the remaining years of the minority of the young chief, who, according to Bishop Lesley, “wes sua well brocht up by the meenes of the Erle of Murray and the Laird of Phindlater in vertue, honestie, and civile policye, that after he had received the governement of his cuntrey, he was a mirrour of vertue to all the hieland captanis in Scotland.”[174] But the young chieftain’s “honestie and civile policye” not suiting the ideas of those who had concurred in the murder of his father, a conspiracy was formed against him by some of his nearest kinsmen to deprive him of his life, which unfortunately took effect.

The Highlands now enjoyed repose for some years. John Mackay died in 1529, and was succeeded by his brother Donald, who remained quiet during the life of Adam Earl of Sutherland, to whom his brother had twice granted his bond of service. But, upon the death of that nobleman, he began to molest the inhabitants of Sutherland. In 1542 he attacked the village of Knockartol, which he burnt; and at the same time he plundered Strathbroray. To oppose his farther progress, Sir Hugh Kennedy collected as many of the inhabitants of Sutherland as the shortness of the time would permit, and, being accompanied by Gilbert Gordon of Gartay, John Murray of Aberscors, his son Hutcheon Murray, and Mac-Mhic-Sheumais of Killiernan, he attacked Mackay quite unawares near Alt-Na-Beth. Notwithstanding this unexpected attack, Mackay’s men met their assailants with great firmness, but the Strathnaver men were ultimately obliged to retreat with the loss of their booty and a great number of slain, amongst whom was John Mackean-Mac-Angus, chief of Sliochd-Mhic-Iain-Mhic-Hutcheon, in Edderachillis. Though closely pressed by Gilbert Gordon and Hutcheon Murray, Donald Mackay made good his retreat into Strathnaver.

By no means disheartened at his defeat, and anxious to blot out the stain which it had thrown upon him, he soon returned into Sutherland with a fresh force, and encamped near Skibo. Hutcheon Murray collected some Sutherland men, and with them he attacked Mackay, and kept him in check till an additional force which he expected should arrive. As soon as Mackay saw this new body of men approaching, with which he was quite unable to contend, he retreated suddenly into his own country, leaving several of his men dead on the field. This affair was called the skirmish of Loch-Buy. This mode of annoyance, which continued for some time, was put an end to by the apprehension of Donald Mackay, who, being brought before the Earls of Huntly and Sutherland, was, by their command, committed a close prisoner to the castle of Foulis, where he remained a considerable time in captivity. At last, by means of Donald Mac-Iain-Mhoir, a Strathnaver man, he effected his escape, and, returning home, reconciled himself with the Earl of Sutherland, to whom he gave his bond of service and manrent, on the 8th of April, 1549.

During the reign of James V. some respect was paid in the Highlands to the laws; but the divisions which fell out amongst the nobility,[87] the unquiet state of the nation during the minority of the infant queen, and the wars with England, relaxed the springs of government, and the consequence was that the usual scenes of turbulence and oppression soon displayed themselves in the Highlands, accompanied with all those circumstances of ferocity which rendered them so revolting to humanity. The Clanranald was particularly active in these lawless proceedings. This clan bore great enmity to Hugh, Lord Lovat; and because Ranald, son of Donald Glass of Moidart, was sister’s son of Lovat, they conceived a prejudice against him, dispossessed him of his lands, and put John Macranald, his cousin, in possession of the estate. Lovat took up the cause of his nephew, and restored him to the possession of his property; but the restless clan dispossessed Ranald again, and laid waste part of Lovat’s lands in Glenelg. These disorders did not escape the notice of the Earl of Arran, the governor of the kingdom, who, by advice of his council, granted a special commission to the Earl of Huntly, making him lieutenant-general of all the Highlands, and of Orkney and Zetland. He also appointed the Earl of Argyle lieutenant of Argyle and the Isles. The Earl of Huntly lost no time in raising a large army in the north, with which he marched, in May, 1544, attended by the Macintoshes, Grants, and Frasers, against the clan Cameron and the clan Ranald, and the people of Moydart and Knoydart, whose principal captains were Ewen Allenson, Ronald M’Coneilglas, and John Moydart. These had wasted and plundered the whole country of Urquhart and Glenmorriston, belonging to the Laird of Grant, and the country of Abertarf, Strathglass, and others, the property of Lord Lovat. They had also taken absolute possession of these different territories as their own properties, which they intended to possess and enjoy in all time coming. But, by the mediation of the Earl of Argyle, they immediately dislodged themselves upon the Earl of Huntly’s appearance, and retired to their own territories in the west.

In returning to his own country, Lovat was accompanied by the Grants and Macintoshes as far as Gloy, afterwards called the Nine-Mile-Water, and they even offered to escort him home in case of danger; but, having no apprehensions, he declined, and they returned home by Badenoch. This was a fatal error on the part of Lovat, for, as soon as he arrived at Letterfinlay, he was informed that the Clanranald were at hand, in full march, to intercept him. To secure an important pass, he despatched Iain-Cleireach, one of his principal officers, with 50 men; but, from some cause or other, Iain-Cleireach did not accomplish his object; and, as soon as Lovat came to the north end of Loch Lochy, he perceived the Clanranald descending the hill from the west, to the number of about 500, divided into seven companies. Lovat was thus placed in a position in which he could neither refuse nor avoid battle. The day (3d July) being extremely hot, Lovat’s men, who amounted to about 300, stript to the shirts, from which circumstance the battle was called Blar-Nan-Leine, i.e., the Field of Shirts. A sort of skirmish at first took place, first with bows and arrows, which lasted a considerable time, until both sides had expended their shafts. The combatants then drew their swords, and rushed in true Highland fashion on each other, with fierce and deadly intent. The slaughter was tremendous, and few escaped on either side. Lord Lovat, with 300 of the surname of Fraser, and other followers, were left dead on the field. Lovat’s eldest son, a youth of great accomplishments, who had received his education in France, whence he had lately arrived, was mortally wounded, and taken prisoner. He died within three days. Great as was the loss on the side of the Frasers, that on the opposite side was comparatively still greater. According to a tradition handed down, only four of the Frasers and ten of the Clanranald remained alive. The darkness of the night alone put an end to the combat. This was an unfortunate blow to the clan Fraser, which, tradition says, would have been almost entirely annihilated but for the happy circumstance that the wives of eighty of the Frasers who were slain were pregnant at the time, and were each of them afterwards delivered of a male child.[175]

As soon as intelligence of this disaster was brought to the Earl of Huntly, he again returned[88] with an army, entered Lochaber, which he laid waste, and apprehended many of the leading men of the hostile tribes, whom he put to death.

The great power conferred on the Earl of Huntly, as lieutenant-general in the north of Scotland, and the promptitude and severity with which he put down the insurrections of some of the chiefs alluded to, raised up many enemies against him. As he in company with the Earl of Sutherland was about to proceed to France for the purpose of conveying the queen regent to that country, in the year 1550, a conspiracy was formed against him, at the head of which was Macintosh, chief of the clan Chattan. This conspiracy being discovered to the earl, he ordered Macintosh to be immediately apprehended and brought to Strathbogie, where he was beheaded in the month of August of that year. His lands were also forfeited at the same time. This summary proceeding excited the sympathy and roused the indignation of the friends of the deceased chief, particularly of the Earl of Cassilis. A commotion was about to ensue, but matters were adjusted for a time, by the prudence of the queen regent, who recalled the act of forfeiture and restored Macintosh’s heir to all his father’s lands. But the clan Chattan were determined to avail themselves of the first favourable opportunity of being revenged upon the earl, which they, therefore, anxiously looked for. As Lauchlan Macintosh, a near kinsman of the chief, was suspected of having betrayed his chief to the earl, the clan entered his castle of Pettie by stealth, slew him, and banished all his dependants from the country of the clan.

About the same time the province of Sutherland again became the scene of some commotions. The earl having occasion to leave home, intrusted the government of the country to Alexander Gordon, his brother, who ruled it with great justice and severity; but the people, disliking the restraints put upon them by Alexander, created a tumult, and placed John Sutherland, son of Alexander Sutherland, the bastard, at their head. Seizing the favourable opportunity, as it appeared to them, when Alexander Gordon was attending divine service in the church at Golspikirktoun, they proceeded to attack him, but receiving notice of their intentions, he collected the little company he had about him, and went out of church resolutely to meet them. Alarmed at seeing him and his party approach, the people immediately dispersed and returned every man to his own house. But William Murray, son of Caen Murray, one of the family of Pulrossie, indignant at the affront offered to Alexander Gordon, shortly afterwards killed John Sutherland upon the Nether Green of Dunrobin, in revenge for which murder William Murray was himself thereafter slain by the Laird of Clyne.

The Mackays also took advantage of the Earl of Sutherland’s absence, to plunder and lay waste the country. Y-Mackay, son of Donald, assembled the Strathnaver men and entered Sutherland, but Alexander Gordon forced him back into Strathnaver, and not content with acting on the defensive, he entered Mackay’s country, which he wasted, and carried off a large booty in goods and cattle, in the year 1551. Mackay, in his turn, retaliated, and this system of mutual aggression and spoliation continued for several years.[176]

During the absence of the Earl of Huntly in France, John of Moydart, chief of the Clanranald, returned from the isles and recommenced his usual course of rapine. The queen regent, on her return from France, being invested with full authority, sent the Earl of Huntly on an expedition to the north, for the purpose of apprehending Clanranald and putting an end to his outrages. The earl having mustered a considerable force, chiefly Highlanders of the clan Chattan, passed into Moydart and Knoydart, but his operations were paralyzed by disputes in his camp. The chief and his men having abandoned their own country, the earl proposed to pursue them in their retreats among the fastnesses of the Highlands; but his principal officers, who were chiefly from the Lowlands, unaccustomed to such a mode of warfare in such a country, demurred; and as the earl was afraid to entrust himself with the clan Chattan, who owed him a deep grudge on account of the execution of their last chief, he abandoned the[89] enterprise and returned to the low country. Sir Robert Gordon says that the failure of the expedition was owing to a tumult raised in the earl’s camp by the clan Chattan, who returned home; but we are rather disposed to consider Bishop Lesley’s account, which we have followed, as the more correct.[177]

The failure of this expedition gave great offence to the queen, who, instigated it is supposed by Huntly’s enemies, attributed it to negligence on his part. The consequence was, that the earl was committed a prisoner to the castle of Edinburgh in the month of October, where he remained till the month of March following. He was compelled to renounce the earldom of Moray and the lordship of Abernethy, with his tacks and possessions in Orkney and Zetland, and the tacks of the lands of the earldom of Mar and of the lordship of Strathdie, of which he was bailie and steward, and he was moreover condemned to a banishment of five years in France. But as he was about to leave the kingdom, the queen, taking a more favourable view of his conduct, recalled the sentence of banishment, and restored him to the office of chancellor, of which he had been deprived; and to make this act of leniency somewhat palatable to the earl’s enemies, the queen exacted a heavy pecuniary fine from the earl.

The great disorders which prevailed in the Highlands at this time, induced the queen-regent to undertake a journey thither in order to punish these breaches of the law, and to repress existing tumults. She accordingly arrived at Inverness in the month of July, 1555, where she was met by John, Earl of Sutherland, and George, Earl of Caithness. Although the latter nobleman was requested to bring his countrymen along with him to the court, he neglected or declined to do so, and he was therefore committed to prison at Inverness, Aberdeen, and Edinburgh, successively, and he was not restored to liberty till he paid a considerable sum of money. Y-Mackay of Far was also summoned to appear before the queen at Inverness, to answer for his spoliations committed in the country of Sutherland during the absence of Earl John in France; but he refused to appear. Whereupon the queen granted a commission to the Earl of Sutherland, to bring Mackay to justice. The earl accordingly entered Strathnaver with a great force, sacking and spoiling every thing in his way, and possessing himself of all the principal positions to prevent Mackay’s escape. Mackay, however, avoided the earl, and as he declined to fight, the earl laid siege to the castle of Borwe, the principal strength in Strathnaver, scarcely two miles distant from Far, which he took after a short siege, and hanged Ruaridh-Mac-Iain-Mhoir, the commander. This fort the earl completely demolished.

While the Earl of Sutherland was engaged in the siege, Mackay entered Sutherland secretly, and burnt the church of Loth. He thereafter went to the village of Knockartol, where he met Mackenzie and his countrymen in Strathbroray. A slight skirmish took place between them; but Mackay and his men fled after he had lost Angus-Mackeanvoir, one of his commanders, and several of his followers. Mackenzie was thereupon appointed by the earl to protect Sutherland from the incursions of Mackay during his stay in Strathnaver. Having been defeated again by Mackenzie, and seeing no chance of escape, Mackay surrendered himself, and was carried south, and committed a prisoner to the castle of Edinburgh, in which he remained a considerable time. During the queen’s stay in the north many notorious delinquents were brought to trial, condemned and executed.

During Mackay’s detention in Edinburgh, John Mor-Mackay, who took charge of his kinsman’s estate, seizing the opportunity of the Earl of Sutherland’s absence in the south of Scotland, entered Sutherland at the head of a determined body of Strathnaver men, and spoiled and wasted the east corner of that province, and burnt the chapel of St. Ninian. Mac-Mhic-Sheumais, chief of the Clan-Gun, the Laird of Clyne, the Terrell of the Doill, and James Mac-William, having collected a body of Sutherland men, pursued the Strathnaver men, whom they overtook at the foot of the hill called Ben-Moir, in Berridell. Here they laid an ambush for them, and having, by favour of a fog, passed their sentinels, they[90] unexpectedly surprised Mackay’s men, and attacked them with great fury. The Strathnaver men made an obstinate resistance, but were at length overpowered. Many of them were killed, and others drowned in the water of Garwary. Mackay himself escaped with great difficulty. This was one of the severest defeats the Strathnaver men ever experienced, except at the battle of Knoken-dow-Reywird.

On the release of Mackay from his confinement in the castle of Edinburgh, he was employed in the wars upon the borders, against the English, in which he acquitted himself courageously; and on his return to Strathnaver he submitted himself to the Earl of Sutherland, with whom he lived in peace during the remainder of the earl’s life. But Mackay incurred the just displeasure of the tribe of Slaight-ean-Voir by the committal of two crimes of the deepest dye. Having imbibed a violent affection for the wife of Tormaid-Mac-Iain-Mhoir, the chieftain of that tribe, he, in order to accomplish his object, slew the chief, after which he violated his wife, by whom he had a son called Donald Balloch Mackay. The insulted clan flew to arms; but they were defeated at Durines, by the murderer and adulterer, after a sharp skirmish. Three of the principal men of the tribe who had given themselves up, trusting to Mackay’s clemency, were beheaded.[178]

In the early part of the reign of the unfortunate Queen Mary, during the period of the Reformation in Scotland, the house of Huntly had acquired such an influence in the north and north-east of Scotland, the old Maormorate of Moray, as to be looked upon with suspicion by the government of the day. Moreover the Lords of the Congregation regarded the earl with no friendly feeling as the great leader of the Roman Catholic party in the country, and it was therefore resolved that Mary should make a royal progress northwards, apparently for the purpose of seeing what was the real state of matters, and, if possible, try to overawe the earl, and remind him that he was only a subject. The queen, who, although Huntly was the Catholic leader, appears to have entered into the expedition heartily; and her bastard brother, the Earl of Murray, proceeded, in 1562, northwards, backed by a small army, and on finding the earl fractious, laid siege to the castle of Inverness, which was taken, and the governor hanged. The queen’s army and the followers of Huntly met at the hill of Corrichie, about sixteen miles west of Aberdeen, when the latter were defeated, the earl himself being found among the slain. It was on this occasion that Mary is said to have wished herself a man to be able to ride forth “in jack and knap-skull.” This expedition was the means of effectually breaking the influence of this powerful northern family.

George, Earl of Caithness, who had long borne a mortal hatred to John, Earl of Sutherland, now projected a scheme for cutting him off, as well as his countess, who was big with child, and their only son, Alexander Gordon; the earl and countess were accordingly both poisoned at Helmsdale, while at supper, by Isobel Sinclair, wife of Gilbert Gordon of Gartay, and sister of William Sinclair of Dumbaith, instigated, it is said, by the earl; but their son, Alexander, made a very narrow escape, not having returned in time from a hunting excursion to join his father and mother at supper. On Alexander’s return the earl had become fully aware of the danger of his situation, and he was thus prevented by his father from participating in any part of the supper which remained, and after taking an affectionate and parting farewell, and recommending him to the protection of God and of his dearest friends, he sent him to Dunrobin the same night without his supper. The earl and his lady were carried next morning to Dunrobin, where they died within five days thereafter, in the month of July, 1567, and were buried in the cathedral church at Dornoch. Pretending to cover himself from the imputation of being concerned in this murder, the Earl of Caithness punished some of the earl’s most faithful servants under the colour of avenging his death; but the deceased earl’s friends being determined to obtain justice, apprehended Isobel Sinclair, and sent her to Edinburgh to stand her trial, where, after being tried and condemned, she died on the day appointed for her execution. During all the time of her illness she vented the most dreadful imprecations upon her cousin,[91] the earl, who had induced her to commit the horrid act. Had this woman succeeded in cutting off the earl’s son, her own eldest son, John Gordon, but for the extraordinary circumstances of his death, to be noticed, would have succeeded to the earldom, as he was the next male heir. This youth happening to be in the house when his mother had prepared the poison, became extremely thirsty, and called for a drink. One of his mother’s servants, not aware of the preparation, presented to the youth a portion of the liquid into which the poison had been infused, which he drank. This occasioned his death within two days, a circumstance which, together with the appearances of the body after death, gave a clue to the discovery of his mother’s guilt.[179]

Taking advantage of the calamity which had befallen the house of Sutherland, and the minority of the young earl, now only fifteen years of age, Y-Mackay of Far, who had formed an alliance with the Earl of Caithness, in 1567 invaded the country of Sutherland, wasted the barony of Skibo, entered the town of Dornoch, and, upon the pretence of a quarrel with the Murrays, by whom it was chiefly inhabited, set fire to it, in which outrage he was assisted by the Laird of Duffus. These measures were only preliminary to a design which the Earl of Caithness had formed to get the Earl of Sutherland into his hands, but he had the cunning to conceal his intentions in the meantime, and to instigate Mackay to act as he wished, without appearing to be in any way concerned.

In pursuance of his design upon Alexander, the young Earl of Sutherland, the Earl of Caithness prevailed upon Robert Stuart, bishop of Caithness, to write a letter to the governor of the castle of Skibo, in which the Earl of Sutherland resided, to deliver up the castle to him; a request with which the governor complied. Having taken possession of the castle, the earl carried off the young man into Caithness, and although only fifteen years of age, he got him married to Lady Barbara Sinclair, his daughter, then aged thirty-two years. Y-Mackay was the paramour of this lady, and for continuing the connexion with him she was afterwards divorced by her husband.

The Earl of Caithness having succeeded in his wishes in obtaining possession of the Earl of Sutherland, entered the earl’s country, and took possession of Dunrobin castle, in which he fixed his residence. He also brought the Earl of Sutherland along with him, but he treated him meanly, and he burnt all the papers belonging to the house of Sutherland he could lay his hands on. Cruel and avaricious, he, under the pretence of vindicating the law, for imaginary crimes expelled many of the ancient families in Sutherland from the country, put many of the inhabitants to death, disabled those he banished, in their persons, by new and unheard-of modes of torture, and stripped them of all their wealth. To be suspected of favouring the house of Sutherland, and to be wealthy, were deemed capital crimes by this oppressor.

As the Earl of Sutherland did not live on friendly terms with his wife on account of her licentious connexion with Mackay, and as there appeared no chance of any issue, the Earl of Caithness formed the base design of cutting off the Earl of Sutherland, and marrying William Sinclair, his second son, to Lady Margaret Gordon, the eldest sister of the Earl of Sutherland, whom he had also gotten into his hands, with the view of making William earl of Sutherland. The better to conceal his intentions the Earl of Caithness made a journey south to Edinburgh, and gave the necessary instructions to those in his confidence to despatch the Earl of Sutherland; but some of his trusty friends having received private intelligence of the designs of the Earl of Caithness from some persons who were privy thereto, they instantly set about measures for defeating them by getting possession of the Earl of Sutherland’s person. Accordingly, under cloud of night, they came quietly to the burn of Golspie, in the vicinity of Dunrobin, where, concealing themselves to prevent discovery, they sent Alexander Gordon of Sidderay to the castle, disguised as a pedlar, for the purpose of warning the Earl of Sutherland of the danger of his situation, and devising means of escape. Being made acquainted with the design upon his life, and the plans of his friends for rescuing him, the earl, early the following morning, proposed to the residents in the castle, under[92] whose charge he was, to accompany him on a small excursion in the neighbourhood. This proposal seemed so reasonable in itself, that, although he was perpetually watched by the Earl of Caithness’ servants, and his liberty greatly restrained, they at once agreed; and, going out, the earl being aware of the ambush laid by his friends, led his keepers directly into the snare before they were aware of danger. The earl’s friends thereupon rushed from their hiding-place, and seizing him, conveyed him safely out of the country of Sutherland to Strathbogie. This took place in 1569. As soon as the Earl of Caithness’s retainers heard of the escape of Earl Alexander, they collected a party of men favourable to their interests, and went in hot pursuit of him as far as Port-ne-Coulter; but they found that the earl and his friends had just crossed the ferry.[180]

Shortly after this affair a quarrel ensued between the Monroes and the clan Kenzie, two very powerful Ross-shire clans. Lesley, the celebrated bishop of Ross, had made over to his cousin, the Laird of Balquhain, the right and title of the castle of the Canonry of Ross, together with the castle lands. Notwithstanding this grant, the Regent Murray had given the custody of this castle to Andrew Monroe of Milntown; and to make Lesley bear with the loss, the Regent promised him some of the lands of the Barony of Fintry in Buchan, but on condition that he should cede to Monroe the castle and castle lands of the Canonry; but the untimely and unexpected death of the Regent interrupted this arrangement, and Andrew Monroe did not, of course, obtain the title to the castle and castle lands as he expected. Yet Monroe had the address to obtain permission from the Earl of Lennox during his regency, and afterwards from the Earl of Mar, his successor in that office, to get possession of the castle. The clan Kenzie grudging to see Monroe in possession, and being desirous to get hold of the castle themselves, purchased Lesley’s right, and, by virtue thereof, demanded delivery of the castle. Monroe refused to accede to this demand, on which the clan laid siege to the castle; but Monroe defended it for three years at the expense of many lives on both sides. It was then delivered up to the clan Kenzie under the act of pacification.[181]

No attempt was made by the Earl of Sutherland, during his minority, to recover his possessions from the Earl of Caithness. In the meantime the latter, disappointed and enraged at the escape of his destined prey, vexed and annoyed still farther the partisans of the Sutherland family. In particular, he directed his vengeance against the Murrays, and made William Sutherland of Evelick, brother to the Laird of Duffus, apprehend John Croy-Murray, under the pretence of bringing him to justice. This proceeding roused the indignation of Hugh Murray of Aberscors, who assembled his friends, and made several incursions upon the lands of Evelick, Pronsies, and Riercher. They also laid waste several villages belonging to the Laird of Duffus, from which they carried off some booty, and apprehending a gentleman of the Sutherlands, they detained him as an hostage for the safety of John Croy-Murray. Upon this the Laird of Duffus collected all his kinsmen and friends, together with the Siol-Phaill at Skibo, and proceeded to the town of Dornoch, with the intention of burning it. But the inhabitants, aided by the Murrays, went out to meet the enemy, whom they courageously attacked and overthrew, and pursued to the gates of Skibo. Besides killing several of Duffus’ men they made some prisoners, whom they exchanged for John Croy-Murray. This affair was called the skirmish of Torran-Roy.

The Laird of Duffus, who was father-in-law to the Earl of Caithness, and supported him in all his plans, immediately sent notice of this disaster to the earl, who without delay sent his eldest son, John, Master of Caithness, with a large party of countrymen and friends, including Y-Mackay and his countrymen, to attack the Murrays in Dornoch. They besieged the town and castle, which were both manfully defended by the Murrays and their friends; but the Master of Caithness, favoured by the darkness of the night, set fire to the cathedral, the steeple of which, however, was preserved. After the town had been reduced, the Master of Caithness attacked the castle[93] and the steeple of the church, into which a body of men had thrown themselves, both of which held out for the space of a week, and would probably have resisted much longer, but for the interference of mutual friends of the parties, by whose mediation the Murrays surrendered the castle and the steeple of the church; and, as hostages for the due performance of other conditions, they delivered up Thomas Murray, son of Houcheon Murray of Aberscors, Houcheon Murray, son of Alexander Mac-Sir-Angus, and John Murray, son of Thomas Murray, the brother of John Murray of Aberscors. But the Earl of Caithness refused to ratify the treaty which his son had entered into with the Murrays, and afterwards basely beheaded the three hostages. These occurrences took place in the year 1570.[182]

The Murrays and the other friends of the Sutherland family, no longer able to protect themselves from the vengeance of the Earl of Caithness, dispersed themselves into different countries, there to wait for more favourable times, when they might return to their native soil without danger. The Murrays went to Strathbogie, where Earl Alexander then resided. Hugh Gordon of Drummoy retired to Orkney, where he married a lady named Ursla Tulloch; but he frequently visited his friends in Sutherland, in spite of many snares laid for him by the Earl of Caithness, while secretly going and returning through Caithness. Hugh Gordon’s brothers took refuge with the Murrays at Strathbogie. John Gray of Skibo and his son Gilbert retired to St. Andrews, where their friend Robert, bishop of Caithness, then resided, and Mac-Mhic-Sheumais of Strathully went to Glengarry.

As the alliance of such a powerful and war-like chief as Mackay would have been of great importance to the Sutherland interest, an attempt was made to detach him from the Earl of Caithness. The plan appears to have originated with Hugh Murray of Aberscors, who made repeated visits to Strathbogie, to consult with the Earl of Sutherland and his friends on this subject, and afterwards went into Strathnaver and held a conference with Mackay, whom he prevailed upon to accompany him to Strathbogie. Mackay then entered into an engagement with the Earl of Huntly and the Earl of Sutherland, to assist the latter against the Earl of Caithness, in consideration of which, and on payment of £300 Scots, he obtained from the Earl of Huntly the heritable right and title of the lands of Strathnaver; but Mackay, influenced by Barbara Sinclair, the wife of the Earl of Sutherland, with whom he now publicly cohabited, broke his engagement, and continued to oppress the earl’s followers and dependents.

From some circumstances which have not transpired, the Earl of Caithness became suspicious of his son John, the Master of Caithness, as having, in connection with Mackay, a design upon his life. To put an end to the earl’s suspicion, Mackay advised John to go to Girnigo (Castle Sinclair), and to submit himself to his father’s pleasure, a request with which the Master complied; but, after arriving at Girnigo, he was, while conversing with his father, arrested by a party of armed men, who, upon a secret signal being given by the earl, had rushed in at the chamber door. He was instantly fettered and thrust into prison within the castle, where, after a miserable captivity of seven years, he died, a prey to famine and vermin.

Mackay, who had accompanied the Master to Girnigo, and who in all probability would have shared the same fate, escaped and returned home to Strathnaver, where he died, within four months thereafter, of grief and remorse for the many bad actions of his life. During the minority of his son Houcheon, John Mor-Mackay, the cousin, and John Beg-Mackay, the bastard son of Y-Mackay, took charge of the estate; but John Mor-Mackay was speedily removed from his charge by the Earl of Caithness, who, considering him as a favourer of the Earl of Sutherland, caused him to be apprehended and carried into Caithness, where he was detained in prison till his death. During this time John Robson, the chief of the clan Gun in Caithness and Strathnaver, became a dependent on the Earl of Sutherland, and acted as his factor in collecting the rents and duties of the bishop’s lands within Caithness which belonged to the earl. This connexion was exceedingly disagreeable to the Earl of Caithness,[94] who in consequence took a grudge at John Robson, and, to gratify his spleen, he instigated Houcheon Mackay to lay waste the lands of the clan Gun, in the Brea-Moir, in Caithness, without the knowledge of John Beg-Mackay, his brother. As the clan Gun had always been friendly to the family of Mackay, John Beg-Mackay was greatly exasperated at the conduct of the earl in enticing the young chief to commit such an outrage; but he had it not in his power to make any reparation to the injured clan. John Robson, the chief, however, assisted by Alexander Earl of Sutherland, invaded Strathnaver and made ample retaliation. Meeting the Strathnaver men at a place called Creach-Drumi-Doun, he attacked and defeated them, killing several of them, and chiefly those who had accompanied Houcheon Mackay in his expedition to the Brea-Moir. He then carried off a large quantity of booty, which he divided among the clan Gun of Strathully, who had suffered by Houcheon Mackay’s invasion.[183]

The Earl of Caithness, having resolved to avenge himself on John Beg-Mackay for the displeasure shown by him at the conduct of Houcheon Mackay, and also on the clan Gun, prevailed upon Neill-Mac-Iain-Mac-William, chief of the Sliochd-Iain-Abaraich, and James Mac-Rory, chief of the Sliochd-Iain-Mhoir, to attack them. Accordingly, in the month of September, 1579, these two chiefs, with their followers, entered Balnekill in Durines during the night-time, and slew John Beg-Mackay and William Mac-Iain-Mac-Rob, the brother of John Robson, and some of their people. The friends of the deceased were not in a condition to retaliate, but they kept up the spirit of revenge so customary in those times, and only waited a favourable opportunity to gratify it. This did not occur till several years thereafter. In the year 1587, James Mac-Rory, “a fyne gentleman and a good commander,” according to Sir Robert Gordon, was assassinated by Donald Balloch-Mackay, the brother of John Beg-Mackay; and two years thereafter John Mackay, the son of John Beg, attacked Neill Mac-Iain-Mac-William, whom he wounded severely, and cut off some of his followers. “This Neill,” says Sir R. Gordon, “heir mentioned, wes a good captain, bold, craftie, of a verie good witt, and quick resolution.”

After the death of John Beg-Mackay, and William Mac-Iain-Mac-Rob, a most deadly and inveterate feud followed, between the clan Gun and the Sliochd-Iain-Abaraich, but no recital of the details has been handed down to us. “The long, the many, the horrible encounters,” observes Sir R. Gordon “which happened between these two trybes, with the bloodshed, and infinit spoills committed in every pairt of the diocy of Catteynes by them and their associats, are of so disordered and troublesome memorie, that, what with their asperous names, together with the confusion of place, tymes, and persons, would yet be (no doubt) a warr to the reader to overlook them; and therefor, to favor myne oune paines, and his who should get little profite or delight thereby, I doe pass them over.”[184]

The clan Chattan, about this time, must have been harassing the surrounding districts to a terrible extent, and causing the government considerable trouble, as in 1583 we find a mandate addressed by King James “to our shirreffs of Kincardin, Abirdene, Banf, Elgen, Fores, Narne, and Invernyss; and to our derrest bruthir, James, Erle of Murray, our lieutenant generale in the north partis of our realme, and to our louittis consingis [ ... ] Erle of Suthirland; John Erle of Cathnes,” &c., &c., commanding them that inasmuch as John M’Kinlay, Thomas Mackinlay, Donald Glass, &c., “throcht assistance and fortifying of all the kin of Clanquhattane duelland within Baienach, Petty, Brauchly, Strathnarne, and other parts thereabout, committs daily fire-raising, slaughter, murder, heirschippis, and wasting of the cuntre,” to the harm of the true lieges, these sheriffs and others shall fall upon the “said Clanquhattane, and invade them to their utter destruction by slaughter, burning, drowning, and other ways; and leave na creature living of that clan, except priests, women, and bairns.” The “women and bairns” they were ordered to take to “some parts of the sea nearest land, quhair ships salbe forsene on our[95] expenses, to sail with them furth of our realme, and land with them in Jesland, Zesland, or Norway; because it were inhumanity to put hands in the blood of women and bairns.” Had this mandate for “stamping out” this troublesome clan been carried out it would certainly have been an effectual cure for many of the disturbances in the Highlands; but we cannot find any record as to what practical result followed the issue of this cruel decree.[185]

In the year 1585 a quarrel took place between Neill Houcheonson, and Donald Neilson, the Laird of Assynt, who had married Houcheon Mackay’s sister. The cause of Donald Neilson was espoused by Houcheon Mackay, and the clan Gun, who came with an army out of Caithness and Strathnaver, to besiege Neill Houcheonson in the isle of Assynt. Neill, who was commander of Assynt, and a follower of the Earl of Sutherland, sent immediate notice to the earl of Mackay’s movements, on receiving which the earl, assembling a body of men, despatched them to Assynt to raise the siege; but Mackay did not wait for their coming, and retreated into Strathnaver. As the Earl of Caithness had sent some of his people to assist Mackay, who was the Earl of Sutherland’s vassal, the latter resolved to punish both, and accordingly made preparations for entering Strathnaver and Caithness with an army. But some mutual friends of the parties interfered to prevent the effusion of blood, by prevailing on the two earls to meet at Elgin, in the presence of the Earl of Huntly and other friends, and get their differences adjusted. A meeting was accordingly held, at which the earls were reconciled. The whole blame of the troubles and commotions which had recently disturbed the peace of Sutherland and Caithness, was thrown upon the clan Gun, who were alleged to have been the chief instigators, and as their restless disposition might give rise to new disorders, it was agreed, at said meeting, to cut them off, and particularly that part of the tribe which dwelt in Caithness, which was chiefly dreaded, for which purpose the Earl of Caithness bound himself to deliver up to the Earl of Sutherland, certain individuals of the clan living in Caithness. To enable him to implement his engagement a resolution was entered into to send two companies of men against those of the clan Gun who dwelt in Caithness and Strathnaver, and to surround them in such a way as to prevent escape. The Earl of Caithness, notwithstanding, sent private notice to the clan of the preparations making against them by Angus Sutherland of Mellary, in Berriedale; but the clan were distrustful of the earl, as they had already received secret intelligence that he had assembled his people together for the purpose of attacking them.

As soon as the Earl of Sutherland could get his men collected he proceeded to march to the territories of the clan Gun; but meeting by chance, on his way, with a party of Strathnaver men, under the command of William Mackay, brother of Houcheon Mackay, carrying off the cattle of James Mac-Rory, a vassal of his own, from Coireceann Loch in the Diri-Meanigh, he rescued and brought back his vassal’s cattle. After this the earl’s party pursued William Mackay and the Strathnaver men during the whole day, and killed one of the principal men of the clan Gun in Strathnaver, called Angus-Roy, with several others of Mackay’s company. This affair was called Latha-Tom-Fraoich, that is, the day of the heather bush. At the end of the pursuit, and towards evening, the pursued party found themselves on the borders of Caithness, where they found the clan Gun assembled in consequence of the rising of the Caithness people who had taken away their cattle.

This accidental meeting of the Strathnaver men and the clan Gun was the means, probably, of saving both from destruction. They immediately entered into an alliance to stand by one another, and to live or die together. Next morning they found themselves placed between two powerful bodies of their enemies. On the one side was the Earl of Sutherland’s party at no great distance, reposing themselves from the fatigues of the preceding day, and on the other were seen advancing the Caithness men, conducted by Henry Sinclair, brother to the laird of Dun, and cousin to the Earl of Caithness. A council of war was immediately held to consult how to act in this emergency, when it was resolved to attack the Caithness men[96] first, as they were far inferior in numbers, which was done by the clan Gun and their allies, who had the advantage of the hill, with great resolution. The former foolishly expended their arrows while at a distance from their opponents; but the clan Gun having husbanded their shot till they came in close contact with the enemy, did great execution. The Caithness men were completely over-thrown, after leaving 140 of their party, with their captain, Henry Sinclair, dead on the field of battle. Had not the darkness of the night favoured their flight, they would have all been destroyed. Henry Sinclair was Mackay’s uncle, and not being aware that he had been in the engagement till he recognised his body among the slain, Mackay felt extremely grieved at the unexpected death of his relative. This skirmish took place at Aldgown, in the year 1586. The Sutherland men having lost sight of Mackay and his party among the hills, immediately before the conflict, returned into their own country with the booty they had recovered, and were not aware of the defeat of the Caithness men till some time after that event.

The Earl of Caithness afterwards confessed that he had no intention of attacking the clan Gun at the time in question; but that his policy was to have allowed them to be closely pressed and pursued by the Sutherland men, and then to have relieved them from the imminent danger they would thereby be placed in, so that they might consider that it was to him they owed their safety, and thus lay them under fresh obligations to him. But the deceitful part he acted proved very disastrous to his people, and the result so exasperated him against the clan Gun, that he hanged John Mac-Iain-Mac-Rob, chieftain of the clan Gun, in Caithness, whom he had kept captive for some time.

The result of all these proceedings was another meeting between the Earls of Sutherland and Caithness at the hill of Bingrime in Sutherland, which was brought about by the mediation of Sir Patrick Gordon of Auchindun, who was sent into the north by his nephew, the Earl of Huntly, for that purpose. Here again a new confederacy was formed against the clan Gun in Caithness, who were now maintained and harboured by Mackay. The Earl of Sutherland, on account of the recent defeat of the Caithness men, undertook to attack the clan first. He accordingly directed two bodies to march with all haste against the clan, one of which was commanded by James Mac-Rory and Neill Mac-Iain-Mac-William, chief of the Sliochd-Iain-Abaraich, who were now under the protection of the Earl of Sutherland; and the other by William Sutherland Johnson, George Gordon in Marle, and William Murray in Kinnald, brother of Hugh Murray of Aberscors. Houcheon Mackay, seeing no hopes of maintaining the clan Gun any longer without danger to himself, discharged them from his country, whereupon they made preparations for seeking an asylum in the western isles. But, on their journey thither, they were met near Loch Broom, at a place called Leckmelme, by James Mac-Rory and Neill Mac-Iain-Mac-William, where, after a sharp skirmish, they were overthrown, and the greater part of them killed. Their commander, George Mac-Iain-Mac-Rob, brother of John Mac-Iain-Mac-Rob, who was hanged by the Earl of Caithness, was severely wounded, and was taken prisoner after an unsuccessful attempt to escape by swimming across a loch close by. After being carried to Dunrobin castle, and presented to the Earl of Sutherland, George Gun was sent by him to the Earl of Caithness, who, though extremely grieved at the misfortune which had happened to the clan Gun, dissembled his vexation, and received the prisoner as if he approved of the Earl of Sutherland’s proceedings against him and his unfortunate people. After a short confinement, George Gun was released from his captivity by the Earl of Caithness, at the entreaty of the Earl of Sutherland, not from any favour to the prisoner himself, or to the earl, whom the Earl of Caithness hated mortally, but with the design of making Gun an instrument of annoyance to some of the Earl of Sutherland’s neighbours. But the Earl of Caithness was disappointed in his object, for George Gun, after his enlargement from prison, always remained faithful to the Earl of Sutherland.[186]

About this time a violent feud arose in the[97] western isles between Angus Macdonald of Kintyre, and Sir Lauchlan Maclean of Duart, in Mull, whose sister Angus had married, which ended in the almost total destruction of the clan Donald and clan Lean. The circumstances which led to this unfortunate dissension were these:—

Donald Gorm Macdonald of Slate, when going on a visit from Slate to his cousin, Angus Macdonald of Kintyre, was forced by contrary winds to land with his party in the island of Jura, which belonged partly to Sir Lauchlan Maclean, and partly to Angus Macdonald. The part of the island where Macdonald of Slate landed belonged to Sir Lauchlan Maclean. No sooner had Macdonald and his company landed, than, by an unlucky coincidence, Macdonald Tearreagh and Houcheon Macgillespic, two of the clan Donald who had lately quarrelled with Donald Gorm, arrived at the same time with a party of men; and, understanding that Donald Gorm was in the island, they secretly took away, by night, a number of cattle belonging to the clan Lean, and immediately put to sea. Their object in doing so was to make the clan Lean believe that Donald Gorm and his party had carried off the cattle, in the hope that the Macleans would attack Donald Gorm, and they were not disappointed. As soon as the lifting of the cattle had been discovered, Sir Lauchlan Maclean assembled his whole forces, and, under the impression that Donald Gorm and his party had committed the spoliation, he attacked them suddenly and unawares, during the night, at a place in the island called Inverchuockwrick, and slew about sixty of the clan Donald. Donald Gorm, having previously gone on board his vessel to pass the night, fortunately escaped.

When Angus Macdonald heard of this “untoward event,” he visited Donald Gorm in Skye for the purpose of consulting with him on the means of obtaining reparation for the loss of his men. On his return homeward to Kintyre, he landed in the Isle of Mull, and, contrary to the advice of Coll Mac-James and Reginald Mac-James, his two brothers, and of Reginald Mac-Coll, his cousin, who wished him to send a messenger to announce the result of his meeting with Donald Gorm, went to the castle of Duart, the principal residence of Sir Lauchlan Maclean in Mull. His two brothers refused to accompany him, and they acted rightly; for, the day after Angus arrived at Duart, he and all his party were perfidiously arrested by Sir Lauchlan Maclean. Reginald Mac-Coll, the cousin of Angus, alone escaped. The Rhinns of Islay at this time belonged to the clan Donald, but they had given the possession of them to the clan Lean for personal services. Sir Lauchlan, thinking the present a favourable opportunity for acquiring an absolute right to this property, offered to release Angus Macdonald, provided he would renounce his right and title to the Rhinns; and, in case of refusal, he threatened to make him end his days in captivity. Angus, being thus in some degree compelled, agreed to the proposed terms, but, before obtaining his liberty, he was forced to give James Macdonald, his eldest son, and Reginald Mac-James, his brother, as hostages, until the deed of conveyance should be delivered to Sir Lauchlan.

It was not, however, the intention of Angus Macdonald to implement this engagement, if he could accomplish the liberation of his son and brother. His cousin had suffered a grievous injury at the hands of Sir Lauchlan Maclean without any just cause of offence, and he himself had, when on a friendly mission, been detained most unjustly as a prisoner, and compelled to promise to surrender into Sir Lauchlan’s hands, by a regular deed, a part of his property. Under these circumstances, his resolution to break the unfair engagement he had come under is not to be wondered at. To accomplish his object he had recourse to a stratagem in which he succeeded, as will be shown in the sequel.

After Maclean had obtained delivery of the two hostages, he made a voyage to Islay to get the engagement completed. He left behind, in the castle of Duart, Reginald Mac-James, one of the hostages, whom he put in fetters, and took the other to accompany him on his voyage. Having arrived in the isle of Islay, he encamped at Eilean-Gorm, a ruinous castle upon the Rhinns of Islay which castle had been lately in the possession of the clan Lean. Angus Macdonald was residing at the time at the house of Mulindry or Mullindhrea, a comfortable and well-furnished residence belonging to him on the island, and to which he invited Sir Lauchlan, under the pretence of affording him better accommodation, and providing him with better provisions than he could obtain in his camp; but Sir Lauchlan, having his suspicions, declined to accept the invitation. “There wes,” says Sir Robert Gordon, “so little trust on either syd, that they did not now meit in friendship or amitie, bot vpon ther owne guard, or rather by messingers, one from another. And true it is (sayeth John Colwin, in his manuscript) that the islanders are, of nature, verie suspicious; full of invention against ther nighbours, by whatsoever way they may get them destroyed. Besyds this, they are bent and eager in taking revenge, that neither have they regaird to persone, tyme, aige, nor cause; and ar generallie so addicted that way (as lykwise are the most pairt of all Highlanders), that therein they surpasse all other people whatsoever.”

[98]

Castle Duart.

Sir Lauchlan, however, was thrown off his guard by fair promises, and agreed to pay Macdonald a visit, and accordingly proceeded to Mulindry, accompanied by James Macdonald, his own nephew, and the son of Angus, and 86 of his kinsmen and servants. Maclean and his party, on their arrival, were received by Macdonald with much apparent kindness, and were sumptuously entertained dining the whole day. In the meantime, Macdonald sent notice to all his friends and well-wishers in the island, to come to his house at nine o’clock at night, his design being to seize Maclean and his party. At the usual hour for going to repose, Maclean and his people were lodged in a long-house, which stood by itself, at some distance from the other houses. During the whole day Maclean had always kept James Macdonald, the hostage, within his reach, as a sort of protection to him in case of an attack, and at going to bed he took him along with him. About an hour after Maclean and his people had retired, Angus assembled his men to the number of 300 or 400, and made them surround the house in which Maclean and his company lay. Then, going himself to the door, he called upon Maclean, and told him that he had come to give him his reposing drink, which he had forgotten to offer him before going to bed. Maclean answered that he did not wish to drink at that time; but Macdonald insisted that he should rise and receive the drink, it being, he said, his will that he should do so. The peremptory tone of Macdonald made Maclean at once apprehensive of the danger of his situation, and immediately getting up and placing the boy between his shoulders, prepared to preserve his life as long as he could with the boy, or to sell it as dearly as possible. As soon as the door was forced open, James Macdonald, seeing his father with a naked sword in his hand and a number of his men armed in the same manner, cried aloud for mercy to Maclean, his uncle, which being granted, Sir Lauchlan was immediately[99] removed to a secret chamber, where he remained till next morning. After Maclean had surrendered, Angus Macdonald announced to those within the house, that if they would come without their lives would be spared; but he excepted Macdonald Terreagh and another individual whom he named. The whole, with the exception of these two, having complied, the house was immediately set on fire, and consumed along with Macdonald Terreagh and his companion. The former was one of the clan Donald of the Western Islands, and not only had assisted the clan Lean against his own tribe, but was also the originator, as we have seen, of all these disturbances; and the latter was a near kinsman to Maclean, one of the oldest of the clan, and celebrated for his wisdom and prowess. This affair took place in the month of July, 1586.

MACLEAN.

When the intelligence of the seizure of Sir Lauchlan Maclean reached the Isle of Mull, Allan Maclean, who was the nearest kinsman to Maclean, whose children were then very young, bethought himself of an expedient to obtain the possessions of Sir Lauchlan. In conjunction with his friends, Allan caused a false report to be spread in the island of Islay, that the friends of Maclean had killed Reginald Mac-James, the remaining hostage at Duart in Mull, by means of which he hoped that Angus Macdonald would be moved to kill Sir Lauchlan, and thereby enable him (Allan) to supply his place. But although this device did not succeed, it proved very disastrous to Sir Lauchlan’s friends and followers, who were beheaded in pairs by Coll Mac-James, the brother of Angus Macdonald.

The friends of Sir Lauchlan seeing no hopes of his release, applied to the Earl of Argyle to assist them in a contemplated attempt to rescue him out of the hands of Angus Macdonald; but the earl, perceiving the utter hopelessness of such an attempt with such forces as he and they could command, advised them to complain to King James VI. against Angus Macdonald, for the seizure and detention of their chief. The king immediately directed that Macdonald should be summoned by a herald-at-arms to deliver up Sir Lauchlan into the hands of the Earl of Argyle; but the herald was interrupted in the performance of his duty, not being able to procure shipping for Islay, and was obliged to return home. The Earl of Argyle had then recourse to negotiation with Macdonald, and, after considerable trouble, he prevailed on him to release Sir Lauchlan on certain strict conditions, but not until Reginald Mac-James, the brother of Angus, had been delivered up, and the earl, for performance of the conditions agreed upon, had given his own son, and the son of Macleod of Harris, as hostages. But Maclean, quite regardless of the safety of the hostages, and in open violation of the engagements he had come under, on hearing that Angus Macdonald had gone on a visit to the clan Donald of the glens in Ireland, invaded Isla, which he laid waste, and pursued those who had assisted in his capture.

On his return from Ireland, Angus Macdonald made great preparations for inflicting a just chastisement upon Maclean. Collecting a large body of men, and much shipping, he invaded Mull and Tiree, carrying havoc and destruction along with him, and destroying every human being and every domestic animal, of whatever kind. While Macdonald was committing these ravages in Mull and Tiree, Maclean, instead of opposing him, invaded Kintyre, where he took ample retaliation by wasting and burning a great part of that country. In this manner did these hostile clans continue, for a considerable period, mutually to vex and destroy one another, till they were almost exterminated, root and branch.

In order to strengthen his own power and to weaken that of his antagonist, Sir Lauchlan Maclean attempted to detach John Mac-Iain, of Ardnamurchan, from Angus Macdonald and his party. Mac-Iain had formerly been an unsuccessful suitor for the hand of Maclean’s mother, and Sir Hector now gave him an invitation to visit him in Mull, promising, at the same time, to give him his mother in marriage. Mac-Iain accepted the invitation, and on his arrival in Mull, Maclean prevailed on his mother to marry Mac-Iain, and the nuptials were accordingly celebrated at Torloisk in Mull. No persuasion, however, could induce Mac-Iain to join against his own tribe, towards which, notwithstanding his matrimonial alliance, he entertained the strongest affection. Chagrined at the unexpected refusal of Mac-Iain,[100] Sir Lauchlan resolved to punish his refractory guest by one of those gross infringements of the laws of hospitality which so often marked the hostility of rival clans. During the dead hour of the night he caused the door of Mac-Iain’s bedchamber to be forced open, dragged him from his bed, and from the arms of his wife, and put him in close confinement, after killing eighteen of his followers. After suffering a year’s captivity, he was released and exchanged for Maclean’s son, and the other hostages in Macdonald’s possession.

The dissensions between these two tribes having attracted the attention of government, the rival chiefs were induced, partly by command of the king, and partly by persuasions and fair promises, to come to Edinburgh in the year 1592, for the purpose of having their differences reconciled. On their arrival they were committed prisoners to the castle of Edinburgh, but were soon released and allowed to return home on payment of a small pecuniary fine, “and a shamfull remission,” says Sir Robert Gordon, “granted to either of them.”[187]

In the year 1587, the flames of discord, which had lain dormant for a short time, burst forth between the rival houses of Sutherland and Caithness. In the year 1583, Alexander, Earl of Sutherland, obtained from the Earl of Huntly a grant of the superiority of Strathnaver, and of the heritable sheriffship of Sutherland and Strathnaver, which last was granted in lieu of the lordship of Aboyne. This grant was confirmed by his Majesty in a charter under the great seal, by which Sutherland and Strathnaver were disjoined and dismembered from the sheriffdom of Inverness. As the strength and influence of the Earl of Sutherland were greatly increased by the power and authority with which the superiority of Strathnaver invested him, the Earl of Caithness used the most urgent entreaties with the Earl of Huntly, who was his brother-in-law, to recall the gift of the superiority which he had granted to the Earl of Sutherland, and confer the same on him. The Earl of Huntly gave no decided answer to this application, although he seemed rather to listen with a favourable ear to his brother-in-law’s request. The Earl of Sutherland having been made aware of his rival’s pretensions, and of the reception which he had met with from the Earl of Huntly, immediately notified to Huntly that he would never restore the superiority either to him or to the Earl of Caithness, as the bargain he had made with him had been long finally concluded. The Earl of Huntly was much offended at this notice, but he and the Earl of Sutherland were soon reconciled through the mediation of Sir Patrick Gordon of Auchindun.

Disappointed in his views of obtaining the superiority in question, the Earl of Caithness seized the first opportunity, which presented itself, of quarrelling with the Earl of Sutherland, and he now thought that a suitable occasion had occurred. George Gordon, a bastard son of Gilbert Gordon of Gartay, having offered many indignities to the Earl of Caithness, the Earl, instead of complaining to the Earl of Sutherland, in whose service this George Gordon was, craved satisfaction and redress from the Earl of Huntly. Huntly very properly desired the Earl of Caithness to lay his complaint before the Earl of Sutherland; but this he declined to do, disdaining to seek redress from Earl Alexander. Encouraged, probably, by the refusal of the Earl of Huntly to interfere, and the stubbornness of the Earl of Caithness to ask redress from his master, George Gordon, who resided in the town of Marle in Strathully, on the borders of Caithness, not satisfied with the indignities which he had formerly shown to the Earl of Caithness, cut off the tails of the earl’s horses as they were passing the river of Helmsdale under the care of his servants, on their journey from Caithness to Edinburgh, and in derision desired the earl’s servants to show him what he had done.

This George Gordon, it would appear, led a very irregular and wicked course of life, and shortly after the occurrence we have just related, a circumstance happened which induced the Earl of Caithness to take redress at his own hands. George Gordon had incurred the displeasure of the Earl of Sutherland by an unlawful connexion with his wife’s sister, and as he had no hopes of regaining the earl’s favour but by renouncing this impure intercourse, he sent Patrick Gordon, his brother, to the Earl of[101] Caithness to endeavour to effect a reconciliation with him, as he could no longer rely upon the protection of his master, the Earl of Sutherland. The Earl of Caithness, who felt an inward satisfaction at hearing of the displeasure of the Earl of Sutherland with George Gordon, dissembled his feelings, and pretended to listen with great favour to the request of Patrick Gordon, in order to throw George Gordon off his guard, while he was in reality meditating his destruction. The ruse succeeded so effectually, that although Gordon received timeous notice, from some friends, of the intentions of the earl to attack him, he reposed in false security upon the promises held out to him, and made no provision for his personal safety. But he was soon undeceived by the appearance of the earl and a body of men, who, in February, 1587, entering Marle under the silence of the night, surrounded his house and required him to surrender, which he refused to do. Having cut his way through his enemies and thrown himself into the river of Helmsdale, which he attempted to swim across, he was slain by a shower of arrows.

The Earl of Sutherland, though he disliked the conduct of George Gordon, was highly incensed at his death, and made great preparations to punish the Earl of Caithness for his attack upon Gordon. The Earl of Caithness in his turn assembled his whole forces, and, being joined by Mackay and the Strathnaver men, together with John, the Master of Orkney, and the Earl of Carrick, brother of Patrick, Earl of Orkney, and some of his countrymen, marched to Helmsdale to meet the Earl of Sutherland. As soon as the latter heard of the advance of the Earl of Caithness, he also proceeded towards Helmsdale, accompanied by Mackintosh, Roderick Mackenzie of Redcastle, Hector Monroe of Contaligh, and Neill Houcheonson, with the men of Assynt. On his arrival at the river of Helmsdale, the Earl of Sutherland found the enemy encamped on the opposite side. Neither party seemed inclined to come to a general engagement, but contented themselves with daily skirmishes, annoying each other with guns and arrows from the opposite banks of the river. The Sutherland men, who were very expert archers, annoyed the Caithness men so much, as to force them to break up their camp on the river side and to remove among the rocks above the village of Easter Helmsdale. Mackay and his countrymen were encamped on the river of Marle, and in order to detach him from the Earl of Caithness, Macintosh crossed that river and had a private conference with him. After reminding him of the friendship which had so long subsisted between his ancestors and the Sutherland family, Macintosh endeavoured to impress upon his mind the danger he incurred by taking up arms against his own superior the Earl of Sutherland, and entreated him, for his own sake, to join the earl; but Mackay remained inflexible.

By the mediation of mutual friends, the two earls agreed to a temporary truce on the 9th of March, 1587, and thus the effusion of human blood was stopped for a short time. As Mackay was the vassal of the Earl of Sutherland, the latter refused to comprehend him in the truce, and insisted upon an unconditional submission, but Mackay obstinately refused to do so, and returned home to his own country, highly chagrined that the Earl of Caithness, for whom he had put his life and estate in jeopardy, should have acceded to the Earl of Sutherland’s request to exclude him from the benefit of the truce. Before the two earls separated they came to a mutual understanding to reduce Mackay to obedience; and that he might not suspect their design, they agreed to meet at Edinburgh for the purpose of concerting the necessary measures together. Accordingly, they held a meeting at the appointed place in the year 1588, and came to the resolution to attack Mackay; and to prevent Mackay from receiving any intelligence of their design, both parties swore to keep the same secret; but the Earl of Caithness, regardless of his oath, immediately sent notice to Mackay of the intended attack, for the purpose of enabling him to meet it. Instead, however, of following the Earl of Caithness’s advice, Mackay, justly dreading his hollow friendship, made haste, by the advice of Macintosh and the Laird of Foulis, to reconcile himself to the Earl of Sutherland, his superior, by an immediate submission. For this purpose he and the earl first met at Inverness, and after conferring together they made another appointment[102] to meet at Elgin, where a perfect and final reconciliation took place in the month of November, 1588.

CHAPTER VIII.

A.D. 1588–1601.

KING OF SCOTLAND:—James VI., 1567–1603.

The truce between the Earls of Caithness and Sutherland having now expired, the latter, accompanied by Mackay, Macintosh, the Laird of Foulis, the Laird of Assynt, and Gille-Calum, Laird of Rasay, entered Caithness with all his forces in the beginning of 1588. In taking this step he was warranted by a commission which he had obtained at court, through the influence of Chancellor Maitland, against the Earl of Caithness for killing George Gordon. The people of Caithness, alarmed at the great force of the earl, fled in all directions on his approach, and he never halted till he reached the strong fort of Girnigo, where he pitched his camp for twelve days. He then penetrated as far as Duncansby, killing several of the country people on his route, and collecting an immense quantity of cattle and goods, so large, indeed, as to exceed all that had been seen together in that country for many years. This invasion had such an effect upon the people of Caithness, that every race, clan, tribe, and family there, vied with one another in offering pledges to the Earl of Sutherland to keep the peace in all time coming. The town of Wick was also pillaged and burnt, but the church was preserved. In the church was found the heart of the Earl of Caithness’s father in a case of lead, which was opened by John Mac-Gille-Calum of Rasay, and the ashes of the heart were thrown by him to the winds.

During the time when these depredations were being committed, the Earl of Caithness shut himself up in the castle of Girnigo; but on learning the disasters which had befallen his country, he desired a cessation of hostilities and a conference with the Earl of Sutherland. As the castle of Girnigo was strongly fortified, and as the Earl of Caithness had made preparations for enduring a long siege, the Earl of Sutherland complied with his request. Both earls ultimately agreed to refer all their differences and disputes to the arbitration of friends, and the Earl of Huntly was chosen by mutual consent to act as umpire or oversman, in the event of a difference of opinion. A second truce was in this way entered into until the decision of the arbiters, when all differences were to cease.[188]

Notwithstanding this engagement, however, the Earl of Caithness soon gave fresh provocation, for before the truce had expired he sent a party of his men to Diri-Chatt in Sutherland, under the command of Kenneth Buy, and his brother Farquhar Buy, chieftains of the Siol-Mhic-Imheair in Caithness, and chief advisers of the Earl of Caithness in his bad actions, and his instruments in oppressing the poor people of Caithness. The Earl of Sutherland lost no time in revenging himself for the depredations committed. At Whitsunday, in the year 1589, he sent 300 men into Caithness, with Alexander Gordon of Kilcalmekill at their head. They penetrated as far as Girnigo, laying the country waste everywhere around them, and striking terror into the hearts of the inhabitants, many of whom, including some of the Siol-Mhic-Imheair, they killed. After spending their fury the party returned to Sutherland with a large booty, and without the loss of a single man.

To retaliate upon the Earl of Sutherland for this inroad, James Sinclair of Markle, brother of the Earl of Caithness, collected an army of 3,000 men, with which he marched into Strathully, in the month of June, 1589. As the Earl of Sutherland had been apprehensive of an attack, he had placed a range of sentinels along the borders of Sutherland, to give notice of the approach of the enemy. Of[103] these, four were stationed in the village of Liribell, which the Caithness men entered in the middle of the day unknown to the sentinels, who, instead of keeping an outlook, were at the time carelessly enjoying themselves within the watch-house. On perceiving the Caithness men about entering the house, they shut themselves up within it; but the house being set on fire, three of them perished, and the fourth, rushing through the flames, escaped with great difficulty, and announced to his countrymen the arrival of the enemy. From Strathully, Sinclair passed forward with his army to a place called Crissalligh, on the height of Strathbroray, and began to drive away some cattle towards Caithness. As the Earl of Sutherland had not yet had sufficient time to collect a sufficient force to oppose Sinclair, he sent in the meantime Houcheon Mackay, who happened to be at Dunrobin with 500 or 600 men, to keep Sinclair in check until a greater force should be assembled. With this body, which was hastily drawn together on the spur of the occasion, Mackay advanced with amazing celerity, and such was the rapidity of his movements, that he most unexpectedly came up with Sinclair not far from Crissalligh, when his army was ranging about without order or military discipline. On coming up, Mackay found John Gordon of Kilcalmekill at the head of a small party skirmishing with the Caithness men, a circumstance which made him instantly resolve, though so far inferior in numbers, to attack Sinclair. Crossing therefore the water, which was between him and the enemy, Mackay and his men rushed upon the army of Sinclair, which they defeated after a long and warm contest. The Caithness men retreated with the loss of their booty and part of their baggage, and were closely pursued by a body of men commanded by John Murray, nick-named the merchant, to a distance of 16 miles.[189]

This defeat, however, did not satisfy the Earl of Sutherland, who, having now assembled an army, entered Caithness with the intention of laying it waste. The earl advanced as far as Corrichoigh, and the Earl of Caithness convened his forces at Spittle, where he lay waiting the arrival of his enemy. The Earl of Huntly, having been made acquainted with the warlike preparations of the two hostile earls, sent, without delay, his uncle, Sir Patrick Gordon of Auchindun, to mediate between them, and he luckily arrived at the Earl of Sutherland’s head-quarters, at the very instant his army was on its march to meet the Earl of Caithness. By the friendly interference of Sir Patrick, the parties were prevailed upon to desist from their hostile intentions, and to agree to hold an amicable meeting at Elgin, in presence of the Earl of Huntly, to whom they also agreed to refer all their differences. A meeting accordingly took place in the month of November, 1589, at which all disputes were settled, and in order that the reconciliation might be lasting, and that no recourse might again be had to arms, the two earls subscribed a deed, by which they appointed Huntly and his successors hereditary judges, and arbitrators of all disputes or differences, that might thenceforth arise between these two houses.

This reconciliation, however, as it did not obliterate the rancour which existed between the people of these different districts, was but of short duration. The frequent depredations committed by the vassals and retainers of the earls upon the property of one another, led to an exchange of letters and messages between them about the means to be used for repressing these disorders. During this correspondence the Earl of Sutherland became unwell, and, being confined to his bed, the Earl of Caithness, in October, 1590, wrote him a kind letter, which he had scarcely despatched when he most unaccountably entered Sutherland with a hostile force; but he only remained one night in that country, in consequence of receiving intelligence of a meditated attack upon his camp by John Gordon of Kilcalmekill, and Neill Mac-Iain-MacWilliam. A considerable number of the Sutherland men having collected together, they resolved to pursue the Caithness men, who had carried off a large quantity of cattle; but, on coming nearly up with them, an unfortunate difference arose between the Murrays and the Gordons, each contending for the command of the vanguard. The Murrays rested their claim upon their former good services to the house of Sutherland; but the Gordons refusing to[104] admit it, all the Murrays, with the exception of William Murray, brother of the Laird of Palrossie, and John Murray, the merchant, withdrew, and took a station on a hill hard by to witness the combat. This unexpected event seemed to paralyze the Gordons at first; but seeing the Caithness men driving the cattle away before them, and thinking that if they did not attack them they would be accused of cowardice, Patrick Gordon of Gartay, John Gordon of Embo, and John Gordon of Kilcalmekill, after some consultation, resolved to attack the retiring foe without loss of time, and without waiting for the coming up of the Strathnaver men, who were hourly expected. This was a bold and desperate attempt, as the Gordons were only as one to twelve in point of numbers, but they could not brook the idea of being branded as cowards. With such numerical inferiority, and with the sun and wind in their faces to boot, the Sutherland men advanced upon and resolutely attacked the Caithness men near Clyne. In the van of the Caithness army were placed about 1,500 archers, a considerable number of whom were from the Western Isles, under the command of Donald Balloch Mackay of Scourie, who poured a thick shower of arrows upon the men of Sutherland as they advanced, the latter, in return, giving their opponents a similar reception. The combat raged with great fury for a considerable time between these two parties: thrice were the Caithness archers driven back upon their rear, which was in consequence thrown into great disorder, and thrice did they return to the conflict, cheered on and encouraged by their leader; but, though superior in numbers, they could not withstand the firmness and intrepidity of the Sutherland men, who forced them to retire from the field of battle on the approach of night, and to abandon the cattle which had been carried off. The loss in killed and wounded was about equal on both sides; but, with the exception of Nicolas Sutherland, brother of the Laird of Forse, and Angus Mac-Angus-Termat, both belonging to the Caithness party, and John Murray, the merchant, on the Sutherland side, there were no principal persons killed.

Vain as the efforts of the common friends of the rival earls had hitherto been to reconcile them effectually, the Earl of Huntly and others once more attempted an arrangement, and having prevailed upon the parties to meet at Strathbogie, a final agreement was entered into in the month of March, 1591, by which they agreed to bury all bygone differences in oblivion, and to live on terms of amity in all time thereafter.

This fresh reconciliation of the two earls was the means of restoring quiet in their districts for a considerable time, which was partially interrupted in the year 1594, by a quarrel between the clan Gun and some of the other petty tribes. Donald Mac-William-Mac-Henric, Alister Mac-Iain-Mac-Rorie, and others of the clan Gun entered Caithness and attacked Farquhar Buy, one of the captains of the tribe of Siol-Mhic-Imheair, and William Sutherland, alias William Abaraich, the chief favourite of the Earl of Caithness, and the principal plotter against the life of George Gordon, whose death has been already noticed. After a warm skirmish, Farquhar Buy, and William Abaraich, and some of their followers, were slain. To revenge this outrage, the Earl of Caithness sent the same year his brother, James Sinclair of Murkle, with a party of men, against the clan Gun in Strathie, in Strathnaver, who killed seven of that tribe. George Mac-Iain-Mac-Rob, the chief, and Donald Mac-William-Mac-Henric narrowly escaped with their lives.

For the sake of continuity, we have deferred noticing those transactions in the north in which George Gordon, Earl of Huntly, was more immediately concerned, and which led to several bloody conflicts.

The earl, who was a favourite at court, and personally liked by James VI., finding himself in danger from the prevailing faction, retired to his possessions in the north, for the purpose of improving his estates and enjoying domestic quiet. One of his first measures was to erect a castle at Ruthven, in Badenoch, in the neighbourhood of his hunting forests. This gave great offence to Macintosh, the chief of the clan Chattan, and his people, as they considered that the object of its erection was to overawe the clan. Being the earl’s vassals and tenants, they were bound to certain services, among which the furnishing of materials for the building formed a chief part; but, instead of assisting[105] the earl’s people, they at first indirectly and in an underhand manner endeavoured to prevent the workmen from going on with their operations, and afterwards positively refused to furnish the necessaries required for the building. This act of disobedience was the cause of much trouble, which was increased by a quarrel in the year 1590, between the Gordons and the Grants, the occasion of which was as follows. John Grant, the tutor of Ballendalloch, having withheld the rents due to the widow, and endeavoured otherwise to injure her, James Gordon, her nephew, eldest son of Alexander Gordon of Lismore, along with some of his friends, went to Ballendalloch to obtain justice for her. On their arrival, differences were accommodated so far that the tutor paid up all arrears due to the lady, except a trifle, which he insisted, on some ground or other, on retaining. This led to some altercation, in which the servants of both parties took a share, and latterly came to blows; but they were separated, and James Gordon returned home. Judging from what had taken place, that his aunt’s interests would in future be better attended to if under the protection of a husband, he persuaded the brother of Sir Thomas Gordon of Cluny to marry her, which he did. This act so incensed the tutor of Ballendalloch, that he at once showed his displeasure by killing, at the instigation of the laird of Grant, one of John Gordon’s servants. For this the tutor, and such of the Grants as should harbour or assist him, were declared outlaws and rebels, and a commission was granted to the Earl of Huntly to apprehend and bring them to justice, in virtue of which, he besieged the house of Ballendalloch, and took it by force, on the 2d November, 1590; but the tutor effected his escape. Sir John Campbell of Cadell, a despicable tool of the Chancellor Maitland, who had plotted the destruction of the earl and the laird of Grant, now joined in the conspiracy against him, and stirred up the clan Chattan, and Macintosh their chief, to aid the Grants. They also persuaded the Earls of Athol and Murray to assist them against the Earl of Huntly.

As soon as Huntly ascertained that the Grants and clan Chattan, who were his own vassals, had put themselves under the command of these earls, he assembled his followers, and, entering Badenoch, summoned his vassals to appear before him, and deliver up the tutor and his abettors, but none of them came. He then proclaimed and denounced them rebels, and obtained a royal commission to invade and apprehend them. To consult on the best means of defending themselves, the Earls of Murray and Athole, the Dunbars, the clan Chattan, the Grants, and the laird of Cadell, and others of their party met at Forres. In the midst of their deliberations Huntly, who had received early intelligence of the meeting, and had, in consequence, assembled his forces, unexpectedly made his appearance in the neighbourhood of Forres. This sudden advance of Huntly struck terror into the minds of the persons assembled, and the meeting instantly broke up in great confusion. The whole party, with the exception of the Earl of Murray, left the town in great haste, and fled to Tarnoway; the Earl of Huntly, not aware that Murray had remained behind, marching directly to Tarnoway in pursuit of the fugitives. On arriving within sight of the castle into which the flying party had thrown themselves, the earl sent John Gordon, brother of Sir Thomas Gordon of Cluny, with a small body of men to reconnoitre; but approaching too near without due caution, he was shot by one of the Earl of Murray’s servants. As Huntly found the castle well fortified, and as the rebels evacuated it and fled to the mountains, leaving a sufficient force to protect it, he disbanded his men on November 24, 1590, and returned home, whence he proceeded to Edinburgh.

Shortly after his arrival the Earl of Bothwell, who had a design upon the life of Chancellor Maitland, made an attack upon the palace of Holyrood-house under cloud of night, with the view of seizing Maitland; but, having failed in his object, he was forced to flee to the north to avoid the vengeance of the king. The Earl of Huntly, who had been lately reconciled to Maitland, and the Duke of Lennox, were sent in pursuit of Bothwell, but he escaped. Understanding afterwards that he was harboured by the Earl of Murray at Donnibristle, the chancellor, having procured a commission against him from the king in favour of Huntly, again sent him, accompanied by forty gentlemen, to[106] attack the Earl of Murray. When the party had arrived near Donnibristle, the Earl of Huntly sent Captain John Gordon, of Buckie, brother of Gordon of Gight, with a summons to the Earl of Murray, requiring him to surrender himself prisoner; but instead of complying, one of the earl’s servants levelled a piece at the bearer of the despatch, and wounded him mortally. Huntly, therefore, after giving orders to take the Earl of Murray alive if possible, forcibly entered the house; but Sir Thomas Gordon, recollecting the fate of his brother at Tarnoway, and Gordon of Gight, who saw his brother lying mortally wounded before his eyes, entirely disregarded the injunction; and following the earl, who had fled among the rocks on the adjoining sea-shore, slew him. It was this Earl of Murray who was known as the “bonny” earl, and, according to some historians, had impressed the heart of Anne of Denmark, and excited the jealousy of her royal spouse. This at least was the popular notion of his time:—

According to one account the house was set on fire, and Murray was discovered, when endeavouring to escape, by a spark which fell on his helmet, and slain by Gordon of Buckie, saying to the latter, who had wounded him in the face, “You have spilt a better face than your awin.”

The Earl of Huntly immediately despatched John Gordon of Buckie to Edinburgh, to lay a statement of the affair before the king and the chancellor. The death of the Earl of Murray would have passed quietly over, as an event of ordinary occurrence in those troublesome times; but, as he was one of the heads of the Protestant party, the Presbyterian ministers gave the matter a religious turn by denouncing the Catholic Earl of Huntly as a murderer, who wished to advance the interests of his church by imbruing his hands in the blood of his Protestant countrymen. The effect of the ministers’ denunciations was a tumult among the people in Edinburgh and other parts of the kingdom, which obliged the king to cancel the commission he had granted to the Earl of Huntly. The spirit of discontent became so violent that Captain John Gordon, who had been left at Inverkeithing for the recovery of his wounds, but who had been afterwards taken prisoner by the Earl of Murray’s friends and carried to Edinburgh, was tried before a jury, and, contrary to law and justice, condemned and executed for having assisted the Earl of Huntly acting under a royal commission. The recklessness and severity of this act were still more atrocious, as Captain Gordon’s wounds were incurable, and he was fast hastening to his grave. John Gordon of Buckie, who was master of the king’s household, was obliged to flee from Edinburgh, and made a narrow escape with his life.

As for the Earl of Huntly, he was summoned, at the instance of the Lord of St. Colme, brother of the deceased Earl of Murray, to stand trial. He accordingly appeared at Edinburgh, and offered to abide the result of a trial by his peers, and in the meantime was committed a prisoner to the castle of Blackness on the 12th of March, 1591, till the peers should assemble to try him. On giving sufficient surety, however, that he would appear and stand trial on receiving six days’ notice to that effect, he was released by the king on the 20th day of the same month.

The clan Chattan, who had never submitted without reluctance to the Earl of Huntly, considered the present aspect of affairs as peculiarly favourable to the design they entertained of shaking off the yoke altogether, and being countenanced and assisted by the Grants, and other friends of the Earl of Murray, made no secret of their intentions. At first the earl sent Allan Macdonald-Dubh, the chief of the clan Cameron, with his tribe, to attack the clan Chattan in Badenoch, and to keep them in due order and subjection. The Camerons, though warmly opposed, succeeded in defeating the clan Chattan, who lost 50 of their men after a sharp skirmish. The earl next despatched Macronald, with some of the Lochaber men, against the Grants in Strathspey, whom he attacked, killed 18 of them, and laid waste the lands of Ballendalloch. After the clan Chattan had recovered from their defeat, they invaded Strathdee and Glenmuck in November 1592. To punish[107] this aggression, the Earl of Huntly collected his forces and entered Pettie, then in possession of the clan Chattan as a fief from the Earls of Murray, and laid waste all the lands of the clan Chattan there, killed many of them, and carried off a large quantity of cattle, which he divided among his army. But in returning from Pettie after disbanding his army, he received the unwelcome intelligence that William Macintosh, son of Lauchlan Macintosh, the chief, with 800 of the clan Chattan, had invaded the lands of Auchindun and Cabberogh. The earl, after desiring the small party which remained with him to follow him as speedily as possible, immediately set off at full speed, accompanied by Sir Patrick Gordon of Auchindun and 36 horsemen, in quest of Macintosh and his party. Overtaking them before they had left the bounds of Cabberogh, upon the top of a hill called Stapliegate, he attacked them with his small party, and, after a warm skirmish, defeated them, killing about 60 of their men, and wounding William Macintosh and others.

The Earl of Huntly, after thus subduing his enemies in the north, now found himself placed under ban by the government on account of an alleged conspiracy between him and the Earls of Angus and Errol and the crown of Spain, to overturn the State and the Church. The king and his councillors seemed to be satisfied of the innocence of the earls; but the ministers, who considered the reformed religion in Scotland in danger while these Catholic peers were protected and favoured, importuned his majesty to punish them. The king, yielding to necessity and to the intrigues of Queen Elizabeth, forfeited their titles, intending to restore them when a proper opportunity occurred; and, to silence the clamours of the ministers, convoked a parliament, which was held in the end of May, 1594. As few of the peers attended, the ministers, having the commissioners of the burghs on their side, carried everything their own way, and the consequence was, that the three earls were attainted without trial, and their arms were torn in presence of the parliament, according to the custom in such cases.

Having so far succeeded, the ministers, instigated by the Queen of England, now entreated the king to send the Earl of Argyle, a youth of nineteen years of age, in the pay of Queen Elizabeth, with an army against the Catholic earls. The king, still yielding to necessity, complied, and Argyle, having collected a force of about 12,000 men, entered Badenoch and laid siege to the castle of Ruthven, on the 27th of September, 1594. He was accompanied in this expedition by the Earl of Athole, Sir Lauchlan Maclean with some of his islanders, the chief of the Macintoshes, the Laird of Grant, the clan Gregor, Macneil of Barra, with all their friends and dependents, together with the whole of the Campbells, and a variety of others animated by a thirst for plunder or malice towards the Gordons. The castle of Ruthven was so well defended by the clan Pherson, who were the Earl of Huntly’s vassals, that Argyle was obliged to give up the siege. He then marched through Strathspey, and encamped at Drummin, upon the river Avon, on the 2d of October, whence he issued orders to Lord Forbes, the Frasers, the Dunbars, the clan Kenzie, the Irvings, the Ogilvies, the Leslies, and other tribes and clans in the north, to join his standard with all convenient speed.

The earls, against whom this expedition was directed, were by no means dismayed. They knew that although the king was constrained by popular clamour to levy war upon them, he was in secret friendly to them; and they were, moreover, aware that the army of Argyle, who was a youth of no military experience, was a raw and undisciplined militia, and composed, in a great measure, of Catholics, who could not be expected to feel very warmly for the Protestant interest, to support which the expedition was professedly undertaken. The seeds of disaffection, besides, had been already sown in Argyle’s camp by the corruption of the Grants and Campbell of Lochnell.

On hearing of Argyle’s approach, the Earl of Errol immediately collected a select body of about 100 horsemen, being gentlemen, on whose courage and fidelity he could rely, and with these he joined the Earl of Huntly at Strathbogie. The forces of Huntly, after this junction, amounted, it is said, to nearly 1,500 men, almost altogether horsemen, and with this body he advanced to Carnborrow, where the[108] two earls and their chief followers made a solemn vow to conquer or die. Marching from thence, Huntly’s army arrived at Auchindun on the same day that Argyle’s army reached Drummin. At Auchindun, Huntly received intelligence that Argyle was on the eve of descending from the mountains to the lowlands, which induced him, on the following day, to send Captain Thomas Carr and a party of horsemen to reconnoitre the enemy, while he himself advanced with his main army. The reconnoitring party soon fell in, accidentally, with Argyle’s scouts, whom they chased, and some of whom they killed. This occurrence, which was looked upon as a prognostic of victory, so encouraged Huntly and his men, that he resolved to attack the army of Argyle before he should be joined by Lord Forbes, and the forces which were waiting for his appearance in the lowlands. Argyle had now passed Glenlivet, and had reached the banks of a small brook named Altchonlachan.

On the other hand, the Earl of Argyle had no idea that the Earls of Huntly and Errol would attack him with such an inferior force; and he was, therefore, astonished at seeing them approach so near him as they did. Apprehensive that his numerical superiority in foot would be counterbalanced by Huntly’s cavalry, he held a council of war, which advised Argyle to wait till the king, who had promised to appear with a force, should arrive, or, at all events, till he should be joined by the Frasers and Mackenzies from the north, and the Irvings, Forbeses, and Leslies from the lowlands with their horse. This opinion, which was considered judicious by the most experienced of Argyle’s army, was however disregarded by him, and he determined to wait the attack of the enemy; and to encourage his men he pointed out to them the small number of those they had to combat with, and the spoils they might expect after victory. He disposed his army on the declivity of a hill, betwixt Glenlivet and Glenrinnes, in two parallel divisions. The right wing, consisting of the Macleans and Macintoshes, was commanded by Sir Lauchlan Maclean and Macintosh—the left, composed of the Grants, Macneills, and Macgregors, by Grant of Gartinbeg; and the centre, consisting of the Campbells, &c., was commanded by Campbell of Auchinbreck. This vanguard consisted of 4,000 men, one-half of whom carried muskets. The rear of the army, consisting of about 6,000 men, was commanded by Argyle himself. The Earl of Huntly’s vanguard was composed of 300 gentlemen, led by the Earl of Errol, Sir Patrick Gordon of Auchindun, the laird of Gight, the laird of Bonnitoun, and Captain, afterwards Sir Thomas Carr. The earl himself followed with the remainder of his forces, having the laird of Cluny upon his right hand and the laird of Abergeldy upon his left. Three pieces of field ordnance under the direction of Captain Andrew Gray, afterwards colonel of the English and Scots who served in Bohemia, were placed in front of the vanguard. Before advancing, the Earl of Huntly harangued his little army to encourage them to fight manfully; he told them that they had no alternative before them but victory or death—that they were now to combat, not for their own lives only, but also for the very existence of their families, which would be utterly extinguished if they fell a prey to their enemies.

The position which Argyle occupied on the declivity of the hill gave him a decided advantage over his assailants, who, from the nature of their force, were greatly hampered by the mossy nature of the ground at the foot of the hill, interspersed by pits from which turf had been dug. But, notwithstanding these obstacles, Huntly advanced up the hill with a slow and steady pace. It had been arranged between him and Campbell of Lochnell, who had promised to go over to Huntly as soon as the battle had commenced, that, before charging Argyle with his cavalry, Huntly should fire his artillery at the yellow standard. Campbell bore a mortal enmity at Argyle, as he had murdered his brother, Campbell of Calder, in 1592; and as he was Argyle’s nearest heir, he probably had directed the firing at the yellow standard in the hope of cutting off the earl. Unfortunately for himself, however, Campbell was shot dead at the first fire of the cannon, and upon his fall all his men fled from the field. Macneill of Barra was also slain at the same time.

The Highlanders, who had never before seen field pieces, were thrown into disorder[109] by the cannonade, which being perceived by Huntly, he charged the enemy, and rushing in among them with his horsemen, increased the confusion. The Earl of Errol was directed to attack the right wing of Argyle’s army, commanded by Maclean, but as it occupied a very steep part of the hill, and as Errol was greatly annoyed by thick volleys of shot from above, he was compelled to make a detour, leaving the enemy on his left. But Gordon of Auchindun, disdaining such a prudent course, galloped up the hill with a party of his own followers, and charged Maclean with great impetuosity; but Auchindun’s rashness cost him his life. The fall of Auchindun so exasperated his followers that they set no bounds to their fury; but Maclean received their repeated assaults with firmness, and manœuvred his troops so well as to succeed in cutting off the Earl of Errol, and placing him between his own body and that of Argyle, by whose joint forces he was completely surrounded. At this important crisis, when no hopes of retreat remained, and when Errol and his men were in danger of being cut to pieces, the Earl of Huntly, very fortunately, came up to his assistance and relieved him from his embarrassment. The battle was now renewed and continued for two hours, during which both parties fought with great bravery, “the one,” says Sir Robert Gordon, “for glorie, the other for necessitie.” In the heat of the action the Earl of Huntly had a horse shot under him, and was in imminent danger of his life; but another horse was immediately procured for him. After a hard contest the main body of Argyle’s army began to give way, and retreated towards the rivulet of Altchonlachan; but Maclean still kept the field, and continued to support the falling fortune of the day. At length, finding the contest hopeless, and after losing many of his men, he retired in good order with the small company that still remained about him. Huntly pursued the retiring foe beyond the water of Altchonlachan, when he was prevented from following them farther by the steepness of the hills, so unfavourable to the operations of cavalry. The success of Huntly was mainly owing to the treachery of Lochnell, and of John Grant of Gartinbeg, one of Huntly’s vassals, who, in terms of a concerted plan, retreated with his men as soon as the action began, by which act the centre and the left wing of Argyle’s army were completely broken. On the side of Argyle 500 men were killed besides Macneill of Barra, and Lochnell and Auchinbreck, the two cousins of Argyle. The Earl of Huntly’s loss was comparatively trifling. About 14 gentlemen were slain, including Sir Patrick Gordon of Auchindun, and the Laird of Gight; and the Earl of Errol and a considerable number of persons were wounded. At the conclusion of the battle the conquerors returned thanks to God on the field for the victory they had achieved. This battle is called by some writers the battle of Glenlivet, and by others the battle of Altchonlachan. Among the trophies found on the field was the ensign belonging to the Earl of Argyle, which was carried with other spoils to Strathbogie, and placed upon the top of the great tower. So certain had Argyle been of success in his enterprise, that he had made out a paper apportioning the lands of the Gordons, the Hays, and all who were suspected to favour them, among the chief officers of his army. This document was found among the baggage which he left behind him on the field of battle.[190]

Although Argyle certainly calculated upon being joined by the king, it seems doubtful if James ever entertained such an intention, for he stopped at Dundee, from which he did not stir till he heard of the result of the battle of Glenlivet. Instigated by the ministers and other enemies of the Earl of Huntly, who became now more exasperated than ever at the unexpected failure of Argyle’s expedition, the king proceeded north to Strathbogie, and in his route he permitted, most unwillingly, the house of Craig in Angus, belonging to Sir John Ogilvie, son of Lord Ogilvie, that of Bagaes in Angus, the property of Sir Walter Lindsay, the house of Culsalmond in Garioch, appertaining to the Laird of Newton-Gordon, the house of Slaines in Buchan, belonging to the Earl of Errol, and the castle of Strathbogie, to be razed to the ground, under the pretext that priests and Jesuits had been harboured in them. In the meantime the Earl of Huntly[110] and his friends retired into Sutherland, where they remained six weeks with Earl Alexander; and on the king’s departure to Strathbogie, Huntly returned, leaving his eldest son George, Lord Gordon, in Sutherland with his aunt, till the return of more peaceable times.

The king left the Duke of Lennox to act as his lieutenant in the north, with whom the two earls held a meeting at Aberdeen, and as their temporary absence from the kingdom might allay the spirit of violence and discontent, which was particularly annoying to his majesty, they agreed to leave the kingdom during the king’s pleasure. After spending sixteen months in travelling through Germany and Flanders, Huntly was recalled, and on his return he, as well as the Earls of Angus and Errol, were restored to their former honours and estates by the parliament, held at Edinburgh in November 1597, and in testimony of his regard for Huntly, the king, two years thereafter, created him a marquis. This signal mark of the royal favour had such an influence upon the clan Chattan, the clan Kenzie, the Grants, Forbeses, Leslies, and other hostile clans and tribes, that they at once submitted themselves to the marquis.

The warlike operations in the north seem, for a time, to have drawn off the attention of the clans from their own feuds; but in the year 1597 a tumult occurred at Loggiewreid in Ross, which had almost put that province and the adjoining country into a flame. The quarrel began between John Mac-Gille-Calum, brother of Gille-Calum, Laird of Rasay, and Alexander Bane, brother of Duncan Bane of Tulloch, in Ross. The Monroes took the side of the Banes, and the Mackenzies aided John Mac-Gille-Calum. In this tumult John Mac-Gille-Calum and John Mac-Murthow-Mac-William, a gentleman of the clan Kenzie, and three persons of that surname, were killed on the one side, and on the other were slain John Monroe of Culcraigie, his brother Houcheon Monroe, and John Monroe Robertson. This occurrence renewed the ancient animosity between the clan Kenzie and the Monroes, and both parties began to assemble their friends for the purpose of attacking one another; but their differences were in some measure happily reconciled by the mediation of common friends.

In the following year the ambition and avarice of Sir Lauchlan Maclean, of whom notice has been already taken, brought him to an untimely end, having been slain in Islay by Sir James Macdonald, his nephew, eldest son of Angus Macdonald of Kintyre. Sir Lauchlan had long had an eye upon the possessions of the clan Ronald in Islay; but having failed in extorting a conveyance thereof from Angus Macdonald in the way before alluded to, he endeavoured, by his credit at court and by bribery or other means, to obtain a grant of these lands from the crown in 1595. At this period Angus Macdonald had become infirm from age, and his son, Sir James Macdonald, was too young to make any effectual resistance to the newly acquired claims of his covetous uncle. After obtaining the gift, Sir Lauchlan collected his people and friends, and invaded Islay, for the purpose of taking possession of the lands which belonged to the clan Donald. Sir James Macdonald, on hearing of his uncle’s landing, collected his friends, and landed in Islay to dispossess Sir Lauchlan of the property. To prevent the effusion of blood, some common friends of the parties interposed, and endeavoured to bring about an adjustment of their differences. They prevailed upon Sir James to agree to resign the half of the island to his uncle during the life of the latter, provided he would acknowledge that he held the same for personal service to the clan Donald in the same manner as Maclean’s progenitors had always held the Rhinns of Islay; and he moreover offered to submit the question to any impartial friends Maclean might choose, under this reasonable condition, that in case they should not agree, his Majesty should decide. But Maclean, contrary to the advice of his best friends, would listen to no proposals short of an absolute surrender of the whole of the island. Sir James therefore resolved to vindicate his right by an appeal to arms, though his force was far inferior to that of Sir Lauchlan. A desperate struggle took place, in which great valour was displayed on both sides. Sir Lauchlan was killed fighting at the head of his men, who were at length compelled to retreat to their boats and vessels. Besides their chief, the Macleans left 80 of their principal men and 200 common soldiers dead on[111] the field of battle. Lauchlan Barroch-Maclean, son of Sir Lauchlan, was dangerously wounded, but escaped. Sir James Macdonald was also so severely wounded that he never fully recovered from his wounds. About 30 of the clan Donald were killed and about 60 wounded. Sir Lauchlan, according to Sir Robert Gordon, had consulted a witch before he undertook this journey into Islay, who advised him, in the first place, not to land upon the island on a Thursday; secondly, that he should not drink of the water of a well near Groynard; and lastly, she told him that one Maclean should be slain at Groynard. “The first he transgressed unwillingly,” says Sir Robert, “being driven into the island of Ila by a tempest upon a Thursday; the second he transgressed negligentlie, haveing drank of that water befor he wes awair; and so he wes killed ther at Groinard, as wes foretold him, bot doubtfullie. Thus endeth all these that doe trust in such kynd of responces, or doe hunt after them!”[191]

On hearing of Maclean’s death and the defeat of his men, the king became so highly incensed against the clan Donald that, finding he had a right to dispose of their possessions both in Kintyre and Islay, he made a grant of them to the Earl of Argyle and the Campbells. This gave rise to a number of bloody conflicts between the Campbells and the clan Donald in the years 1614, -15, and -16, which ended in the ruin of the latter.

The rival houses of Sutherland and Caithness had now lived on friendly terms for some years. After spending about eighteen months at court, and attending a convention of the estates at Edinburgh in July, 1598, John, sixth Earl of Sutherland, went to the Continent, where he remained till the month of September, 1600. The Earl of Caithness, deeming the absence of the Earl of Sutherland a fit opportunity for carrying into effect some designs against him, caused William Mackay to obtain leave from his brother Houcheon Mackay to hunt in the policy of Durines belonging to the Earl of Sutherland. The Earl of Caithness thereupon assembled all his vassals and dependents, and, under the pretence of hunting, made demonstrations for entering Sutherland or Strathnaver. As soon as Mackay was informed of his intentions, he sent a message to the Earl of Caithness, intimating to him that he would not permit him to enter either of these countries, or to cross the marches. The Earl of Caithness returned a haughty answer; but he did not carry his threat of invasion into execution on account of the arrival of the Earl of Sutherland from the Continent. As the Earl of Caithness still continued to threaten an invasion, the Earl of Sutherland collected his forces, in the month of July 1601, to oppose him. Mackay, with his countrymen, soon joined the Earl of Sutherland at Lagan-Gaincamhd in Dirichat, where he was soon also joined by the Monroes under Robert Monroe of Contaligh, and the laird of Assynt with his countrymen.

While the Earl of Sutherland’s force was thus assembling, the Earl of Caithness advanced towards Sutherland with his army. The two armies encamped at the distance of about three miles asunder, near the hill of Bengrime. In expectation of a battle on the morning after their encampment, the Sutherland men took up a position in a plain which lay between the two armies, called Leathad Reidh, than which a more convenient station could not have been selected. But the commodiousness of the plain was not the only reason for making the selection. There had been long a prophetic tradition in these countries that a battle was to be fought on this ground between the inhabitants of Sutherland, assisted by the Strathnaver men, and the men of Caithness; that although the Sutherland men were to be victorious their loss would be great, and that the loss of the Strathnaver men should even be greater, but that the Caithness men should be so completely overthrown that they should not be able, for a considerable length of time, to recover the blow which they were to receive. This superstitious idea made such an impression upon the minds of the men of Sutherland that it was with great difficulty they could be restrained from immediately attacking their enemies.

The Earl of Caithness, daunted by this circumstance, and being diffident of the fidelity of some of his people, whom he had used with great cruelty, sent messengers to the Earl of[112] Sutherland expressing his regret at what had happened, stating that he was provoked to his present measures by the insolence of Mackay, who had repeatedly dared him to the attack, and that, if the Earl of Sutherland would pass over the affair, he would permit him and his army to advance twice as far into Caithness as he had marched into Sutherland. The Earl of Sutherland, on receipt of this offer, called a council of his friends to deliberate upon it. Mackay and some others advised the earl to decline the proposal, and attack the Earl of Caithness; while others of the earl’s advisers thought it neither fit nor reasonable to risk so many lives when such ample satisfaction was offered. A sort of middle course was, therefore, adopted by giving the Earl of Caithness an opportunity to escape if he inclined. The messengers were accordingly sent back with this answer, that if the Earl of Caithness and his army would remain where they lay till sunrise next morning they might be assured of an attack.

When this answer was delivered in the Earl of Caithness’ camp, his men got so alarmed that the earl, with great difficulty, prevented them from running away immediately. He remained on the field all night watching them in person, encouraging them to remain, and making great promises to them if they stood firm. But his entreaties were quite unavailing, for as soon as the morning dawned, on perceiving the approach of the Earl of Sutherland’s army, they fled from the field in the utmost confusion, jostling and overthrowing one another in their flight, and leaving their whole baggage behind them. The Earl of Sutherland resolved to pursue the flying enemy; but, before proceeding on the pursuit, his army collected a quantity of stones which they accumulated into a heap to commemorate the flight of the Caithness men, which heap was called Carn-Teiche, that is, the Flight Cairn.

Not wishing to encounter the Earl of Sutherland under the adverse circumstances which had occurred, the Earl of Caithness, after entering his own territories, sent a message to his pursuer to the effect that having complied with his request in withdrawing his army, he hoped hostile proceedings would cease, and that if the Earl of Sutherland should advance with his army into Caithness, Earl George would not hinder him; but he suggested to him the propriety of appointing some gentlemen on both sides to see the respective armies dissolved. The Earl of Sutherland acceded to this proposal, and sent George Gray of Cuttle, eldest son of Gilbert Gray of Sordell, with a company of resolute men into Caithness to see the army of the Earl of Caithness broken up. The Earl of Caithness, in his turn, despatched Alexander Bane, chief of the Caithness Banes, who witnessed the dismissal of the Earl of Sutherland’s army.[192]

About the period in question, great commotions took place in the north-west isles, in consequence of a quarrel between Donald Gorm Macdonald of Slate, and Sir Roderick Macleod of Harris, arising out of the following circumstances. Donald Gorm Macdonald, who had married the sister of Sir Roderick, instigated by jealousy, had conceived displeasure at her and put her away. Having complained to her brother of the treatment thus received, Sir Roderick sent a message to Macdonald requiring him to take back his wife. Instead of complying with this request, Macdonald brought an action of divorce against her, and having obtained decree therein, married the sister of Kenneth Mackenzie, lord of Kintail. Sir Roderick, who considered himself disgraced and his family dishonoured by such proceedings, assembled all his countrymen and his tribe, the Siol-Thormaid, without delay, and invaded with fire and sword the lands of Macdonald in the isle of Skye, to which he laid claim as his own. Macdonald retaliated by landing in Harris with his forces, which he laid waste, and after killing some of the inhabitants retired with a large booty in cattle. To make amends for this loss, Sir Roderick invaded Uist, which belonged to Macdonald, and despatched his cousin, Donald Glas Macleod, with 40 men, into the interior, to lay the island waste, and to carry off a quantity of goods and cattle, which the inhabitants had placed within the precincts of the church of Killtrynard as a sanctuary. This exploit turned out to be very serious, as Donald Macleod and his party were most unexpectedly[113] attacked in the act of carrying off their prey, by John Mac-Iain-Mhic-Sheumais, a kinsman of Macdonald, at the head of a body of 12 men who had remained in the island, by whom Donald Macleod and the greater part of his men were cut to pieces, and the booty rescued. Sir Roderick, thinking that the force which had attacked his cousin was much greater than it was, retired from the island, intending to return on a future day with a greater force to revenge his loss.

MACLEOD AND MACKENZIE, 71^ST AND 78^TH.

This odious system of warfare continued till the hostile parties had almost exterminated one another; and to such extremities were they reduced by the ruin and desolation which followed, that they were compelled to eat horses, dogs, cats, and other animals, to preserve a miserable existence. To put an end, if possible, at once to this destructive contest, Macdonald collected all his remaining forces, with the determination of striking a decisive blow at his opponent; and accordingly, in the year 1601, he entered Sir Roderick’s territories with the design of bringing him to battle. Sir Roderick was then in Argyle, soliciting aid and advice from the Earl of Argyle against the clan Donald; but on hearing of the approach of Macdonald, Alexander Macleod, brother of Sir Roderick, resolved to try the result of a battle. Assembling, therefore, all the inhabitants of his brother’s lands, together with the whole tribe of the Siol-Thormaid, and some of the Siol-Thorquill, he encamped close by the hill of Benquhillin, in Skye, resolved to give battle to the clan Donald next morning. Accordingly, on the arrival of morning, an obstinate and deadly fight took place, which lasted the whole day, each side contending with the utmost valour for victory; but at length the clan Donald overthrew their opponents. Alexander Macleod was wounded and taken prisoner, along with Neill-Mac-Alastair-Ruaidh, and 30 others of the choicest men of the Siol-Thormaid. Iain-Mac-Thormaid and Thormaid-Mac-Thormaid, two near kinsmen of Sir Roderick, and several others, were slain.

After this affair, a reconciliation took place between Macdonald and Sir Roderick, at the solicitation of old Angus Macdonald of Kintyre, the laird of Coll, and other friends, when Macdonald delivered up to Sir Roderick the prisoners he had taken at Benquhillin; but although these parties never again showed any open hostility, they brought several actions at law against each other, the one claiming from the other certain parts of his possessions.

CHAPTER IX.

A.D. 1602–1613.

In the early part of the year 1602 the west of Scotland was thrown into a state of great disorder, in consequence of the renewal of some old quarrels between Colquhoun of Luss, the chief of that surname, and Alexander Macgregor, chief of the clan Gregor. To put an end to these dissensions, Alexander Macgregor left Rannoch, accompanied by about 200 of his kinsmen and friends, entered Lennox, and took up his quarters on the confines of Luss’s territory, where he expected, by the mediation of his friends, to bring matters to an amicable adjustment. As the laird of Luss was suspicious of Macgregor’s real intentions, he assembled all his vassals, with the Buchanans and others, to the number of 300 horse and 500 foot, designing, if the result of the meeting should not turn out according to his expectations and wishes, to cut off Macgregor and his party. But Macgregor, anticipating Colquhon’s intention, was upon his guard, and, by his precautions, defeated the design upon him. A conference was held for the purpose of terminating all differences, but the meeting[114] broke up without any adjustment: Macgregor then proceeded homewards. The laird of Luss, in pursuance of his plan, immediately followed Macgregor with great haste through Glenfreon, in the expectation of coming upon him unawares, and defeating him; but Macgregor, who was on the alert, observed, in due time, the approach of his pursuers, and made his preparations accordingly. He divided his company into two parts, the largest of which he kept under his own command, and placed the other part under the command of John Macgregor, his brother, whom he despatched by a circuitous route, for the purpose of attacking Luss’s party in the rear, when they should least expect to be assailed. This stratagem succeeded, and the result was, that after a keen contest, Luss’s party was completely overthrown, with the loss of 200 men, besides several gentlemen and burgesses of the town of Dumbarton. It is remarkable that of the Macgregors, John, the brother of Alexander, and another person, were the only killed, though some of the party were wounded.

The laird of Luss and his friends sent early notice of their disaster to the king, and by misrepresenting the whole affair to him, and exhibiting to his majesty eleven score bloody shirts, belonging to those of their party who were slain, the king grew exceedingly incensed at the clan Gregor, who had no person about the king to plead their cause, proclaimed them rebels, and interdicted all the lieges from harbouring or having any communication with them. The Earl of Argyle, with the Campbells, was afterwards sent against the proscribed clan, and hunted them through the country. About 60 of the clan made a brave stand at Bentoik against a party of 200 chosen men belonging to the clan Cameron, clan Nab, and clan Ronald, under the command of Robert Campbell, son of the laird of Glenorchy, when Duncan Aberigh, one of the chieftains of the clan Gregor, and his son Duncan, and seven gentlemen of Campbell’s party were killed. But although they made a brave resistance, and killed many of their pursuers, the Macgregors, after many skirmishes and great losses, were at last overcome. Commissions were thereafter sent through the kingdom, for fining those who had harboured any of the clan, and for punishing all persons who had kept up any communication with them, and the fines so levied were given by the king to the Earl of Argyle, as a recompense for his services against the unfortunate Macgregors.

Alexander Macgregor, the chief, after suffering many vicissitudes of fortune, at last surrendered himself to the Earl of Argyle, on condition that he should grant him a safe conduct into England to King James, that he might lay before his majesty a true state of the whole affair from the commencement, and crave the royal mercy; and as a security for his return to Scotland, he delivered up to Argyle thirty of his choicest men as hostages. But no sooner had Macgregor arrived at Berwick on his way to London, than he was basely arrested, brought back by the earl to Edinburgh, and, by his influence, executed along with the thirty hostages. Argyle hoped, by these means, ultimately to annihilate the whole clan; but in this cruel design he was quite disappointed, for the clan speedily increased, and became almost as powerful as before.[193]

While the Highland borders were thus disturbed by the warfare between the Macgregors and the Colquhouns, a commotion happened in the interior of the Highlands, in consequence of a quarrel between the clan Kenzie and the laird of Glengarry, who, according to Sir Robert Gordon, was “unexpert and unskilfull in the lawes of the realme.” From his want of knowledge of the law, the clan Kenzie are said by the same writer to have “easalie intrapped him within the compas thereof,” certainly by no means a difficult matter in those lawless times; they then procured a warrant for citing him to appear before the justiciary court at Edinburgh, which they took good care should not be served upon him personally. Either not knowing of these legal proceedings, or neglecting the summons, Glengarry did not appear at Edinburgh on the day appointed, but went about revenging the slaughter of two of his kinsmen, whom the clan Kenzie had killed after the summons for Glengarry’s appearance had been issued. The consequence was that Glengarry and some of his followers were outlawed. Through the interest of the Earl of[115] Dunfermline, lord chancellor of Scotland, Kenneth Mackenzie, afterwards created Lord Kintail, obtained a commission against Glengarry and his people, which occasioned great trouble and much slaughter. Being assisted by many followers from the neighbouring country, Mackenzie, by virtue of his commission, invaded Glengarry’s territories, which he mercilessly wasted and destroyed with fire and sword. On his return, Mackenzie besieged the castle of Strome, which ultimately surrendered to him. To assist Mackenzie in this expedition, the Earl of Sutherland, in token of the ancient friendship which had subsisted between his family and the Mackenzies, sent 240 well equipped and able men, under the command of John Gordon of Embo. Mackenzie again returned into Glengarry, where he had a skirmish with a party commanded by Glengarry’s eldest son, in which the latter and 60 of his followers were slain. The Mackenzies also suffered some loss on this occasion. At last, after much trouble and bloodshed on both sides, an agreement was entered into, by which Glengarry renounced in favour of Kenneth Mackenzie, the castle of Strome and the adjacent lands.[194]

In the year 1605, the peace of the northern Highlands was somewhat disturbed by one of those atrocious occurrences so common at that time. The chief of the Mackays had a servant named Alastair-Mac-Uilleam-Mhoir. This man having some business to transact in Caithness, went there without the least apprehension of danger, as the Earls of Sutherland and Caithness had settled all their differences. No sooner, however, did the latter hear of Mac-Uilleam-Mhoir’s arrival in Caithness, than he sent Henry Sinclair, his bastard brother, with a party of men to kill him. Mac-Uilleam-Mhoir, being a bold and resolute man, was not openly attacked by Sinclair; but on entering the house where the former had taken up his residence, Sinclair and his party pretended that they had come on a friendly visit to him to enjoy themselves in his company. Not suspecting their hostile intentions, Alister invited them to sit down and drink with him; but scarcely had they taken their seats when they seized Mac-Uilleam-Mhoir, and carried him off prisoner to the Earl of Caithness, who caused him to be beheaded in his own presence, the following day. The fidelity of this unfortunate man to Mackay, his master, during the disputes between the Earls of Sutherland and Caithness, was the cause for which he suffered. Mackay, resolved upon getting the earl punished, entered a legal prosecution against him at Edinburgh, but by the mediation of the Marquis of Huntly the suit was quashed.[195]

In July, 1605, a murder was committed in Strathnaver, by Robert Gray of Hopsdale or Ospisdell, the victim being Angus Mac-Kenneth-Mac-Alister, one of the Siol-Mhurchaidh-Rhiabhaich. The circumstances leading to this will illustrate the utterly lawless and insecure state of the Highlands at this time. John Gray of Skibo held the lands of Ardinsh under John, the fifth of that name, Earl of Sutherland, as superior, which lands the grandfather of Angus Mac-Kenneth had in possession from John Mackay, son of Y-Roy-Mackay, who, before the time of this Earl John, possessed some lands in Breachat. When John Gray obtained the grant of Ardinsh from John the fifth, he allowed Kenneth Mac-Alister, the father of Angus Mac-Kenneth, to retain possession thereof, which he continued to do till about the year 1573. About this period a variance arose between John Gray and Hugh Murray of Aberscors, in consequence of some law-suits which they carried on against one another; but they were reconciled by Alexander, Earl of Sutherland, who became bound to pay a sum of money to John Gray, for Hugh Murray, who was in the meantime to get possession of the lands of Ardinsh in security. As John Gray still retained the property and kept Kenneth Mac-Alister in the possession thereof at the old rent, the Murrays took umbrage at him, and prevailed upon the Earl of Sutherland to grant a conveyance of the wadset or mortgage over Ardinsh in favour of Angus Murray, formerly bailie of Dornoch. In the meantime, Kenneth Mac-Alister died, leaving his son, Angus Mac-Kenneth, in possession. Angus Murray having acquired the mortgage, now endeavoured to raise the rent of Ardinsh,[116] but Angus Mac-Kenneth refusing to pay more than his father had paid, was dispossessed, and the lands were let to William Mac-Iain-Mac-Kenneth, cousin of Angus Mac-Kenneth. This proceeding so exasperated Angus that he murdered his cousin William Mac-Kenneth, his wife, and two sons, under cloud of night, and so determined was he that no other person should possess the lands but himself, that he killed no less than nine other persons, who had successively endeavoured to occupy them. No others being disposed to occupy Ardinsh at the risk of their lives, and Angus Murray getting wearied of his possession, resigned his right to Gilbert Gray of Skibo, on the death of John Gray, his father. Gilbert thereafter conveyed the property to Robert Gray of Ospisdell, his second son; but Robert, being disinclined to allow Angus Mac-Kenneth, who had again obtained possession, to continue tenant, he dispossessed him, and let the land to one Finlay Logan, but this new tenant was murdered by Mac-Kenneth in the year 1604. Mac-Kenneth then fled into Strathnaver with a party composed of persons of desperate and reckless passions like himself, with the intention of annoying Robert Gray by their incursions. Gray having ascertained that they were in the parish of Creigh, he immediately attacked them and killed Murdo Mac-Kenneth, the brother of Angus, who made a narrow escape, and again retired into Strathnaver. Angus again returned into Sutherland in May 1605, and, in the absence of Robert Gray, burnt his stable, with some of his cattle, at Ospisdell. Gray then obtained a warrant against Mac-Kenneth, and having procured the assistance of a body of men from John Earl of Sutherland, entered Strathnaver and attacked Mac-Kenneth at the Cruffs of Hoip, and slew him.[196]

The Earl of Caithness, disliking the unquiet state in which he had for some time been forced to remain, made another attempt, in the month of July, 1607, to hunt in Bengrime, without asking permission from the Earl of Sutherland; but he was prevented from accomplishing his purpose by the sudden appearance in Strathully of the latter, attended by his friend Mackay, and a considerable body of their countrymen. Almost the whole of the inhabitants of Dornoch turned out on this occasion, and went to Strathully. During their absence a quarrel ensued in the town between one John Macphaill and three brothers of the name of Pope, in which one of the latter was killed; the circumstances leading to and attending which quarrel were these:—In the year 1585, William Pope, a native of Ross, settled in Sutherland, and being a man of good education, was appointed schoolmaster in Dornoch, and afterwards became its resident minister. He also received another clerical appointment in Caithness, by means of which, and of his other living, he became, in course of time, wealthy. This good success induced two younger brothers, Charles and Thomas, to leave their native country and settle in Sutherland. Thomas was soon made chancellor of Caithness and minister of Rogart. Charles became a notary public and a messenger-at-arms; and having, by his good conduct and agreeable conversation, ingratiated himself with the Earl of Sutherland, was appointed to the office of sheriff-clerk of Sutherland. The brothers soon acquired considerable wealth, which they laid out in the purchase of houses in the town of Dornoch, where they chiefly resided. Many of the inhabitants of the town envied their acquisitions, and took every occasion to insult them as intruders, who had a design, as they supposed, to drive the ancient inhabitants of the place from their possessions. On the occasion in question William and Thomas Pope, along with other ministers, had held a meeting at Dornoch on church affairs, on dissolving which they went to breakfast at an inn. While at breakfast, John Macphaill entered the house, and demanded some liquor from the mistress of the inn, but she refused to give him any, as she knew him to be a troublesome and quarrelsome person. Macphaill, irritated at the refusal, spoke harshly to the woman, and the ministers having made some excuse for her, Macphaill vented his abuse upon them. Being threatened by Thomas Pope, for his insolence, he pushed an arrow with a barbed head, which he held in his hand, into one of Pope’s arms. The parties then separated, but the two Popes being observed walking in the churchyard in the evening, with their swords girt about them, by Macphaill, who looked upon their so arming themselves as a threat, he immediately made the circumstance known to Houcheon Macphaill, his nephew, and one William Murray, all of whom entered the churchyard and assailed the two brothers with the most vituperative abuse. Charles Pope, learning the danger his brothers were in, immediately hastened to the spot, where he found the two parties engaged. Charles attacked Murray, whom he wounded in the face, whereupon Murray instantly killed him. William and Thomas were grievously wounded by Macphaill and his nephew, and left for dead, but they ultimately recovered. Macphaill and his nephew fled to Holland, where they ended their days. After this occurrence, the surviving brothers left Sutherland and went back into their own country. It is only by recording such comparatively unimportant incidents as this, apparently somewhat beneath the dignity of history, that a knowledge of the real state of the Highlands at this time can be conveyed.

[117]

Dornoch, showing the Cathedral and the remaining tower of the old Castle.

By the mediation of the Marquis of Huntly, the Earls of Caithness and Sutherland again met at Elgin with their mutual friends, and once more adjusted their differences. On this occasion the Earl of Sutherland was accompanied by large parties of the Gordons, the Frasers, the Dunbars, the clan Kenzie, the Monroes, the clan Chattan, and other friends, which so displeased the Earl of Caithness, who was grieved to see his rival so honourably attended, that he could never afterwards be induced to meet again with the Earl of Sutherland or any of his family.

During the year 1608 a quarrel occurred in Sutherland between Iver Mac-Donald-Mac-Alister, one of the Siol-Thomais, and Alexander Murray in Auchindough. Iver and his eldest son, John, meeting one day with Alexander Murray and his son, Thomas, an altercation took place on some questions in dispute. From words they proceeded to blows, and the result was that John, the son of Iver, and Alexander Murray were killed. Iver then fled into Strathnaver, whither he was followed by Thomas Murray, accompanied by a party of 24 men, to revenge the death of his father. Iver, however, avoided them, and having assembled some friends, he attacked Murray unawares, at the hill of Binchlibrig, and compelled him to flee, after taking five of his men prisoners, whom he released after a captivity of five days. As the chief of the Mackays protected Iver, George Murray of Pulrossie took up the quarrel, and annoyed Iver and his party; but the matter was compromised by Mackay, who paid a sum of money to Pulrossie and Thomas Murray, as a reparation for divers losses they had sustained at Iver’s hands during his outlawry.[118] This compromise was the more readily entered into by Pulrossie, as the Earl of Sutherland was rather favourable to Iver, and was by no means displeased at him for the injuries he did to Pulrossie, who had not acted dutifully towards him. Besides having lost his own son in the quarrel, who was killed by Thomas Murray, Iver was unjustly dealt with in being made the sole object of persecution.[197]

A civil dissension occurred about this time in Moray among the Dunbars, which nearly proved fatal to that family. To understand the origin of this dispute it is necessary to state the circumstances which led to it, and to go back to the period when Patrick Dunbar, sheriff of Moray, and tutor and uncle of Alexander Dunbar of Westfield, was killed, along with the Earl of Murray, at Donnibristle. Alexander did not enjoy his inheritance long, having died at Dunkeld, shortly after the death of his uncle, under circumstances which led to a suspicion that he had been poisoned. As he died without leaving any issue, he was succeeded by Alexander Dunbar, son of the above-mentioned Patrick, by a sister of Robert Dunbar of Burgy. This Alexander was a young man of great promise, and was directed in all his proceedings by his uncle Robert Dunbar of Burgy. Patrick Dunbar of Blery and Kilbuyack and his family, imagining that Robert Dunbar, to whom they bore a grudge, was giving advice to his nephew to their prejudice, conceived a deadly enmity at both, and seized every occasion to annoy the sheriff of Moray and his uncle. An accidental meeting having taken place between Robert Dunbar, brother of Alexander, and William Dunbar, son of Blery, high words were exchanged, and a scuffle ensued, in which William Dunbar received considerable injury in his person. Patrick Dunbar and his sons were so incensed at this occurrence that they took up arms and attacked their chief, Alexander Dunbar, sheriff of Moray, in the town of Forres, where he was shot dead by Robert Dunbar, son of Blery. John Dunbar, sheriff of Moray, who succeeded his brother Alexander, and his brother, Robert Dunbar of Burgy, endeavoured to bring the murderers of his brother to justice; but they failed in consequence of Alexander Dunbar being, at the time of his death, a rebel to the king, having been denounced at the horn for a civil cause. By negotiation, however, this deadly feud was stayed, and a sort of reconciliation effected by the friendly mediation of the Earl of Dunfermline, then Lord Chancellor of Scotland.[198]

In the year 1610 the Earl of Caithness and Houcheon Mackay, chief of the Mackays, had a difference in consequence of the protection given by the latter to a gentleman named John Sutherland, the son of Mackay’s sister. Sutherland lived in Berridale, under the Earl of Caithness, but he was so molested by the earl that he lost all patience, and went about avenging the injuries he had sustained. The earl, therefore, cited him to appear at Edinburgh to answer to certain charges made against him; but not obeying the summons, he was denounced and proclaimed a rebel to the king. Reduced, in consequence, to great extremities, and seeing no remedy by which he could retrieve himself, he became an outlaw, wasted and destroyed the earl’s country, and carried off herds of cattle, which he transported into Strathnaver, the country of his kinsman. The earl thereupon sent a party of the Siol-Mhic-Imheair to attack him, and, after a long search, they found him encamped near the water of Shin in Sutherland. He, however, was aware of their approach before they perceived him, and, taking advantage of this circumstance, attacked them in the act of crossing the water. They were in consequence defeated, leaving several of their party dead on the field.

This disaster exasperated the earl, who resolved to prosecute Mackay and his son, Donald Mackay, for giving succour and protection within their country to John Sutherland, an outlaw. Accordingly, he served both of them with a notice to appear before the Privy Council to answer to the charges he had preferred against them. Mackay at once obeyed the summons, and went to Edinburgh, where he met Sir Robert Gordon, who had come from England for the express purpose of assisting Mackay on the present occasion. The earl, who had grown tired of the troubles which John Sutherland had occasioned in his country,[119] was induced, by the entreaties of friends, to settle matters on the following conditions:—That he should forgive John Sutherland all past injuries, and restore him to his former possessions; that John Sutherland and his brother Donald should be delivered, the one after the other, into the hands of the earl, to be kept prisoners for a certain time; and that Donald Mac-Thomais-Mhoir, one of the Sliochd-Iain-Abaraich, and a follower of John Sutherland in his depredations, should be also delivered up to the earl to be dealt with as to him should seem meet; all of which stipulations were complied with. The earl hanged Donald Mac-Thomais as soon as he was delivered up. John Sutherland was kept a prisoner at Girnigo about twelve months, during which time Donald Mackay made several visits to Earl George for the purpose of getting him released, in which he at last succeeded, besides procuring a discharge to Donald Sutherland, who, in his turn, should have surrendered himself as prisoner on the release of his brother John, but upon the condition that he and his father, Houcheon Mackay, should pass the next following Christmas with the earl at Girnigo. Mackay and his brother William, accordingly, spent their Christmas at Girnigo, but Donald Mackay was prevented by business from attending. The design of the Earl of Caithness in thus favouring Mackay, was to separate him from the interests of the Earl of Sutherland, but he was unsuccessful.

Some years before the events we have just related, a commotion took place in Lewis, occasioned by the pretensions of Torquill Connaldagh of the Cogigh to the possessions of Roderick Macleod of Lewis, his reputed father. Roderick had first married Barbara Stuart, daughter of Lord Methven, by whom he had a son named Torquill-Ire, who, on arriving at manhood, gave proofs of a warlike disposition. Upon the death of Barbara Stuart, Macleod married a daughter of Mackenzie, lord of Kintail, whom he afterwards divorced for adultery with the Breve of Lewis, a sort of judge among the islanders, to whose authority they submitted themselves. Macleod next married a daughter of Maclean, by whom he had two sons, Torquill Dubh and Tormaid.

In sailing from Lewis to Skye, Torquill-Ire, eldest son of Macleod, and 200 men, perished in a great tempest. Torquill Connaldagh, above mentioned, was the fruit of the adulterous connexion between Macleod’s second wife and the Breve, at least Macleod would never acknowledge him as his son. This Torquill being now of age, and having married a sister of Glengarry, took up arms against Macleod, his reputed father, to vindicate his supposed rights as Macleod’s son, being assisted by Tormaid, Ougigh, and Murthow, three of the bastard sons of Macleod. The old man was apprehended and detained four years in captivity, when he was released on condition that he should acknowledge Torquill Connaldagh as his lawful son. Tormaid Ougigh having been slain by Donald Macleod, his brother, another natural son of old Macleod, Torquill Connaldagh, assisted by Murthow Macleod, his reputed bastard brother, took Donald prisoner and carried him to Cogigh, but he escaped and fled to his father in Lewis, who was highly offended at Torquill for seizing his son Donald. Macleod then caused Donald to apprehend Murthow, and having delivered him to his father, he was imprisoned in the castle of Stornoway. As soon as Torquill heard of this occurrence, he went to Stornoway and attacked the fort, which he took, after a short siege, and released Murthow. He then apprehended Roderick Macleod, killed a number of his men, and carried off all the charters and other title-deeds of Lewis, which he gave in custody to the Mackenzies. Torquill had a son named John Macleod, who was in the service of the Marquis of Huntly; he now sent for him, and on his arrival committed to him the charge of the castle of Stornoway in which old Macleod was imprisoned. John Macleod being now master of Lewis, and acknowledged superior thereof, proceeded to expel Rorie-Og and Donald, two of Roderick Macleod’s bastard sons, from the island; but Rorie-Og attacked him in Stornoway, and after killing him, released Roderick Macleod, his father, who possessed the island in peace during the remainder of his life. Torquill Connaldagh, by the assistance of the clan Kenzie, got Donald Macleod into his possession, and executed him at Dingwall.

[120]

Stornoway Castle.—From a photograph taken specially for this work.

Upon the death of Roderick Macleod, his son Torquill Dubh succeeded him in Lewis. Taking a grudge at Rorie-Og, his brother, he apprehended him, and sent him to Maclean to be detained in prison; but he escaped out of Maclean’s hands, and afterwards perished in a snow-storm. As Torquill Dubh excluded Torquill Connaldagh from the succession of Lewis, as a bastard, the clan Kenzie formed a design to purchase and conquer Lewis, which they calculated on accomplishing on account of the simplicity of Torquill Connaldagh, who had now no friend to advise with, and from the dissensions which unfortunately existed among the race of the Siol-Torquill. This scheme, moreover, received the aid of a matrimonial alliance between Torquill Connaldagh and the clan, by a marriage between his eldest daughter and Roderick Mackenzie, the lord of Kintail’s brother. The clan did not avow their design openly, but they advanced their enterprise under the pretence of assisting Torquill Connaldagh, who was a descendant of the Kintail family, and they ultimately succeeded in destroying the family of Macleod of Lewis, together with his tribe, the Siol-Torquill, and by the ruin of that family and some neighbouring clans, this ambitious clan made themselves complete masters of Lewis and other places. As Torquill Dubh was the chief obstacle in their way, they formed a conspiracy against his life, which, by the assistance of the Breve, they were enabled to carry out successfully. The Breve, by stratagem, managed to obtain possession of Torquill Dubh and some of his friends, and deliver them to the lord of Kintail, who ordered them to be beheaded, which they accordingly were in July, 1597.

Some gentlemen belonging to Fife, hearing of these disturbances in Lewis, obtained from the king, in 1598, a gift of the island, their professed object being to civilize the inhabitants, their real design, however, being, by means of a colony, to supplant the inhabitants, and drive them from the island. A body of soldiers and artificers of all sorts were sent, with every thing necessary for a plantation, into Lewis, where, on their arrival, they began to erect houses in a convenient situation, and soon completed a small but neat town, in which they took up their quarters. The new settlers were, however, much annoyed in their operations by Neill and Murthow Macleod, the only sons of Roderick Macleod who remained in the island. The speculation proved ruinous to many of the adventurers, who, in consequence of the disasters they met with, lost their estates, and were in the end obliged to quit the island.

In the meantime, Neill Macleod quarrelled with his brother Murthow, for harbouring and [121] maintaining the Breve and such of his tribe as were still alive, who had been the chief instruments in the murder of Torquill Dubh. Neill thereupon apprehended his brother, and some of the clan Mhic-Ghille-Mhoir, all of whom he killed, reserving his brother only alive. When the Fife speculators were informed that Neill had taken Murthow, his brother, prisoner, they sent him a message offering to give him a share of the island, and to assist him in revenging the death of Torquill Dubh, provided he would deliver Murthow into their hands. Neill agreed to this proposal, and having gone thereafter to Edinburgh, he received a pardon from the king for all his past offences.

These proceedings frustrated for a time the designs of the Mackenzies upon the island, and the lord of Kintail almost despaired of obtaining possession by any means. As the new settlers now stood in his way, he resolved to desist from persecuting the Siol-Torquill, and to cross the former in their undertakings, by all the means in his power. He had for some time kept Tormaid Macleod, the lawful brother of Torquill Dubh, a prisoner; but he now released him, thinking that upon his appearance in the Lewis all the islanders would rise in his favour; and he was not deceived in his expectations, for, as Sir Robert Gordon observes, “all these islanders, (and lykwayes the Hielanders,) are, by nature, most bent and prone to adventure themselves, their lyffs, and all they have, for their masters and lords, yea beyond all other people.”[199] In the meantime Murthow Macleod was carried to St. Andrews, and there executed. Having at his execution revealed the designs of the lord of Kintail, the latter was committed, by order of the king, to the castle of Edinburgh, from which, however, he contrived to escape without trial, by means, as is supposed, of the then Lord-Chancellor of Scotland.

On receiving pardon Neill Macleod returned into Lewis with the Fife adventurers; but he had not been long in the island when he quarrelled with them on account of an injury he had received from Sir James Spence of Wormistoun. He therefore abandoned them, and watched a favourable opportunity for attacking them. They then attempted to apprehend him by a stratagem, but only succeeded in bringing disaster upon themselves. Upon hearing of this, the lord of Kintail thought the time was now suitable for him to stir, and accordingly he sent Tormaid Macleod into Lewis, as he had intended, promising him all the assistance in his power if he would attack the Fife settlers.

As soon as Tormaid arrived in the island, his brother Neill and all the natives assembled and acknowledged him as their lord and master. He immediately attacked the camp of the adventurers, which he forced, burnt the fort, killed the greater part of their men, took the commanders prisoners, whom he released, after a captivity of eight months, on their solemn promise not to return again to the island, and on their giving a pledge that they should obtain a pardon from the king for Tormaid and his followers for all past offences. After Tormaid had thus obtained possession of the island, John Mac-Donald-Mac-Houcheon apprehended Torquill Connaldagh, and carried him into Lewis to his brother, Tormaid Macleod. Tormaid inflicted no punishment upon Connaldagh, but merely required from him delivery of the title-deeds of Lewis, and the other papers which he had carried off when he apprehended his father Roderick Macleod. Connaldagh informed him that he had it not in his power to give them up, as he had delivered them to the clan Kenzie, in whose possession they still were. Knowing this to be the fact, Tormaid released Torquill Connaldagh, and allowed him to leave the island, contrary to the advice of all his followers and friends, who were for inflicting the punishment of death upon Torquill, as he had been the occasion of all the miseries and troubles which had befallen them.

The Breve of Lewis soon met with a just punishment for the crime he had committed in betraying and murdering his master, Torquill Dubh Macleod. The Breve and some of his relations had taken refuge in the country of Assynt. John Mac-Donald-Mac-Houcheon, accompanied by four persons, having accidentally entered the house where the Breve and six of his kindred lodged, found themselves unexpectedly in the same room with them. Being of opposite factions, a fight immediately[122] ensued, in the course of which the Breve and his party fled out of the house, but were pursued by John and his men, and the Breve and five of his friends killed.

Although the Fife settlers had engaged not to return again into Lewis, they nevertheless made preparations for invading it, having obtained the king’s commission against Tormaid Macleod and his tribe, the Siol-Torquill. They were aided in this expedition by forces from all the neighbouring counties, and particularly by the Earl of Sutherland, who sent a party of men under the command of William Mac-Mhic-Sheumais, chief of the clan Gun in Sutherland, to assist in subduing Tormaid Macleod. As soon as they had effected a landing in the island with all their forces, they sent a message to Macleod, acquainting him that if he would surrender himself to them, in name of the king, they would transport him safely to London, where his majesty then was; and that, upon his arrival there, they would not only obtain his pardon, but also allow him to deal with the king in behalf of his friends, and for the means of supporting himself. Macleod, afraid to risk his fortune against the numerous forces brought against him, agreed to the terms proposed, contrary to the advice of his brother Neill, who refused to yield. Tormaid was thereupon sent to London, where he took care to give the king full information concerning all the circumstances of his case; he showed his majesty that Lewis was his just inheritance, and that his majesty had been deceived by the Fife adventurers in making him believe that the island was at his disposal, which act of deception had occasioned much trouble and a great loss of blood. He concluded by imploring his majesty to do him justice by restoring him to his rights. Understanding that Macleod’s representations were favourably received by his majesty, the adventurers used all their influence at court to thwart him; and as some of them were the king’s own domestic servants, they at last succeeded so far as to get him to be sent home to Scotland a prisoner in 1605. He remained a captive at Edinburgh till the month of March, 1615, when the king granted him permission to pass into Holland, to Maurice, Prince of Orange, where he ended his days. The settlers soon grew wearied of their new possession, and as all of them had declined in their circumstances in this luckless speculation, and as they were continually annoyed by Neill Macleod, they finally abandoned the island, and returned to Fife to bewail their loss.

Lord Kintail, now no longer disguising his intentions, obtained, through means of the Lord Chancellor, a gift of Lewis, under the great seal, for his own use, in virtue of the old right which Torquill Connaldagh had long before resigned in his favour. Some of the adventurers having complained to the king of this proceeding, his majesty became highly displeased at Kintail, and made him resign his right into his majesty’s hands by means of Lord Balmerino, then Secretary of Scotland, and Lord President of the session; which right his majesty now (1608) vested in the persons of Lord Balmerino, Sir George Hay, afterwards Chancellor of Scotland, and Sir James Spence of Wormistoun. Balmerino, on being convicted of high treason in 1609, lost his share, but Hay and Spence undertook the colonization of Lewis, and accordingly made great preparations for accomplishing their purpose. Being assisted by most of the neighbouring countries, they invaded Lewis for the double object of planting a colony, and of subduing and apprehending Neill Macleod, who now alone defended the island.

On this occasion Lord Kintail played a double part, for while he sent Roderick Mackenzie, his brother, with a party of men openly to assist the new colonists who acted under the king’s commission,—promising them at the same time his friendship, and sending them a vessel from Ross with a supply of provisions,—he privately sent notice to Neill Macleod to intercept the vessel on her way; so that the settlers, being disappointed in the provisions to which they trusted, might abandon the island for want. The case turned out exactly as Lord Kintail anticipated, as Sir George Hay and Sir James Spence abandoned the island, leaving a party of men behind to keep the fort, and disbanded their forces, returning into Fife, intending to have sent a fresh supply of men, with provisions, into the island. But Neill Macleod having, with the assistance of his nephew, Malcolm Macleod, son of Roderick Og, burnt the fort, and apprehended[123] the men who were left behind in the island, whom he sent safely home, the Fife gentlemen abandoned every idea of again taking possession of the island, and sold their right to Lord Kintail. He likewise obtained from the king a grant of the share of the island forfeited by Balmerino, and thus at length acquired what he had so long and anxiously desired.[200]

Lord Kintail lost no time in taking possession of the island,—and all the inhabitants, shortly after his landing, with the exception of Neill Macleod and a few others, submitted to him. Neill, along with his nephews, Malcolm, William, and Roderick, the three sons of Roderick Og, the four sons of Torquill Blair, and thirty others, retired to an impregnable rock in the sea called Berrissay, on the west of Lewis, into which Neill had been accustomed, for some years, to send provisions and other necessary articles to serve him in case of necessity. Neill lived on this rock for three years, Lord Kintail in the meantime dying in 1611. As Macleod could not be attacked in his impregnable position, and as his proximity was a source of annoyance, the clan Kenzie fell on the following expedient to get quit of him. They gathered together the wives and children of those that were in Berrissay, and also all persons in the island related to them by consanguinity or affinity, and having placed them on a rock in the sea, so near Berrissay that they could be heard and seen by Neill and his party, the clan Kenzie vowed that they would suffer the sea to overwhelm them, on the return of the flood-tide, if Neill did not instantly surrender the fort. This appalling spectacle had such an effect upon Macleod and his companions, that they immediately yielded up the rock and left Lewis.

Neill Macleod then retired into Harris, where he remained concealed for a time; but not being able to avoid discovery any longer, he gave himself up to Sir Roderick Macleod of Harris, and entreated him to carry him into England to the king, a request with which Sir Roderick promised to comply. In proceeding on his journey, however, along with Macleod, he was charged at Glasgow, under pain of treason, to deliver up Neill to the privy council. Sir Roderick obeyed the charge, and Neill, with his eldest son Donald, were presented to the privy council at Edinburgh, where Neill was executed in April 1613. His son Donald was banished from the kingdom of Scotland, and immediately went to England, where he remained three years with Sir Robert Gordon, tutor of Sutherland, and from England he afterwards went to Holland, where he died.

After the death of Neill Macleod, Roderick and William, the sons of Roderick Og, were apprehended by Roderick Mackenzie, tutor of Kintail, and executed. Malcolm Macleod, his third son, who was kept a prisoner by Roderick Mackenzie, escaped, and having associated himself with the clan Donald in Islay and Kintyre during their quarrel with the Campbells in 1615–16, he annoyed the clan Kenzie with frequent incursions. Malcolm, thereafter, went to Flanders and Spain, where he remained with Sir James Macdonald. Before going to Spain, he returned from Flanders into Lewis in 1616, where he killed two gentlemen of the clan Kenzie. He returned from Spain in 1620, and the last that is heard of him is in 1626, when commissions of fire and sword were granted to Lord Kintail against “Malcolm Macquari Macleod.”[201]

From the occurrences in Lewis, we now direct the attention of our readers to some proceedings in the isle of Rasay, which ended in bloodshed. The quarrel lay between Gille-Chalum, laird of the island, and Murdo Mackenzie of Gairloch, and the occasion was as follows. The lands of Gairloch originally belonged to the clan Mhic-Ghille-Chalum, the predecessors of the laird of Rasay; and when the Mackenzies began to prosper and to rise, one of them obtained the third part of these lands in mortgage or wadset from the clan Mhic-Ghille-Chalum. In process of time the clan Kenzie, by some means or other, unknown to the proprietor of Gairloch, obtained a right to the whole of these lands, but they did not claim possession of the whole till the death of Torquill Dubh Macleod of Lewis, whom the laird of Rasay and his tribe followed as their superior. But upon the death of Torquill Dubh, the laird of Gairloch took possession of[124] the whole of the lands of Gairloch in virtue of his pretended right, and chased the clan Mhic-Ghille-Chalum from the lands with fire and sword. The clan retaliated in their turn by invading the laird of Gairloch, plundering his lands and committing slaughters. In a skirmish which took place in the year 1610, in which lives were lost on both sides, the laird of Gairloch apprehended John Mac-Alain-Mac-Rory, one of the principal men of the clan; but being desirous to get hold also of John Holmoch-Mac-Rory, another of the chiefs, he sent his son Murdo the following year along with Alexander Bane, the son and heir of Bane of Tulloch in Ross, and some others, to search for and pursue John Holmoch; and as he understood that John Holmoch was in Skye, he hired a ship to carry his son and party thither; but instead of going to Skye, they unfortunately, from some unknown cause, landed in Rasay.

On their arrival in Rasay in August 1611, Gille-Chalum, laird of Rasay, with some of his followers, went on board, and unexpectedly found Murdo Mackenzie in the vessel. After consulting with his men, he resolved to take Mackenzie prisoner, in security for his cousin, John Mac-Alain-Mac-Rory, whom the laird of Gairloch detained in captivity. The party then attempted to seize Mackenzie, but he and his party resisting, a keen conflict took place on board, which continued a considerable time. At last, Murdo Mackenzie, Alexander Bane, and the whole of their party, with the exception of three, were slain. These three fought manfully, killing the laird of Rasay and the whole men who accompanied him on board, and wounding several persons that remained in the two boats. Finding themselves seriously wounded, they took advantage of a favourable wind, and sailed away from the island, but expired on the voyage homewards. From this time the Mackenzies appear to have uninterruptedly held possession of Gairloch.[202]

About the time this occurrence took place, the peace of the north was almost again disturbed in consequence of the conduct of William Mac-Angus-Roy, one of the clan Gun, who, though born in Strathnaver, had become a servant to the Earl of Caithness. This man had done many injuries to the people of Caithness by command of the earl; and the mere displeasure of Earl George at any of his people, was considered by William Mac-Angus as sufficient authority for him to steal and take away their goods and cattle. William got so accustomed to this kind of service, that he began also to steal the cattle and horses of the earl, his master, and, after collecting a large booty in this way, he took his leave. The earl was extremely enraged at his quondam servant for so acting; but, as William Mac-Angus was in possession of a warrant in writing under the earl’s own hand, authorizing him to act as he had done towards the people of Caithness, the earl was afraid to adopt any proceedings against him, or against those who protected and harboured him, before the Privy Council, lest he might produce the warrant which he held from the earl. The confidence which the earl had reposed in him served, however, still more to excite the earl’s indignation.

As William Mac-Angus continued his depredations in other quarters, he was apprehended in the town of Tain, on a charge of cattle-stealing; but he was released by the Monroes, who gave security to the magistrates of the town for his appearance when required, upon due notice being given that he was wanted for trial. On attempting to escape he was re-delivered to the provost and bailies of Tain, by whom he was given up to the Earl of Caithness, who put him in fetters, and imprisoned him within Castle Sinclair (1612). He soon again contrived to escape, and fled into Strathnaver, the Earl of Caithness sending his son, William, Lord Berridale, in pursuit of him. Missing the fugitive, he, in revenge, apprehended a servant of Mackay, called Angus Henriach, without any authority from his majesty, and carried him to Castle Sinclair, where he was put into fetters and closely imprisoned on the pretence that he had assisted William Mac-Angus in effecting his escape. When this occurrence took place, Donald Mackay, son of Houcheon Mackay, the chief, was at Dunrobin castle, and he, on hearing of the apprehension and imprisonment of his father’s servant, could scarcely be made to[125] believe the fact on account of the friendship which had been contracted between his father and the earl the preceding Christmas. But being made sensible thereof, and of the cruel usage which the servant had received, he prevailed on his father to summon the earl and his son to answer to the charge of having apprehended and imprisoned Angus Henriach, a free subject of the king, without a commission. The earl was also charged to present his prisoner before the privy council at Edinburgh in the month of June next following, which he accordingly did; and Angus being tried before the lords and declared innocent, was delivered over to Sir Robert Gordon, who then acted for Mackay.[203]

Castles Sinclair and Girnigo.—From a photograph taken specially for this work.

During the same year (1612) another event occurred in the north, which created considerable uproar and discord in the northern Highlands. A person of the name of Arthur Smith, who resided in Banff, had counterfeited the coin of the realm, in consequence of which he, and a man who had assisted him, fled from Banff into Sutherland, where being apprehended in the year 1599, they were sent by the Countess of Sutherland to the king, who ordered them to be imprisoned in Edinburgh for trial. They were both accordingly tried and condemned, and having confessed to crimes even of a deeper dye, Smith’s accomplice was burnt at the place of execution. Smith himself was reserved for farther trial. By devising a lock of rare and curious workmanship, which took the fancy of the king, he ultimately obtained his release and entered into the service of the Earl of Caithness. His workshop was under the rock of Castle Sinclair, in a quiet retired place called the Gote, and to which there was a secret passage from the earl’s bedchamber. No person was admitted to Smith’s workshop but the earl; and the circumstance of his being often heard working during the night, raised suspicions that some secret work was going on which could not bear the light of day. The mystery was at last disclosed by an inundation of counterfeit coin in Caithness, Orkney, Sutherland, and Ross, which was first detected by Sir Robert Gordon, brother to the Earl of Sutherland, when in Scotland, in the year 1611, and he, on his return to England, made the king acquainted therewith. A commission was granted to Sir Robert to apprehend Smith, and bring him to Edinburgh, but he was so much occupied with other concerns that he intrusted the commission to Donald Mackay, his nephew, and to John Gordon, younger of Embo, whose name was jointly inserted in the commission along with that of Sir Robert. Accordingly, Mackay and Gordon, accompanied by Adam Gordon Georgeson John,[126] Gordon in Broray, and some other Sutherland men, went, in May, 1612, to Strathnaver, and assembling some of the inhabitants, they marched into Caithness next morning, and entered the town of Thurso, where Smith then resided.

After remaining about three hours in the town, the party went to Smith’s house and apprehended him. On searching his house they found a quantity of spurious gold and silver coin. Donald Mackay caused Smith to be put on horseback, and then rode off with him out of the town. To prevent any tumult among the inhabitants, Gordon remained behind with some of his men to show them, if necessary, his Majesty’s commission for apprehending Smith. Scarcely, however, had Mackay left the town, when the town-bell was rung and all the inhabitants assembled. There were present in Thurso at the time, John Sinclair of Stirkage, son of the Earl of Caithness’s brother, James Sinclair, brother of the laird of Dun, James Sinclair of Dyrren, and other friends, on a visit to Lady Berridale. When information was brought them of the apprehension of Smith, Sinclair of Stirkage, transported with rage, swore that he would not allow any man, no matter whose commission he held, to carry away his uncle’s servant in his uncle’s absence. A furious onset was made upon Gordon, but his men withstood it bravely, and after a warm contest, the inhabitants were defeated with some loss, and obliged to retire to the centre of the town. Donald Mackay hearing of the tumult, returned to the town to aid Gordon, but the affair was over before he arrived, Sinclair of Stirkage having been killed. To prevent the possibility of the escape or rescue of Smith, he was killed by the Strathnaver men as soon as they heard of the tumult in the town.

The Earl of Caithness resolved to prosecute Donald Mackay, John Gordon, younger of Embo, with their followers, for the slaughter of Sinclair of Stirkage, and the mutilation of James Sinclair, brother of the laird of Dun, and summoned them, accordingly, to appear at Edinburgh. On the other hand, Sir Robert Gordon and Donald Mackay prosecuted the Earl of Caithness and his son, Lord Berridale, with several other of their countrymen, for resisting the king’s commission, attacking the commissioners, and apprehending Angus Henriach, without a commission, which was declared treason by the laws. The Earl of Caithness endeavoured to make the Privy Council believe that the affair at Thurso arose out of a premeditated design against him, and that Sir Robert Gordon’s intention in obtaining a commission against Arthur Smith was, under the cloak of its authority, to find means to slay him and his brethren; and that, in pursuance of his plan, Sir Robert had, a little before the skirmish in Thurso, caused the earl to be denounced and proclaimed as a rebel to the king, and had lain in wait to kill him; Sir Robert, however, showed the utter groundlessness of these charges to the Lords of the Council.

On the day appointed for appearance, the parties met at Edinburgh, attended by their respective friends. The Earl of Caithness and his son, Lord Berridale, were accompanied by the Lord Gray, the laird of Roslin, the laird of Cowdenknowes, a son of the sister of the Earl of Caithness, and the lairds of Murkle and Greenland, brothers of the earl, along with a large retinue of subordinate attendants. Sir Robert Gordon and Donald Mackay were attended by the Earl of Winton and his brother, the Earl of Eglinton, with all their followers, the Earl of Linlithgow, with the Livingstones, Lord Elphinston, with his friends, Lord Forbes, with his friends, the Drummonds, Sir John Stuart, captain of Dumbarton, and bastard son of the Duke of Lennox; Lord Balfour, the laird of Lairg Mackay in Galloway; the laird of Foulis, with the Monroes, the laird of Duffus, some of the Gordons, as Sir Alexander Gordon, brother of the Earl of Sutherland, Cluny, Lesmoir, Buckie, Knokespock, with other gentlemen of respectability. The absence of the Earl of Sutherland and Houcheon Mackay mortified the Earl of Caithness, who could not conceal his displeasure at being so much overmatched in the respectability and number of attendants by seconds and children, as he was pleased to call his adversaries.

According to the usual practice on such occasions, the parties were accompanied by their respective friends, from their lodgings, to[127] the house where the council was sitting; but few were admitted within. The council spent three days in hearing the parties and deliberating upon the matters brought before them, but they came to no conclusion, and adjourned their proceedings till the king’s pleasure should be known. In the meantime the parties, at the entreaty of the Lords of the Council, entered into recognizances to keep the peace, in time coming, towards each other, which extended not only to their kinsmen, but also to their friends and dependants.

The king, after fully considering the state of affairs between the rival parties, and judging that if the law were allowed to take its course the peace of the northern countries might be disturbed by the earls and their numerous followers, proposed to the Lords of the Privy Council to endeavour to prevail upon them to submit their differences to the arbitration of mutual friends. Accordingly, after a good deal of entreaty and reasoning, the parties were persuaded to agree to the proposed measure. A deed of submission was then subscribed by the Earl of Caithness and William, Lord Berridale, on the one part, and by Sir Robert Gordon and Donald Mackay on the other part, taking burden on them for the Earl of Sutherland and Mackay. The arbiters appointed by Sir Robert Gordon were the Earl of Kinghorn, the Master of Elphinston, the Earl of Haddington, afterwards Lord Privy Seal of Scotland, and Sir Alexander Drummond of Meidhop. The Archbishop of Glasgow, Sir John Preston, Lord President of the Council, Lord Blantyre, and Sir William Oliphant, Lord Advocate, were named by the Earl of Caithness. The Earl of Dunfermline, Lord-Chancellor of Scotland, was chosen oversman and umpire by both parties. As the arbiters had then no time to hear the parties, or to enter upon the consideration of the matters submitted to them, they appointed them to return to Edinburgh in the month of May, 1613.

At the appointed time, the Earl of Caithness and his brother, Sir John Sinclair of Greenland, came to Edinburgh, Sir Robert Gordon arriving at the same time from England. The arbiters, however, who were all members of the Privy Council, being much occupied with state affairs, did not go into the matter, but made the parties subscribe a new deed of submission, under which they gave authority to the Marquis of Huntly, by whose friendly offices the differences between the two houses had formerly been so often adjusted, to act in the matter by endeavouring to bring about a fresh reconciliation. As the marquis was the cousin-german of the Earl of Sutherland, and brother-in-law of the Earl of Caithness, who had married his sister, the council thought him the most likely person to be intrusted with such an important negotiation. The marquis, however, finding the parties obstinate, and determined not to yield a single point of their respective claims and pretensions, declined to act farther in the matter, and remitted the whole affair back to the Privy Council.

During the year 1613 the peace of Lochaber was disturbed by dissensions among the clan Cameron. The Earl of Argyle, reviving an old claim acquired in the reign of James V., by Colin, the third earl, endeavoured to obtain possession of the lands of Lochiel, mainly to weaken the influence of his rival the Marquis of Huntly, to whose party the clan Cameron were attached. Legal proceedings were instituted by the earl against Allan Cameron of Lochiel, who, hastening to Edinburgh, was there advised by Argyle to submit the matter to arbiters. The decision was in favour of the earl, from whom Lochiel consented to hold his lands as a vassal. This, of course, highly incensed the Marquis of Huntly, who resolved to endeavour to effect the ruin of his quondam vassal by fomenting dissensions among the clan Cameron, inducing the Camerons of Erracht, Kinlochiel, and Glennevis to become his immediate vassals in those lands which Lochiel had hitherto held from the family of Huntly. Lochiel, failing to induce his kinsmen to renew their allegiance to him, again went to Edinburgh to consult his lawyers as to the course which he ought to pursue. While there, he heard of a conspiracy by the opposite faction against his life, which induced him to hasten home, sending word privately to his friends—the Camerons of Callart, Strone, Letterfinlay, and others—to meet him on the day appointed for the assembling of his opponents, near the spot where the latter were to meet.

[128]

On arriving at the appointed rendezvous, Lochiel placed in ambush all his followers but six, with whom he advanced towards his enemies, informing them that he wished to have a conference with them. The hostile faction, thinking this a favourable opportunity for accomplishing their design, pursued the chief, who, when he had led them fairly into the midst of his ambushed followers, gave the signal for their slaughter. Twenty of their principal men were killed, and eight taken prisoners, Lochiel allowing the rest to escape. Lochiel and his followers were by the Privy Council outlawed, and a commission of fire and sword granted to the Marquis of Huntly and the Gordons, for their pursuit and apprehension. The division of the clan Cameron which supported Lochiel continued for several years in a state of outlawry, but, through the influence of the Earl of Argyle, appears not to have suffered extremely.[204]

CHAPTER X.

A.D. 1613–1623.

KING OF GREAT BRITAIN:—James I., 1603–1625.

As the Privy Council showed no inclination to decide the questions submitted to them by the Earl of Caithness and his adversaries, the earl sent his brother, Sir John Sinclair of Greenland, to Edinburgh, to complain of the delay which had taken place, and desired him to throw out hints, that if the earl did not obtain satisfaction for his supposed injuries, he would take redress at his own hands. The earl thought that he would succeed, by such a threat, in moving the council to decide in his favour, for he was well aware that he was unable to carry it into execution. To give some appearance of an intention to enforce it, he, in the month of October, 1613, while the Earl of Sutherland, his brothers and nephews, were absent from the country, made a demonstration of invading Sutherland or Strathnaver, by collecting his forces at a particular point, and bringing thither some pieces of ordnance from Castle Sinclair. The Earl of Sutherland, having arrived in Sutherland while the Earl of Caithness was thus employed, immediately assembled some of his countrymen, and, along with his brother Sir Alexander, went to the marches between Sutherland and Caithness, near the height of Strathully, where they waited the approach of the Earl of Caithness. Here they were joined by Mackay, who had given notice of the Earl of Caithness’s movements to the lairds of Foulis, Balnagown, and Assynt, the sheriff of Cromarty, and the tutor of Kintail, all of whom prepared themselves to assist the Earl of Sutherland. The Earl of Caithness, however, by advice of his brother, Sir John Sinclair, returned home and disbanded his force.

To prevent the Earl of Caithness from attempting any farther interference with the Privy Council, either in the way of intrigue or intimidation, Sir Robert Gordon obtained a remission and pardon from the king, in the month of December, 1613, to his nephew, Donald Mackay, John Gordon, younger of Embo, John Gordon in Broray, Adam Gordon Georgeson, and their accomplices, for the slaughter of John Sinclair of Stirkage at Thurso. However, Sir Gideon Murray, Deputy Treasurer for Scotland, contrived to prevent the pardon passing through the seals till the beginning of the year 1616.

The Earl of Caithness, being thus baffled in his designs against the Earl of Sutherland and his friends, fell upon a device which never failed to succeed in times of religious intolerance and persecution. Unfortunately for mankind and for the interests of Christianity, the principles of religious toleration, involving the[129] inalienable right of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience, have been till of late but little understood, and at the period in question, and for upwards of one hundred and sixty years thereafter, the statute book of Scotland was disgraced by penal enactments against the Catholics, almost unparalleled for their sanguinary atrocity. By an act of the first parliament of James VI., any Catholic who assisted at the offices of his religion was, “for the first fault,” that is, for following the dictates of his conscience, to suffer confiscation of all his goods, movable and immovable, personal and real; for the second, banishment; and death for the third fault! But the law was not confined to overt acts only—the mere suspicion of being a Catholic placed the suspected person out of the pale and protection of the law; for if, on being warned by the bishops and ministers, he did not recant and give confession of his faith according to the approved form, he was excommunicated, and declared infamous and incapable to sit or stand in judgment, pursue or bear office.[205]

Under this last-mentioned law the Earl of Caithness now sought to gratify his vengeance against the Earl of Sutherland. Having represented to the Archbishop of St. Andrews and the clergy of Scotland that the Earl of Sutherland was at heart a Catholic, he prevailed upon the bishops—with little difficulty, it is supposed—to acquaint the king thereof. His majesty thereupon issued a warrant against the Earl of Sutherland, who was in consequence apprehended and imprisoned at St. Andrews. The earl applied to the bishops for a month’s delay, till the 15th February, 1614, promising that before that time he would either give the church satisfaction or surrender himself; but his application was refused by the high commission of Scotland. Sir Alexander Gordon, the brother of the earl, being then in Edinburgh, immediately gave notice to his brother, Sir Robert Gordon, who was at the time in London, of the proceedings against their brother, the earl. Sir Robert having applied to his majesty for the release of the earl for a time, that he might make up his mind on the subject of religion, and look after his affairs in the north, his majesty granted a warrant for his liberation till the month of August following. On the expiration of the time, he returned to his confinement at St. Andrews, from which he was removed, on his own application, to the abbey of Holyrood house, where he remained till the month of March, 1615, when he obtained leave to go home, “having,” says Sir Robert Gordon, “in some measure satisfied the church concerning his religion.”

The Earl of Caithness, thus again defeated in his views, tried, as a dernier ressort, to disjoin the families of Sutherland and Mackay. Sometimes he attempted to prevail upon the Marquis of Huntly to persuade the Earl of Sutherland and his brothers to come to an arrangement altogether independent of Mackay; and at other times he endeavoured to persuade Mackay, by holding out certain inducements to him, to compromise their differences without including the Earl of Sutherland in the arrangement; but he completely failed in these attempts.[206]

In 1614–15 a formidable rebellion broke out in the South Hebrides, arising from the efforts made by the clan Donald of Islay to retain that island in their possession. The castle of Dunyveg in Islay, which, for three years previous to 1614, had been in possession of the Bishop of the Isles, having been taken by Angus Oig, younger brother of Sir James Macdonald of Islay, from Ranald Oig, who had surprised it, the former refused to restore it to the bishop. The Privy Council took the matter in hand, and, having accepted from John Campbell of Calder an offer of a feu-duty or perpetual rent for Islay, they prevailed on him to accept a commission against Angus Oig and his followers. The clan Donald, who viewed with suspicion the growing power of the Campbells, looked upon this project with much dislike, and treated certain hostages left by the bishop with great severity. Even the bishop remonstrated against making “the name of Campbell greater in the Isles than they are already,” thinking it neither good nor profitable to his majesty, “to root out one pestiferous clan, and plant in another little better.” The remonstrance of the bishop[130] and an offer made to put matters right by Sir James Macdonald, who was then imprisoned in Edinburgh castle, were alike unheeded, and Campbell of Calder received his commission of Lieutenandry against Angus Oig Macdonald, Coll Mac-Gillespic, and the other rebels of Islay. A free pardon was offered to all who were not concerned in the taking of the castle, and a remission to Angus Oig, provided he gave up the castle, the hostages, and two associates of his own rank.

While Campbell was collecting his forces, and certain auxiliary troops from Ireland were preparing to embark, the chancellor of Scotland, the Earl of Dunfermline, by means of a Ross-shire man, named George Graham of Eryne, prevailed on Angus Oig to release the bishop’s hostages, and deliver up to Graham the castle, in behalf of the chancellor. Graham re-delivered the castle to Angus, to be held by him as the regular constable, until he should receive further order from the chancellor, and at the same time assured Angus of the chancellor’s countenance and protection, enjoining him to resist all efforts on the part of Campbell or his friends to eject him. These injunctions Graham’s dupes too readily followed. “There can be no doubt whatever that the chancellor was the author of this notable plan to procure the liberation of the hostages, and at the same time to deprive the clan Donald of the benefit of the pardon promised to them on this account. There are grounds for a suspicion that the chancellor himself desired to obtain Islay; although it is probable that he wished to avoid the odium attendant on the more violent measures required to render such an acquisition available. He, therefore, contrived so as to leave the punishment of the clan Donald to the Campbells, who were already sufficiently obnoxious to the western clans, whilst he himself had the credit of procuring the liberation of the hostages.”

Dunyveg Castle, Islay.—From a drawing taken expressly for this work.

Campbell of Calder and Sir Oliver Lambert, commander of the Irish forces, did not effect a junction till the 5th of January, 1615, and on the 6th, Campbell landed on Islay with 200 men, his force being augmented next day by 140 more. Several of the rebels, alarmed, deserted Angus, and were pardoned on condition of helping the besiegers. Ronald Mac-James, uncle of Angus Oig, surrendered a fort on the island of Lochgorme which he commanded, on the 21st, and along with his son received a conditional assurance of his majesty’s favour. Operations were commenced against Dunyveg on February 1st, and shortly after Angus had an interview with the lieutenant, during which the latter showed that Angus had been deceived by Graham, upon which he promised to surrender. On returning to the castle, however, he refused to implement his promise, being instigated[131] to hold out apparently by Coll Mac-Gillespic. After being again battered for some time, Angus and some of his followers at last surrendered unconditionally, Coll Mac-Gillespic contriving to make his escape. Campbell took possession of the castle on the 3d February, dispersed the forces of the rebels, and put to death a number of those who had deserted the siege; Angus himself was reserved for examination by the Privy Council. In the course of the examination it came out clearly that the Earl of Argyle was the original promoter of the seizure of the castle, his purpose apparently being to ruin the clan Donald by urging them to rebellion; but this charge, as well as that against the Earl of Dunfermline, appears to have been smothered.

During the early part of the year 1615, Coll Mac-Gillespic and others of the clan Donald who had escaped, infested the western coasts, and committed many acts of piracy, being joined about the month of May by Sir James Macdonald, who had escaped from Edinburgh castle, where he had been lying for a long time under sentence of death. Sir James and his followers, now numbering several hundreds, after laying in a good supply of provisions, sailed towards Islay. The Privy Council were not slow in taking steps to repress the rebellion, although various circumstances occurred to thwart their intentions. Calder engaged to keep the castle of Dunyveg against the rebels, and instructions were given to the various western gentlemen friendly to the government to defend the western coasts and islands. Large rewards were offered for the principal rebels. All the forces were enjoined to be at their appointed stations by the 6th of July, furnished with forty days’ provisions, and with a sufficient number of boats, to enable them to act by sea, if necessary.

Sir James Macdonald, about the end of June, landing on Islay, managed by stratagem to obtain possession of Dunyveg Castle, himself and his followers appearing to have conducted themselves with great moderation. Dividing his force, which numbered about 400, into two bodies, with one of which he himself intended to proceed to Jura, the other, under Coll Mac-Gillespic, was destined for Kintyre, for the purpose of encouraging the ancient followers of his family to assist him. In the beginning of July, Angus Oig and a number of his followers were tried and condemned, and executed immediately after.

Various disheartening reports were now circulated as to the disaffection of Donald Gorme of Sleat, captain of the clan Ranald, Ruari Macleod of Harris, and others; and that Hector Maclean of Dowart, if not actually engaged in the rebellion, had announced, that if he was desired to proceed against the clan Donald, he would not be very earnest in the service. The militia of Ayr, Renfrew, Dumbarton, Bute, and Inverness were called out, and a commission was granted to the Marquis of Hamilton to keep the clan Donald out of Arran.

The Privy Council had some time before this urged the king to send down the Earl of Argyle from England—to which he had fled from his numerous creditors—to act as lieutenant in suppressing the insurrection. After many delays, Argyle, to whom full powers had been given to act as lieutenant, at length mustered his forces at Duntroon on Loch Crinan early in September. He issued a proclamation of pardon to all rebels who were willing to submit, and by means of spies examined Macdonald’s camp, which had been pitched on the west coast of Kintyre, the number of the rebels being ascertained to be about 1,000 men. Argyle set himself so promptly and vigorously to crush the rebels, that Sir James Macdonald, who had been followed to Islay by the former, finding it impossible either to resist the Lieutenant’s forces, or to escape with his galleys to the north isles, desired from the earl a truce of four days, promising at the end of that time to surrender. Argyle would not accede to this request except on condition of Sir James giving up the two forts which he held; this Sir James urged Coll Mac-Gillespic to do, but he refused, although he sent secretly to Argyle a message that he was willing to comply with the earl’s request. Argyle immediately sent a force against Sir James to surprise him, who, being warned of this by the natives, managed to make his escape to an island called Inchdaholl, on the coast of Ireland, and never again returned to the Hebrides. Next day, Mac-Gillespic surrendered the two forts and his prisoners, upon assurance of his[132] own life and the lives of a few of his followers, at the same time treacherously apprehending and delivering to Argyle, Macfie of Colonsay, one of the principal rebel leaders, and eighteen others. This conduct soon had many imitators, including Macfie himself.

Having delivered the forts in Islay to Campbell of Calder, and having executed a number of the leading rebels, Argyle proceeded to Kintyre, and crushed out all remaining seeds of insurrection there. Many of the principal rebels, notwithstanding a diligent search, effected their escape, many of them to Ireland, Sir James Macdonald being sent to Spain by some Jesuits in Galway. The escape of so many of the principal rebels seems to have given the Council great dissatisfaction. Argyle carried on operations till the middle of December 1615, refusing to dismiss the hired soldiers in the beginning of November, as he was ordered by the Council to do. He was compelled to disburse the pay, amounting to upwards of £7,000, for the extra month and a half out of his own pocket.

“Thus,” to use the words of our authority for the above details,[207] “terminated the last struggle of the once powerful clan Donald of Islay and Kintyre, to retain, from the grasp of the Campbells, these ancient possessions of their tribe.”

Ever since the death of John Sinclair at Thurso, the Earl of Caithness used every means in his power to induce such of his countrymen as were daring enough, to show their prowess and dexterity, by making incursions into Sutherland or Strathnaver, for the purpose of annoying the vassals and dependants of the Earl of Sutherland and his ally, Mackay. Amongst others he often communicated on this subject with William Kennethson, whose father, Kenneth Buidhe, had always been the principal instrument in the hands of Earl George in oppressing the people of his own country. For the furtherance of his plans he at last prevailed upon William, who already stood rebel to the king in a criminal cause, to go into voluntary banishment into Strathnaver, and put himself under the protection of Mackay, to whom he was to pretend that he had left Caithness to avoid any solicitations from the Earl of Caithness to injure the inhabitants of Strathnaver. To cover their designs they caused a report to be spread that William Mac-Kenneth was to leave Caithness because he would not obey the orders of the earl to execute some designs against Sir Robert Gordon, the tutor of Sutherland, and Mackay, and when this false rumour had been sufficiently spread, Mac-Kenneth, and his brother John, and their dependants, fled into Strathnaver and solicited the favour and protection of Mackay. The latter received them kindly; but as William and his party had been long addicted to robbery and theft, he strongly advised them to abstain from such practices in all time coming; and that they might not afterwards plead necessity as an excuse for continuing their depredations, he allotted them some lands to dwell on. After staying a month or two in Strathnaver, during which time they stole some cattle and horses out of Caithness, William received a private visit by night from Kenneth Buidhe, his father, who had been sent by the Earl of Caithness for the purpose of executing a contemplated depredation in Sutherland. Mackay was then in Sutherland on a visit to his uncle, Sir Robert Gordon, which being known to William Mac-Kenneth, he resolved to enter Sutherland with his party, and carry off into Caithness all the booty they could collect. Being observed in the glen of Loth by some of the clan Gun, collecting cattle and horses, they were immediately apprehended, with the exception of Iain-Garbh-Mac-Chonald-Mac-Mhurchidh-Mhoir, who, being a very resolute man, refused to surrender, and was in consequence killed. The prisoners were delivered to Sir Robert Gordon at Dornoch, who committed William and his brother John to the castle of Dornoch for trial. In the meantime two of the principal men of Mac-Kenneth’s party were tried, convicted, and executed, and the remainder were allowed to return home on giving surety to keep the peace. This occurrence took place in the month of January 1616.

The Earl of Caithness now finished his restless career of iniquity by the perpetration of a crime which, though trivial in its consequences,[133] was of so highly a penal nature in itself as to bring his own life into jeopardy. As the circumstances which led to the burning of the corn of William Innes, a servant of Lord Forbes at Sanset in Caithness, and the discovery of the Earl of Caithness as instigator, are somewhat curious, it is thought that a recital of them may not be here out of place.

Among other persons who had suffered at the hands of the earl was his own kinsman, William Sinclair of Dumbaith. After annoying him in a variety of ways, the earl instigated his bastard brother, Henry Sinclair, and Kenneth Buidhe, to destroy and lay waste part of Dumbaith’s lands, who, unable to resist, and being in dread of personal risk, locked himself up in his house at Dunray, which they besieged. William Sinclair immediately applied to John, Earl of Sutherland, for assistance, who sent his friend Mackay with a party to rescue Sinclair from his perilous situation. Mackay succeeded, and carried Sinclair along with him into Sutherland, where he remained for a time, but he afterwards went to reside in Moray, where he died. Although thus cruelly persecuted and forced to become an exile from his country by the Earl of Caithness, no entreaties could induce him to apply for redress, choosing rather to suffer himself than to see his relative punished. William Sinclair was succeeded by his grandson, George Sinclair, who married a sister of Lord Forbes. By the persuasion of his wife, who was a mere tool in the hands of the Earl of Caithness, George Sinclair was induced to execute a deed of entail, by which, failing of heirs male of his own body, he left the whole of his lands to the earl. When the earl had obtained this deed he began to devise means to make away with Sinclair, and actually persuaded Sinclair’s wife to assist him in this nefarious design. Having obtained notice of this conspiracy against his life, Sinclair left Caithness and took up his residence with his brother-in-law, Lord Forbes, who received him with great kindness and hospitality, and reprobated very strongly the wicked conduct of his sister. Sinclair now recalled the entail in favour of the Earl of Caithness, and made a new deed by which he conveyed his whole estate to Lord Forbes. George Sinclair died soon after the execution of the deed, and having left no issue, Lord Forbes took possession of his lands of Dunray and Dumbaith.

Disappointed in his plans to acquire Sinclair’s property, the Earl of Caithness seized every opportunity of annoying Lord Forbes in his possessions, by oppressing his tenants and servants, in every possible way, under the pretence of discharging his duty as sheriff, to which office he had been appointed by the Earl of Huntly, on occasion of his marriage with Huntly’s sister. Complaints were made from time to time against the earl, on account of these proceedings, to the Privy Council of Scotland, which, in some measure, afforded redress; but to protect his tenants more effectually, Lord Forbes took up a temporary residence in Caithness, relying upon the aid of the house of Sutherland in case of need.

As the Earl of Caithness was aware that any direct attack on Lord Forbes would be properly resented, and as any enterprise undertaken by his own people would be laid to his charge, however cautious he might be in dealing with them, he fixed on the clan Gun as the fittest instruments for effecting his designs against Lord Forbes. Besides being the most resolute men in Caithness, always ready to undertake any desperate action, they depended more upon the Earl of Sutherland and Mackay, from whom they held some lands, than upon the Earl of Caithness; a circumstance which the latter supposed, should the contemplated outrages of the clan Gun ever become matter of inquiry, might throw the suspicion upon the two former as the silent instigators. Accordingly, the earl opened a negotiation with John Gun, chief of the clan Gun in Caithness, and with his brother, Alexander Gun, whose father he had hanged in the year 1586. In consequence of an invitation, the two brothers, along with Alexander Gun, their cousin-german, repaired to Castle Sinclair, where they met the earl. The earl did not at first divulge his plans to all the party; but taking Alexander Gun, the cousin, aside, he pointed out to him the injury he alleged he had sustained, in consequence of Lord Forbes having obtained a footing in Caithness,—that he could no longer submit to the indignity shown him by a stranger,—that he had made choice of him (Gun) to undertake a piece of service for him, on performing[134] which, he would reward him most amply; and to secure compliance, the earl desired him to remember the many favours he had already received from him, and how well he had treated him, promising, at the same time, to show him even greater kindness in time coming. Alexander thereupon promised to serve the earl, though at the hazard of his life; but upon being interrogated by the earl whether he would undertake to burn the corn of Sanset, belonging to William Innes, a servant of Lord Forbes, Gun, who had never imagined that he was to be employed in such an ignoble affair, expressed the greatest astonishment at the proposal, and refused, in the most peremptory and indignant manner, to undertake its execution; yet, to satisfy the earl, he told him that he would, at his command, undertake to assassinate William Innes,—an action which he considered less criminal and dishonourable, and more becoming a gentleman, than burning a quantity of corn! Finding him obdurate, the earl enjoined him to secrecy.

The earl next applied to the two brothers, John and Alexander, with whom he did not find it so difficult to treat. They at first hesitated with some firmness in undertaking the business on which the earl was so intent; and they pleaded an excuse, by saying, that as justice was then more strictly executed in Scotland than formerly, they could not expect to escape, as they had no place of safety to retreat to after the crime was committed; as a proof of which they instanced the cases of the clan Donald and the clan Gregor, two races of people much more powerful than the clan Gun, who had been brought to the brink of ruin, and almost annihilated, under the authority of the laws. The earl replied, that as soon as they should perform the service for him he would send them to the western isles, to some of his acquaintances and friends, with whom they might remain till Lord Forbes and he were reconciled, when he would obtain their pardon; that in the meantime he would profess, in public, to be their enemy, but that he would be their friend secretly, and permit them to frequent Caithness without danger. Alexander Gun, overcome at last by the entreaties of the earl, reluctantly consented to his request, and going into Sanset, in the dead of night, with two accomplices, set fire to all the corn stacks which were in the barn-yard, belonging to William Innes, and which were in consequence consumed. This affair occurred in the month of November, 1615. The Earl of Caithness immediately spread a report through the whole country that Mackay’s tenants had committed this outrage, but the deception was of short duration.

It may be here noticed that John, sixth Earl of Sutherland, died in September, 1615, and was succeeded by his eldest son, John, a boy six years old, to whom Sir Robert Gordon, his uncle, was appointed tutor.

Sir Robert Gordon, having arrived in the north of Scotland, from England, in the month of December following, resolved to probe the matter to the bottom, not merely on account of his nephew, Mackay, whose men were suspected, but to satisfy Lord Forbes, who was now on friendly terms with the house of Sutherland; but the discovery of the perpetrators soon became an easy task, in consequence of a quarrel among the clan Gun themselves, the members of which upbraided one another as the authors of the fire-raising. Alexander Gun, the cousin of Alexander Gun, the real criminal, thereupon fled from Caithness, and sent some of his friends to Sir Robert Gordon and Donald Mackay with these proposals:—that if they would receive him into favour, and secure him from danger, he would confess the whole circumstances, and reveal the authors of the conflagration, and that he would declare the whole before the Privy Council if required. On receiving this proposal, Sir Robert Gordon appointed Alexander Gun to meet him privately at Helmsdale, in the house of Sir Alexander Gordon, brother of Sir Robert. A meeting was accordingly held at the place appointed, at which Sir Robert and his friends agreed to do everything in their power to preserve Gun’s life; and Mackay promised, moreover, to give him a possession in Strathie, where his father had formerly lived.

When the Earl of Caithness heard of Alexander Gun’s flight into Sutherland he became greatly alarmed lest Alexander should reveal the affair of Sanset; and anticipating such a result, the earl gave out everywhere that Sir Robert Gordon, Mackay, and Sir Alexander Gordon,[135] had hired some of the clan Gun to accuse him of having burnt William Innes’s corn. But this artifice was of no avail, for as soon as Lord Forbes received notice from Sir Robert Gordon of the circumstances related by Alexander Gun, he immediately cited John Gun and his brother Alexander, and their accomplices, to appear for trial at Edinburgh, on the 2d April, 1616, to answer to the charge of burning the corn at Sanset; and he also summoned the Earl of Caithness, as sheriff of that county, to deliver them up for trial. John Gun, thinking that the best course he could pursue under present circumstances was to follow the example of his cousin, Alexander, sent a message to Sir Alexander Gordon, desiring an interview with him, which being granted, they met at Navidale. John Gun then offered to reveal everything he knew concerning the fire, on condition that his life should be spared; but Sir Alexander observed that he could come under no engagement, as he was uncertain how the king and the council might view such a proceeding; but he promised, that as John had not been an actor in the business, but a witness only to the arrangement between his brother and the Earl of Caithness, he would do what he could to save him, if he went to Edinburgh in compliance with the summons.

In this state of matters, the Earl of Caithness wrote to the Marquis of Huntly, accusing Sir Robert Gordon and Mackay of a design to bring him within the reach of the law of treason, and to injure the honour of his house by slandering him with the burning of the corn at Sanset. The other party told the marquis that they could not refuse to assist Lord Forbes in finding out the persons who had burned the corn at Sanset, but that they had never imagined that the earl would have acted so base a part as to become an accomplice in such a criminal act; and farther, that as Mackay’s men were challenged with the deed, they certainly were entitled at least to clear Mackay’s people from the charge by endeavouring to find out the malefactors,—in all which they considered they had done the earl no wrong. The Marquis of Huntly did not fail to write the Earl of Caithness the answer he had received from Sir Robert Gordon and Mackay, which grieved him exceedingly, as he was too well aware of the consequences which would follow if the prosecution of the Guns was persevered in.

At the time appointed for the trial of the Guns, Sir Robert Gordon, Mackay, and Lord Forbes, with all his friends, went to Edinburgh, and upon their arrival they entreated the council to prevent a remission in favour of the Earl of Caithness from passing the signet until the affair in hand was tried; a request with which the council complied. The Earl of Caithness did not appear; but he sent his son, Lord Berridale, to Edinburgh, along with John Gun and all those persons who had been summoned by Lord Forbes, with the exception of Alexander Gun and his two accomplices. He alleged as his reason for not sending them that they were not his men, being Mackay’s own tenants, and dwelling in Dilred, the property of Mackay, which was held by him off the Earl of Sutherland, who, he alleged, was bound to present the three persons alluded to. But the lords of the council would not admit of this excuse, and again required Lord Berridale and his father to present the three culprits before the court on the 10th June following, because, although they had possessions in Dilred, they had also lands from the Earl of Caithness on which they usually resided. Besides, the deed was committed in Caithness, of which the earl was sheriff, on which account also he was bound to apprehend them. Lord Berridale, whose character was quite the reverse of that of his father, apprehensive of the consequences of a trial, now offered satisfaction in his father’s name to Lord Forbes if he would stop the prosecution; but his lordship refused to do anything without the previous advice and consent of Sir Robert Gordon and Mackay, who, upon being consulted, caused articles of agreement to be drawn up, which were presented to Lord Berridale by neutral persons for his acceptance. He, however, considering the conditions sought to be imposed upon his father too hard, rejected them.

In consequence of the refusal of Lord Berridale to accede to the terms proposed, John Gun was apprehended by one of the magistrates of Edinburgh, on the application of Lord Forbes, and committed a prisoner to the jail of that city. Gun thereupon requested to see Sir Robert Gordon and Mackay, whom he entreated[136] to use their influence to procure him his liberty, promising to declare everything he knew of the business for which he was prosecuted before the lords of the council. Sir Robert Gordon and Mackay then deliberated with Lord Forbes and Lord Elphinston on the subject, and they all four promised faithfully to Gun to do everything in their power to save him, and that they would thenceforth maintain and defend him and his cousin, Alexander Gun, against the Earl of Caithness or any person, as long as they had reason and equity on their side; besides which, Mackay promised him a liferent lease of the lands in Strathie to compensate for his possessions in Caithness, of which he would, of course, be deprived by the earl for revealing the latter’s connexion with the fire-raising at Sanset. John Gun was accordingly examined the following day by the lords of the council, when he confessed that the Earl of Caithness made his brother, Alexander Gun, burn the corn of Sanset, and that the affair had been proposed and discussed in his presence. Alexander Gun, the cousin, was examined also at the same time, and stated the same circumstances precisely as John Gun had done. After examination, John and Alexander were again committed to prison.

As neither the Earl of Caithness nor his son, Lord Berridale, complied with the commands of the council to deliver up Alexander Gun and his accomplices in the month of June, they were both outlawed and denounced rebels; and were summoned and charged by Lord Forbes to appear personally at Edinburgh in the month of July immediately following, to answer to the charge of causing the corn of Sanset to be burnt. This fixed determination on the part of Lord Forbes to bring the earl and his son to trial had the effect of altering their tone, and they now earnestly entreated him and Mackay to agree to a reconciliation on any terms; but they declined to enter into any arrangement until they had consulted Sir Robert Gordon. After obtaining Sir Robert’s consent, and a written statement of the conditions which he required from the Earl of Caithness in behalf of his nephew, the Earl of Sutherland, the parties entered into a final agreement in the month of July, 1616. The principal heads of the contract, which was afterwards recorded in the books of council and session, were as follows:—That all civil actions between the parties should be settled by the mediation of common friends,—that the Earl of Caithness and his son should pay to Lord Forbes and Mackay the sum of 20,000 merks Scots money,—that all quarrels and criminal actions should be mutually forgiven, and particularly, that the Earl of Caithness and all his friends should forgive and remit the slaughter at Thurso—that the Earl of Caithness and his son should renounce for themselves and their heirs all jurisdiction, criminal or civil, within Sutherland or Strathnaver, and any other jurisdiction which they should thereafter happen to acquire over any lands lying within the diocese of Caithness then pertaining, or which should afterwards belong, to the Earl of Sutherland, or his heirs,—that the Earl of Caithness should deliver Alexander Gun and his accomplices to Lord Forbes,—that the earl, his son, and their heirs, should never thenceforth contend with the Earl of Sutherland for precedency in parliament or priority of place,—that the Earl of Caithness and his son, their friends and tenants, should keep the peace in time coming, under the penalty of great sums of money, and should never molest nor trouble the tenants of the Earl of Sutherland and Lord Forbes,—that the Earl of Caithness, his son, or their friends, should not receive nor harbour any fugitives from Sutherland or Strathnaver,—and that there should be good friendship and amity kept amongst them in all time to come.

In consequence of this agreement, the two sons of Kenneth Buy, William and John before-mentioned, were delivered to Lord Berridale, who gave security for their keeping the peace; and John Gun and Alexander his cousin were released, and delivered to Lord Forbes and Mackay, who gave surety to the lords of the council to present them for trial whenever required; and as the Earl of Caithness had deprived them of their possessions in Caithness on account of the discovery they had made, Mackay, who had lately been knighted by the king, gave them lands in Strathnaver as he had promised. Matters being thus settled, Lord Berridale presented himself before the court at Edinburgh to abide his[137] trial; but no person of course appearing against him, the trial was postponed. The Earl of Caithness, however, failing to appear, the diet against him was continued till the 28th of August following.

Although the king was well pleased, on account of the peace which such an adjustment would produce in his northern dominions, with the agreement which had been entered into, and the proceedings which followed thereon, all of which were made known to him by the Privy Council; yet, as the passing over such a flagrant act as wilful fire-raising, without punishment, might prove pernicious, he wrote a letter to the Privy Council of Scotland, commanding them to prosecute, with all severity, those who were guilty of, or accessory to, the crime. Lord Berridale was thereupon apprehended on suspicion, and committed a prisoner to the castle of Edinburgh; and his father, perceiving the determination of the king to prosecute the authors of the fire, again declined to appear for trial on the appointed day, on which account he was again outlawed, and declared a rebel as the guilty author.

In this extremity Lord Berridale had recourse to Sir Robert Gordon, then resident at court, for his aid. He wrote him a letter, entreating him that, as all controversies were now settled, he would, in place of an enemy become a faithful friend,—that for his own part, he, Lord Berridale, had been always innocent of the jars and dissensions which had happened between the two families,—that he was also innocent of the crime of which he was charged,—and that he wished his majesty to be informed by Sir Robert of these circumstances, hoping that he would order him to be released from confinement. Sir Robert answered, that he had long desired a perfect agreement between the houses of Sutherland and Caithness, which he would endeavour to maintain during his administration in Sutherland,—that he would intercede with the king in behalf of his lordship to the utmost of his power,—that all disputes being now at an end, he would be his faithful friend,—that he had a very different opinion of his disposition from that he entertained of his father, the earl; and he concluded by entreating him to be careful to preserve the friendship which had been now commenced between them.

As the king understood that Lord Berridale was supposed to be innocent of the crime with which he and his father stood charged, and as he could not, without a verdict against Berridale, proceed against the family of Caithness by forfeiture, in consequence of his lordship having been infeft many years before in his father’s estate, his majesty, on the earnest entreaty of the then bishop of Ross, Sir Robert Gordon, and Sir James Spence of Wormistoun, was pleased to remit and forgive the crime on the following conditions:—1st. That the Earl of Caithness and his son should give satisfaction to their creditors, who were constantly annoying his majesty with clamours against the earl, and craving justice at his hands. 2d. That the Earl of Caithness, with consent of Lord Berridale, should freely renounce and resign perpetually, into the hands of his majesty, the heritable sheriffship and justiciary of Caithness. 3d. That the Earl of Caithness should deliver the three criminals who had burnt the corn, that public justice might be satisfied upon them, as a terror and example to others. 4th. That the Earl of Caithness, with consent of Lord Berridale, should give and resign in perpetuum to the bishop of Caithness, the house of Strabister, with as many of the feu lands of that bishopric as should amount to the yearly value of two thousand merks Scots money, for the purpose of augmenting the income of the bishop, which was at that time small in consequence of the greater part of his lands being in the hands of the earl. Commissioners were sent down from London to Caithness in October 1616, to see that these conditions were complied with. The second and last conditions were immediately implemented; and as the earl and his son promised to give satisfaction to their creditors, and to do everything in their power to apprehend the burners of the corn, the latter was released from the castle of Edinburgh, and directions were given for drawing up a remission and pardon to the Earl of Caithness. Lord Berridale, however, had scarcely been released from the castle, when he was again imprisoned within the jail of Edinburgh, at the instance of Sir James Home of Cowdenknowes, his cousin german, who had become surety for him and his father to their creditors[138] for large sums of money. The earl himself narrowly escaped the fate of his son and retired to Caithness, but his creditors had sufficient interest to prevent his remission from passing till they should be satisfied. With consent of the creditors the council of Scotland gave him a personal protection, from time to time, to enable him to come to Edinburgh for the purpose of settling with them, but he made no arrangement, and returned privately into Caithness before the expiration of the supersedere which had been granted him, leaving his son to suffer all the miseries of a prison. After enduring a captivity of five years, Lord Berridale was released from prison by the good offices of the Earl of Enzie, and put, for behoof of himself, and his own and his father’s creditors, in possession of the family estates from which his father was driven by Sir Robert Gordon acting under a royal warrant, a just punishment for the many enormities of a long and misspent life.[208]

Desperate as the fortunes of the Earl of Caithness were even previous to the disposal of his estates, he most unexpectedly found an ally in Sir Donald Mackay, who had taken offence at Sir Robert Gordon, and who, being a man of quick resolution and of an inconstant disposition, determined to forsake the house of Sutherland, and to ingratiate himself with the Earl of Caithness. He alleged various causes of discontent as a reason for his conduct, one of the chief being connected with pecuniary considerations; for having, as he alleged, burdened his estates with debts incurred for some years past in following the house of Sutherland, he thought that, in time coming, he might, by procuring the favour of the Earl of Caithness, turn the same to his own advantage and that of his countrymen. Moreover, as he had been induced to his own prejudice to grant certain life-rent tacks of the lands of Strathie and Dilred to John and Alexander Gun, and others of the clan Gun for revealing the affair of Sanset, he thought that by joining the Earl of Caithness, these might be destroyed, by which means he would get back his lands which he meant to convey to his brother, John Mackay, as a portion; and he, moreover, expected that the earl would give him and his countrymen some possessions in Caithness. But the chief ground of discontent on the part of Sir Donald Mackay was an action brought against him and Lord Forbes before the court of session, to recover a contract entered into between the last Earl of Sutherland and Mackay, in the year 1613, relative to their marches and other matters of controversy, which being considered by Mackay as prejudicial to him, he had endeavoured to get destroyed through the agency of some persons about Lord Forbes, into whose keeping the deed had been intrusted.

After brooding over these subjects of discontent for some years, Mackay, in the year 1618, suddenly resolved to break with the house of Sutherland, and to form an alliance with the Earl of Caithness, who had long borne a mortal enmity at that family. Accordingly, Mackay sent John Sutherland, his cousin-german, into Caithness to request a private conference with the earl in any part of Caithness he might appoint. This offer was too tempting to be rejected by the earl, who expected, by a reconciliation with Sir Donald Mackay, to turn the same to his own personal gratification and advantage. In the first place, he hoped to revenge himself upon the clan Gun, who were his principal enemies, and upon Sir Donald himself, by detaching him from his superior, the Earl of Sutherland, and from the friendship of his uncles, who had always supported him in all his difficulties. In the second place, he expected that, by alienating Mackay from the duty and affection he owed the house of Sutherland, that he would weaken his power and influence. And lastly, he trusted that Mackay would not only be prevailed upon to discharge his own part, but would also persuade Lord Forbes to discharge his share of the sum of 20,000 merks Scots, which he and his son, Lord Berridale, had become bound to pay them, on account of the burning at Sanset.

The Earl of Caithness having at once agreed to Mackay’s proposal, a meeting was held by appointment in the neighbourhood of Dunray, in the parish of Reay, in Caithness. The parties met in the night-time, accompanied each by three men only. After much discussion, and various conferences, which were continued for two or three days, they resolved to destroy the[139] clan Gun, and particularly John Gun, and Alexander his cousin. To please the earl, Mackay undertook to despatch these last, as they were obnoxious to him, on account of the part they had taken against him, in revealing the burning at Sanset. They persuaded themselves that the house of Sutherland would defend the clan, as they were bound to do by their promise, and that that house would be thus drawn into some snare. To confirm their friendship, the earl and Mackay arranged that John Mackay, the only brother of Sir Donald, should marry a niece of the earl, a daughter of James Sinclair of Murkle, who was a mortal enemy of all the clan Gun. Having thus planned the line of conduct they were to follow, they parted, after swearing to continue in perpetual friendship.

Notwithstanding the private way in which the meeting was held, accounts of it immediately spread through the kingdom; and every person wondered at the motives which could induce Sir Donald Mackay to take such a step so unadvisedly, without the knowledge of his uncles, Sir Robert and Sir Alexander Gordon, or of Lord Forbes. The clan Gun receiving secret intelligence of the design upon them, from different friendly quarters, retired into Sutherland. The clan were astonished at Mackay’s conduct, as he had promised, at Edinburgh, in presence of Lords Forbes and Elphingston and Sir Robert Gordon, in the year 1616, to be a perpetual friend to them, and chiefly to John Gun and to his cousin Alexander.

After Mackay returned from Caithness, he sent his cousin-german, Angus Mackay of Bighouse, to Sutherland, to acquaint his uncles, who had received notice of the meeting, that his object in meeting the Earl of Caithness was for his own personal benefit, and that nothing had been done to their prejudice. Angus Mackay met Sir Robert Gordon at Dunrobin, to whom he delivered his kinsman’s message, which, he said, he hoped Sir Robert would take in good part, adding that Sir Donald would show, in presence of both his uncles, that the clan Gun had failed in duty and fidelity to him and the house of Sutherland, since they had revealed the burning; and therefore, that if his uncles would not forsake John Gun, and some others of the clan, he would adhere to them no longer. Sir Robert Gordon returned a verbal answer by Angus Mackay, that when Sir Donald came in person to Dunrobin to clear himself, as in duty he was bound to do, he would then accept of his excuse, and not till then. And he at the same time wrote a letter to Sir Donald, to the effect that for his own (Sir Robert’s) part, he did not much regard Mackay’s secret journey to Caithness, and his reconciliation with Earl George, without his knowledge or the advice of Lord Forbes; and that, however unfavourable the world might construe it, he would endeavour to colour it in the best way he could, for Mackay’s own credit. He desired Mackay to consider that a man’s reputation was exceedingly tender, and that if it were once blemished, though wrongfully, there would still some blot remain, because the greater part of the world would always incline to speak the worst; that whatever had been arranged in that journey, between him and the Earl of Caithness, beneficial to Mackay and not prejudicial to the house of Sutherland, he should be always ready to assist him therein, although concluded without his consent. As to the clan Gun, he could not with honesty or credit abandon them, and particularly John and his cousin Alexander, until tried and found guilty, as he had promised faithfully to be their friend, for revealing the affair of Sanset; that he had made them this promise at the earnest desire and entreaty of Sir Donald himself; that the house of Sutherland did always esteem their truth and constancy to be their greatest jewel; and seeing that he and his brother, Sir Alexander, were almost the only branches of it then of age or man’s estate, they would endeavour to prove true and constant wheresoever they did possess friendship; and that neither the house of Sutherland, nor any greater house whereof they had the honour to be descended, should have the least occasion to be ashamed of them in that respect; that if Sir Donald had quarrelled or challenged the clan Gun, before going into Caithness and his arrangement with Earl George, the clan might have been suspected; but he saw no reason to forsake them until they were found guilty of some great offence.

Sir Robert Gordon, therefore, acting as tutor[140] for his nephew, took the clan Gun under his immediate protection, with the exception of Alexander Gun, the burner of the corn, and his accomplices. John Gun thereupon demanded a trial before his friends, that they might hear what Sir Donald had to lay to his charge. John and his kinsmen were acquitted, and declared innocent of any offence, either against the house of Sutherland or Mackay, since the fact of the burning.

Sir Donald Mackay, dissatisfied with this result, went to Edinburgh for the purpose of obtaining a commission against the clan Gun from the council, for old crimes committed by them before his majesty had left Scotland for England; but he was successfully opposed in this by Sir Robert Gordon, who wrote a letter to the Lord-Chancellor and to the Earl of Melrose, afterwards Earl of Haddington and Lord Privy Seal, showing that the object of Sir Donald, in asking such a commission, was to break the king’s peace, and to breed fresh troubles in Caithness. Disappointed in this attempt, Sir Donald returned home to Strathnaver, and, in the month of April, 1618, he went to Braill, in Caithness, where he met the earl, with whom he continued three nights. On this occasion they agreed to despatch Alexander Gun, the burner of the corn, lest Lord Forbes should request the earl to deliver him up; and they hoped that, in consequence of such an occurrence, the tribe might be ensnared. Before parting, the earl delivered to Mackay some old writs of certain lands in Strathnaver and other places within the diocese of Caithness, which belonged to Sir Donald’s predecessors; by means of which the earl thought he would put Sir Donald by the ears with his uncles, expecting him to bring an action against the Earl of Sutherland, for the warrandice of Strathnaver, and thus free himself from the superiority of the Earl of Sutherland.

Shortly after this meeting was held, Sir Donald entered Sutherland privately, for the purpose of capturing John Gun; but, after lurking two nights in Golspie, watching Gun, without effect, he was discovered by Adam Gordon of Kilcalmkill, a trusty dependant of the house of Sutherland, and thereupon returned to his country. In the meantime the Earl of Caithness, who sought every opportunity to quarrel with the house of Sutherland, endeavoured to pick a quarrel with Sir Alexander Gordon about some sheilings which he alleged the latter’s servants had erected beyond the marches between Torrish, in Strathully, and the lands of Berridale. The dispute, however, came to nothing.

When Sir Robert Gordon heard of these occurrences in the north, he returned home from Edinburgh, where he had been for some time; and, on his return, he visited the Marquis of Huntly at Strathbogie, who advised him to be on his guard, as he had received notice from the Earl of Caithness that Sir Donald meant to create some disturbances in Sutherland. The object the earl had in view, in acquainting the marquis with Mackay’s intentions, was to screen himself from any imputation of being concerned in Mackay’s plans, although he favoured them in secret. As soon as Sir Robert Gordon was informed of Mackay’s intentions he hastened to Sutherland; but before his arrival there, Sir Donald had entered Strathully with a body of men, in quest of Alexander Gun, the burner, against whom he had obtained letters of caption. He expected that if he could find Gun in Strathully, where the clan of that name chiefly dwelt, they, and particularly John Gun, would protect Alexander, and that in consequence he would ensnare John Gun and his tribe, and bring them within the reach of the law, for having resisted the king’s authority; but Mackay was disappointed in his expectations, for Alexander Gun escaped, and none of the clan Gun made the least movement, not knowing how Sir Robert Gordon was affected towards Alexander Gun. In entering Strathully, without acquainting his uncles of his intention, Sir Donald had acted improperly, and contrary to his duty, as the vassal of the house of Sutherland: but, not satisfied with this trespass, he went to Badinloch, and there apprehended William M’Corkill, one of the clan Gun, and carried him along with him towards Strathnaver, on the ground that he had favoured the escape of Alexander Gun; but M’Corkill escaped while his keepers were asleep, and went to Dunrobin, where he met Sir Alexander Gordon, to whom he related the circumstance.

Hearing that Sir Robert Gordon was upon[141] his journey to Sutherland, Mackay left Badinloch in haste, and went privately to the parish of Culmaly, taking up his residence in Golspietour with John Gordon, younger of Embo, till he should learn in what manner Sir Robert would act towards him. Mackay, perceiving that his presence in Golspietour was likely to lead to a tumult among the people, sent his men home to Strathnaver, and went himself the following day, taking only one man along with him, to Dunrobin castle, where he met Sir Robert Gordon, who received him kindly according to his usual manner; and after Sir Robert had opened his mind very freely to him on the bad course he was pursuing, he began to talk to him about a reconciliation with John Gun; but Sir Donald would not hear of any accommodation, and after staying a few days at Dunrobin, returned home to his own country.

Sir Donald Mackay, perceiving the danger in which he had placed himself, and seeing that he could put no reliance on the hollow and inconstant friendship of the Earl of Caithness, became desirous of a reconciliation with his uncles, and with this view he offered to refer all matters in dispute to the arbitrament of friends, and to make such satisfaction for his offences as they might enjoin. As Sir Robert Gordon still had a kindly feeling towards Mackay, and as the state in which the affairs of the house of Sutherland stood during the minority of his nephew, the earl, could not conveniently admit of following out hostile measures against Mackay, Sir Robert embraced his offer. The parties, therefore, met at Tain, and matters being discussed in presence of Sir Alexander Gordon of Navidale, George Monroe of Milntoun, and John Monroe of Leamlair, they adjudged that Sir Donald should send Angus Mackay of Bighouse, and three gentlemen of the Slaight-ean-Aberigh, to Dunrobin, there to remain prisoners during Sir Robert’s pleasure, as a punishment for apprehending William M’Corkill at Badinloch. After settling some other matters of little moment, the parties agreed to hold another meeting for adjusting all remaining questions, at Elgin, in the month of June of the following year, 1619. Sir Donald wished to include Gordon of Embo and others of his friends in Sutherland in this arrangement; but as they were vassals of the house of Sutherland, Sir Robert would not allow Mackay to treat for them.

In the month of November, 1618, a disturbance took place in consequence of a quarrel between George, Lord Gordon, Earl of Enzie, and Sir Lauchlan Macintosh, chief of the clan Chattan, which arose out of the following circumstances:—When the earl went into Lochaber, in the year 1613, in pursuit of the clan Cameron, he requested Macintosh to accompany him, both on account of his being the vassal of the Marquis of Huntly, the earl’s father, and also on account of the ancient enmity which had always existed between the clan Chattan and clan Cameron, in consequence of the latter keeping forcible possession of certain lands belonging to the former in Lochaber. To induce Macintosh to join him, the earl promised to dispossess the clan Cameron of the lands belonging to Macintosh, and to restore him to the possession of them; but, by advice of the laird of Grant, his father-in-law, who was an enemy of the house of Huntly, he declined to accompany the earl in his expedition. The earl was greatly displeased at Macintosh’s refusal, which afterwards led to some disputes between them. A few years after the date of this expedition—in which the earl subdued the clan Cameron, and took their chief prisoner, whom he imprisoned at Inverness in the year 1614—Macintosh obtained a commission against Macronald, younger of Moidart, and his brother, Donald Glass, for laying waste his lands in Lochaber; and, having collected all his friends, he entered Lochaber for the purpose of apprehending them, but, being unsuccessful in his attempt, he returned home. As Macintosh conceived that he had a right to the services of all his clan, some of whom were tenants and dependants of the Marquis of Huntly, he ordered these to follow him, and compelled such of them as were refractory to accompany him into Lochaber. This proceeding gave offence to the Earl of Enzie, who summoned Macintosh before the lords of the Privy Council for having, as he asserted, exceeded his commission. He, moreover, got Macintosh’s commission recalled, and obtained a new commission in his own favour from the lords of the council, under which he invaded[142] Lochaber, and expelled Macronald and his brother Donald from that country.

As Macintosh held certain lands from the earl and his father for services to be done, which the earl alleged had not been performed by Macintosh agreeably to the tenor of his titles, the earl brought an action against Macintosh in the year 1618 for evicting these lands, on the ground of his not having implemented the conditions on which he held them. And, as the earl had a right to the tithes of Culloden, which belonged to Macintosh, he served him, at the same time, with an inhibition, prohibiting him to dispose of these tithes. As the time for tithing drew near, Macintosh, by advice of the clan Kenzie and the Grants, circulated a report that he intended to oppose the earl in any attempt he might make to take possession of the tithes of Culloden in kind, because such a practice had never before been in use, and that he would try the issue of an action of spuilzie, if brought against him. Although the earl was much incensed at such a threat on the part of his own vassal, yet, being a privy counsellor, and desirous of showing a good example in keeping the peace, he abstained from enforcing his right; but, having formerly obtained a decree against Macintosh for the value of the tithes of the preceding years, he sent two messengers-at-arms to poind and distrain the corns upon the ground under that warrant. The messengers were, however, resisted by Macintosh’s servants, and forced to desist from the execution of their duty. The earl, in consequence, pursued Macintosh and his servants before the Privy Council, and got them denounced and proclaimed rebels to the king. He, thereupon, collected a number of his particular friends with the design of carrying his decree into execution, by distraining the crop at Culloden and carrying it to Inverness. Macintosh prepared himself to resist, by fortifying the house of Culloden and laying in a large quantity of ammunition; and having collected all the corn within shot of the castle and committed the charge of it to his two uncles, Duncan and Lauchlan, he waited for the approach of the earl. As the earl was fully aware of Macintosh’s preparations, and that the clan Chattan, the Grants, and the clan Kenzie, had promised to assist Macintosh in opposing the execution of his warrant, he wrote to Sir Robert Gordon, tutor of Sutherland, to meet him at Culloden on the 5th of November, 1618, being the day fixed by him for enforcing his decree. On receipt of this letter, Sir Robert Gordon left Sutherland for Bog-a-Gight, where the Marquis of Huntly and his son then were, and on his way paid a visit to Macintosh with the view of bringing about a compromise; but Macintosh, who was a young man of a headstrong disposition, refused to listen to any proposals, and rode post-haste to Edinburgh, from which he went privately into England.

In the meantime, the Earl of Enzie having collected his friends, to the number of 1,100 horsemen well appointed and armed, and 600 Highlanders on foot, came to Inverness with this force on the day appointed, and, after consulting his principal officers, marched forwards towards Culloden. When he arrived within view of the castle, the earl sent Sir Robert Gordon to Duncan Macintosh, who, with his brother, commanded the house, to inform him that, in consequence of his nephew’s extraordinary boasting, he had come thither to put his majesty’s laws in execution, and to carry off the corn which of right belonged to him. To this message Duncan replied, that he did not mean to prevent the earl from taking away what belonged to him, but that, in case of attack, he would defend the castle which had been committed to his charge. Sir Robert, on his return, begged the earl to send Lord Lovat, who had some influence with Duncan Macintosh, to endeavour to prevail on him to surrender the castle. At the desire of the earl, Lord Lovat accordingly went to the house of Culloden, accompanied by Sir Robert Gordon and George Monroe of Milntoun, and, after some entreaty, Macintosh agreed to surrender at discretion; a party thereupon took possession of the house, and sent the keys to the earl. He was, however, so well pleased with the conduct of Macintosh, that he sent back the keys to him, and as neither the clan Chattan, the Grants, nor the clan Kenzie, appeared to oppose him, he disbanded his party and returned home to Bog-a-Gight. He did not even carry off the corn, but gave it to Macintosh’s grandmother, who enjoyed[143] the life-rent of the lands of Culloden as her jointure.

As the Earl of Enzie had other claims against Sir Lauchlan Macintosh, he cited him before the lords of council and session, but failing to appear, he was again denounced rebel, and outlawed for his disobedience. Sir Lauchlan, who was then in England at court, informed the king of the earl’s proceedings, which he described as harsh and illegal, and, to counteract the effect which such a statement might have upon the mind of his majesty, the earl posted to London and laid before him a true statement of matters. The consequence was, that Sir Lauchlan was sent home to Scotland and committed to the castle of Edinburgh, until he should give the earl full satisfaction. This step appears to have brought him to reason, and induced him to apply, through the mediation of some friends, for a reconciliation with the earl, which took place accordingly, at Edinburgh, in the year 1619. Sir Lauchlan, however, became bound to pay a large sum of money to the earl, part of which the latter afterwards remitted. The laird of Grant, by whose advice Macintosh had acted in opposing the earl, also submitted to the latter; but the reconciliation was more nominal than real, for the earl was afterwards obliged to protect the chief of the clan Cameron against them, and this circumstance gave rise to many dissensions between them and the earl, which ended only with the lives of Macintosh and the laird of Grant, who both died in the year 1622, when the ward of part of Macintosh’s lands fell to the earl, as his superior, during the minority of his son. The Earl of Seaforth and his clan, who had also favoured the designs of Macintosh, were in like manner reconciled, at the same time, to the Earl of Enzie, at Aberdeen, through the mediation of the Earl of Dunfermline, the Chancellor of Scotland, whose daughter the Earl of Seaforth had married.[209]

In no part of the Highlands did the spirit of faction operate so powerfully, or reign with greater virulence, than in Sutherland and Caithness and the adjacent country. The jealousies and strifes which existed for such a length of time between the two great rival families of Sutherland and Caithness, and the warfare which these occasioned, sowed the seeds of a deep-rooted hostility, which extended its baneful influence among all their followers, dependants, and friends, and retarded their advancement. The most trivial offences were often magnified into the greatest crimes, and bodies of men, animated by the deadliest hatred, were instantly congregated to avenge imaginary wrongs. It would be almost an endless task to relate the many disputes and differences which occurred during the seventeenth century in these distracted districts; but as a short account of the principal events is necessary in a work of this nature, we again proceed agreeably to our plan.

The resignation which the Earl of Caithness was compelled to make of part of the feu lands of the bishopric of Caithness, into the hands of the bishop, as before related, was a measure which preyed upon his mind, naturally restless and vindictive, and in consequence he continually annoyed the bishop’s servants and tenants. His hatred was more especially directed against Robert Monroe of Aldie, commissary of Caithness, who always acted as chamberlain to the bishop, and factor in the diocese, whom he took every opportunity to molest. The earl had a domestic servant, James Sinclair of Dyren, who had possessed part of the lands which he had been compelled to resign, and which were now tenanted by Thomas Lindsay, brother-uterine of Robert Monroe, the commissary. This James Sinclair, at the instigation of the earl, quarrelled with Thomas Lindsay, who was passing at the time near the earl’s house in Thurso, and, after changing some hard words, Sinclair inflicted a deadly wound upon him, of which he shortly thereafter died. Sinclair immediately fled to Edinburgh, and thence to London, to meet Sir Andrew Sinclair, who was transacting some business for the king of Denmark there, that he might intercede with the king for a pardon; but his majesty refused to grant it, and Sinclair, for better security, went to Denmark along with Sir Andrew.

As Robert Monroe did not consider his person safe in Caithness under such circumstances, he retired into Sutherland for a time. He then[144] pursued James Sinclair and his master, the Earl of Caithness, for the slaughter of his brother, Thomas Lindsay; but, not appearing for trial on the day appointed, they were both outlawed, and denounced rebels. Hearing that Sinclair was in London, Monroe hastened thither, and in his own name and that of the bishop of Caithness, laid a complaint before his majesty against the earl and his servant. His majesty thereupon wrote to the Lords of the Privy Council of Scotland, desiring them to adopt the most speedy and rigorous measures to suppress the oppressions of the earl, that his subjects in the north who were well affected might live in safety and peace; and to enable them the more effectually to punish the earl, his majesty ordered them to keep back the remission that had been granted for the affair at Sanset, which had not yet been delivered to him. His majesty also directed the Privy Council, with all secrecy and speed, to give a commission to Sir Robert Gordon to apprehend the earl, or force him to leave the kingdom, and to take possession of all his castles for his majesty’s behoof; that he should also compel the landed proprietors of Caithness to find surety, not only for keeping the king’s peace in time coming, but also for their personal appearance at Edinburgh twice every year, as the West Islanders were bound to do, to answer to such complaints as might be made against them. The letter containing these instructions is dated from Windsor, 25th May, 1621.

The Privy Council, on receipt of this letter, communicated the same to Sir Robert Gordon, who was then in Edinburgh; but he excused himself from accepting the commission offered him, lest his acceptance might be construed as proceeding from spleen and malice against the Earl of Caithness. This answer, however, did not satisfy the Privy Council, which insisted that he should accept the commission; he eventually did so, but on condition that the council should furnish him with shipping and the munitions of war, and all other necessaries to force the earl to yield, in case he should fortify either Castle Sinclair or Ackergill, and withstand a siege.

While the Privy Council were deliberating on this matter, Sir Robert Gordon took occasion to speak to Lord Berridale, who was still a prisoner for debt in the jail of Edinburgh, respecting the contemplated measures against the earl, his father. As Sir Robert was still very unwilling to enter upon such an enterprise, he advised his lordship to undertake the business, by engaging in which he might not only get himself relieved of the claims against him, save his country from the dangers which threatened it, but also keep possession of his castles; and that as his father had treated him in the most unnatural manner, by suffering him to remain so long in prison without taking any steps to obtain his liberation, he would be justified, in the eyes of the world, in accepting the offer now made. Being encouraged by Lord Gordon, Earl of Enzie, to whom Sir Robert Gordon’s proposal had been communicated, to embrace the offer, Lord Berridale offered to undertake the service without any charge to his majesty, and that he would, before being liberated, give security to his creditors, either to return to prison after he had executed the commission, or satisfy them for their claims against him. The Privy Council embraced at once Lord Berridale’s proposal, but, although the Earl of Enzie offered himself as surety for his lordship’s return to prison after the service was over, the creditors refused to consent to his liberation, and thus the matter dropped. Sir Robert Gordon was again urged by the council to accept the commission, and to make the matter more palatable to him, they granted the commission to him and the Earl of Enzie jointly, both of whom accepted it. As the council, however, had no command from the king to supply the commissioners with shipping and warlike stores, they delayed proceedings till they should receive instructions from his majesty touching that point.

When the Earl of Caithness was informed of the proceedings contemplated against him, and that Sir Robert Gordon had been employed by a commission from his majesty to act in the matter, he wrote to the Lords of the Privy Council, asserting that he was innocent of the death of Thomas Lindsay; that his reason for not appearing at Edinburgh to abide his trial for that crime, was not that he had been in any shape privy to the slaughter, but for fear of his creditors, who, he was afraid, would apprehend[145] and imprison him; and promising, that if his majesty would grant him a protection and safe-conduct, he would find security to abide trial for the slaughter of Thomas Lindsay. On receipt of this letter, the lords of the council promised him a protection, and in the month of August, his brother, James Sinclair of Murkle, and Sir John Sinclair of Greenland, became sureties for his appearance at Edinburgh, at the time prescribed for his appearance to stand trial. Thus the execution of the commission was in the meantime delayed.

Notwithstanding the refusal of Lord Berridale’s creditors to consent to his liberation, Lord Gordon afterwards did all in his power to accomplish it, and ultimately succeeded in obtaining this consent, by giving his own personal security either to satisfy the creditors, or deliver up Lord Berridale into their hands. His lordship was accordingly released from prison, and returned to Caithness in the year 1621, after a confinement of five years. As his final enlargement from jail depended upon his obtaining the means of paying his creditors, and as his father, the earl, staid at home consuming the rents of his estates, in rioting and licentiousness, without paying any part either of the principal or interest of his debts, and without feeling the least uneasiness at his son’s confinement, Lord Berridale, immediately on his return, assisted by his friends, attempted to apprehend his father, so as to get the family estates into his own possession; but without success.

In the meantime the earl’s creditors, wearied out with the delay which had taken place in liquidating their debts, grew exceedingly clamorous, and some of them took a journey to Caithness in the month of April, 1622, to endeavour to effect a settlement with the earl personally. All, however, that they obtained were fair words, and a promise from the earl that he would speedily follow them to Edinburgh, and satisfy them of all demands; but he failed to perform his promise. About this time, a sort of reconciliation appears to have taken place between the earl and his son, Lord Berridale; but it was of short duration. On this new disagreement breaking out, the earl lost the favour and friendship not only of his brothers, James and Sir John, but also that of his best friends in Caithness. Lord Berridale, thereupon, left Caithness and took up his residence with Lord Gordon, who wrote to his friends at Court to obtain a new commission against the earl. As the king was daily troubled with complaints against the earl by his creditors, he readily consented to such a request, and he accordingly wrote a letter to the Lords of the Privy Council of Scotland, in the month of December 1622, desiring them to issue a commission to Lord Gordon to proceed against the earl. The execution of the commission was, however, postponed in consequence of a message to Lord Gordon to attend the Court and proceed to France on some affairs of state, where he accordingly went in the year 1623. On the departure of his lordship, the earl made an application to the Lords of the Council for a new protection, promising to appear at Edinburgh on the 10th of August of this year, and to satisfy his creditors. This turned out to be a mere pretence to obtain delay, for although the council granted the protection, as required, upon the most urgent solicitations, the earl failed to appear on the day appointed. This breach of his engagement incensed his majesty and the council the more against him, and made them more determined than ever to reduce him to obedience. He was again denounced and proclaimed rebel, and a new commission was granted to Sir Robert Gordon to proceed against him and his abettors with fire and sword. In this commission there were conjoined with Sir Robert, his brother, Sir Alexander Gordon, Sir Donald Mackay, his nephew, and James Sinclair of Murkle, but on this condition, that Sir Robert should act as chief commissioner, and that nothing should be done by the other commissioners in the service they were employed in, without his advice and consent.

The Earl of Caithness seeing now no longer any chance of evading the authority of the laws, prepared to meet the gathering storm by fortifying his castles and strongholds. Proclamations were issued interdicting all persons from having any communication with the earl, and letters of concurrence were given to Sir Robert in name of his majesty, charging and commanding the inhabitants of Ross, Sutherland, Strathnaver, Caithness, and Orkney, to assist him in the execution of his majesty’s[146] commission; a ship well furnished with munitions of war, was sent to the coast of Caithness to prevent the earl’s escape by sea, and to furnish Sir Robert with ordnance for battering the earl’s castles in case he should withstand a siege.

Sir Robert Gordon having arrived in Sutherland in the month of August, 1623, was immediately joined by Lord Berridale for the purpose of consulting on the plan of operations to be adopted; but, before fixing on any particular plan, it was concerted that Lord Berridale should first proceed to Caithness to learn what resolution his father had come to, and to ascertain how the inhabitants of that country stood affected towards the earl. He was also to notify to Sir Robert the arrival of the ship of war on the coast. A day was, at the same time, fixed for the inhabitants of the adjoining districts to meet Sir Robert Gordon in Strathully, upon the borders between Sutherland and Caithness. Lord Berridale was not long in Caithness when he sent notice to Sir Robert acquainting him that his father, the earl, had resolved to stand out to the last extremity, and that he had fortified the strong castle of Ackergill, which he had supplied with men, ammunition, and provisions, and upon holding out which he placed his last and only hope. He advised Sir Robert to bring with him into Caithness as many men as he could muster, as many of the inhabitants stood still well affected to the earl.

The Earl of Caithness, in the meantime, justly apprehensive of the consequences which might ensue if unsuccessful in his opposition, despatched a messenger to Sir Robert Gordon, proposing that some gentlemen should be authorized to negotiate between them, for the purpose of bringing matters to an amicable accommodation. Sir Robert, who perceived the drift of this message, which was solely to obtain delay, returned for answer that he was exceedingly sorry that the earl bad refused the benefit of his last protection for clearing away the imputations laid to his charge; and that he clearly perceived that the earl’s object in proposing a negotiation was solely to waste time, and to weary out the commissioners and army by delays, which he, for his own part, would not submit to, because the harvest was nearly at hand, and the king’s ship could not be detained upon the coast idle. Unless, therefore, the earl at once submitted himself unconditionally to the king’s mercy, Sir Robert threatened to proceed against him and his supporters immediately. The earl had been hitherto so successful in his different schemes to avoid the ends of justice that such an answer was by no means expected, and the firmness displayed in it served greatly to shake his courage.

Upon receipt of the intelligence from Lord Berridale, Sir Robert Gordon made preparations for entering Caithness without delay; and, as a precautionary measure, he took pledges from such of the tribes and families in Caithness as he suspected were favourable to the earl. Before all his forces had time to assemble, Sir Robert received notice that the war ship had arrived upon the Caithness coast, and that the earl was meditating an escape beyond the seas. Unwilling to withdraw men from the adjoining provinces during the harvest season, and considering the Sutherland forces quite sufficient for his purpose, he sent couriers into Ross, Strathnaver, Assynt, and Orkney, desiring the people who had been engaged to accompany the expedition to remain at home till farther notice; and, having assembled all the inhabitants of Sutherland, he picked out the most active and resolute men among them, whom he caused to be well supplied with war-like weapons, and other necessaries, for the expedition. Having thus equipped his army, Sir Robert, accompanied by his brother, Sir Alexander Gordon, and the principal gentlemen of Sutherland, marched, on the 3d of September, 1623, from Dunrobin to Killiernan in Strathully, the place of rendezvous previously appointed. Here Sir Robert divided his forces into companies, over each of which he placed a commander. The following morning he passed the river Helmsdale, and arranged his army in the following order:—Half-a-mile in advance of the main body he placed a company of the clan Gun, whose duty it was to search the fields as they advanced for the purpose of discovering any ambuscades which might be laid in their way, and to clear away any obstruction to the regular advance of the main body. The right wing of the army was[147] led by John Murray of Aberscors, Hugh Gordon of Ballellon, and Adam Gordon of Kilcalmkill. The left wing was commanded by John Gordon, younger of Embo, Robert Gray of Ospisdale, and Alexander Sutherland of Kilphidder. And Sir Robert Gordon himself, his brother Sir Alexander, the laird of Pulrossie, and William Mac-Mhic-Sheumais of Killiernan, led the centre. The two wings were always kept a short distance in advance of the centre, from which they were to receive support when required. In this manner the army advanced towards Berridale, and they observed the same order of marching during all the time they remained in Caithness.

As soon as Lord Berridale heard of Sir Robert Gordon’s advance, he and James Sinclair of Murkle, one of the commissioners, and some other gentlemen, went forward in haste to meet him. The parties accordingly met among the mountains above Cayen, about three miles from Berridale. Sir Robert continued his march till he arrived at Brea-Na-Henglish in Berridale, where at night he encamped. Here they were informed that the ship of war, after casting anchor before Castle Sinclair, had gone from thence to Scrabster road, and that the Earl of Caithness had abandoned the country, and sailed by night into one of the Orkney Islands, with the intention of going thence into Norway or Denmark. From Brea-Na-Henglish the army advanced to Lathron, where they encamped. Here James Sinclair of Murkle, sheriff of Caithness, Sir William Sinclair of May, the laird of Ratter, the laird of Forse, and several other gentlemen of Caithness, waited upon Sir Robert Gordon and tendered their submission and obedience to his majesty, offering, at the same time, every assistance they could afford in forwarding the objects of the expedition. Sir Robert received them kindly, and promised to acquaint his majesty with their submission; but he distrusted some of them, and he gave orders that none of the Caithness people should be allowed to enter his camp after sunset. At Lathron, Sir Robert was joined by about 300 of the Caithness men, consisting of the Cadels and others who had favoured Lord Berridale. These men were commanded by James Sinclair, fiar of Murkle, and were kept always a mile or two in advance of the army till they reached Castle Sinclair.

No sooner did Sir Robert arrive before Castle Sinclair, which was a very strong place, and the principal residence of the Earl of Caithness, than it surrendered, the keys being delivered up to him as representing his majesty. The army encamped before the castle two nights, during which time the officers took up their quarters within the castle, which was guarded by Sutherland men.

From Castle Sinclair Sir Robert marched to the castle of Ackergill, another strong place, which also surrendered on the first summons, and the keys of which were delivered in like manner to him. The army next marched in battle array to the castle of Kease, the last residence of the earl, which was also given up without resistance. The Countess of Caithness had previously removed to another residence not far distant, where she was visited by Sir Robert Gordon, who was her cousin-german. The countess entreated him, with great earnestness, to get her husband again restored to favour, seeing he had made no resistance to him. Sir Robert promised to do what he could if the earl would follow his advice; but he did not expect that matters could be accommodated so speedily as she expected, from the peculiar situation in which the earl then stood.

From Kease Sir Robert Gordon returned with his army to Castle Sinclair, where, according to the directions he had received from the Privy Council, he delivered the keys of all these castles and forts to Lord Berridale, to be kept by him for his majesty’s use, for which he should be answerable to the lords of the council until the farther pleasure of his majesty should be known.

The army then returned to Wick in the same marching order which had been observed since its first entry into Caithness, at which place the commissioners consulted together, and framed a set of instructions to Lord Berridale for governing Caithness peaceably in time coming, conformably to the laws of the kingdom, and for preventing the Earl of Caithness from again disturbing the country, should he venture to return after the departure of the army. At Wick Sir Robert Gordon was joined by Sir Donald Mackay, who had collected together[148] the choicest men of Strathnaver; but, as the object of the expedition had been accomplished, Sir Donald, after receiving Sir Robert’s thanks, returned to Strathnaver. Sir Robert having brought this expedition to a successful termination, led back his men into Sutherland, and, after a stay of three months, went to England, carrying with him a letter from the Privy Council of Scotland to the king, giving an account of the expedition, and of its happy results.[210]

CHAPTER XI.

A.D. 1624–1636.

BRITISH SOVEREIGNS:—
James VI., 1603–1625.   Charles I., 1625–1649.

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[149] 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[150] 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[151] 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[152] 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[153] 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[154] 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.[155] 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[156] 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.

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[157] 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]

[158]

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[159] 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[160] 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[161] 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[162] 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[163] 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.

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[164] 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[165] 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.

CHAPTER XII.

A.D. 1636—(September) 1644.

BRITISH SOVEREIGN:—Charles I., 1625–1649.

Hitherto the history of the Highlands has been confined chiefly to the feuds and conflicts of the clans, the details of which, though interesting to their descendants, cannot be supposed to afford the same gratification to readers at large. We now enter upon a more important era, when the Highlanders begin to play a much more prominent part in the theatre of our national history, and to give a foretaste of that military prowess for which they afterwards became so highly distinguished.

In entering upon the details of the military achievements of the Highlanders during the period of the civil wars, it is quite unnecessary and foreign to our purpose to trouble the reader with a history of the rash, unconstitutional, and ill-fated attempt of Charles I. to introduce Episcopacy into Scotland; nor, for the same reason, is it requisite to detail minutely the proceedings of the authors of the Covenant.[166] Suffice it to say, that in consequence of the inflexible determination of Charles to force English Episcopacy upon the people of Scotland, the great majority of the nation declared their determination “by the great name of the Lord their God,” to defend their religion against what they considered to be errors and corruptions. Notwithstanding, however, the most positive demonstrations on the part of the people to resist, Charles, acting by the advice of a privy council of Scotsmen established in England, exclusively devoted to the affairs of Scotland, and instigated by Archbishop Laud, resolved to suppress the Covenant by open force. In order to gain time for the necessary preparations, he sent the Marquis of Hamilton, as his commissioner, to Scotland, who was instructed to promise “that the practice of the liturgy and the canons should never be pressed in any other than a fair and legal way, and that the high commission should be so rectified as never to impugn the laws, or to be a just grievance to loyal subjects,” and that the king would pardon those who had lately taken an illegal covenant, on their immediately renouncing it, and giving up the bond to the commissioners.

When the Covenanters heard of Hamilton’s approach, they appointed a national fast to be held, to beg the blessing of God upon the kirk, and on the 10th of June, 1638, the marquis was received at Leith, and proceeded to the capital through an assemblage of about 60,000 Covenanters, and 500 ministers. The spirit and temper of such a vast assemblage overawed the marquis, and he therefore concealed his instructions. After making two successive journeys to London to communicate the alarming state of affairs, and to receive fresh instructions, he, on his second return, issued a proclamation, discharging “the service book, the book of canons, and the high commission court, dispensing with the five articles of Perth, dispensing the entrants into the ministry from taking the oath of supremacy and of canonical obedience, commanding all persons to lay aside the new Covenant, and take that which had been published by the king’s father in 1589, and summoning a free assembly of the kirk to meet in the month of November, and a parliament in the month of May, the following year.” Matters had, however, proceeded too far for submission to the conditions of the proclamation, and the covenanting leaders answered it by a formal protest, in which they gave sixteen reasons, showing that to comply with the demands of the king would be to betray the cause of God, and to act against the dictates of conscience.

In consequence of the opposition made to the proclamation, it was generally expected that the king would have recalled the order for the meeting of the assembly at Glasgow; but no prohibition having been issued, that assembly, which consisted, besides the clergy, of one lay-elder and four lay-assessors from every presbytery, met at the time appointed, viz., in the month of November, 1638. After the assembly had spent a week in violent debates, the commissioner, in terms of his instructions, declared it dissolved; but, encouraged by the accession of the Earl of Argyle, who placed himself at the head of the Covenanters, the members declined to disperse at the mere mandate of the sovereign, and passed a resolution that, in spiritual matters, the kirk was independent of the civil power, and that the dissolution by the commissioner was illegal and void. After spending three weeks in revising the ecclesiastical regulations introduced into Scotland since the accession of James to the crown of England, the assembly condemned the liturgy, ordinal, book of canons, and court of high commission, and, assuming all the powers of legislation, abolished episcopacy, and excommunicated the bishops themselves, and the ministers who supported them. Charles declared their proceedings null; but the people received them with great joy, and testified their approbation by a national thanksgiving.

Both parties had for some time been preparing for war, and they now hastened on their plans. In consequence of an order from the supreme committee of the Covenanters in Edinburgh, every man capable of bearing arms was called out and trained. Experienced Scottish officers, who had spent the greater part of their lives in military service in Sweden and Germany, returned to Scotland to place themselves at the head of their countrymen, and the Scottish merchants in Holland supplied them with arms and ammunition. The king advanced as far as York with an army, the Scottish bishops[167] making him believe that the news of his approach would induce the Covenanters to submit themselves to his pleasure; but he was disappointed,—for instead of submitting themselves, they were the first to commence hostilities. About the 19th of March, 1639, General Leslie, the covenanting general, with a few men, surprised, and without difficulty, occupied the castle of Edinburgh, and about the same time the Earl of Traquair surrendered Dalkeith house. Dumbarton castle, like that of Edinburgh, was taken by stratagem, the governor, named Stewart, being intercepted on a Sunday as he returned from church, and made to change clothes with another gentleman and give the pass-word, by which means the Covenanters easily obtained possession. The king, on arriving at Durham, despatched the Marquis of Hamilton with a fleet of forty ships, having on board 6,000 troops, to the Frith of Forth; but as both sides of the Frith were well fortified at different points, and covered with troops, he was unable to effect a landing.[232]

In the meantime, the Marquis of Huntly raised the royal standard in the north, and as the Earl of Sutherland, accompanied by Lord Reay, John, Master of Berridale and others, had been very busy in Inverness and Elgin, persuading the inhabitants to subscribe the Covenant, the marquis wrote him confidentially, blaming him for his past conduct, and advising him to declare for the king; but the earl informed him in reply, that it was against the bishops and their innovations, and not against the king, that he had so acted. The earl then, in his turn, advised the marquis to join the Covenanters, by doing which he said he would not only confer honour on himself, but much good on his native country; that in any private question in which Huntly was personally interested he would assist, but that in the present affair he would not aid him. The earl thereupon joined the Earl of Seaforth, the Master of Berridale, Lord Lovat, Lord Reay, the laird of Balnagown, the Rosses, the Monroes, the laird of Grant, Macintosh, the laird of Innes, the sheriff of Moray, the baron of Kilravock, the laird of Altire, the tutor of Duffus, and the other Covenanters on the north of the river Spey.

The Marquis of Huntly assembled his forces first at Turriff, and afterwards at Kintore, whence he marched upon Aberdeen, which he took possession of in name of the king. The marquis being informed shortly after his arrival in Aberdeen, that a meeting of Covenanters, who resided within his district, was to be held at Turriff on the 14th of February, resolved to disperse them. He therefore wrote letters to his chief dependents, requiring them to meet him at Turriff the same day, and bring with them no arms but swords and “schottis” or pistols. One of these letters fell into the hands of the Earl of Montrose, one of the chief covenanting lords, who determined at all hazards to protect the meeting of his friends, the Covenanters. In pursuance of this resolution, he collected, with great alacrity, some of his best friends in Angus, and with his own and their dependents, to the number of about 800 men, he crossed the range of hills called the Grangebean, between Angus and Aberdeenshire, and took possession of Turriff on the morning of the 14th of February. When Huntly’s party arrived during the course of the day, they were surprised at seeing the little churchyard of the village filled with armed men; and they were still more surprised to observe them levelling their hagbuts at them across the walls of the churchyard. Not knowing how to act in the absence of the marquis, they retired to a place called the Broad Ford of Towie, about two miles south from the village, when they were soon joined by Huntly and his suite. After some consultation, the marquis, after parading his men in order of battle along the north-west side of the village, in sight of Montrose, dispersed his party, which amounted to 2,000 men, without offering to attack Montrose, on the pretence that his commission of lieutenancy only authorised him to act on the defensive.[233]

James Graham, Earl, and afterwards first Marquis of Montrose, who played so prominent a part in the history of the troublous times on which we are entering, was descended from a family which can be traced back to the beginning of the 12th century. His ancestor, the Earl of Montrose, fell at Flodden, and his[168] grandfather became viceroy of Scotland after James VI. ascended the throne of England. He himself was born in 1612, his mother being Lady Margaret Ruthven, eldest daughter of William, first Earl of Gowrie. He succeeded to the estates and title in 1626, on the death of his father, and three years after, married Magdalene Carnegie, daughter of Lord Carnegie of Kinnaird. He pursued his studies at St. Andrews University and Kinnaird Castle till he was about twenty years of age, when he went to the Continent and studied at the academies of France and Italy, returning an accomplished gentleman and a soldier. On his return he was, for some reason, coldly received by Charles I., and it is supposed by some that it was mainly out of chagrin on this account that he joined the Covenanters. Whatever may have been his motive for joining them, he was certainly an important and powerful accession to their ranks, although, as will be seen, his adherence to them was but of short duration.

Montrose is thus portrayed by his contemporary, Patrick Gordon of Ruthven, author of Britane’s Distemper. “It cannot be denied but he was ane accomplished gentleman of many excellent partes; a bodie not tall, but comely and well compossed in all his liniamentes; his complexion meerly whitee, with flaxin haire; of a stayed, graue, and solide looke, and yet his eyes sparkling and full of lyfe; of speach slowe, but wittie and full of sence; a presence graitfull, courtly, and so winneing vpon the beholder, as it seemed to claime reuerence without seweing for it; for he was so affable, so courteous, so benign, as seemed verely to scorne ostentation and the keeping of state, and therefor he quicklie made a conquesse of the heartes of all his followers, so as whan he list he could haue lead them in a chaine to haue followed him with chearefullnes in all his interpryses; and I am certanely perswaded, that this his gratious, humane, and courteous fredome of behauiour, being certanely acceptable befor God as well as men, was it that wanne him so much renovne, and inabled him cheifly, in the loue of his followers, to goe through so great interprysses, wheirin his equall had failled, altho they exceeded him farre in power, nor can any other reason be giuen for it, but only this that followeth. He did not seeme to affect state, nor to claime reuerence, nor to keepe a distance with gentlemen that ware not his domestickes; but rather in a noble yet courteouse way he seemed to slight those vanisheing smockes of greatnes, affecting rather the reall possession of mens heartes then the frothie and outward showe of reuerence; and therefor was all reuerence thrust vpon him, because all did loue him, therfor all did honour him and reuerence him, yea, haueing once acquired there heartes, they ware readie not only to honour him, but to quarrell with any that would not honour him, and would not spare there fortounes, nor there derrest blood about there heartes, to the end he might be honoured, because they saue that he tooke the right course to obtaine honour. He had fund furth the right way to be reuerenced, and thereby was approued that propheticke maxime which hath never failed, nor neuer shall faille, being pronounced by the Fontaine of treuth (He that exalteth himselfe shall be humbled); for his winneing behauiour and courteous caryage got him more respect then those to whom they ware bound both by the law of nature and by good reason to hawe giuen it to. Nor could any other reason be giuen for it, but only there to much keepeing of distance, and caryeing themselfes in a more statlye and reserued way, without putteing a difference betuixt a free borne gentleman and a seruille or base mynded slaue.

“This much I thought good by the way to signifie; for the best and most waliant generall that euer lead ane armie if he mistake the disposition of the nation whom he commandes, and will not descend a litle till he meete with the genious of his shouldiours, on whose followeing his grandour and the success of his interpryses chiefely dependeth, stryueing through a high soireing and ower winneing ambition to drawe them to his byas with awe and not with lowe, that leader, I say, shall neuer prewaill against his enemies with ane armie of the Scotes nation.”

Montrose had, about this time, received a commission from the Tables—as the boards of representatives, chosen respectively by the nobility, county gentry, clergy, and inhabitants of[169] the burghs, were called—to raise a body of troops for the service of the Covenanters, and he now proceeded to embody them with extraordinary promptitude. Within one month, he collected a force of about 3,000 horse and foot, from the counties of Fife, Forfar, and Perth, and put them into a complete state of military discipline. Being joined by the forces under General Leslie, he marched upon Aberdeen, which he entered, without opposition, on the 30th of March, the Marquis of Huntly having abandoned the town on his approach. Some idea of the well-appointed state of this army may be formed from the curious description of Spalding, who says, that “upon the morne, being Saturday, they came in order of battell, weill armed, both on horse and foot, ilk horseman having five shot at the least, with ane carabine in his hand, two pistols by his sydes, and other two at his saddell toir; the pikemen in their ranks, with pike and sword; the musketiers in their ranks, with musket, musket-staffe, bandelier, sword, powder, ball, and match; ilk company, both on horse and foot, had their captains, lieutenants, ensignes, serjeants, and other officers and commanders, all for the most part in buff coats, and in goodly order. They had five colours or ensignes, whereof the Earl of Montrose had one, haveing this motto: ‘For Religion, the Covenant, and the Countrie;’ the Earle of Marischall had one, the Earle of Kinghorne had one, and the town of Dundie had two. They had trumpeters to ilk company of horsemen, and drummers to ilk company of footmen; they had their meat, drink, and other provision, bag and baggage, carryed with them, all done be advyse of his excellence Felt Marschall Leslie, whose councell Generall Montrose followed in this busieness. Now, in seemly order and good array, this army came forward, and entered the burgh of Aberdein, about ten hours in the morning, at the Over Kirkgate Port, syne came doun throw the Broadgate, throw the Castlegate, out at the Justice Port to the Queen’s Links directly. Here it is to be notted that few or none of this hail army wanted ane blew ribbin hung about his craig, doun under his left arme, which they called the Covenanters’ Ribbin. But the Lord Gordon, and some other of the marquess’ bairnes and familie, had ane ribbin when he was dwelling in the toun, of ane reid flesh cullor, which they wore in their hatts, and called it The Royall Ribbin, as a signe of their love and loyalltie to the king. In despyte and derision thereof this blew ribbin was worne, and called the Covenanters’ Ribbin, be the hail souldiers of the army, and would not hear of the royall ribbin; such was their pryde and malice.”[234]

At Aberdeen Montrose was joined the same day by Lord Fraser, the Master of Forbes, the laird of Dalgettie, the tutor of Pitsligo, the Earl Marshal’s men in Buchan, with several other gentlemen and their tenants, dependants, and servants, to the number of 2,000, an addition which augmented Montrose’s army to 9,000 men. Leaving the Earl of Kinghorn with 1,500 men to keep possession of Aberdeen, Montrose marched the same day towards Kintore, where he encamped that night. Halting all Sunday, he proceeded on the Monday to Inverury, where he again pitched his camp. The Marquis of Huntly grew alarmed at this sudden and unexpected movement, and thought it now time to treat with such a formidable foe for his personal safety. He, therefore, despatched Robert Gordon of Straloch and Doctor Gordon, an Aberdeen physician, to Montrose’s camp, to request an interview. The marquis proposed to meet him on a moor near Blackhall, about two miles from the camp, with 11 attendants each, with no arms but a single sword at their side. After consulting with Field Marshal Leslie and the other officers, Montrose agreed to meet the marquis, on Thursday the 4th of April, at the place mentioned. The parties accordingly met. Among the eleven who attended the marquis were his son James, Lord Aboyne, and the Lord Oliphant. Lords Elcho and Cowper were of the party who attended Montrose. After the usual salutation they both alighted and entered into conversation; but, coming to no understanding, they adjourned the conference till the following morning, when the marquis signed a paper obliging himself to maintain the king’s authority, “the liberty of church and state, religion and laws.” He promised at the same time to do his best to make his friends, tenants, and[170] servants subscribe the Covenant.[235] The marquis, after this arrangement, went to Strathbogie, and Montrose returned with his army to Aberdeen, the following day.

The marquis had not been many days at Strathbogie, when he received a notice from Montrose to repair to Aberdeen with his two sons, Lord Gordon and Viscount Aboyne, for the ostensible purpose of assisting the committee in their deliberations as to the settlement of the disturbances in the north.[236] On Huntly receiving an assurance from Montrose and the other covenanting leaders that no attempt should be made to detain himself and his sons as prisoners, he complied with Montrose’s invitation, and repairing to Aberdeen, he took up his quarters in the laird of Pitfoddel’s house.

The arrest of the marquis, which followed, has been attributed, not without reason, to the intrigues of the Frasers and the Forbeses, who bore a mortal antipathy to the house of Huntly, and who were desirous to see the “Cock of the North,” as the powerful head of that house was popularly called, humbled.[237] But, be these conjectures as they may, on the morning after the marquis’s arrival at Aberdeen, viz., on the 11th April, a council of the principal officers of Montrose’s army was held, at which it was determined to arrest the marquis and Lord Gordon, his eldest son, and carry them to Edinburgh. It was not, however, judged advisable to act upon this resolution immediately, and to do away with any appearance of treachery, Montrose and his friends invited the marquis and his two sons to supper the following evening. During the entertainment the most friendly civilities were passed on both sides, and, after the party had become somewhat merry, Montrose and his friends hinted to the marquis the expediency, in the present posture of affairs, of resigning his commission of lieutenancy. They also proposed that he should write a letter to the king along with the resignation of his commission, in favour of the Covenanters, as good and loyal subjects; and that he should despatch the laird of Cluny, the following morning, with the letter and resignation. The marquis, seeing that his commission was altogether unavailable, immediately wrote out, in presence of the meeting, a resignation of it, and a letter of recommendation as proposed, and, in their presence, delivered the same to the laird of Cluny, who was to set off the following morning with them to the king. It would appear that Montrose was not sincere in making this demand upon the marquis, and that his object was, by calculating on a refusal, to make that the ground for arresting him; for the marquis had scarcely returned to his lodgings to pass the night, when an armed guard was placed round the house, to prevent him from returning home, as he intended to do, the following morning.

When the marquis rose, next morning, he was surprised at receiving a message from the covenanting general, desiring his attendance at the house of the Earl Marshal; and he was still farther surprised, when, on going out, along with his two sons, to the appointed place of meeting, he found his lodging beset with sentinels. The marquis was received by Montrose with the usual morning salutation, after which, he proceeded to demand from him a contribution for liquidating a loan of 200,000 merks, which the Covenanters had borrowed from Sir William Dick, a rich merchant of Edinburgh. To this unexpected demand the marquis replied, that he was not obliged to pay any part thereof, not having been concerned in the borrowing, and of course, declined to comply. Montrose then requested him to take steps to apprehend James Grant and John Dugar, and their accomplices, who had given considerable annoyance to the Covenanters in the Highlands. Huntly objected, that, having now no commission, he could not act, and that, although he had, James Grant had already obtained a remission from the king; and as for John Dugar, he would concur, if required, with the other neighbouring proprietors in an attempt to apprehend him. The earl, finally, as the Covenant, he said, admitted of no standing hatred or feud, required the marquis to reconcile himself to Crichton, the laird of Frendraught, but this the marquis positively refused to do. Finding, as he no doubt expected, the marquis quite resolute in his determination to resist these demands, the[171] earl suddenly changed his tone, and thus addressed the marquis, apparently in the most friendly terms, “My lord, seeing we are all now friends, will you go south to Edinburgh with us?” Huntly answered that he would not—that he was not prepared for such a journey, and that he was just going to set off for Strathbogie. “Your lordship,” rejoined Montrose, “will do well to go with us.” The marquis now perceiving Montrose’s design, accosted him thus, “My lord, I came here to this town upon assurance that I should come and go at my own pleasure, without molestation or inquietude; and now I see why my lodging was guarded, and that ye mean to take me to Edinburgh, whether I will or not. This conduct, on your part, seems to me to be neither fair nor honourable.” He added, “My lord, give me back the bond which I gave you at Inverury, and you shall have an answer.” Montrose thereupon delivered the bond to the marquis. Huntly then inquired at the earl, “Whether he would take him to the south as a captive, or willingly of his own mind?” “Make your choice,” said Montrose. “Then,” observed the marquis, “I will not go as a captive, but as a volunteer.” The marquis thereupon immediately returned to his lodging, and despatched a messenger after the laird of Cluny, to stop him on his journey.[238]

It was the intention of Montrose to take both the marquis and his sons to Edinburgh, but Viscount Aboyne, at the desire of some of his friends, was released, and allowed to return to Strathbogie. On arriving at Edinburgh, the marquis and his son, Lord Gordon, were committed close prisoners to the castle of Edinburgh, and the Tables “appointed five guardians to attend upon him and his son night and day, upon his own expenses, that none should come in nor out but by their sight.”[239] On being solicited to sign the Covenant, Huntly issued a manifesto characterized by magnanimity and the most steadfast loyalty, concluding with the following words:—“For my oune part, I am in your power; and resolved not to leave that foul title of traitor as ane inheritance upon my posteritye. Yow may tacke my heade from my shoulders, but not my heart from my soveraigne.”[240]

Some time after the departure of Montrose’s army to the south, the Covenanters of the north appointed a committee meeting to be held at Turriff, upon Wednesday, 24th April, consisting of the Earls Marshal and Seaforth, Lord Fraser, the Master of Forbes, and some of their kindred and friends. All persons within the diocese, who had not subscribed the Covenant, were required to attend this meeting for the purpose of signing it, and failing compliance, their property was to be given up to indiscriminate plunder. As neither Lord Aboyne, the laird of Banff, nor any of their friends and kinsmen, had subscribed the Covenant, nor meant to do so, they resolved to protect themselves from the threatened attack. A preliminary meeting of the heads of the northern Covenanters was held on the 22d of April, at Monymusk, where they learned of the rising of Lord Aboyne and his friends. This intelligence induced them to postpone the meeting at Turriff till the 26th of April, by which day they expected to be joined by several gentlemen from Caithness, Sutherland, Ross, Moray, and other quarters. At another meeting, however, on the 24th of April, they postponed the proposed meeting at Turriff, sine die, and adjourned to Aberdeen; but as no notice had been sent of the postponement to the different covenanting districts in the north, about 1,500 men assembled at the place of meeting on the 26th of April, and were quite astonished to find that the chiefs were absent. Upon an explanation taking place, the meeting was adjourned till the 20th of May.

Lord Aboyne had not been idle during this interval, having collected about 2,000 horse and foot from the Highlands and Lowlands, with which force he had narrowly watched the movements of the Covenanters. Hearing, however, of the adjournment of the Turriff meeting, his lordship, at the entreaty of his friends, broke up his army, and went by sea to England to meet the king, to inform him of the precarious state of affairs in the north. Many of his followers, such as the lairds of Gight, Haddo, Udney, Newton, Pitmedden,[172] Foveran, Tippertie, Harthill, and others, who had subscribed the Covenant, regretted his departure; but as they had gone too far to recede, they resolved to continue their forces in the field, and held a meeting on the 7th of May at Auchterless, to concert a plan of operations.

A body of the Covenanters, to the number of about 2,000, having assembled at Turriff as early as the 13th of May, the Gordons resolved instantly to attack them, before they should be joined by other forces, which were expected to arrive before the 20th. Taking along with them four brass field-pieces from Strathbogie, the Gordons, to the number of about 800 horse and foot, commenced their march on the 13th of May, at ten o’clock at night, and reached Turriff next morning by day-break, by a road unknown to the sentinels of the covenanting army. As soon as they approached the town, the commander of the Gordons ordered the trumpets to be sounded and the drums to be beat, the noise of which was the first indication the Covenanters had of their arrival. Being thus surprised, the latter had no time to make any preparations for defending themselves. They made, indeed, a short resistance, but were soon dispersed by the fire from the field-pieces, leaving behind them the lairds of Echt and Skene, and a few others, who were taken prisoners. The loss on either side, in killed and wounded, was very trifling. This skirmish is called by the writers of the period, “the Trott of Turray.”[241]

The successful issue of this trifling affair had a powerful effect on the minds of the victors, who forthwith marched on Aberdeen, which they entered on the 15th of May. They expelled the Covenanters from the town, and were there joined by a body of men from the Braes of Mar under the command of Donald Farquharson of Tulliegarmouth, and the laird of Abergeldie, and by another party headed by James Grant, so long an outlaw, to the number of about 500 men. These men quartered themselves very freely upon the inhabitants, particularly on those who had declared for the Covenant, and they plundered many gentlemen’s houses in the neighbourhood. The house of Durris, belonging to John Forbes of Leslie, a great Covenanter, received a visit from them. “There was,” says Spalding, “little plenishing left unconveyed away before their comeing. They gott good bear and ale, broke up girnells, and buke bannocks at good fyres, and drank merrily upon the laird’s best drink: syne carried away with them alse meikle victual as they could beir, which they could not gett eaten and destroyed; and syne removed from that to Echt, Skene, Monymusk, and other houses pertaining to the name of Forbes, all great Covenanters.”[242]

Two days after their arrival at Aberdeen, the Gordons sent to Dunnottar, for the purpose of ascertaining the sentiments of the Earl Marshal, in relation to their proceedings, and whether they might reckon on his friendship. The earl, however, intimated that he could say nothing in relation to the affair, and that he would require eight days to advise with his friends. This answer was considered quite unsatisfactory, and the chiefs of the army were at a loss how to act. Robert Gordon of Straloch, and James Burnet of Craigmylle, a brother of the laird of Leys, proposed to enter into a negotiation with the Earl Marshal, but Sir George Ogilvie of Banff would not listen to such a proceeding, and, addressing Straloch, he said, “Go, if you will go; but pr’ythee, let it be as quarter-master, to inform the earl that we are coming.” Straloch, however, went not in the character of a quarter-master, but as a mediator in behalf of his chief. The earl said he had no intention to take up arms, without an order from the Tables; that, if the Gordons would disperse, he would give them early notice to re-assemble, if necessary, for their own defence, but that if they should attack him, he would certainly defend himself.

The army was accordingly disbanded on the 21st of May, and the barons went to Aberdeen, there to spend a few days. The depredations of the Highlanders, who had come down to the lowlands in quest of plunder, upon the properties of the Covenanters, were thereafter carried on to such an extent, that the latter complained to the Earl Marshal, who immediately[173] assembled a body of men out of Angus and the Mearns, with which he entered Aberdeen on the 23d of May, causing the barons to make a precipitate retreat. Two days thereafter the earl was joined by Montrose, at the head of 4,000 men, an addition which, with other accessions, made the whole force assembled at Aberdeen exceed 6,000.

Meanwhile a large body of northern Covenanters, under the command of the Earl of Seaforth, was approaching from the districts beyond the Spey; but the Gordons having crossed the Spey for the purpose of opposing their advance, an agreement was entered into between both parties that, on the Gordons retiring across the Spey, Seaforth and his men should also retire homewards.

After spending five days in Aberdeen, Montrose marched his army to Udney, thence to Kellie, the seat of the laird of Haddo, and afterwards to Gight, the residence of Sir Robert Gordon, to which he laid siege. But intelligence of the arrival of Viscount Aboyne in the bay of Aberdeen, deranged his plans. Being quite uncertain of Aboyne’s strength, and fearing that his retreat might be cut off, Montrose quickly raised the siege and returned to Aberdeen. Although Lord Aboyne still remained on board his vessel, and could easily have been prevented from landing, Montrose most unaccountably abandoned the town, and retired into the Mearns.

Viscount Aboyne had been most graciously received by the king, and had ingratiated himself so much with the monarch, as to obtain the commission of lieutenancy which his father held. The king appears to have entertained good hopes from his endeavours to support the royal cause in the north of Scotland, and before taking leave he gave the viscount a letter addressed to the Marquis of Hamilton, requesting him to afford his lordship all the assistance in his power. From whatever cause, all the aid afforded by the Marquis was limited to a few officers and four field-pieces: “The king,” says Gordon of Sallagh, “coming to Berwick, and business growing to a height, the armies of England and Scotland lying near one another, his majesty sent the Viscount of Aboyne and Colonel Gun (who was then returned out of Germany) to the Marquis of Hamilton, to receive some forces from him, and with these forces to go to Aberdeen, to possess and recover that town. The Marquis of Hamilton, lying at anchor in Forth, gave them no supply of men, but sent them five ships to Aberdeen, and the marquis himself retired with his fleet and men to the Holy Island, hard by Berwick, to reinforce the king’s army there against the Scots at Dunslaw.”[243] On his voyage to Aberdeen, Aboyne’s ships fell in with two vessels, one of which contained the lairds of Banff, Foveran, Newton, Crummie, and others, who had fled on the approach of Montrose to Gight; and the other had on board some citizens of Aberdeen, and several ministers who had refused to sign the Covenant, all of whom the viscount persuaded to return home along with him.

On the 6th of June, Lord Aboyne, accompanied by the Earls of Glencairn and Tullibardine, the lairds of Drum, Banff, Fedderet, Foveran, and Newton, and their followers, with Colonel Gun and several English officers, landed in Aberdeen without opposition. Immediately on coming ashore, Aboyne issued a proclamation which was read at the cross of Aberdeen, prohibiting all his majesty’s loyal subjects from paying any rents, duties, or other debts to the Covenanters, and requiring them to pay one-half of such sums to the king, and to retain the other for themselves. Those persons who had been forced to subscribe the Covenant against their will, were, on repentance, to be forgiven, and every person was required to take an oath of allegiance to his majesty.

This bold step inspired the royalists with confidence, and in a short space of time a considerable force rallied round the royal standard. Lewis Gordon, third son of the Marquis of Huntly, a youth of extraordinary courage, on hearing of his brother’s arrival, collected his father’s friends and tenants, to the number of about 1,000 horse and foot, and with these he entered Aberdeen on the 7th of June. These were succeeded by 100 horse, sent in by the laird of Drum, and by considerable forces led by James Grant and Donald Farquharson. Many of the Covenanters also joined the viscount, so that his force ultimately amounted[174] to several thousand men. Spalding[244] gives a sad, though somewhat ludicrous account of the way in which Farquharson’s “hieland men” conducted themselves while in Aberdeen. He says, “Thir saulless lounis plunderit meit, drink, and scheip quhair ever they cam. Thay oppressit the Oldtoun, and brocht in out of the countrie honest menis scheip, and sold at the cross of Old Abirdein to sic as wold by, ane scheip upone foot for ane groat. The poor men that aucht thame follouit in and coft bak thair awin scheip agane, sic as wes left unslayne for thair meit.”

On the 10th of June the viscount left Aberdeen, and advanced upon Kintore with an army of about 2,000 horse and foot, to which he received daily accessions. The inhabitants of the latter place were compelled by him to subscribe the oath of allegiance, and notwithstanding their compliance, “the troops,” says Spalding, “plundered meat and drink, and made good fires: and, where they wanted peats, broke down beds and boards in honest men’s houses to be fires, and fed their horses with corn and straw that day and night.”[245] Next morning the army made a raid upon Hall Forrest, a seat of the Earl Marshal, and the house of Muchells, belonging to Lord Fraser; but Aboyne, hearing of a rising in the south, returned to Aberdeen.

As delay would be dangerous to his cause in the present conjuncture, he crossed the Dee on the 14th of June, his army amounting altogether probably to about 3,000 horse and foot,[246] with the intention of occupying Stonehaven, and of issuing afresh the king’s proclamation at the market cross of that burgh. He proceeded as far as Muchollis, or Muchalls, the seat of Sir Thomas Burnet of Leyes, a Covenanter, where he encamped that night. On hearing of his approach, the Earl Marshal and Montrose posted themselves, with 1,200 men, and some pieces of ordnance which they had drawn from Dunnottar castle, on the direct road which Aboyne had to pass, and waited his approach.

Although Aboyne was quite aware of the position of the Earl Marshal, instead of endeavouring to outflank him by making a detour to the right, he, by Colonel Gun’s advice, crossed the Meagre hill next morning, directly in the face of his opponent, who lay with his forces at the bottom of the hill. As Aboyne descended the hill, the Earl Marshal opened a heavy fire upon him, which threw his men into complete disorder. The Highlanders, unaccustomed to the fire of cannon, were the first to retreat, and in a short time the whole army gave way. Aboyne thereupon returned to Aberdeen with some horsemen, leaving the rest of the army to follow; but the Highlanders took a homeward course, carrying along with them a large quantity of booty, which they gathered on their retreat. The disastrous issue of “the Raid of Stonehaven,” as this affair has been called, has been attributed, with considerable plausibility, to treachery on the part of Colonel Gun, to whom, on account of his great experience, Aboyne had intrusted the command of the army.[247]

On his arrival at Aberdeen, Aboyne held a council of war, at which it was determined to send some persons into the Mearns to collect the scattered remains of his army, for, with the exception of about 180 horsemen and a few foot soldiers, the whole of the fine army which he had led from Aberdeen had disappeared; but although the army again mustered at Leggetsden to the number of 4,000, they were prevented from recrossing the Dee and joining his lordship by the Marshal and Montrose, who advanced towards the bridge of Dee with all their forces. Aboyne, hearing of their approach, resolved to dispute with them the passage of the Dee, and, as a precautionary measure, blocked up the entrance to the bridge of Dee from the south by a thick wall of turf, beside which he placed 100 musketeers upon the bridge, under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Johnstone, to annoy the assailants from the small turrets on its sides. The viscount was warmly seconded in his views by the citizens of Aberdeen, whose dread of another hostile visit from the Covenanters induced them to[175] afford him every assistance in their power, and it is recorded that the women and children even occupied themselves in carrying provisions to the army during the contest.

The army of Montrose consisted of about 2,000 foot and 300 horse, and a large train of artillery. The forces which Lord Aboyne had collected on the spur of the occasion were not numerous, but he was superior in cavalry. His ordnance consisted only of four pieces of brass cannon. Montrose arrived at the bridge of Dee on the 18th of June, and, without a moment’s delay, commenced a furious cannonade upon the works which had been thrown up at the south end, and which he kept up during the whole day without producing any material effect. Lieutenant-colonel Johnstone defended the bridge with determined bravery, and his musketeers kept up a galling and well-directed fire upon their assailants. Both parties reposed during the short twilight, and as soon as morning dawned Montrose renewed his attack upon the bridge, with an ardour which seemed to have received a fresh impulse from the unavailing efforts of the preceding day; but all his attempts were vain. Seeing no hopes of carrying the bridge in the teeth of the force opposed to him, he had recourse to a stratagem, by which he succeeded in withdrawing a part of Aboyne’s forces from the defence of the bridge. That force had, indeed, been considerably impaired before the renewal of the attack, in consequence of a party of 50 musketeers having gone to Aberdeen to escort thither the body of a citizen named John Forbes, who had been killed the preceding day; to which circumstance Spalding attributes the loss of the bridge; but whether the absence of this party had such an effect upon the fortune of the day is by no means clear. The covenanting general, after battering unsuccessfully the defences of the bridge, ordered a party of horsemen to proceed up the river some distance, and to make a demonstration as if they intended to cross. Aboyne was completely deceived by this manœuvre, and sent the whole of his horsemen from the bridge to dispute the passage of the river with those of Montrose, leaving Lieutenant-colonel Johnstone and his 50 musketeers alone to protect the bridge. Montrose having thus drawn his opponent into the snare set for him, immediately sent back the greater part of his horse, under the command of Captain Middleton, with instructions to renew the attack upon the bridge with redoubled energy. This officer lost no time in obeying these orders, and Lieutenant-colonel Johnstone having been wounded in the outset by a stone torn from the bridge by a shot, was forced to abandon its defence, and he and his party retired precipitately to Aberdeen.

When Aboyne saw the colours of the Covenanters flying on the bridge of Dee, he fled with great haste towards Strathbogie, after releasing the lairds of Purie Ogilvy and Purie Fodderinghame, whom he had taken prisoners, and carried with him from Aberdeen. The loss on either side during the conflict on the bridge was trifling. The only person of note who fell on Aboyne’s side was Seaton of Pitmedden, a brave cavalier, who was killed by a cannon shot while riding along the river side with Lord Aboyne. On that of the Covenanters was slain another valiant gentleman, a brother of Ramsay of Balmain. About 14 persons of inferior note were killed on each side, including some burgesses of Aberdeen, and several were wounded.

Montrose, reaching the north bank of the Dee, proceeded immediately to Aberdeen, which he entered without opposition. So exasperated were Montrose’s followers at the repeated instances of devotedness shown by the inhabitants to the royal cause, that they proposed to raze the town and set it on fire; but they were hindered from carrying their design into execution by the firmness of Montrose. The Covenanters, however, treated the inhabitants very harshly, and imprisoned many who were suspected of having been concerned in opposing their passage across the Dee; but an end was put to these proceedings in consequence of intelligence being brought on the following day (June 20th) of the treaty of pacification which had been entered into between the king and his subjects at Berwick, upon the 18th of that month. On receipt of this news, Montrose sent a despatch to the Earl of Seaforth, who was stationed with his army on the Spey, intimating the pacification, and desiring him to disband his army, with which order he instantly complied.

[176]

The articles of pacification were preceded by a declaration on the part of the king, in which he stated, that although he could not condescend to ratify and approve of the acts of the Glasgow General Assembly, yet, notwithstanding the many disorders which had of late been committed, he not only confirmed and made good whatsoever his commissioner had granted and promised, but he also declared that all matters ecclesiastical should be determined by the assemblies of the kirk, and matters civil by the parliament and other inferior judicatories established by law. To settle, therefore, “the general distractions” of the kingdom, his majesty ordered that a free general assembly should be held at Edinburgh on the 6th August following, at which he declared his intention, “God willing, to be personally present;” and he moreover ordered a parliament to meet at Edinburgh on the 20th of the same month, for ratifying the proceedings of the general assembly, and settling such other matters as might conduce to the peace and good of the kingdom of Scotland. By the articles of pacification, it was, inter alia, provided that the forces in Scotland should be disbanded within forty-eight hours after the publication of the declaration, and that all the royal castles, forts, and warlike stores of every description, should be delivered up to his majesty after the said publication, as soon as he should send to receive them. Under the seventh and last article of the treaty, the Marquis of Huntly and his son, Lord Gordon, and some others who had been detained prisoners in the castle of Edinburgh by the Covenanters, were set at liberty.

It has been generally supposed that neither party had any sincere intention to observe the conditions of the treaty. Certain it is, that the ink with which it was written was scarcely dry before its violation was contemplated. On the one hand, the king, before removing his army from the neighbourhood of Berwick, required the heads of the Covenanters to attend him there, obviously with the object of gaining them over to his side; but, with the exception of three commoners and three lords, Montrose, Loudon, and Lothian, they refused to obey. It was at this conference that Charles, who apparently had great persuasive powers, made a convert of Montrose, who from that time determined to desert his associates in arms, and to place himself under the royal standard. The immediate strengthening of the forts of Berwick and Carlisle, and the provisioning of the castle of Edinburgh, were probably the suggestions of Montrose, who would, of course, be intrusted with the secret of his majesty’s designs. The Covenanters, on the other hand, although making a show of disbanding their army at Dunse, in reality kept a considerable force on foot, which they quartered in different parts of the country, to be in readiness for the field on a short notice. The suspicious conduct of the king certainly justified this precaution.

The general assembly met on the day fixed upon, but, instead of attending in person as he proposed, Charles appointed the Earl of Traquair to act as his commissioner. After abolishing the articles of Perth, the book of canons, the liturgy, the high commission and episcopacy, and ratifying the late Covenant, the assembly was dissolved on the 30th of August, and another general assembly was appointed to be held at Aberdeen on the 28th of July of the following year, 1640. The parliament met next day, viz., on the last day of August, and as there were no bishops to represent the third estate, fourteen minor barons were elected in their stead. His majesty’s commissioner protested against the vote and against farther proceedings till the king’s mind should be known, and the commissioner immediately sent off a letter apprising him of the occurrence. Without waiting for the king’s answer, the parliament was proceeding with a variety of bills for securing the liberty of the subject and restraining the royal prerogative, when it was unexpectedly and suddenly prorogued, by an order from the king, till the 2d of June in the following year.

If Charles had not already made up his mind for war with his Scottish subjects, the conduct of the parliament which he had just prorogued determined him again to have recourse to arms in vindication of his prerogative. He endeavoured, at first, to enlist the sympathies of the bulk of the English nation in his cause, but without effect; and his repeated appeals to his English people, setting forth the rectitude of his intentions and the justice of his cause, being answered by men who questioned the[177] one and denied the other, rather injured than served him. The people of England were not then in a mood to embark in a crusade against the civil and religious liberties of the north; and they had too much experience of the arbitrary spirit of the king to imagine that their own liberties would be better secured by extinguishing the flame which burned in the breasts of the sturdy and enthusiastic Covenanters.

But notwithstanding the many discouraging circumstances which surrounded him, Charles displayed a firmness of resolution to coerce the rebellious Scots by every means within his reach. The spring and part of the summer of 1640 were spent by both parties in military preparations. Field-Marshal Sir Alexander Leslie of Balgony, an old and experienced officer who had been in foreign service, was appointed generalissimo of the Scots army by the war committee. When mustered by the general at Choicelee, it amounted to about 22,000 foot and 2,500 horse. A council of war was held at Dunse at which it was determined to invade England. Montrose, to whose command a division of the army, consisting of 2,000 foot and 500 horse, was intrusted, was absent when this meeting was held; but, although his sentiments had, by this time, undergone a complete change, seeing on his return no chance of preventing the resolution of the council, he dissembled his feelings and openly approved of the plan. There seems to be no doubt that in following this course he intended, on the first favourable opportunity, to declare for the king, and carry off such part of the army as should be inclined to follow him, which he reckoned at a third of the whole.[248]

The Earl of Argyle was commissioned by the Committee of Estates to secure the west and central Highlands. This, the eighth Earl and first Marquis of Argyle, had succeeded to the title only in 1638, although he had enjoyed the estates for many years before that, as his father had been living in Spain, an outlaw. He was born in 1598, and strictly educated in the protestant faith as established in Scotland at the Reformation. In 1626 he was made a privy councillor, and in 1634 appointed one of the extraordinary lords of session. In 1638, at the General Assembly of Glasgow, he openly went over to the side of the Covenanters, and from that time was recognised as their political head. Argyle, in executing the task intrusted to him by the committee, appears to have been actuated more by feelings of private revenge than by an honest desire to carry out the spirit of his commission. The ostensible reason for his undertaking this charge was his thorough acquaintance with the Highlands and the Highlanders, and his ability to command the services of a large following of his own. “But the cheefe cause,” according to Gordon of Rothiemay,[249] “though least mentioned, was Argylle, his spleene that he carryed upon the accompt of former disobleedgments betwixt his family and some of the Highland clans: therefore he was glade now to gett so faire a colour of revenge upon the publicke score, which he did not lett slippe. Another reasone he had besyde; it was his designe to swallow upp Badzenoch and Lochaber, and some landes belonging to the Mackdonalds, a numerous trybe, but haters of, and aeqwally hated by Argylle.” He had some hold on these two districts, as, in 1639, he had become security for some of Huntly’s debts to the latter’s creditors. Argyle managed to seduce from their allegiance to Huntly the clan Cameron in Lochaber, who bore a strong resentment against their proper chief on account of some supposed injury done to the clan by the former marquis. Although they had little relish for the Covenant, still to gratify their revenge, they joined themselves to Argyle. A tribe of the Macdonalds who inhabited Lochaber, the Macranalds of Keppoch, who remained faithful to Huntly, met with very different treatment at the hands of Argyle, who devastated their district and burnt down their chief’s dwelling at Keppoch.

During this same summer (July 1640), Argyle, who had raised an army of about 5,000 men, made a devastating raid into the district of Forfarshire belonging to the Earl of Airly. He made first for Airly castle, about five[178] miles north of Meigle, which, in the absence of the earl in England, was held by his son Lord Ogilvie, who had recently maintained it against Montrose. When Argyle came up, Ogilvie saw that resistance was hopeless, and abandoned the castle to the tender mercy of the enemy. Argyle without scruple razed the place to the ground, and is said to have shown himself so “extremely earnest” in the work of demolition “that he was seen taking a hammer in his hande and knocking down the hewed work of the doors and windows till he did sweat for heat at his work.”[250] Argyle’s men carried off all they could from the house and the surrounding district, and rendered useless what they were compelled to leave behind.

From Airly, Argyle proceeded to a seat belonging to Lord Ogilvie, Forthar in Glenisla, the “bonnie house o’ Airly,” of the well-known song. Here he behaved in a manner for which it would be difficult for his warmest supporters to find the shadow of an excuse, even taking into consideration the roughness of the times. The place is said by Gordon to have been “no strength,” so that there is still less excuse for his conduct. He treated Forthar in the same way that he did Airly, and although Lady Ogilvie, who at the time was close on her confinement, asked Argyle to stay proceedings until she gave birth to her infant, he without scruple expelled her from the house, and proceeded with his work of destruction. Not only so, however, but “the Lady Drum, Dame Marian Douglas, who lived at that time in Kelly, hearing tell what extremity her grandchild, the Lady Ogilvy, was reduced to, did send a commission to Argyle, to whom the said Lady Drum was a kinswoman, requesting that, with his license, she might admit into her own house, her grandchild, the Lady Ogilvy, who at that time was near her delivery; but Argyle would give no license. This occasioned the Lady Drum for to fetch the Lady Ogilvie to her house of Kelly, and for to keep her there upon all hazard that might follow.”

At the same time Argyle “was not forgetful to remember old quarrels to Sir John Ogilvie of Craigie.” He sent a sergeant to Ogilvie’s house to warn him to leave it, but the sergeant thought Argyle must have made some mistake, as he found it no more than a simple unfortified country house, occupied only by a sick gentlewoman and some servants. The sergeant returned and told this to Argyle, who waxed wroth and told him it was his duty simply to obey orders, commanding him at the same time to return and “deface and spoil the house.” After the sergeant had received his orders, Argyle was observed to turn round and repeat to himself the Latin political maxim Abscindantur qui nos perturbant, “a maxime which many thought that he practised accurately, which he did upon the account of the proverb consequential thereunto, and which is the reason of the former, which Argyle was remarked likewise to have often in his mouth as a choice aphorism, and well observed by statesmen, Quod mortui non mordent.”

First Marquis of Argyle.

Argyle next proceeded against the Earl of Athole, who, with about 1,200 followers, was lying in Breadalbane, ready to meet him. Argyle, whose army was about five times the size of Athole’s, instead of giving fight, managed by stratagem to capture Athole and some of his friends, whom he sent to the Committee of Estates at Edinburgh.

[179]

Argyle, after having thus gratified his private revenge and made a show of quieting the Highlands, returned to the lowlands.[251]

On the 20th of August General Leslie crossed the Tweed with his army, the van of which was led by Montrose on foot. This task, though performed with readiness and with every appearance of good will, was not voluntarily undertaken, but had been devolved upon Montrose by lot; none of the principal officers daring to take the lead of their own accord in such a dangerous enterprise. There can be no doubt that Montrose was insincere in his professions, and that those who suspected him were right in thinking that in his heart he was turned Royalist,[252] a supposition which his correspondence with the king and his subsequent conduct fully justify.

Although the proper time had not arrived for throwing off the mask, Montrose immediately on his return to Scotland, after the close of this campaign, began to concert measures for counteracting the designs of the Covenanters; but his plans were embarrassed by some of his associates disclosing to the Covenanters the existence of an association which Montrose had formed at Cumbernauld for supporting the royal authority. A great outcry was raised against Montrose in consequence, but his influence was so great that the heads of the Covenanters were afraid to show any severity towards him. On subsequently discovering, however, that the king had written him letters which were intercepted and forcibly taken from the messenger, a servant of the Earl of Traquair, they apprehended him, along with Lord Napier of Merchiston, and Sir George Stirling of Keith, his relatives and intimate friends, and imprisoned them in the castle of Edinburgh. On the meeting of the parliament at Edinburgh in July, 1641, which was attended by the king in person, Montrose demanded to be tried before them, but his application was rejected by the Covenanters, who obtained an order from the parliament prohibiting him from going into the king’s presence. After the king had returned to England, Montrose and his fellow-prisoners were liberated, and he, thereupon, went to his own castle, where he remained for some time, ruminating on the course he should pursue for the relief of the king. The king, while in Scotland at this time, conferred honours upon several of the covenanting leaders, apparently for the purpose of conciliation, Argyle being raised to the dignity of a marquis.

Although Charles complied with the demands of his Scottish subjects, and heaped many favours and distinctions upon the heads of the leading Covenanters, they were by no means satisfied, and entered fully into the hostile views of their brethren in the south, with whom they made common cause. Having resolved to send an army into England to join the forces of the parliament, which had come to an open rupture with the sovereign, they attempted to gain over Montrose to their side by offering him the post of lieutenant-general of their army, and promising to accede to any demands he might make; but he rejected all their offers; and, as an important crisis was at hand, he hastened to England in the early part of the year 1643, in company with Lord Ogilvie, to lay the state of affairs before the king, and to offer him his advice and service in such an emergency. Charles, however, either from a want of confidence in the judgment of Montrose, who, to the rashness and impetuosity of youth, added, as he was led to believe, a desire of gratifying his personal feelings and vanity, or overcome by the calculating but fatal policy of the Marquis of Hamilton, who deprecated a fresh war between the king and his Scottish subjects, declined to follow the advice of Montrose, who had offered to raise an army immediately in Scotland to support him.

A convention of estates called by the Covenanters, without any authority from the king, met at Edinburgh on the 22d of June, 1643, and he soon perceived from the character and proceedings of this assembly, the great majority of which were Covenanters, the mistake he had committed in rejecting the advice of Montrose, and he now resolved, thenceforth, to be guided in his plans for subduing Scotland by the opinion of that nobleman. Accordingly, at a meeting held at Oxford, between the king and Montrose, in the month of December, 1643,[180] when the Scots army was about entering England, it was agreed that the Earl of Antrim, an Irish nobleman of great power and influence, who then lived at Oxford, should be sent to Ireland to raise auxiliaries with whom he should make a descent on the west parts of Scotland in the month of April following;—that the Marquis of Newcastle, who commanded the royal forces in the north of England, should furnish Montrose with a party of horse, with which he should enter the south of Scotland,—that an application should be made to the King of Denmark for some troops of German horse; and that a quantity of arms should be transported into Scotland from abroad.[253]

Instructions having been given to the Earl of Antrim to raise the Irish levy, and Sir James Cochran having been despatched to the continent as ambassador for the king, to procure foreign aid, Montrose left Oxford on his way to Scotland, taking York and Durham in his route. Near the latter city he had an interview with the Marquis of Newcastle for the purpose of obtaining a sufficient party of horse to escort him into Scotland, but all he could procure was about 100 horse, badly appointed, with two small brass field pieces.[254] The Marquis sent orders to the king’s officers, and to the captains of the militia in Cumberland and Westmoreland, to afford Montrose such assistance as they could, and he was in consequence joined on his way to Carlisle by 800 foot and three troops of horse, of Cumberland and Northumberland militia. With this small force, and about 200 horse, consisting of noblemen and gentlemen who had served as officers in Germany, France, or England, Montrose entered Scotland on the 13th of April, 1644. He had not, however, proceeded far, when a revolt broke out among the English soldiers, who immediately returned to England. In spite of this discouragement, Montrose proceeded on with his small party of horse towards Dumfries, which surrendered to him without opposition. After waiting there a few days, in expectation of hearing some tidings respecting the Earl of Antrim’s movements, without receiving any, he retired to Carlisle, to avoid being surprised by the Covenanters, large bodies of whom were hovering about in all directions.

To aid the views of Montrose, the king had appointed the Marquis of Huntly, on whose fidelity he could rely, his lieutenant-general in the north of Scotland. He, on hearing of the capture of Dumfries by Montrose, immediately collected a considerable body of horse and foot, consisting of Highlanders and lowlanders, at Kincardine-O’Neil, with the intention of crossing the Cairn-a-Mount; but being disappointed in not being joined by some forces from Perthshire, Angus, and the Mearns, which he expected, he altered his steps, and proceeded towards Aberdeen, which he took. Thence he despatched parties of his troops through the counties of Aberdeen and Banff, which brought in quantities of horses and arms for the use of his army. One party, consisting of 120 horse and 300 foot, commanded by the young laird of Drum and his brother, young Gicht, Colonel Nathaniel Gordon and Colonel Donald Farquharson and others, proceeded to the town of Montrose, which they took, killed one of the bailies, made the provost prisoner, and threw some cannon into the sea as they could not carry them away. But, on hearing that the Earl of Kinghorn was advancing upon them with the forces of Angus, they made a speedy retreat, leaving thirty of their foot behind them prisoners. To protect themselves against the army of the Marquis of Huntly, the inhabitants of Moray, on the north of the Spey, raised a regiment of foot and three companies of horse, which were quartered in the town of Elgin.

When the convention heard of Huntly’s movements, they appointed the Marquis of Argyle to raise an army to quell this insurrection. He, accordingly, assembled at Perth a force of 5,000 foot and 800 horse out of Fife, Angus, Mearns, Argyle, and Perthshire, with which he advanced on Aberdeen. Huntly, hearing of his approach, fled from Aberdeen and retired to the town of Banff, where, on the day of his arrival, he disbanded his army. The marquis himself thereafter retired to Strathnaver, and took up his residence with the master of Reay. Argyle, after taking possession of Aberdeen, proceeded northward[181] and took the castles of Gicht and Kellie, made the lairds of Gicht and Haddo prisoners and sent them to Edinburgh, the latter being, along with one Captain Logan, afterwards beheaded.[255]

We now return to Montrose, who, after an ineffectual attempt to obtain an accession of force from the army of Prince Rupert, Count Palatine of the Rhine, determined on again entering Scotland with his little band. But being desirous to learn the exact situation of affairs there, before putting this resolution into effect, he sent Lord Ogilvie and Sir William Rollock into Scotland, in disguise, for that purpose. They returned in about fourteen days, and brought a spiritless and melancholy account of the state of matters in the north, where they found all the passes, towns, and forts, in possession of the Covenanters, and where no man dared to speak in favour of the king. This intelligence was received with dismay by Montrose’s followers, who now began to think of the best means of securing their own safety. In this unpleasant conjuncture of affairs, Montrose called them together to consult on the line of conduct they should pursue. Some advised him to return to Oxford and inform his majesty of the hopeless state of his affairs in Scotland, while others gave an opinion that he should resign his commission, and go abroad till a more favourable opportunity occurred of serving the king; but the chivalrous and undaunted spirit of Montrose disdained to follow either of these courses, and he resolved upon the desperate expedient of venturing into the very heart of Scotland, with only one or two companions, in the hope of being able to rally round his person a force sufficient to support the declining interests of his sovereign.

Having communicated this intention privately to Lord Ogilvie, he put under his charge the few gentlemen who had remained faithful to him, that he might conduct them to the king; and having accompanied them to a distance, he withdrew from them clandestinely, leaving his servants, horses, and baggage behind him, and returned to Carlisle. Having prepared himself for his journey, he selected Sir William Rollock, a gentleman of tried honour, and one Sibbald, to accompany him. Disguised as a groom, and riding upon a lean, worn-out horse, and leading another in his hand, Montrose passed for Sibbald’s servant, in which condition and capacity he proceeded to the borders. The party had not proceeded far when an occurrence took place, which considerably disconcerted them. Meeting with a Scottish soldier, who had served under the Marquis of Newcastle in England, he, after passing Rollock and Sibbald, went up to the marquis, and accosted him by his name. Montrose told him that he was quite mistaken; but the soldier being positive, and judging that the marquis was concerned in some important affair, replied, with a countenance which betokened a kind heart, “Do not I know my lord Marquis of Montrose well enough? But go your way, and God be with you.”[256] When Montrose saw that he could not preserve an incognito from the penetrating eye of the soldier, he gave him some money and dismissed him.

This occurrence excited alarm in the mind of Montrose, and made him accelerate his journey. Within four days he arrived at the house of Tullibelton, among the hills near the Tay, which belonged to Patrick Graham of Inchbrakie, his cousin, and a royalist. No situation was better fitted for concocting his plans, and for communicating with those clans and the gentry of the adjoining lowlands who stood well affected to the king. It formed, in fact, a centre, or point d’appui to the royalists of the Highlands and the adjoining lowlands, from which a pretty regular communication could be kept up, without any of those dangers which would have arisen in the lowlands.

For some days Montrose did not venture to appear among the people in the neighbourhood, nor did he consider himself safe even in Tullibelton house, but passed the night in an obscure cottage, and in the day-time wandered alone among the neighbouring mountains, ruminating over the strange peculiarity of his situation, and waiting the return of his fellow-travellers, whom he had despatched to collect intelligence on the state of the kingdom. These messengers came back to him after some days’ absence, bringing with them the most cheerless accounts of the[182] situation of the country, and of the persecutions which the royalists suffered at the hands of the Covenanters. Among other distressing pieces of intelligence, they communicated to Montrose the premature and unsuccessful attempt of the Marquis of Huntly in favour of the royal cause, and of his retreat to Strathnaver to avoid the fury of his enemies. These accounts greatly affected Montrose, who was grieved to find that the Gordons, who were stern royalists, should be exposed, by the abandonment of their chief, to the revenge of their enemies; but he consoled himself with the reflection, that as soon as he should be enabled to unfurl the royal standard, the tide of fortune would turn.

While cogitating on the course he should pursue in this conjuncture, a report reached him from some shepherds on the hills that a body of Irish troops had landed in the West, and was advancing through the Highlands. Montrose at once concluded that these were the auxiliaries whom the Earl of Antrim had undertaken to send him four months before, and such they proved to be. This force, which amounted to 1,500 men, was under the command of Alexander Macdonald, son of Coll Mac-Gillespic Macdonald of Iona, who had been greatly persecuted by the family of Argyle. Macdonald had arrived early in July, 1644, among the Hebrides, and had landed and taken the castles of Meigray and Kinloch Alan. He had then disembarked his forces in Knoydart, where he expected to be joined by the Marquis of Huntly and the Earl of Seaforth. As he advanced into the interior, he despatched the fiery cross for the purpose of summoning the clans to his standard; but, although the cross was carried through a large extent of country, even to Aberdeen, he was joined at first only by the clan Donald, under the captain of clan Ranald, and the laird of Glengary. The Marquis of Argyle collected an army to oppose the progress of Macdonald, and, to cut off his retreat to Ireland, he sent some ships of war to Loch Eishord, where Macdonald’s fleet lay, which captured or destroyed them. This loss, while it frustrated an intention Macdonald entertained of returning to Ireland, in consequence of the disappointment he had met with in not being joined by the clans, stimulated him to farther exertions in continuing his march, in the hope of meeting Montrose.

As Macdonald was perfectly ignorant of Montrose’s movements, and thought it likely that he might be still at Carlisle, waiting till he should hear of Macdonald’s arrival, he sent letters to him by the hands of a confidential friend, who resided in the neighbourhood of Inchbrakie’s house. This gentleman, who knew nothing of Montrose’s return to Scotland, having luckily communicated to Mr. Graham the secret of being intrusted with letters to his kinsman, Montrose, Graham offered to see them safely delivered to Montrose, though he should ride to Carlisle himself. The gentleman in question then delivered the letters to Graham, and Montrose having received them, wrote an answer as if from Carlisle, in which he requested Macdonald to keep up his spirits, that he would soon be joined by a seasonable reinforcement and a general at their head, and he ordered him with all expedition to march down into Athole. In fixing on Athole as the place of his rendezvous, Montrose is said to have been actuated by an implicit reliance on the fidelity and loyalty of the Athole-men, and by a high opinion of their courage. They lay, besides, under many obligations to himself, and he calculated that he had only to appear among them to command their services in the cause of their sovereign.

When Macdonald received these instructions, he marched towards Athole; but in passing through Badenoch he was threatened with an attack by the Earls of Sutherland and Seaforth, at the head of some of their people, and by the Frasers, Grants, Rosses, and Monroes, and other inhabitants of Moray, who had assembled at the top of Strathspey; but Macdonald very cautiously avoided them, and hastened into Athole. On arriving in Athole, Macdonald was coldly received by the people of that as well as the surrounding country, who doubted whether he had any authority from the king; and besides, they hesitated to place themselves under the command of a person of neither noble nor ancient lineage, and whom they considered an upstart. This indecision might have proved fatal to Macdonald, who was closely pressed in his rear by the army of Argyle, had not these untoward deliberations[183] been instantly put an end to by the arrival of Montrose at Blair, where Macdonald had fixed his head-quarters. Montrose had travelled seventy miles on foot, in a Highland dress, accompanied by Patrick Graham, his cousin, as his guide.[257] His appearance was hailed by his countrymen with every demonstration of joy, and they immediately made him a spontaneous offer of their services.

Accordingly, on the following day, the Athole-men, to the number of about 800, consisting chiefly of the Stewarts and Robertsons, put themselves under arms and flocked to the standard of Montrose. Thus, in little more than twenty-four hours, Montrose saw himself at the head of a force of upwards of 2,000 men, animated by an enthusiastic attachment to his person and to the cause which he had espoused. The extraordinary contrast between his present commanding position, and the situation in which he was placed a few days before, as a forlorn wanderer among the mountains, produced a powerful effect upon the daring and chivalrous spirit of Montrose, who looked forward to the success of his enterprise with the eagerness of a man who considered the destinies of his sovereign as altogether depending upon his individual exertions. Impressed with the necessity of acting with promptitude, he did not hesitate long as to the course he should pursue. He might have immediately gone in quest of Argyle, who had followed the army of Macdonald, with slow and cautious steps, and by one of those sudden movements which no man knew better how to execute with advantage, surprised and defeated his adversary; but such a plan did not accord with the designs of Montrose, who resolved to open the campaign at once in the lowlands, and thus give confidence to the friends and supporters of the king.

The general opinion which the Lowlanders of this period entertained regarding their upland neighbours was not very respectful. A covenanting wit, in a poem which he wrote against the bishops only a few years before, says of one whose extraction was from the other side of the Grampians,

as if these two qualifications were of themselves sufficient, without any known vice, to put a man completely beyond the pale of virtue. It seems, indeed, to have been a general belief at the time that this primitive and sequestered people, as they were avowedly out of the saving circle of the Covenant, were also out of the limits of both law and religion, and therefore hopelessly and utterly given up to all sorts of wickedness. Not only were murder and robbery among the list of offences which they were accused of daily committing, but there even seems to have been a popular idea that sorcery was a prevailing crime amongst them. They were also charged with a general inclination to popery, an offence which, from the alarms and superstitions of the time, had now come, in general phraseology, to signify a condensation of all others. Along with this horrible notion of the mountaineers, there was not associated the slightest idea of their ardent and chivalrous character; nor was there any general sensation of terror for the power which they undoubtedly possessed of annoying the peaceful inhabitants, and thwarting the policy of the Low country, no considerable body of Highlanders having been there seen in arms for several generations.

In pursuance of his determination, Montrose put his small army in motion the same day towards Strathearn, in passing through which he expected to be joined by some of the inhabitants of that and the adjoining country. At the same time he sent forward a messenger with a friendly notice to the Menzieses of his intention to pass through their country, but instead of taking this in good part they maltreated the messenger and harassed the rear of his army. This unprovoked attack so exasperated Montrose, that he ordered his men, when passing by Weem castle, which belonged to the clan Menzies, to plunder and lay waste their lands, and to burn their houses, an order which was literally obeyed. He expected that this example of summary vengeance would serve as a useful lesson to deter others, who might be disposed to imitate the conduct of the Menzieses, from following a similar course. Notwithstanding the time spent in making these reprisals, Montrose passed the Tay with a part of his forces the same evening, and the remainder[184] followed very early the next morning. He had, at the special request of the Athole-men themselves, placed them under the command of his kinsman, Patrick Graham of Inchbrakie, and he now sent him forward with a select party to reconnoitre. Inchbrakie soon returned with information that he had observed a party of armed men stationed upon the hill of Buchanty. On inquiry, Montrose ascertained that this body was commanded by Lord Kilpont, eldest son of the Earl of Menteith, and by Sir John Drummond, son of the Earl of Perth, both of whom were his relations. The force in question, which consisted of about 500 men, was on its way to Perth to join the other covenanting troops who were stationed there. Montrose immediately marched up to this body, with the intention, if he could not prevail on them to join him, of attacking them, but before he had approached sufficiently near, Lord Kilpont, who had ascertained that Montrose commanded, sent some of his principal officers to him to ascertain what his object was in thus advancing. Montrose having explained his views and stated that he acted by the king’s authority, and having entreated them to return to their allegiance, they and the whole of their party immediately joined him. This new accession augmented Montrose’s army to about 3,000 men.

Montrose now learned from his new allies that the Covenanters had assembled their forces in great numbers at Perth, and that they lay there waiting for his approach. The covenanting army, in fact, was more than double that of Montrose, amounting to about 6,000 foot and 700 horse, to which were attached four pieces of artillery. Montrose, on the other hand, had not a single horseman, and but three horses, two of which were for his own use, and the other for that of Sir William Rollock, and besides he had no artillery. Yet with such a decided disparity, Montrose resolved to march directly to Perth and attack the enemy. He appears to have been influenced in this resolution by the consideration of the proximity of Argyle with his army, and the danger in which he would be placed by being hemmed in by two hostile armies: he could expect to avoid such an embarrassment only by risking an immediate engagement.

As the day was too far advanced to proceed to Perth, Montrose ordered his men to bivouac during the night about three miles from Buchanty, and began his march by dawn of day. As soon as Lord Elcho, the commander of the covenanting army, heard of Montrose’s approach, he left Perth and drew up his army on Tippermuir, a plain of some extent between four and five miles west from the town. Reserving to himself the command of the right wing, he committed the charge of the left to Sir James Scott, an able and skilful officer, who had served with great honour in the Venetian army; and to the Earl of Tullibardine he intrusted the command of the centre. The horse were divided and placed on each wing with the view of surrounding the army of Montrose, should he venture to attack them in their position. As soon as Montrose perceived the enemy thus drawn up in battle array, he made the necessary dispositions for attacking them. To counteract as much as possible the danger arising to such a small body of men, unprotected by cavalry, from the extended line of the Covenanters, Montrose endeavoured to make his line as extensive as possible with safety, by limiting his files to three men deep. As the Irish had neither swords nor pikes to oppose the cavalry, they were stationed in the centre of the line, and the Highlanders, who were provided with swords and Lochaber axes, were placed on the wings, as better fitted to resist the attacks of the cavalry. Some of the Highlanders were, however, quite destitute of arms of every description, and it is related on the authority of an eye-witness that Montrose, seeing their helpless condition, thus quaintly addressed them:—“It is true you have no arms; your enemies, however, have plenty. My advice, therefore, is, that as there happens to be a great abundance of stones upon this moor, every man should provide himself, in the first place, with as stout a stone as he can well manage, rush up to the first Covenanter he meets, beat out his brains, take his sword, and then, I believe, he will be at no loss how to proceed.”[258] This advice, as will be seen, was really acted upon. As Montrose was almost destitute of[185] powder, he ordered the Irish forces to husband their fire till they should come close to the enemy, and after a simultaneous discharge from the three ranks, (the front rank kneeling,) to assail the enemy thereafter as they best could. To oppose the left wing of the Covenanters, commanded by Sir James Scott, Montrose took upon himself the command of his own right, placing Lord Kilpont at the head of the left, and Macdonald, his major-general, over the centre.

During the progress of these arrangements, Montrose despatched an accomplished young nobleman, named Drummond, eldest son of Lord Maderty, with a message to the chiefs of the Covenanters’ army, entreating them to lay down their arms and return to their duty and obedience to their sovereign. Instead, however, of returning any answer to this message, they seized the messenger, and sent him to Perth under an escort, with an intimation that, on obtaining a victory over his master, they would execute him. Indeed, the probability of a defeat seems never for a moment to have entered into the imaginations of the Covenanters, and they had been assured by Frederick Carmichael, a minister who had preached to them the same day, being Sunday, 1st September, “that if ever God spoke truth out of his mouth, he promised them, in the name of God, a certain victory that day.”[259]

There being no hopes, therefore, of an accommodation, both armies, after advancing towards each other, remained motionless for a short time, as if unwilling to begin the attack; but this state of matters was speedily put an end to by the advance of a select skirmishing party under the command of Lord Drummond, sent out from the main body of the covenanting army, for the double purpose of distracting the attention of Montrose, and inducing his troops to leave their ranks, and thus create confusion among them; but Montrose kept his men in check, and contented himself with sending out a few of his men to oppose them. Lord Drummond, whom Baillie appears to have suspected of treachery, and his party were routed at the first onset, and fled back upon the main body in great disorder. This trivial affair decided the fate of the day, for the Covenanters, many of whom were undisciplined, seeing the unexpected defeat of Lord Drummond’s party, became quite dispirited, and began to show symptoms which indicated a disposition for immediate flight. The confusion into which the main body had been thrown by the retreat of the advanced party, and the indecision which seemed now to prevail in the Covenanters’ army in consequence of that reverse, were observed by the watchful eye of Montrose, who saw that the favourable moment for striking a decisive blow had arrived. He therefore gave orders to his men to advance, who, immediately setting up a loud shout, rushed forward at a quick pace towards the enemy. They were met by a random discharge from some cannon which the Covenanters had placed in front of their army, but which did little or no execution. When sufficiently near, Montrose’s musketeers halted, and, as ordered, poured a volley into the main rank of the Covenanters, which immediately gave way. The cavalry of the Covenanters, thereupon, issued from their stations and attacked the royalists, who, in their turn, defended themselves with singular intrepidity. While the armed Highlanders made ample use of their Lochaber axes and swords, the Irish steadily opposed the attacks of the horse with the butt ends of their muskets; but the most effective annoyance which the cavalry met with appears to have proceeded from the unarmed Highlanders, who having supplied themselves with a quantity of stones, as suggested by Montrose, discharged them with well-directed aim at the horses and their riders. The result was, that after a short struggle, the cavalry were obliged to make a precipitate retreat. While this contest was going on, another part of Montrose’s army was engaged with the right wing of the covenanting army, under Sir James Scott, but although this body made a longer and more determined resistance, and galled the party opposed to them by an incessant fire of musketry, they were at last overpowered by the Athole-men, who rushed upon them with their broad-swords, and cut down and wounded a considerable number. The rout of the Covenanters now became general. The horsemen saved themselves by the fleetness of their horses; but during the pursuit, which was kept[186] up to a distance of six or seven miles, many hundreds of foot were killed, and a considerable number made prisoners,[260] some of whom afterwards served in Montrose’s army. The loss on the side of Montrose appears to have been very trifling. By this victory, and the subsequent capture of Perth, which he entered the same day, Montrose was enabled to equip his army with all those warlike necessaries of which it had been so remarkably destitute in the morning, and of which the Covenanters left him an abundant supply.[261]

CHAPTER XIII.

A.D. 1644 (September)-1645 (February).

BRITISH SOVEREIGN:—Charles I., 1625–1649.

Montrose now entertained confident expectations that many of the royalists of the surrounding country who had hitherto kept aloof would join him; but after remaining three days at Perth, to give them an opportunity of rallying round his standard, he had the mortification to find that, with the exception of Lords Dupplin and Spynie, and a few gentlemen from the Carse of Gowrie, who came to him, his anticipations were not to be realized. The spirits of the royalists had been too much subdued by the severities of the Covenanters for them all at once to risk their lives and fortunes on the issue of what they had long considered a hopeless cause; and although Montrose had succeeded in dispersing one army with a greatly inferior force, yet it was well known that that army was composed of raw and undisciplined men, and that the Covenanters had still large bodies of well-trained troops in the field.

Thus disappointed in his hopes, and understanding that the Marquis of Argyle was fast approaching with a large army, Montrose crossed the Tay on the 4th of September, directing his course towards Coupar-Angus, and encamped at night in the open fields near Collace. His object in proceeding northward was to endeavour to raise some of the loyal clans, and thus to put himself in a sufficiently strong condition to meet Argyle. Montrose had given orders to the army to march early next morning, but by break of day, and before the drums had beat, he was alarmed by an uproar in the camp. Perceiving his men running to their arms in a state of fury and rage, Montrose, apprehensive that the Highlanders and Irish had quarrelled, immediately rushed in among the thickest of the crowd to pacify them, but to his great grief and dismay, he ascertained that the confusion had arisen from the assassination of his valued friend Lord Kilpont. He had fallen a victim to the blind fury of James Stewart of Ardvoirlich, with whom he had slept the same night, and who had long enjoyed his confidence and friendship. According to Wishart, wishing to ingratiate himself with the Covenanters, he formed a design to assassinate Montrose or his major-general, Macdonald; and endeavoured to entice Kilpont to concur in his wicked project. He, therefore, on the night in question, slept with his lordship, and having prevailed upon him to rise and take a walk in the fields before daylight, on the pretence of refreshing themselves, he there disclosed his horrid purpose, and entreated his lordship to concur therein. Lord Kilpont rejected the base proposal with horror and indignation, which so alarmed Stewart that, afraid lest his lordship might discover the matter, he suddenly drew his dirk and mortally wounded Kilpont. Stewart, thereupon, fled, and thereafter joined the Marquis of Argyle, who gave him a commission in his army.[262]

[187]

STUART.

Montrose now marched upon Dundee, which refused to surrender. Not wishing to waste his time upon the hazardous issue of a siege with a hostile army in his rear, Montrose proceeded through Angus and the Mearns, and in the course of his route was joined by the Earl of Airly, his two sons, Sir Thomas and Sir David Ogilvie, and a considerable number of their friends and vassals, and some gentlemen from the Mearns and Aberdeenshire. This was a seasonable addition to Montrose’s force, which had been greatly weakened by the absence of some of the Highlanders who had gone home to deposit their spoils, and by the departure of Lord Kilpont’s retainers, who had gone to Monteith with his corpse.

After the battle of Tippermuir, Lord Elcho had retired, with his regiment and some fugitives, to Aberdeen, where he found Lord Burleigh and other commissioners from the convention of estates. As soon as they heard of the approach of Montrose, Burleigh, who acted as chief commissioner, immediately assembled the Forbeses, the Frasers, and the other friends of the covenanting interest, and did everything in his power to gain over to his side as many persons as he could from those districts where Montrose expected assistance. In this way Burleigh increased his force to 2,500 foot and 500 horse, but some of these, consisting of Gordons, and others who were obliged to take up arms, could not be relied upon.

When Montrose heard of these preparations, he resolved, notwithstanding the disparity of force, his own army now amounting only to 1,500 foot and 44 horse, to hasten his march and attack them before Argyle should come up. On arriving near the bridge of Dee, he found it strongly fortified and guarded by a considerable force. He did not attempt to force a passage, but, directing his course to the west, along the river, crossed it at a ford at the Mills of Drum, and encamped at Crathas that night (Wednesday, 11th September). The Covenanters, the same day, drew up their army at the Two Mile Cross, a short distance from Aberdeen, where they remained till Thursday night, when they retired into the town. On the same night, Montrose marched down Dee-side, and took possession of the ground which the Covenanters had just left.[263]

On the following morning, viz., Friday, 13th September, about eleven o’clock, the Covenanters marched out of Aberdeen to meet Montrose, who, on their approach, despatched a drummer to beat a parley, and sent a commissioner along with him bearing a letter to the provost and bailies of Aberdeen, commanding and charging them to surrender the town, promising that no more harm should be done to it; “otherwise, if they would disobey, that then he desired them to remove old aged men, women, and children out of the way, and to stand to their own peril.” Immediately on receipt of this letter, the provost called a meeting of the council, which was attended by Lord Burleigh, and, after a short consultation, an answer was sent along with the commissioner declining to surrender the town. On their return the drummer was killed by the Covenanters, at a place called Justice Mills; which violation of the law of nations so exasperated Montrose, that he gave orders to his men not to spare any of the enemy who might fall into their hands. His anger at this occurrence is strongly depicted by Spalding, who says, that “he grew mad, and became furious and impatient.”

As soon as Montrose received notice of the refusal of the magistrates to surrender the town, he made the necessary dispositions for attacking the enemy. From his paucity of cavalry, he was obliged to extend his line, as he had done at Tippermuir, to prevent the enemy[188] from surrounding or outflanking him with their horse, and on each of his wings he posted his small body of horsemen along with select parties of musketeers and archers. To James Hay and Sir Nathaniel Gordon he gave the command of the right wing, committing the charge of the left to Sir William Rollock, all men of tried bravery and experience.

The Covenanters began the battle by a cannonade from their field-pieces, and, from their commanding position, gave considerable annoyance to the royal forces, who were very deficient in artillery. After the firing had been kept up for some time, Lord Lewis Gordon, third son of the Marquis of Huntly, a young man of a very ardent disposition, and of a violent and changeable temper, who commanded the left wing of the Covenanters, having obtained possession of some level ground where his horse could act, made a demonstration to attack Montrose’s right wing; which being observed by Montrose, he immediately ordered Sir William Rollock, with his party of horse, from the left wing to the assistance of the right. These united wings, which consisted of only 44 horse, not only repulsed the attack of a body of 300, but threw them into complete disorder, and forced them to retreat upon the main body, leaving many dead and wounded on the field. Montrose restrained these brave cavaliers from pursuing the body they had routed, anticipating that their services might be soon required at the other wing; and he was not mistaken, for no sooner did the covenanting general perceive the retreat of Lord Lewis Gordon than he ordered an attack to be made upon the left wing of Montrose’s army; but Montrose, with a celerity almost unexampled, moved his whole cavalry from the right to the left wing, which, falling upon the flank of their assailants sword in hand, forced them to fly, with great slaughter. In this affair Montrose’s horse took Forbes of Craigievar and Forbes of Boyndlie prisoners.

The unsuccessful attacks on the wings of Montrose’s army had in no shape affected the future fortune of the day, as both armies kept their ground, and were equally animated with hopes of ultimate success. Vexed, but by no means intimidated by their second defeat, the gentlemen who composed Burleigh’s horse consulted together as to the best mode of renewing the attack; and, being of opinion that the success of Montrose’s cavalry was owing chiefly to the expert musketeers, with whom they were interlined, they resolved to imitate the same plan, by mixing among them a select body of foot, and renewing the charge a third time, with redoubled energy. But this scheme, which might have proved fatal to Montrose, if tried, was frustrated by a resolution he came to, of making an instant and simultaneous attack upon the enemy. Perceiving their horse still in great confusion, and a considerable way apart from their main body, he determined upon attacking them with his foot before they should get time to rally; and galloping up to his men, who had been greatly galled by the enemies’ cannon, he told them that there was no good to be expected by the two armies keeping at such a distance—that in this way there was no means of distinguishing the strong from the weak, nor the coward from the brave man, but that if they would once make a home charge upon these timorous and effeminate striplings, as he called Burleigh’s horse, they would never stand their attack. “Come on, then,” said he, “my brave fellow-soldiers, fall down upon them with your swords and muskets, drive them before you, and make them suffer the punishment due to their perfidy and rebellion.”[264] These words were no sooner uttered, than Montrose’s men rushed forward at a quick pace and fell upon the enemy, sword in hand. The Covenanters were paralyzed by the suddenness and impetuosity of the attack, and, turning their backs, fled in the utmost trepidation and confusion, towards Aberdeen. The slaughter was tremendous, as the victors spared no man. The road leading from the field of battle to Aberdeen was strewed with the dead and the dying; the streets of Aberdeen were covered with the bodies, and stained with the blood of its inhabitants. “The lieutenant followed the chase into Aberdeen, his men hewing and cutting down all manner of men they could overtake, within the town, upon the streets, or in the houses, and round about the town, as our men were fleeing, with broad swords, but (i.e. without) mercy[189] or remeid. Their cruel Irish, seeing a man well clad, would first tyr (strip) him, and save his clothes unspoiled, syne kill the man.”[265] In fine, according to this writer, who was an eye-witness, the town of Aberdeen, which, but a few years before, had suffered for its loyalty, was now, by the same general who had then oppressed it, delivered up by him to be indiscriminately plundered by his Irish forces, for having espoused the same cause which he himself had supported. For four days did these men indulge in the most dreadful excesses, “and nothing,” continues Spalding, was “heard but pitiful howling, crying, weeping, mourning, through all the streets.” Yet Guthry says that Montrose “shewed great mercy, both pardoning the people and protecting their goods.”[266]

It is singular, that although the battle continued for four hours without any determinate result, Montrose lost very few men, a circumstance the more extraordinary as the cannon of the Covenanters were placed upon advantageous ground, whilst those of Montrose were rendered quite ineffective by being situated in a position from which they could not be brought to bear upon the enemy. An anecdote, characteristic of the bravery of the Irish, and of their coolness in enduring the privations of war, has been preserved. During the cannonade on the side of the Covenanters, an Irishman had his leg shot away by a cannon ball, but which kept still attached to the stump by means of a small bit of skin, or flesh. His comrades-in-arms being affected with his disaster, this brave man, without betraying any symptoms of pain, thus cheerfully addressed them:—“This, my companions, is the fate of war, and what none of us ought to grudge: go on, and behave as becomes you; and, as for me, I am certain my lord, the marquis, will make me a trooper, as I am now disabled for the foot service.” Then, taking a knife from his pocket, he deliberately opened it, and cut asunder the skin which retained the leg, without betraying the least emotion, and delivered it to one of his companions for interment. As soon as this courageous man was able to mount a horse, his wish to become a trooper was complied with, in which capacity he afterwards distinguished himself.[267]

Hoping that the news of the victory he had obtained would create a strong feeling in his favour among the Gordons, some of whom had actually fought against him, under the command of Lord Lewis Gordon, Montrose sent a part of his army towards Kintore and Inverury, the following day, to encourage the people of the surrounding country to declare for him; but he was sadly disappointed in his expectations. The fact is, that ever since the appointment of Montrose as lieutenant-general of the kingdom,—an appointment which trenched upon the authority of the Marquis of Huntly as lieutenant of the north,—the latter had become quite lukewarm in the cause of his sovereign; and, although he was aware of the intentions of his son, Lord Lewis, to join the Covenanters, he quietly allowed him to do so without remonstrance. But, besides being thus, in some measure, superseded by Montrose, the marquis was actuated by personal hostility to him on account of the treatment he had formerly received from him; and it appears to have been partly to gratify his spleen that he remained a passive observer of a struggle which involved the very existence of the monarchy itself. Whatever may have been Huntly’s reasons for not supporting Montrose, his apathy and indifference had a deadening influence upon his numerous retainers, who had no idea of taking the field but at the command of their chief.

As Montrose saw no possibility of opposing the powerful and well-appointed army of Argyle, which was advancing upon him with slow and cautious steps, disappointed as he had been of the aid which he had calculated upon, he resolved to march into the Highlands, and there collect such of the clans as were favourably disposed to the royal cause. Leaving Aberdeen, therefore, on the 16th of September, with the remainder of his forces, he joined the camp at Kintore, whence he despatched Sir William Rollock to Oxford to inform the king of the events of the campaign, and of his present situation, and to solicit him to send supplies.

We must now advert to the progress of[190] Argyle’s army, the slow movements of which form an unfavourable contrast with the rapid marches of Montrose’s army. On the 4th of September, four days after the battle of Tippermuir, Argyle, who had been pursuing the Irish forces under Macdonald, had arrived with his Highlanders at Stirling, where, on the following day, he was joined by the Earl of Lothian and his regiment, which had shortly before been brought over from Ireland. After raising some men in Stirlingshire, he marched to Perth upon the 10th, where he was joined by some Fife men, and Lord Bargenny’s and Sir Frederick Hamilton’s regiments of horse, which had been recalled from Newcastle for that purpose. With this increased force, which now consisted of about 3,000 foot and two regular cavalry regiments, besides ten troops of horse, Argyle left Perth on the 14th of September for the north, and in his route was joined by the Earl Marshal, Lords Gordon, Fraser, and Crichton, and other Covenanters. He arrived at Aberdeen upon the 19th of September, where he issued a proclamation, declaring the Marquis of Montrose and his followers traitors to religion and to their king and country, and offering a reward of 20,000 pounds Scots, to any person who should bring in Montrose dead or alive.[268] Spalding laments with great pathos and feeling the severe hardships to which the citizens of Aberdeen had been subjected by these frequent visitations of hostile armies, and alluding to the present occupancy of the town by Argyle, he observes that “this multitude of people lived upon free quarters, a new grief to both towns, whereof there was quartered on poor old Aberdeen Argyle’s own three regiments. The soldiers had their baggage carried, and craved nothing but house-room and fire. But ilk captain, with twelve gentlemen, had free quarters, (so long as the town had meat and drink,) for two ordinaries, but the third ordinary they furnished themselves out of their own baggage and provisions, having store of meal, molt and sheep, carried with them. But, the first night, they drank out all the stale ale in Aberdeen, and lived upon wort thereafter.”[269]

Argyle was now within half a day’s march of Montrose, but, strange to tell, he made no preparations to follow him, and spent two or three days in Aberdeen doing absolutely nothing. After spending this time in inglorious supineness, Argyle put his army in motion in the direction of Kintore. Montrose, on hearing of his approach, concealed his cannon in a bog, and leaving behind him some of his heavy baggage, made towards the Spey with the intention of crossing it. On arriving at the river, he encamped near the old castle of Rothiemurchus; but finding that the boats used in passing the river had been removed to the north side of the river, and that a large armed force from the country on the north of the Spey had assembled on the opposite bank to oppose his passage, Montrose marched his army into the forest of Abernethy. Argyle only proceeded at first as far as Strathbogie; but instead of pursuing Montrose, he allowed his troops to waste their time in plundering the properties and laying waste the lands of the Gordons in Strathbogie and the Enzie, under the very eyes of Lord Gordon and Lord Lewis Gordon, neither of whom appears to have endeavoured to avert such a calamity. Spalding says that it was “a wonderful unnaturalitie in the Lord Gordon to suffer his father’s lands and friends in his own sight to be thus wreckt and destroyed in his father’s absence;” but Lord Gordon likely had it not in his power to stay these proceedings, which, if not done at the instigation, may have received the approbation of his violent and headstrong younger brother, who had joined the Covenanters’ standard. On the 27th of September, Argyle mustered his forces at the Bog of Gicht, when they were found to amount to about 4,000 men; but although the army of Montrose did not amount to much more than a third of that number, and was within twenty miles’ distance, he did not venture to attack him. After remaining a few days in Abernethy forest, Montrose passed through the forest of Rothiemurchus, and following the course of the Spey, marched through Badenoch to Athole, which he reached on 1st October.

When Argyle heard of the departure of Montrose from the forest of Abernethy, he made a feint of following him. He accordingly set his army in motion along Spey-side,[191] and crossing the river himself with a few horse, marched up some distance along the north bank, and recrossed, when he ordered his troops to halt. He then proceeded to Forres to attend a committee meeting of Covenanters to concert a plan of operations in the north, at which the Earl of Sutherland, Lord Lovat, the sheriff of Moray, the lairds of Balnagown, Innes and Pluscardine, and many others were present. From Forres Argyle went to Inverness, and after giving some instructions to Sir Mungo Campbell of Lawers, and the laird of Buchanan, the commanders of the regiments stationed there, he returned to his army, which he marched through Badenoch in pursuit of Montrose. From Athole Montrose sent Macdonald with a party of 500 men to the Western Highlands, to invite the laird of Maclean, the captain of clan Ranald, and others to join him. Marching down to Dunkeld, Montrose himself proceeded rapidly through Angus towards Brechin and Montrose.[270]

Although some delay had been occasioned in Montrose’s movements by his illness for a few days in Badenoch, this was fully compensated for by the tardy motions of Argyle, who, on entering Badenoch, found that his vigilant antagonist was several days’ march a-head of him. This intelligence, however, did not induce him in the least to accelerate his march. Hearing, when passing through Badenoch, that Montrose had been joined by some of the inhabitants of that country, Argyle, according to Spalding, “left nothing of that country undestroyed, no not one four footed beast;” and Athole shared a similar fate.

At the time Montrose entered Angus, a committee of the estates, consisting of the Earl Marshal and other barons, was sitting in Aberdeen, who, on hearing of his approach, issued on the 10th of October a printed order, to which the Earl Marshal’s name was attached, ordaining, under pain of being severely fined, all persons, of whatever age, sex, or condition, having horses of the value of forty pounds Scots or upwards, to send them to the bridge of Dee, which was appointed as the place of rendezvous, on the 14th of October, by ten o’clock, A.M., with riders fully equipped and armed. With the exception of Lord Gordon, who brought three troops of horse, and Captain Alexander Keith, brother of the Earl Marshal, who appeared with one troop at the appointed place, no attention was paid to the order of the committee by the people, who had not yet recovered from their fears, and their recent sufferings were still too fresh in their minds to induce them again to expose themselves to the vengeance of Montrose and his Irish troops.

After refreshing his army for a few days in Angus, Montrose prepared to cross the Grampians, and march to Strathbogie to make another attempt to raise the Gordons; but, before setting out on his march, he released Forbes of Craigievar and Forbes of Boyndlie, on their parole, upon condition that Craigievar should procure the liberation of the young laird of Drum and his brother from the jail of Edinburgh, failing which, Craigievar and Boyndlie were both to deliver themselves up to him as prisoners before the 1st of November. This act of generosity on the part of Montrose was greatly admired, more particularly as Craigievar was one of the heads of the Covenanters, and had great influence among them. In pursuance of his design, Montrose marched through the Mearns, and upon Thursday, the 17th of October, crossed the Dee at the Mills of Drum, with his whole army. In his progress north, contrary to his former forbearing policy, he laid waste the lands of some of the leading Covenanters, burnt their houses, and plundered their effects. He arrived at Strathbogie on the 19th of October, where he remained till the 27th, without being able to induce any considerable number of the Gordons to join him. It was not from want of inclination that they refused to do so, but they were unwilling to incur the displeasure of their chief, who they knew was personally opposed to Montrose, and who felt indignant at seeing a man who had formerly espoused the cause of the Covenanters preferred before him. Had Montrose been accompanied by any of the Marquis of Huntly’s sons, they might have had influence enough to have induced some of the Gordons to declare for him; but the situation of the marquis’s three sons was at this time very peculiar. The eldest son, Lord Gordon, a young man “of singular worth and accomplishments,”[192] was with Argyle, his uncle by the mother’s side; the Earl of Aboyne, the second son, was shut up in the castle of Carlisle, then in a state of siege; and Lord Lewis Gordon, the third son, had, as we have seen, joined the Covenanters, and fought in their ranks.

In this situation of matters, Montrose left Strathbogie on the day last mentioned, and took up a position in the forest of Fyvie, where he despatched some of his troops, who took possession of the castles of Fyvie and Tollie Barclay, in which he found a good supply of provisions, which was of great service to his army. During his stay at Strathbogie, Montrose kept a strict outlook for the enemy, and scarcely passed a night without scouring the neighbouring country to the distance of several miles with parties of light foot, who attacked straggling parties of the Covenanters, and brought in prisoners from time to time, without sustaining any loss. These petty enterprises, while they alarmed their enemies, gave an extraordinary degree of confidence to Montrose’s men, who were ready to undertake any service, however difficult or dangerous, if he only commanded them to perform it.

When Montrose crossed the Dee, Argyle was several days’ march behind him. The latter, however, reached Aberdeen on the 24th of October, and proceeded the following morning towards Kintore, which he reached the same night. Next morning he marched forward to Inverury, where he halted at night. Here he was joined by the Earl of Lothian’s regiment, which increased his force to about 2,500 foot, and 1,200 horse. In his progress through the counties of Angus, Kincardine, Aberdeen, and Banff, he received no accession of strength, from the dread which the name and actions of Montrose had infused into the minds of the inhabitants of these counties.

The sudden movements of Argyle from Aberdeen to Kintore, and from Kintore to Inverury, form a remarkable contrast with the slowness of his former motions. He had followed Montrose through a long and circuitous route, the greater part of which still bore recent traces of his footsteps, and instead of showing any disposition to overtake his flying foe, seemed rather inclined to keep that respectful distance from him so congenial to the mind of one who, “willing to wound,” is “yet still afraid to strike.” But although this questionable policy of Argyle was by no means calculated to raise his military fame, it had the effect of throwing Montrose, in the present case, off his guard, and had well-nigh proved fatal to him. The rapid march of Argyle on Kintore and Inverury, in fact, was effected without Montrose’s knowledge, for the spies he had employed concealed the matter from him, and while he imagined that Argyle was still on the other side of the Grampians, he suddenly appeared within a very few miles of Montrose’s camp, on the 28th of October.

The unexpected arrival of Argyle’s army did not disconcert Montrose. His foot, which amounted to 1,500 men, were little more than the half of those under Argyle, while he had only about 50 horse to oppose 1,200. Yet, with this immense disparity, he resolved to await the attack of the enemy, judging it inexpedient, from the want of cavalry, to become the assailant by descending into the plain where Argyle’s army was encamped. On a rugged eminence behind the castle of Fyvie, on the uneven sides of which several ditches had been cut and dikes built to serve as farm fences, Montrose drew up his little but intrepid host; but before he had marked out the positions to be occupied by his divisions, he had the misfortune to witness the desertion of a small body of the Gordons, who had joined him at Strathbogie. They, however, did not join Argyle, but contented themselves with withdrawing altogether from the scene of the ensuing action. It is probable that they came to the determination of retiring, not from cowardice, but from disinclination to appear in the field against Lord Lewis Gordon, who held a high command in Argyle’s army. The secession of the Gordons, though in reality a circumstance of trifling importance in itself, (for had they remained, they would have fought unwillingly, and consequently might not have had sufficient resolution to maintain the position which would have been assigned them,) had a disheartening influence upon the spirits of Montrose’s men, and accordingly they found themselves unable to resist the first shock of Argyle’s numerous forces, who, charging them with great impetuosity, drove them up the eminence, of a considerable[193] part of which Argyle’s army got possession. In this critical conjuncture, when terror and despair seemed about to obtain the mastery over hearts to which fear had hitherto been a stranger, Montrose displayed a coolness and presence of mind equal to the dangers which surrounded him. Animating them by his presence, and by the example which he showed in risking his person in the hottest of the fight, he roused their courage by putting them further in mind of the victories they had achieved, and how greatly superior they were in bravery to the enemy opposed to them. After this emphatic appeal to their feelings, Montrose turned to Colonel O’Kean, a young Irish gentleman, highly respected by the former for his bravery, and desired him, with an air of the most perfect sang froid, to go down with such men as were readiest, and to drive these fellows (meaning Argyle’s men), out of the ditches, that they might be no more troubled with them. O’Kean quickly obeyed the mandate, and though the party in the ditches was greatly superior to the body he led, and was, moreover, supported by some horse, he drove them away, and captured several bags of powder which they left behind them in their hurry to escape. This was a valuable acquisition, as Montrose’s men had spent already almost the whole of their ammunition.

While O’Kean was executing this brilliant affair, Montrose observed five troops of horse, under the Earl of Lothian, preparing to attack his 50 horse, who were posted a little way up the eminence, with a small wood in their rear. He, therefore, without a moment’s delay, ordered a party of musketeers to their aid, who, having interlined themselves with the 50 horse, kept up such a galling fire upon Lothian’s troopers, that before they had advanced half way across a field which lay between them and Montrose’s horse, they were obliged to wheel about and gallop off.

Montrose’s men became so elated with their success that they could scarcely be restrained from leaving their ground and making a general attack upon the whole of Argyle’s army; but although Montrose did not approve of this design, he disguised his opinion, and seemed rather to concur in the views of his men, telling them, however, to be so far mindful of their duty as to wait till he should see the fit moment for ordering the attack. Argyle remained till the evening without attempting anything farther, and then retired to a distance of about three miles across the Spey; his men passed the night under arms. The only person of note killed in these skirmishes was Captain Keith, brother of the Earl Marshal.

Next day Argyle resolved to attack Montrose, with the view of driving him from his position. He was induced to come to this determination from a report, too well founded, which had reached him, that Montrose’s army was almost destitute of ammunition;—indeed, he had compelled the inhabitants of all the surrounding districts to deliver up every article of pewter in their possession for the purpose of being converted into ammunition; but this precarious supply appears soon to have been exhausted.[271] On arriving at the bottom of the hill, he changed his resolution, not judging it safe, from the experience of the preceding day, to hazard an attack. Montrose, on the other hand, agreeably to his original plan, kept his ground, as he did not deem it advisable to expose his men to the enemy’s cavalry by descending from the eminence. With the exception of some trifling skirmishes between the advanced posts, the main body of both armies remained quiescent during the whole day. Argyle again retired in the evening to the ground he had occupied the preceding night, whence he returned the following day, part of which was spent in the same manner as the former; but long before the day had expired he led off his army, “upon fair day light,” says Spalding, “to a considerable distance, leaving Montrose to effect his escape unmolested.”

Montrose, thus left to follow any course he pleased, marched off after nightfall towards Strathbogie, plundering Turriff and Rothiemay house in his route. He selected Strathbogie as the place of his retreat on account of the ruggedness of the country and of the numerous dikes with which it was intersected, which would prevent the operations of Argyle’s cavalry, and where he intended to remain till joined by Macdonald, whom he daily expected from the[194] Highlands with a reinforcement. When Argyle heard of Montrose’s departure on the following morning, being the last day of October, he forthwith proceeded after him with his army, thinking to bring him to action in the open country, and encamped at Tullochbeg on the 2d of November, where he drew out his army in battle array. He endeavoured to bring Montrose to a general engagement, and, in order to draw him from a favourable position he was preparing to occupy, Argyle sent out a skirmishing party of his Highlanders; but they were soon repulsed, and Montrose took possession of the ground he had selected.

Baffled in all his attempts to overcome Montrose by force of arms, Argyle, whose talents were more fitted for the intrigues of the cabinet than the tactics of the field, had now recourse to negotiation, with the view of effecting the ruin of his antagonist. For this purpose he proposed a cessation of arms, and that he and Montrose should hold a conference, previous to which arrangements should be entered into for their mutual security. Montrose knew Argyle too well to place any reliance upon his word, and as he had no doubt that Argyle would take advantage, during the proposed cessation, to tamper with his men and endeavour to withdraw them from their allegiance, he called a council of war, and proposed to retire without delay to the Highlands. The council at once approved of this suggestion, whereupon Montrose resolved to march next night as far as Badenoch; and that his army might be able to accomplish such a long journey within the time fixed, he immediately sent off all his heavy baggage under a guard, and ordered his men to keep themselves prepared as if to fight a battle the next day.[272] Scarcely, however, had the carriages and heavy baggage been despatched, when an event took place which greatly disconcerted Montrose. This was nothing less than the desertion of his friend Colonel Sibbald and some of his officers, who went over to the enemy. They were accompanied by Sir William Forbes of Craigievar, who, having been unable to fulfil the condition on which he was to obtain his ultimate liberation, had returned two or three days before to Montrose’s camp. This distressing occurrence induced Montrose to postpone his march for a time, as he was quite certain that the deserters would communicate his plans to Argyle. Ordering, therefore, back the baggage he had sent off, he resumed his former position, in which he remained four days, as if he there intended to take up his winter quarters.

In the meantime Montrose had the mortification to witness the defection of almost the whole of his officers, who were very numerous, for, with the exception of the Irish and Highlanders, they outnumbered the privates from the Lowlands. The bad example which had been set by Sibbald, the intimate friend of Montrose, and the insidious promises of preferment held out to them by Argyle, induced some, whose loyalty was questionable, to adopt this course; but the idea of the privations to which they would be exposed in traversing, during winter, among frost and snow, the dreary and dangerous regions of the Highlands, shook the constancy of others, who, in different circumstances, would have willingly exposed their lives for their sovereign. Bad health, inability to undergo the fatigue of long and constant marches—these and other excuses were made to Montrose as the reasons for craving a discharge from a service which had now become more hazardous than ever. Montrose made no remonstrance, but with looks of high disdain which betrayed the inward workings of a proud and unsubdued mind, indignant at being thus abandoned at such a dangerous crisis, readily complied with the request of every man who asked permission to retire. The Earl of Airly, now sixty years of age and in precarious health, and his two sons, Sir Thomas and Sir David Ogilvie, out of all the Lowlanders, alone remained faithful to Montrose, and could, on no account, be prevailed upon to abandon him. Among others who left Montrose on this occasion, was Sir Nathaniel Gordon, who, it is said, went over to Argyle’s camp in consequence of a concerted plan between him and Montrose, for the purpose of detaching Lewis Gordon from the cause of the Covenanters, a conjecture which seems to have originated in the subsequent conduct of Sir Nathaniel and Lord Lewis, who joined Montrose the following year.

[195]

Montrose, now abandoned by all his Lowland friends, prepared for his march, preparatory to which he sent off his baggage as formerly; and after lighting some fires for the purpose of deceiving the enemy, took his departure on the evening of the 6th of November, and arrived about break of day at Balveny. After remaining a few days there to refresh his men, he proceeded through Badenoch, and descended by rapid marches into Athole, where he was joined by Macdonald and John Muidartach, the captain of the Clanranald, the latter of whom brought 500 of his men along with him. He was also reinforced by some small parties from the neighbouring Highlands, whom Macdonald had induced to follow him.

In the meantime Argyle, after giving orders to his Highlanders to return home, went himself to Edinburgh, where he “got but small thanks for his service against Montrose.”[273] Although the Committee of Estates, out of deference, approved of his conduct, which some of his flatterers considered deserving of praise because he “had shed no blood;”[274] yet the majority had formed a very different estimate of his character, during a campaign which had been fruitful neither of glory nor victory. Confident of success, the heads of the Covenanters looked upon the first efforts of Montrose in the light of a desperate and forlorn attempt, rashly and inconsiderately undertaken, and which they expected would be speedily put down; but the results of the battles of Tippermuir, Aberdeen, and Fyvie, gave a new direction to their thoughts, and the royalists, hitherto contemned, began now to be dreaded and respected. In allusion to the present “posture of affairs,” it is observed by Guthry, that “many who had formerly been violent, began to talk moderately of business, and what was most taken notice of, was the lukewarmness of many amongst the ministry, who now in their preaching had begun to abate much of their former zeal.”[275] The early success of Montrose had indeed caused some misgivings in the minds of the Covenanters; but as they all hoped that Argyle would change the tide of war, they showed no disposition to relax in their severities towards those who were suspected of favouring the cause of the king. The signal failure, however, of Argyle’s expedition, and his return to the capital, quite changed, as we have seen, the aspect of affairs, and many of those who had been most sanguine in their calculations regarding the result of the struggle, began now to waver and to doubt.

While Argyle was passing his time in Edinburgh, Montrose was meditating a terrible blow at Argyle himself to revenge the cruelties he had exercised upon the royalists, and to give confidence to the clans in Argyle’s neighbourhood. These had been hitherto prevented from joining Montrose’s standard from a dread of Argyle, who having always a body of 5,000 or 6,000 Highlanders at command, had kept them in such complete subjection that they dared not, without the risk of absolute ruin, espouse the cause of their sovereign. The idea of curbing the power of a haughty and domineering chief whose word was a law to the inhabitants of an extensive district, ready to obey his cruel mandates at all times, and the spirit of revenge, the predominating characteristic of the clans, smoothed the difficulties which presented themselves in invading a country made almost inaccessible by nature, and rendered still more unapproachable by the severities of winter. The determination of Montrose having thus met with a willing response in the breasts of his men, he lost no time in putting them in motion. Dividing his army into two parts, he himself marched with the main body, consisting of the Irish and the Athole-men, to Loch Tay, whence he proceeded through Breadalbane. The other body, composed of the clan Donald and other Highlanders, he despatched by a different route, with instructions to meet him at an assigned spot on the borders of Argyle. The country through which both divisions passed, being chiefly in possession of Argyle’s kinsmen or dependants, was laid waste, particularly the lands of Campbell of Glenorchy.

When Argyle heard of the ravages committed by Montrose’s army on the lands of his kinsmen, he hastened home from Edinburgh to his castle at Inverary, and gave orders for the assembling of his clan, either to repel any attack that might be made on his own country,[196] or to protect his friends from future aggression. It is by no means certain that he anticipated an invasion from Montrose, particularly at such a season of the year, and he seemed to imagine himself so secure from attack, owing to the intricacy of the passes leading into Argyle, that although a mere handful of men could have effectually opposed an army much larger than that of Montrose, he took no precautions to guard them. So important indeed did he himself consider these passes to be, that he had frequently declared that he would rather forfeit a hundred thousand crowns, than that an enemy should know the passes by which an armed force could penetrate into Argyle.[276]

While thus reposing in fancied security in his impregnable stronghold, and issuing his mandates for levying his forces, some shepherds arrived in great terror from the hills, and brought him the alarming intelligence that the enemy, whom he had imagined were about a hundred miles distant, were within two miles of his own dwelling. Terrified at the unexpected appearance of Montrose, whose vengeance he justly dreaded, he had barely self-possession left to concert measures for his own personal safety, by taking refuge on board a fishing boat in Loch Fyne, in which he sought his way to the Lowlands, leaving his people and country exposed to the merciless will of an enemy thirsting for revenge. The inhabitants of Argyle being thus abandoned by their chief, made no attempt to oppose Montrose, who, the more effectually to carry his plan for pillaging and ravaging the country into execution, divided his army into three parties, under the respective orders of the captain of clan Ranald, Macdonald, and himself. For upwards of six weeks, viz., from the 13th of December, 1644, till nearly the end of January following, these different bodies traversed the whole country without molestation, burning, wasting, and destroying every thing which came within their reach. Nor were the people themselves spared, for although it is mentioned by one writer that Montrose “shed no blood in regard that all the people (following their lord’s laudable example) delivered themselves by flight also,”[277] it is evident from several contemporary authors that the slaughter must have been immense.[278] In fact, before the end of January, the face of a single male inhabitant was not to be seen throughout the whole extent of Argyle and Lorn, the whole population having been either driven out of these districts, or taken refuge in dens and caves known only to themselves.

Having thus retaliated upon Argyle and his people in a tenfold degree the miseries which he had occasioned in Lochaber and the adjoining countries, Montrose left Argyle and Lorn, passing through Glencoe and Lochaber on his way to Lochness. On his march eastwards he was joined by the laird of Abergeldie, the Farquharsons of the Braes of Mar, and by a party of the Gordons. The object of Montrose, by this movement, was to seize Inverness, which was then protected by only two regiments, in the expectation that its capture would operate as a stimulus to the northern clans, who had not yet declared themselves. This resolution was by no means altered on reaching the head of Lochness, where he learned that the Earl of Seaforth was advancing to meet him with an army of 5,000 horse and foot, which he resolved to encounter, it being composed, with the exception of two regular regiments, of raw and undisciplined levies.

While proceeding, however, through Abertarf, a person arrived in great haste at Kilcummin, the present fort Augustus, who brought him the surprising intelligence that Argyle had entered Lochaber with an army of 3,000 men; that he was burning and laying waste the country, and that his head-quarters were at the old castle of Inverlochy. After Argyle had effected his escape from Inverary, he had gone to Dumbarton, where he remained till Montrose’s departure from his territory. While there, a body of covenanting troops who had served in England, arrived under the command of Major-general Baillie, for the purpose of assisting Argyle in expelling Montrose from his bounds; but on learning that Montrose had left Argyle, and was marching through Glencoe and Lochaber, General Baillie determined to lead his army in an easterly direction[197] through the Lowlands, with the intention of intercepting Montrose, should he attempt a descent. At the same time it was arranged between Baillie and Argyle that the latter, who had now recovered from his panic in consequence of Montrose’s departure, should return to Argyle and collect his men from their hiding-places and retreats. As it was not improbable, however, that Montrose might renew his visit, the Committee of Estates allowed Baillie to place 1,100 of his soldiers at the disposal of Argyle, who, as soon as he was able to muster his men, was to follow Montrose’s rear, yet so as to avoid an engagement, till Baillie, who, on hearing of Argyle’s advance into Lochaber, was to march suddenly across the Grampians, should attack Montrose in front. To assist him in levying and organizing his clan, Argyle called over Campbell of Auchinbreck, his kinsman, from Ireland, who had considerable reputation as a military commander. In terms of his instructions, therefore, Argyle had entered Lochaber, and had advanced as far as Inverlochy, when, as we have seen, the news of his arrival was brought to Montrose.

Montrose was at first almost disinclined, from the well-known reputation of Argyle, to credit this intelligence, but being fully assured of its correctness from the apparent sincerity of his informer, he lost not a moment in making up his mind as to the course he should pursue. He might have instantly marched back upon Argyle by the route he had just followed; but as the latter would thus get due notice of his approach, and prepare himself for the threatened danger, Montrose resolved upon a different plan. The design he conceived could only have originated in the mind of such a bold and enterprising commander as Montrose, before whose daring genius difficulties hitherto deemed insurmountable at once disappeared. The idea of carrying an army over dangerous and precipitous mountains, whose wild and frowning aspect seemed to forbid the approach of human footsteps, and in the middle of winter, too, when the formidable perils of the journey were greatly increased by the snow, however chimerical it might have seemed to other men, appeared quite practicable to Montrose, whose sanguine anticipations of the advantages to be derived from such an extraordinary exploit, more than counterbalanced, in his mind, the risks to be encountered.

The distance between the place where Montrose received the news of Argyle’s arrival and Inverlochy is about thirty miles; but this distance was considerably increased by the devious track which Montrose followed. Marching along the small river Tarf in a southerly direction, he crossed the hills of Lairie Thierard, passed through Glenroy, and after traversing the range of mountains between the Glen and Ben Nevis, he arrived in Glennevis before Argyle had the least notice of his approach. Before setting out on his march, Montrose had taken the wise precaution of placing guards upon the common road leading to Inverlochy, to prevent intelligence of his movements being carried to Argyle, and he had killed such of Argyle’s scouts as he had fallen in with in the course of his march. This fatiguing and unexampled journey had been performed in little more than a night and a day, and when, in the course of the evening, Montrose’s men arrived in Glennevis, they found themselves so weary and exhausted that they could not venture to attack the enemy. They therefore lay under arms all night, and refreshed themselves as they best could till next morning. As the night was uncommonly clear, it being moonlight, the advanced posts of both armies kept up a small fire of musketry, which led to no result.

In the meantime Argyle, after committing his army to the charge of his cousin, Campbell of Auchinbreck, with his customary prudence, went, during the night, on board a boat in the loch, excusing himself for this apparent pusillanimous act by alleging his incapacity to enter the field of battle in consequence of some contusions he had received by a fall two or three weeks before; but his enemies averred that cowardice was the real motive which induced him to take refuge in his galley, from which he witnessed the defeat and destruction of his army. This somewhat suspicious action of Argyle—and it was not the only time he provided for his personal safety in a similar manner—is accounted for in the following (? ironical) way by the author of Britane’s Distemper (p. 100):—

“In this confusion, the commanders of there[198] armie lightes wpon this resolution, not to hazart the marquisse owne persone; for it seems not possible that Ardgylle himselfe, being a nobleman of such eminent qualitie, a man of so deepe and profund judgement, one that knew so weell what belongeth to the office of a generall, that any basse motion of feare, I say, could make him so wnsensible of the poynt of honour as is generally reported. Nether will I, for my owne pairt, belieue it; but I am confident that those barrones of his kinred, wha ware captanes and commanderes of the armie, feareing the euent of this battelle, for diuers reasones; and one was, that Allan M’Collduie, ane old fox, and who was thought to be a seer, had told them that there should be a battell lost there by them that came first to seike battell; this was one cause of there importunitie with him that he should not come to battell that day; for they sawe that of necessitie they most feght, and would not hazart there cheife persone, urgeing him by force to reteire to his galay, which lay hard by, and committe the tryall of the day to them; he, it is to be thought, with great difficultie yeelding to there request, leaues his cusine, the laird of Auchinbreike, a most walorous and braue gentleman, to the generall commande of the armie, and takes with himselfe only sir James Rollocke, his brother in lawe, sir Jhone Wachope of Nithrie, Mr. Mungo Law, a preacher. It is reported those two last was send from Edinburgh with him to beare witnesse of the expulsion of those rebelles, for so they ware still pleased to terme the Royalistes.”

It would appear that it was not until the morning of the battle that Argyle’s men were aware that it was the army of Montrose that was so near them, as they considered it quite impossible that he should have been able to bring his forces across the mountains; they imagined that the body before them consisted of some of the inhabitants of the country, who had collected to defend their properties. But they were undeceived when, in the dawn of the morning, the warlike sound of Montrose’s trumpets, resounding through the glen where they lay, and reverberating from the adjoining hills, broke upon their ears. This served as the signal to both armies to prepare for battle. Montrose drew out his army in an extended line. The right wing consisted of a regiment of Irish, under the command of Macdonald, his major-general; the centre was composed of the Athole-men, the Stuarts of Appin, the Macdonalds of Glencoe, and other Highlanders, severally under the command of Clanranald, M’Lean, and Glengary; and the left wing consisted of some Irish, at the head of whom was the brave Colonel O’Kean. A body of Irish was placed behind the main body as a reserve, under the command of Colonel James M’Donald, alias O’Neill. The general of Argyle’s army formed it in a similar manner. The Lowland forces were equally divided, and formed the wings, between which the Highlanders were placed. Upon a rising ground, behind this line, General Campbell drew up a reserve of Highlanders, and placed a field-piece. Within the house of Inverlochy, which was only about a pistol-shot from the place where the army was formed, he planted a body of 40 or 50 men to protect the place, and to annoy Montrose’s men with discharges of musketry.[279] The account given by Gordon of Sallagh, that Argyle had transported the half of his army over the water at Inverlochy, under the command of Auchinbreck, and that Montrose defeated this division, while Argyle was prevented from relieving it with the other division, from the intervening of “an arm of the sea, that was interjected betwixt them and him,”[280] is probably erroneous, for the circumstance is not mentioned by any other writer of the period, and it is well known, that Argyle abandoned his army, and witnessed its destruction from his galley,—circumstances which Gordon altogether overlooks.

It was at sunrise, on Sunday, the 2d of February, 1645, that Montrose, after having formed his army in battle array, gave orders to his men to advance upon the enemy. The left wing of Montrose’s army, under the command of O’Kean, was the first to commence the attack, by charging the enemy’s right. This was immediately followed by a furious assault upon the centre and left wing of Argyle’s army, by Montrose’s right wing and centre. Argyle’s right wing not being able to resist the attack of Montrose’s left, turned about and fled, which[199] circumstance had such a discouraging effect on the remainder of Argyle’s troops, that after discharging their muskets, the whole of them, including the reserve, took to their heels. The rout now became general. An attempt was made by a body of about 200 of the fugitives, to throw themselves into the castle of Inverlochy, but a party of Montrose’s horse prevented them. Some of the flying enemy directed their course along the side of Loch-Eil, but all these were either killed or drowned in the pursuit. The greater part, however, fled towards the hills in the direction of Argyle, and were pursued by Montrose’s men, to the distance of about eight miles. As no resistance was made by the defeated party in their flight, the carnage was very great, being reckoned at 1,500 men. Many more would have been cut off had it not been for the humanity of Montrose, who did every thing in his power to save the unresisting enemy from the fury of his men, who were not disposed to give quarter to the unfortunate Campbells. Having taken the castle, Montrose not only treated the officers, who were from the Lowlands, with kindness, but gave them their liberty on parole.

Inverlochy Castle.—From M’Culloch’s celebrated picture in the Edinburgh National Gallery.

Among the principal persons who fell on Argyle’s side, were the commander, Campbell of Auchinbreck, Campbell of Lochnell, the eldest son of Lochnell, and his brother, Colin; M’Dougall of Rara and his eldest son; Major Menzies, brother to the laird, (or Prior as he was called) of Achattens Parbreck; and the provost of the church of Kilmun. The loss on the side of Montrose was extremely trifling. The number of wounded is indeed not stated, but he had only three privates killed. He sustained, however, a severe loss in Sir Thomas Ogilvie, son of the Earl of Airly, who died a few days after the battle, of a wound he received in the thigh. Montrose regretted the death of this steadfast friend and worthy man, with feelings of real sorrow, and caused his body to be interred in Athole with due solemnity.[281] Montrose immediately after the battle sent a messenger to the king with a letter, giving an account of it, at the conclusion of which he exultingly says to Charles, “Give me leave, after I have reduced this country, and conquered from Dan to Beersheba, to say to your Majesty, as David’s general to his master, Come thou thyself, lest this country be called by my name.” When the king received this letter, the royal and parliamentary commissioners[200] were sitting at Uxbridge negotiating the terms of a peace; but Charles, induced by the letter, imprudently broke off the negotiation, a circumstance which led to his ruin.

CHAPTER XIV.

A.D. February—September, 1645.

BRITISH SOVEREIGN:—Charles I., 1625–1649.

When the disastrous news of the battle of Inverlochy reached Edinburgh, the Estates were thrown into a state of great alarm. They had, no doubt, begun to fear, before that event, and, of course, to respect the prowess of Montrose, but they never could have been made to believe that, within the space of a few days, a well-appointed army, composed in part of veteran troops, would have been utterly defeated by a force so vastly inferior in point of numbers, and beset with difficulties and dangers to which the army of Argyle was not exposed. Nor were the fears of the Estates much allayed by the appearance of Argyle, who arrived at Edinburgh to give them an account of the affair, “having his left arm tied up in a scarf, as if he had been at bones-breaking.”[282] It is true that Lord Balmerino made a speech before the assembly of the Estates, in which he affirmed, that the great loss reported to be sustained at Inverlochy “was but the invention of the malignants, who spake as they wished,” and that “upon his honour, not more than thirty of Argyle’s men had been killed;”[283] but as the disaster was well known, this device only misled the weak and ignorant. Had Montrose at this juncture descended into the Lowlands, it is not improbable that his presence might have given a favourable turn to the state of matters in the south, where the king’s affairs were in the most precarious situation; but such a design does not seem to have accorded with his views of prolonging the contest in the Highlands, which were more suitable than the Lowlands to his plan of operations, and to the nature of his forces.

Accordingly, after allowing his men to refresh themselves a few days at Inverlochy, Montrose returned across the mountains of Lochaber into Badenoch, “with displayed banner.” Marching down the south side of the Spey, he crossed that river at Balchastel, and entered Moray without opposition. He proceeded by rapid strides towards the town of Inverness, which he intended to take possession of; but, on arriving in the neighbourhood, he found it garrisoned by the laird of Lawers’ and Buchanan’s regiments. As he did not wish to consume his time in a siege, he immediately altered his course and marched in the direction of Elgin, issuing, as he went along, a proclamation in the king’s name, calling upon all males, from 16 to 60 years of age, to join him immediately, armed as they best could, on foot or on horse, and that under pain of fire and sword, as rebels to the king. In consequence of this threat Montrose was joined by some of the Moray-men, including the laird of Grant and 200 of his followers; and, to show an example of severity, he plundered the houses and laid waste the estates of many of the principal gentlemen of the district, carrying off, at the same time, a large quantity of cattle and effects, and destroying the boats and nets which they fell in with on the Spey.[284]

Whilst Montrose was thus laying waste part of Moray, a committee of the Estates, consisting of the Earl of Seaforth, the laird of Innes, Sir Robert Gordon, the laird of Pluscardine, and others, was sitting at Elgin; these, on[201] hearing of his proceedings, prohibited the holding of the fair which was kept there annually on Fasten’s eve, and to which many merchants and others in the north resorted, lest the property brought there for sale might fall a prey to Montrose’s army. They, at the same time, sent Sir Robert Gordon, Mackenzie of Pluscardine, and Innes of Luthers, to treat with Montrose, in name of the gentry of Moray, most of whom were then assembled in Elgin; but he refused to enter into any negotiation, offering, at the same time, to accept of the services of such as would join him and obey him as the king’s lieutenant.[285] Before this answer had been communicated to the gentry at Elgin, they had all fled from the town in consequence of hearing that Montrose was advancing upon them with rapidity. The laird of Innes, along with some of his friends, retired to the castle of Spynie, possessed by his eldest son, which was well fortified and provided with every necessary for undergoing a siege. The laird of Duffus went into Sutherland. As soon as the inhabitants of the town saw the committee preparing to leave it, most of them also resolved to depart, which they did, carrying along with them their principal effects. Some went to Inverness, and others into Ross, but the greater part went to the castle of Spynie, where they sought and obtained refuge.

Apprehensive that Montrose might follow up the dreadful example he had shown, by burning the town, a proposal was made to, and accepted by him, to pay four thousand merks to save the town from destruction; but, on entering it, which he did on the 19th of February, his men, and particularly the laird of Grant’s party, were so disappointed in their hopes of plunder, in consequence of the inhabitants having carried away the best of their effects, that they destroyed every article of furniture which was left.

Montrose was joined, on his arrival at Elgin, by Lord Gordon, the eldest son of the Marquis of Huntly, with some of his friends and vassals. This young nobleman had been long kept in a state of durance by Argyle, his uncle, contrary to his own wishes, and now, when an opportunity had for the first time occurred, he showed the bent of his inclination by declaring for the king.

On taking possession of Elgin, Montrose gave orders to bring all the ferry-boats on the Spey to the north side of the river, and he stationed sentinels at all the fords up and down, to watch any movements which might be made by the enemies’ forces in the south.

Montrose, thereupon, held a council of war, at which it was determined to cross the Spey, march into the counties of Banff and Aberdeen, by the aid of Lord Gordon, raise the friends and retainers of the Marquis of Huntly, and thence proceed into the Mearns, where another accession of forces was expected. Accordingly, Montrose left Elgin on the 4th of March with the main body of his army, towards the Bog of Gicht, accompanied by the Earl of Seaforth, Sir Robert Gordon, the lairds of Grant, Pluscardine, Findrassie, and several other gentlemen who “had come in to him” at Elgin. To punish the Earl of Findlater, who had refused to join him, Montrose sent the Farquharsons of Braemar before him, across the Spey, who plundered, without mercy, the town of Cullen, belonging to the earl.

After crossing the Spey, Montrose, either apprehensive that depredations would be committed upon the properties of his Moray friends who accompanied him, by the two regiments which garrisoned Inverness, and the Covenanters of that district, or having received notice to that effect, he allowed the Earl of Seaforth, the laird of Grant, and the other Moray gentlemen, to return home to defend their estates; but before allowing them to depart, he made them take a solemn oath of allegiance to the king, and promise that they should never henceforth take up arms against his majesty or his loyal subjects. At the same time, he made them come under an engagement to join him with all their forces as soon as they could do so. The Earl of Seaforth, however, disregarded his oath, and again joined the ranks of the Covenanters. In a letter which he wrote to the committee of Estates at Aberdeen, he stated that he had yielded to Montrose through fear only, and he avowed that he would abide by “the good cause to his death.”[286]

[202]

On Montrose’s arrival at Strathbogie, or Gordon castle, Lord Graham, his eldest son, a most promising youth of sixteen, became unwell, and died after a few days’ illness. The loss of a son who had followed him in his campaigns, and shared with him the dangers of the field, was a subject of deep regret to Montrose. While Montrose was occupied at the death-bed of his son, Lord Gordon was busily employed among the Gordons, out of whom he speedily raised a force of about 500 foot, and 160 horse.

With this accession to his forces, Montrose left Strathbogie and marched towards Banff, on his route to the south. In passing by the house of Cullen, in Boyne, the seat of the Earl of Findlater, who had fled to Edinburgh, and left the charge of the house to the countess, a party of Montrose’s men entered the house, which they plundered of all its valuable contents. They then proceeded to set the house on fire, but the countess entreated Montrose to order his men to desist, and promised that if her husband did not come to Montrose and give him satisfaction within fifteen days, she would pay him 20,000 merks, of which sum she instantly paid down 5,000. Montrose complied with her request, and also spared the lands, although the earl was “a great Covenanter.” Montrose’s men next laid waste the lands in the Boyne, burnt the houses, and plundered the minister of the place of all his goods and effects, including his books. The laird of Boyne shut himself up in his stronghold, the Crag, where he was out of danger; but he had the misfortune to see his lands laid waste and destroyed. Montrose then went to Banff, which he gave up to indiscriminate plunder. His troops did not leave a vestige of moveable property in the town, and they even stripped to the skin every man they met with in the streets. They also burned two or three houses of little value, but not a drop of blood was shed.

From Banff Montrose proceeded to Turriff, where a deputation from the town council of Aberdeen waited upon him, to represent the many miseries which the loyal city had suffered from its frequent occupation by hostile armies since the first outbreaking of the unfortunate troubles which molested the kingdom. They further represented, that such was the terror of the inhabitants at the idea of another visit from his Irish troops, that all the men and women, on hearing of his approach, had made preparations for abandoning the town, and that they would certainly leave it if they did not get an assurance from the marquis of safety and protection. Montrose heard the commissioners patiently, expressed his regret at the calamities which had befallen their town, and bade them not be afraid, as he would take care that none of his foot, or Irish, soldiers should come within eight miles of Aberdeen; and that if he himself should enter the town, he would support himself at his own expense. The commissioners returned to Aberdeen, and related the successful issue of their journey, to the great joy of all the inhabitants.[287]

Whilst Montrose lay at Turriff, Sir Nathaniel Gordon, with some troopers, went to Aberdeen, which he entered on Sunday, the 9th of March, on which day there had been “no sermon in either of the Aberdeens,” as the ministers had fled the town. The keys of the churches, gates, and jail were delivered to him by the magistrates. The following morning Sir Nathaniel was joined by 100 Irish dragoons. After releasing some prisoners, he went to Torry, and took, after a slight resistance, 1,800 muskets, pikes, and other arms, which had been left in charge of a troop of horse. Besides receiving orders to watch the town, Sir Nathaniel was instructed to send out scouts as far as Cowie to watch the enemy, who were daily expected from the south. When reconnoitring, a skirmish took place at the bridge of Dee, in which Captain Keith’s troop was routed. Finding the country quite clear, and no appearance of the covenanting forces, Gordon returned back to the army, which had advanced to Frendraught. No attempt was made upon the house of Frendraught, which was kept by the young viscount in absence of his father, who was then at Muchallis with his godson, Lord Fraser; but Montrose destroyed 60 ploughs of land belonging to Frendraught within the parishes of Forgue, Inverkeithnie, and Drumblade, and the house of the minister of Forgue, with all the other houses, and buildings, and[203] their contents. Nothing, in fact, was spared. All the cattle, horses, sheep, and other domestic animals, were carried off, and the whole of Frendraught’s lands were left a dreary and uninhabitable waste.

From Pennyburn, Montrose despatched, on the 10th of March, a letter to the authorities of Aberdeen, commanding them to issue an order that all men, of whatever description, between the age of sixteen and sixty, should meet him equipped in their best arms, and such of them as had horses, mounted on the best of them, on the 15th of March, at his camp at Inverury, under the pain of fire and sword. In consequence of this mandate he was joined by a considerable number of horse and foot. On the 12th of March, Montrose arrived at Kintore, and took up his own quarters in the house of John Cheyne, the minister of the place, whence he issued an order commanding each parish within the presbytery of Aberdeen, (with the exception of the town of Aberdeen,) to send to him two commissioners, who were required to bring along with them a complete roll of the whole heritors, feuars, and liferenters of each parish. His object, in requiring such a list, was to ascertain the number of men capable of serving, and also the names of those who should refuse to join him. Commissioners were accordingly sent from the parishes, and the consequence was, that Montrose was joined daily by many men who would not otherwise have assisted him, but who were now alarmed for the safety of their properties. While at Kintore, an occurrence took place which vexed Montrose exceedingly.

To reconnoitre and watch the motions of the enemy, Montrose had, on the 12th of March, sent Sir Nathaniel Gordon, along with Donald Farquharson, Captain Mortimer, and other well-mounted cavaliers, to the number of about 80, to Aberdeen. This party, perceiving no enemy in the neighbourhood of Aberdeen, utterly neglected to place any sentinels at the gates of the town, and spent their time at their lodgings in entertainments and amusements. This careless conduct did not pass unobserved by some of the Covenanters in the town, who, it is said, sent notice thereof to Major-general Hurry, the second in command under General Baillie, who was then lying at the North Water Bridge with Lord Balcarras’s and other foot regiments. On receiving this intelligence, Hurry put himself at the head of 160 horse and foot, taken from the regular regiments, and some troopers and musketeers, and rode off to Aberdeen in great haste, where he arrived on the 15th of March, at 8 o’clock in the evening. Having posted sentinels at the gates to prevent any of Montrose’s party from escaping, he entered the town at an hour when they were all carelessly enjoying themselves in their lodgings, quite unapprehensive of such a visit. The noise in the streets, occasioned by the tramping of the horses, was the first indication they had of the presence of the enemy, but it was then too late for them to defend themselves. Donald Farquharson was killed in the street, opposite the guard-house; “a brave gentleman,” says Spalding, “and one of the noblest captains amongst all the Highlanders of Scotland, and the king’s man for life and death.” The enemy stripped him of a rich dress he had put on the same day, and left his body lying naked in the street. A few other gentlemen were killed, and some taken prisoners, but the greater part escaped. Hurry left the town next day, and, on his return to Baillie’s camp, entered the town of Montrose, and carried off Lord Graham, Montrose’s second son, a boy of fourteen years of age, then at school, who, along with his teacher, was sent to Edinburgh, and committed to the castle.

The gentlemen who had escaped from Aberdeen returned to Montrose, who was greatly offended at them for their carelessness. The magistrates of Aberdeen, alarmed lest Montrose should inflict summary vengeance upon the town, as being implicated in the attack upon the cavaliers, sent two commissioners to Kintore to assure him that they were in no way concerned in that affair. Although he heard them with great patience, he gave them no satisfaction as to his intentions, and they returned to Aberdeen without being able to obtain any promise from him to spare the town. Montrose contented himself with making the merchants furnish him with cloth, and gold and silver-lace, to the amount of £10,000 Scots, for the use of his army, which he held the magistrates bound to pay, by a tax upon the inhabitants. “Thus,” says Spalding, “cross upon cross upon Aberdeen.”

[204]

When Sir Nathaniel Gordon and the remainder of his party returned to Kintore, Montrose despatched, on the same day (March 16th), a body of 1,000 horse and foot, the latter consisting of Irish, to Aberdeen, under the command of Macdonald, his major-general. Many of the inhabitants, alarmed at the approach of this party, and still having the fear of the Irish before their eyes, were preparing to leave the town; but Macdonald relieved their apprehensions by assuring them that the Irish, who amounted to 700, should not enter the town; he accordingly stationed them at the Bridge of Dee and the Two Mile Cross, he and his troopers alone entering the town. With the exception of the houses of one or two “remarkable Covenanters,” which were plundered, Macdonald showed the utmost respect for private property, a circumstance which obtained for him the esteem of the inhabitants, who had seldom experienced such kind treatment before.

Having discharged the last duties to the brave Farquharson and his companions, Macdonald left Aberdeen, on March 18th, to join Montrose at Durris; but he had not proceeded far when complaints were brought to him that some of his Irish troops, who had lagged behind, had entered the town, and were plundering it. Macdonald, therefore, returned immediately to the town, and drove, says Spalding, “all these rascals with sore skins out of the town before him.”[288]

Before leaving Kintore, the Earl of Airly was attacked by a fever, in consequence of which, Montrose sent him to Lethintie, the residence of the earl’s son-in-law, under a guard of 300 men; but he was afterwards removed to Strathbogie for greater security. On arriving, March 17th, at Durris, in Kincardineshire, where he was joined by Macdonald, Montrose burnt the house and offices to the ground, set fire to the grain, and swept away all the cattle, horses, and sheep. He also wasted such of the lands of Fintry as belonged to Forbes of Craigievar, to punish him for the breach of his parole; treating in the same way the house and grain belonging to Abercrombie, the minister of Fintry, who was “a main Covenanter.” On the 19th, Montrose entered Stonehaven, and took up his residence in the house of James Clerk, the provost of the town. Here learning that the Covenanters in the north were troubling Lord Gordon’s lands, he despatched 500 of Gordon’s foot to defend Strathbogie and his other possessions; but he still retained Lord Gordon himself with his troopers.

On the day after his arrival at Stonehaven, Montrose wrote a letter to the Earl Marshal, who, along with sixteen ministers, and some other persons of distinction, had shut himself up in his castle of Dunottar. The bearer of the letter was not, however, suffered to enter within the gate, and was sent back, at the instigation probably of the earl’s lady and the ministers who were with him, without an answer. Montrose then endeavoured, by means of George Keith, the Earl Marshal’s brother, to persuade the latter to declare for the king, but he refused, in consequence of which Montrose resolved to inflict summary vengeance upon him, by burning and laying waste his lands and those of his retainers in the neighbourhood. Acting upon this determination, he, on the 21st of March, set fire to the houses adjoining the castle of Dunottar, and burnt the grain which was stacked in the barn-yards. Even the house of the minister did not escape. He next set fire to the town of Stonehaven, sparing only the house of the provost, in which he resided; plundered a ship which lay in the harbour, and then set her on fire, along with all the fishing boats. The lands and houses of Cowie shared the same hard fate. Whilst the work of destruction was going on, it is said that the inhabitants appeared before the castle of Dunottar, and, setting up cries of pity, implored the earl to save them from ruin, but they received no answer to their supplications, and the earl witnessed from his stronghold the total destruction of the properties of his tenants and dependents without making any effort to stop it. After he had effected the destruction of the barony of Dunottar, Montrose set fire to the lands of Fetteresso, one-fourth part of which was burnt up, together with the whole corn in the yards. A beautiful deer park was also burnt, and its alarmed inmates were all taken and killed, as well as all the cattle in the barony. Montrose next proceeded to Drumlaithie and Urie, belonging to John Forbes of Leslie, a leading Covenanter, where he committed similar depredations.

[205]

Dunottar Castle in the 17th century.—From Slezer’s Theatrum Scotiæ (1693).

Montrose, on the following day, advanced to Fettercairn, where he quartered his foot soldiers, sending out quarter-masters through the country, and about the town of Montrose, to provide quarters for some troopers; but, as these troopers were proceeding on their journey, they were alarmed by the sudden appearance of some of Major-general Hurry’s troops, who had concealed themselves within the plantation of Halkerton. These, suddenly issuing from the wood, set up a loud shout, on hearing which the troopers immediately turned to the right about and went back to the camp. This party turned out to be a body of 600 horse, under the command of Hurry himself, who had left the head-quarters of General Baillie, at Brechin, for the purpose of reconnoitring Montrose’s movements. In order to deceive Hurry, who kept advancing with his 600 horse, Montrose placed his horse, which amounted only to 200, and which he took care to line with some expert musqueteers, in a prominent situation, and concealed his foot in an adjoining valley. This ruse had the desired effect, for Hurry imagining that there were no other forces at hand, immediately attacked the small body of horse opposed to him; but he was soon undeceived by the sudden appearance of the foot, and forced to retreat with precipitation. Though his men were greatly alarmed, Hurry, who was a brave officer, having placed himself in the rear, managed to retreat across the North Esk with very little loss.

After this affair Montrose allowed his men to refresh themselves for a few days, and, on the 25th of March, put his army in motion in the direction of Brechin. On hearing of his approach, the inhabitants of the town concealed their effects in the castle, and in the steeples of churches, and fled. Montrose’s troops, although they found out the secreted goods, were so enraged at the conduct of the inhabitants that they plundered the town, and burnt about sixty houses.

From Brechin, Montrose proceeded through Angus, with the intention either of fighting Baillie, or of marching onwards to the south. His whole force, at this time, did not exceed 3,000 men, and, on reaching Kirriemuir, his cavalry was greatly diminished by his having been obliged to send away about 160 horsemen to Strathbogie, under Lord Gordon and his brother Lewis, to defend their father’s possessions against the Covenanters. Montrose[206] proceeded with his army along the foot of the Grampians, in the direction of Dunkeld, where he intended to cross the Tay in the sight of General Baillie, who commanded an army greatly superior in numbers; but, although Montrose frequently offered him battle, Baillie, contrary, it is said, to the advice of Hurry, as often declined it. On arriving at the water of Isla, the two armies, separated by that stream, remained motionless for several days, as if undetermined how to act. At length Montrose sent a trumpeter to Baillie offering him battle; and as the water could not be safely passed by his army if opposed, Montrose proposed to allow Baillie to pass it unmolested, on condition that he would give him his word of honour that he would fight without delay; but Baillie answered that he would attend to his own business himself, and that he would fight when he himself thought proper. The conduct of Baillie throughout seems altogether extraordinary, but it is alleged that he had no power to act for himself, being subject to the directions of a council of war, composed of the Earls of Crawford and Cassilis, Lords Balmerino, Kirkcudbright, and others.[289]

As Montrose could not attempt to cross the water of Isla without cavalry, in opposition to a force so greatly superior, he led his army off in the direction of the Grampians, and marched upon Dunkeld, of which he took possession. Baillie being fully aware of his intention to cross the Tay, immediately withdrew to Perth for the purpose of opposing Montrose’s passage; but, if Montrose really entertained such an intention after he had sent away the Gordon troopers, he abandoned it after reaching Dunkeld, and resolved to retrace his steps northwards. Being anxious, however, to signalize himself by some important achievement before he returned to the north, and to give confidence to the royalists, he determined to surprise Dundee, a town which had rendered itself particularly obnoxious to him for the resistance made by the inhabitants after the battle of Tippermuir. Having sent off the weaker part of his troops, and those who were lightly armed, with his heavy baggage, along the bottom of the hills with instructions to meet him at Brechin, Montrose himself, at the head of about 150 horse, and 600 expert musketeers,[290] left Dunkeld on April 3d about mid-night, and marched with such extraordinary expedition that he arrived at Dundee Law at 10 o’clock in the morning, where he encamped. Montrose then sent a trumpeter into the town with a summons requiring a surrender, promising that, in the event of compliance, he would protect the lives and properties of the inhabitants, but threatening, in case of refusal, to set fire to the town and put the inhabitants to the sword. Instead of returning an answer to this demand, the town’s people put the messenger into prison. This insult was keenly felt by Montrose, who immediately gave orders to his troops to storm the town in three different places at once, and to fulfil the threat which he had held out in case of resistance. The inhabitants, in the mean time, made such preparations for defence as the shortness of the time allowed, but, although they fought bravely, they could not resist the impetuosity of Montrose’s troops, who, impelled by a spirit of revenge, and a thirst for plunder, which Dundee, then one of the largest and most opulent towns in Scotland, offered them considerable opportunities of gratifying, forced the inhabitants from the stations they occupied, and turned the cannon which they had planted in the streets against themselves. The contest, however, continued in various quarters of the town for several hours, during which the town was set on fire in different places. The whole of that quarter of the town called the Bonnet Hill fell a prey to the flames, and the entire town would have certainly shared the same fate had not Montrose’s men chiefly occupied themselves in plundering the houses and filling themselves with the contents of the wine cellars. The sack of the town continued till the evening, and the inhabitants were subjected to every excess which an infuriated and victorious soldiery, maddened by intoxication, could inflict.

This melancholy state of things was, however, fortunately put an end to by intelligence having been brought to Montrose, who had viewed the storming of the town from the[207] neighbouring height of Dundee Law, that General Baillie was marching in great haste down the Carse of Gowrie, towards Dundee, with 3,000 foot and 800 horse. On receiving this news from his scouts, Montrose gave immediate orders to his troops to evacuate Dundee, but so intent were they upon their booty, that it was with the utmost difficulty they could be prevailed upon to leave the town, and, before the last of them could be induced to retire, some of the enemy’s troops were within gun-shot of them. The sudden appearance of Baillie’s army was quite unlooked-for, as Montrose had been made to believe, from the reports of his scouts, that it had crossed the Tay, and was proceeding to the Forth, when, in fact, only a very small part, which had been mistaken by the scouts for the entire army of Baillie, had passed.

In this critical conjuncture, Montrose held a council of war, to consult how to act under the perilous circumstances in which he was now placed. The council was divided between two opinions. Some of them advised Montrose to consult his personal safety, by riding off to the north with his horse, leaving the foot to their fate, as they considered it utterly impossible for him to carry them off in their present state, fatigued, and worn out as they were by a march of 24 miles during the preceding night, and rendered almost incapable of resisting the enemy, from the debauch they had indulged in during the day. Besides, they would require to march 20 or even 30 miles, before they could reckon themselves secure from the attacks of their pursuers, a journey which it was deemed impossible to perform, without being previously allowed some hours repose. In this way, and in no other, urged the advocates of this view, might he expect to retrieve matters, as he could, by his presence among his friends in the north, raise new forces; but that, if he himself was cut off, the king’s affairs would be utterly ruined. The other part of the council gave quite an opposite opinion, by declaring that, as the cause for which they had fought so gloriously was now irretrievably lost, they should remain in their position, and await the issue of an attack, judging it more honourable to die fighting in defence of their king, than to seek safety in an ignominious flight, which would be rendered still more disgraceful by abandoning their unfortunate fellow-warriors to the mercy of a revengeful foe.

Montrose, however, disapproved of both these plans. He considered the first as unbecoming the generosity of men who had fought so often side by side; and the second he thought extremely rash and imprudent. He, therefore, resolved to steer a middle course, and, refusing to abandon his brave companions in arms in the hour of danger, gave orders for an immediate retreat, in the direction of Arbroath. This, however, was a mere manœuvre to deceive the enemy, as Montrose intended, after nightfall, to march towards the Grampians. In order to make his retreat more secure, Montrose despatched 400 of his foot, and gave them orders to march as quickly as possible, without breaking their ranks. These were followed by 200 of his most expert musketeers, and Montrose himself closed the rear with his horse in open rank, so as to admit the musketeers to interline them, in case of an attack. It was about six o’clock in the evening when Montrose began his retreat, at which hour the last of Baillie’s foot had reached Dundee.

Scarcely had Montrose begun to move, when intelligence was received by Baillie, from some prisoners he had taken, of Montrose’s intentions, which was now confirmed by ocular proof. A proposal, it is said, was then made by Hurry, to follow Montrose with the whole army, and attack him, but Baillie rejected it; and the better, as he thought, to secure Montrose, and prevent his escape, he divided his army into two parts, one of which he sent off in the direction of the Grampians, to prevent Montrose from entering the Highlands; and the other followed directly in the rear of Montrose. He thus expected to be able to cut off Montrose entirely, and to encourage his men to the pursuit, he offered a reward of 20,000 crowns to any one who should bring him Montrose’s head. Baillie’s cavalry soon came up with Montrose’s rear, but they were so well received by the musketeers, who brought down some of them, that they became very cautious in their approaches. The darkness of the night soon put an end to the pursuit, and[208] Montrose continued unmolested his march to Arbroath, in the neighbourhood of which he arrived about midnight. His troops had now marched upwards of 40 miles, 17 of which they had performed in a few hours, in the face of a large army, and had passed two nights and a day without sleep; but as their safety might be endangered by allowing them to repose till daylight, Montrose entreated them to proceed on their march. Though almost exhausted with incessant fatigue, and over-powered with drowsiness, they readily obeyed the order of their general, and, after a short halt, proceeded on their route in a northwesterly direction. They arrived at the South Esk early in the morning, which they crossed, at sunrise, near Carriston Castle.

Montrose now sent notice to the party which he had despatched from Dunkeld to Brechin, with his baggage, to join him, but they had, on hearing of his retreat, already taken refuge among the neighbouring hills. Baillie, who had passed the night at Forfar, now considered that he had Montrose completely in his power; but, to his utter amazement, not a trace of Montrose was to be seen next morning. Little did he imagine that Montrose had passed close by him during the night, and eluded his grasp. Chagrined at this unexpected disappointment, Baillie, without waiting for his foot, galloped off at full speed to overtake Montrose, and, with such celerity did he travel, that he was close upon Montrose before the latter received notice of his approach. The whole of Montrose’s men, with the exception of a few sentinels, were now stretched upon the ground, in a state of profound repose, and, so firmly did sleep hold their exhausted frames in its grasp, that it was with the utmost difficulty that they could be aroused from their slumbers, or made sensible of their danger. The sentinels, it is said, had even to prick some of them with their swords, before they could be awakened,[291] and when at length the sleepers were aroused they effected a retreat, after some skirmishing, to the foot of the Grampians, about three miles distant from their camp, and retired, thereafter, through Glenesk into the interior without further molestation.

This memorable retreat is certainly one of the most extraordinary events which occurred during the whole of Montrose’s campaigns. It is not surprising, that some of the most experienced officers in Britain, and in France and Germany, considered it the most splendid of all Montrose’s achievements.[292]

Being now secure from all danger in the fastnesses of the Grampians, Montrose allowed his men to refresh themselves for some days. Whilst enjoying this necessary relaxation from the fatigues of the field, intelligence was brought to Montrose that a division of the covenanting army, under Hurry, was in full march on Aberdeen, with an intention of proceeding into Moray. Judging that an attack upon the possessions of the Gordons would be one of Hurry’s objects, Montrose despatched Lord Gordon with his horse to the north, for the purpose of assisting his friends in case of attack.

It was not in the nature of Montrose to remain inactive for any length of time, and an occurrence, of which he had received notice, had lately taken place, which determined him to return a second time to Dunkeld. This was the escape of Viscount Aboyne, and some other noblemen and gentlemen, from Carlisle, who, he was informed, were on their way north to join him. Apprehensive that they might be interrupted by Baillie’s troops, he resolved to make a diversion in their favour, and, by drawing off the attention of Baillie, enable them the more effectually to elude observation. Leaving, therefore, Macdonald, with about 200 men, to beat up the enemy in the neighbourhood of Coupar-Angus, Montrose proceeded, with the remainder of his forces, consisting only of 500 foot and 50 horse, to Dunkeld, whence he marched to Crieff, which is about 17 miles west from Perth. It was not until he had arrived at the latter town that Baillie, who, after his pursuit of Montrose, had returned to Perth with his army, heard of this movement. As Baillie was sufficiently aware of the weakness of Montrose’s force, and as he was sure that, with such a great disparity, Montrose would not risk a general engagement, he endeavoured to surprise him, in the hope either of cutting him off entirely, or crippling him so effectually[209] as to prevent him from again taking the field. He therefore left Perth during the night of the 7th of April, with his whole army, consisting of 2,000 foot and 500 horse, with the intention of falling upon Montrose by break of day, before he should be aware of his presence; but Montrose’s experience had taught him the necessity of being always upon his guard when so near an enemy’s camp, and, accordingly, he had drawn up his army, in anticipation of Baillie’s advance, in such order as would enable him either to give battle or retreat.

As soon as he heard of Baillie’s approach, Montrose advanced with his horse to reconnoitre, and having ascertained the enemy’s strength and numbers, which were too formidable to be encountered with his little band, brave as they were, he gave immediate orders to his foot to retreat with speed up Strathearn, and to retire into the adjoining passes. To prevent them from being harassed in their retreat by the enemy’s cavalry, Montrose covered their rear with his small body of horse, sustaining a very severe attack, which he warmly repulsed. After a march of about eight miles, Montrose’s troops arrived at the pass of Strathearn, of which they took immediate possession, and Baillie, thinking it useless to follow them into their retreat, discontinued the pursuit, and retired with his army towards Perth. Montrose passed the night on the banks of Loch Earn, and marched next morning through Balquidder, where he was joined, at the ford of Cardross, by the Viscount Aboyne, the Master of Napier, Hay of Dalgetty, and Stirling of Keir, who, along with the Earl of Nithsdale, Lord Herries, and others, had escaped from Carlisle, as before stated.

No sooner had Baillie returned from the pursuit of Montrose than intelligence was brought him that Macdonald, with the 200 men which Montrose had left with him, had burnt the town of Coupar-Angus,—that he had wasted the lands of Lord Balmerino,—killed Patrick Lindsay, the minister of Coupar,—and finally, after routing some troopers of Lord Balcarras, and carrying off their horses and arms, had fled to the hills. This occurrence, withdrawing the attention of Baillie from Montrose’s future movements, enabled the latter to proceed to the north without opposition.

Montrose had advanced as far as Loch Katrine, when a messenger brought him intelligence that General Hurry was in the Enzie with a considerable force, that he had been joined by some of the Moray-men, and, after plundering and laying waste the country, was preparing to attack Lord Gordon, who had not a sufficient force to oppose him. On receiving this information, Montrose resolved to proceed immediately to the north to save the Gordons from the destruction which appeared to hang over them, hoping that, with such accessions of force as he might obtain in his march, united with that under Lord Gordon, he would succeed in defeating Hurry before Baillie should be aware of his movements.

He, therefore, returned through Balquidder, marched, with rapid strides, along the side of Loch Tay, through Athole and Angus, and, crossing the Grampian hills, proceeded down the Strath of Glenmuck. In his march, Montrose was joined by the Athole-men and the other Highlanders who had obtained, or rather taken leave of absence after the battle of Inverlochy, and also by Macdonald and his party. On arriving in the neighbourhood of Auchindoun, he was met by Lord Gordon, at the head of 1,000 foot and 200 horse. Montrose crossed the Dee on the 1st of May, at the mill of Crathie—having provided himself with ammunition from a ship in Aberdeen harbour—continued his march towards the Spey, and before Hurry was even aware that the enemy had crossed the Grampians, he found them within six miles of his camp. The sudden appearance of Montrose with such a superior force—for Hurry had only at this time about 1,000 foot and 200 horse—greatly alarmed him, and raising his camp, he crossed the Spey in great haste, with the intention of marching to Inverness, where he would be joined by the troops of the garrison, and receive large reinforcements from the neighbouring counties. Montrose immediately pursued him, and followed close upon his heels to the distance of 14 miles beyond Forres, when, favoured by the darkness of the night, Hurry effected his escape, with little loss, and arrived at Inverness.

The panic into which Hurry had been thrown soon gave way to a very different feeling, as he found the Earls of Seaforth and Sutherland[210] with their retainers, and the clan Fraser, and others from Moray and Caithness, all assembled at Inverness, as he had directed. This accession of force increased his army to 3,500 foot and 400 horse. He therefore resolved to act on the offensive, by giving battle to Montrose immediately.

Montrose had taken up a position at the village of Auldearn, about three miles south-east from Nairn, on the morning after the pursuit. In the course of the day, Hurry advanced with all his forces, including the garrison of Inverness, towards Nairn; and, on approaching Auldearn, formed his army in order of battle. Montrose’s force, which had been greatly weakened by the return of the Athole-men and other Highlanders to defend their country from the depredations of Baillie’s army, now consisted of only 1,500 foot and 250 horse. It was not, therefore, without great reluctance, that he resolved to risk a battle with an enemy more than double in point of numbers, and composed in great part of veteran troops; but, pressed as he was by Hurry, and in danger of being attacked in his rear by Baillie, who was advancing by forced marches to the north, he had no alternative but to hazard a general engagement. He therefore instantly looked about him for an advantageous position.

The village of Auldearn stands upon a height, behind which, or on the east, is a valley, overlooked by a ridge of little eminences, running in a northerly direction, and which almost conceals the valley from view. In this hollow Montrose arranged his forces in order of battle. Having formed them into two divisions, he posted the right wing on the north of the village, at a place where there was a considerable number of dikes and ditches. This body, which consisted of 400 men, chiefly Irish, was placed under the command of Macdonald. On taking their stations, Montrose gave them strict injunctions not to leave their position on any account, as they were effectually protected by the walls around them, not only from the attacks of cavalry, but of foot, and could, without much danger to themselves, keep up a galling and destructive fire upon their assailants. In order to attract the best troops of the enemy to this difficult spot where they could not act, and to make them believe that Montrose commanded this wing, he gave the royal standard to Macdonald, intending, when they should get entangled among the bushes and dikes, with which the ground to the right was covered, to attack them himself with his left wing; and to enable him to do so the more effectually, he placed the whole of his horse and the remainder of the foot on the left wing to the south of the village. The former he committed to the charge of Lord Gordon, reserving the command of the latter to himself. After placing a few chosen foot with some cannon in front of the village, under cover of some dikes, Montrose firmly awaited the attack of the enemy.

Hurry divided his foot and his horse each into two divisions. On the right wing of the main body of the foot, which was commanded by Campbell of Lawers, Hurry placed the regular cavalry which he had brought from the south, and on the left the horse of Moray and the north, under the charge of Captain Drummond. The other division of foot was placed behind as a reserve, and commanded by Hurry himself.

When Hurry observed the singular position which Montrose had taken up, he was utterly at a loss to guess his designs, and though it appeared to him, skilful as he was in the art of war, a most extraordinary and novel sight, yet, from the well known character of Montrose, he was satisfied that Montrose’s arrangements were the result of a deep laid scheme. But what especially excited the surprise of Hurry, was the appearance of the large yellow banner or royal standard in the midst of a small body of foot stationed among hedges and dikes and stones, almost isolated from the horse and the main body of the foot. To attack this party, at the head of which he naturally supposed Montrose was, was his first object. This was precisely what Montrose had wished; his snare proved successful. With the design of overwhelming at once the right wing, Hurry despatched towards it the best of his horse and all his veteran troops, who made a furious attack upon Macdonald’s party, the latter defending themselves bravely behind the dikes and bushes. The contest continued for some time on the right with varied success, and Hurry, who had plenty of men to spare, relieved those[211] who were engaged by fresh troops. Montrose, who kept a steady eye upon the motions of the enemy, and watched a favourable opportunity for making a grand attack upon them with the left wing, was just preparing to carry his design into execution, when a confidential person suddenly rode up to him and whispered in his ear that the right wing had been put to flight.

This intelligence was not, however, quite correct. It seems that Macdonald who, says Wishart, “was a brave enough man, but rather a better soldier than a general, extremely violent, and daring even to rashness,” had been so provoked with the taunts and insults of the enemy, that in spite of the express orders he had received from Montrose on no account to leave his position, he had unwisely advanced beyond it to attack the enemy, and though he had been several times repulsed he returned to the charge. But he was at last borne down by the great numerical superiority of the enemy’s horse and foot, consisting of veteran troops, and forced to retire in great disorder into an adjoining enclosure. Nothing, however, could exceed the admirable manner in which he managed this retreat, and the courage he displayed while leading off his men. Defending his body with a large target, he resisted, single-handed, the assaults of the enemy, and was the last man to leave the field. So closely indeed was he pressed by Hurry’s spearmen, that some of them actually came so near him as to fix their spears in his target, which he cut off by threes or fours at a time with his broadsword.[293]

It was during this retreat that Montrose received the intelligence of the flight of the right wing; but he preserved his usual presence of mind, and to encourage his men, who might get alarmed at hearing such news, he thus addressed Lord Gordon, loud enough to be heard by his troops, “What are we doing, my Lord? Our friend Macdonald has routed the enemy on the right and is carrying all before him. Shall we look on and let him carry off the whole honour of the day?” A crisis had arrived, and not a moment was to be lost. Scarcely, therefore, were the words out of Montrose’s mouth, when he ordered his men to charge the enemy. When his men were advancing to the charge, Captain or Major Drummond, who commanded Hurry’s horse, made an awkward movement by wheeling about his men, and his horse coming in contact with the foot, broke their ranks and occasioned considerable confusion. Lord Gordon seeing this, immediately rushed in upon Drummond’s horse with his party and put them to flight. Montrose followed hard with the foot, and attacked the main body of Hurry’s army, which he routed after a powerful resistance. The veterans in Hurry’s army, who had served in Ireland, fought manfully, and chose rather to be cut down standing in their ranks than retreat; but the new levies from Moray, Ross, Sutherland, and Caithness, fled in great consternation. They were pursued for several miles, and might have been all killed or captured if Lord Aboyne had not, by an unnecessary display of ensigns and standards, which he had taken from the enemy, attracted the notice of the pursuers, who halted for some time under the impression that a fresh party of the enemy was coming up to attack them. In this way Hurry and some of his troops, who were the last to leave the field of battle, as well as the other fugitives, escaped from the impending danger, and arrived at Inverness the following morning. As the loss of this battle was mainly owing to Captain Drummond, he was tried by a court-martial at Inverness, and condemned to be shot, a sentence which was carried into immediate execution. He was accused of having betrayed the army, and it is said that he admitted that after the battle had commenced he had spoken with the enemy.[294]

The number of killed on both sides has been variously stated. That on the side of the Covenanters has been reckoned by one writer at 1,000,[295] by another[296] at 2,000, and by a third at 3,000 men.[297] Montrose, on the other hand, is said by the first of these authors to have lost about 200 men, while the second says that he had only “some twenty-four gentlemen hurt, and some few Irish killed,” and Wishart informs us that Montrose only missed one private man[212] on the left, and that the right wing, commanded by Macdonald, “lost only fourteen private men.” The clans who had joined Hurry suffered considerably, particularly the Frasers, who, besides unmarried men, are said to have left dead on the field no less than 87 married men. Among the principal covenanting officers who were slain were Colonel Campbell of Lawers, Sir John and Sir Gideon Murray, and Colonel James Campbell, with several other officers of inferior note. The laird of Lawers’s brother, Archibald Campbell, and a few other officers, were taken prisoners. Captain Macdonald and William Macpherson of Invereschie were the only persons of any note killed on Montrose’s side. Montrose took several prisoners, whom, with the wounded, he treated with great kindness. Such of the former as expressed their sorrow for having joined the ranks of the Covenanters he released—others who were disposed to join him he received into his army, but such as remained obstinate he imprisoned. Besides taking 16 standards from the enemy, Montrose got possession of the whole of their baggage, provisions, and ammunition, and a considerable quantity of money and valuable effects. The battle of Auldearn was fought on the 4th of May, according to Wishart,[298] and on the 9th according to others,[299] in the year 1645.

The immense disproportion between the numbers of the slain on the side of the Covenanters and that of the prisoners taken by Montrose evidently shows that very little quarter had been given, the cause of which is said to have been the murder of James Gordon, younger of Rhiny, who was killed by a party from the garrison of Spynie, and by some of the inhabitants of Elgin, at Struders, near Forres, where he had been left in consequence of a severe wound he had received in a skirmish during Hurry’s first retreat to Inverness.[300] But Montrose revenged himself still farther by advancing to Elgin and burning the houses of all those who had been concerned in the murder, at the same time sending out a party[301] to treat in a similar way the town of Garmouth, belonging to the laird of Innes.

While these proceedings were going on, Montrose sent his whole baggage, booty, and warlike stores across the Spey, which he himself crossed upon the 14th of May, proceeding to Birkenbog, the seat of “a great Covenanter,” where he took up his head quarters. He quartered his men in the neighbourhood, and, during a short stay at Birkenbog, he sent out different parties of his troops to scour the country, and take vengeance on the Covenanters.

When General Baillie first heard of the defeat of his colleague, Hurry, at Auldearn, he was lying at Cromar, with his army. He had, in the beginning of May, after Montrose’s departure to the north, entered Athole, which he had wasted with fire and sword, and had made an attempt upon the strong castle of Blair, in which many of the prisoners taken at the battle of Inverlochy were confined; but, not succeeding in his enterprise, he had, after collecting an immense booty, marched through Athole, and, passing by Kirriemuir and Fettercairn, encamped on the Birse on the 10th of May. His force at this time amounted to about 2,000 foot and 120 troopers. On the following day he had marched to Cromar, where he encamped between the Kirks of Coull and Tarlan till he should be joined by Lord Balcarras’s horse regiment. In a short time he was joined, not only by Balcarras’s regiment, but by two foot regiments. The ministers endeavoured to induce the country people also to join Baillie, by “thundering out of pulpits,” but “they lay still,” says Spalding, “and would not follow him.”[302]

As soon as Baillie heard of the defeat of Hurry, he raised his camp at Cromar, upon the 19th of May, and hastened north. He arrived at the wood of Cochlarachie, within two miles of Strathbogie, before Montrose was aware of his approach. Here he was joined by Hurry, who, with some horse from Inverness, had passed themselves off as belonging to Lord Gordon’s party, and had thus been permitted to go through Montrose’s lines without opposition.

It was on the 19th of May, when lying at[213] Birkenbog, that Montrose received the intelligence of Baillie’s arrival in the neighbourhood of Strathbogie. Although Montrose’s men had not yet wholly recovered from the fatigues of their late extraordinary march and subsequent labours, and although their numbers had been reduced since the battle of Auldearn, by the departure of some of the Highlanders with the booty they had acquired, they felt no disinclination to engage the enemy, but, on the contrary, were desirous of coming to immediate action. But Montrose, although he had the utmost confidence in the often tried courage of his troops, judged it more expedient to avoid an engagement at present, and to retire, in the meantime, into his fastnesses to recruit his exhausted strength, than risk another battle with a fresh force, greatly superior to his own. In order to deceive the enemy as to his intentions, he advanced, the same day, upon Strathbogie, and, within view of their camp, began to make intrenchments, and raise fortifications, as if preparing to defend himself. But as soon as the darkness of the night prevented Baillie from discovering his motions, Montrose marched rapidly up the south side of the Spey with his foot, leaving his horse behind him, with instructions to follow him as soon as daylight began to appear.

Baillie had passed the night in the confident expectation of a battle next day, but was surprised to learn the following morning that not a vestige of Montrose’s army was to be seen. Montrose had taken the route to Balveny, which having been ascertained by Baillie, he immediately prepared to follow. He, accordingly, crossed the Spey, and after a rapid march, almost overtook the retiring foe in Glenlivet; but Montrose, having outdistanced his pursuers by several miles before night came on, got the start of them so completely, that they were quite at a loss next morning to ascertain the route he had taken, and could only guess at it by observing the traces of his footsteps on the grass and the heather over which he had passed. Following, therefore, the course thus pointed out, Baillie came again in sight of Montrose; but he found that he had taken up a position, which, whilst it almost defied approach from its rocky and woody situation, commanded the entrance into Badenoch, from which country Montrose could, without molestation, draw supplies of both men and provisions. To attack Montrose in his stronghold was out of the question; but, in the hope of withdrawing him from it, Baillie encamped his army hard by. Montrose lay quite secure in his well-chosen position, from which he sent out parties who, skirmishing by day, and beating up the quarters of the enemy during the night, so harassed and frightened them, that they were obliged to retreat to Inverness, after a stay of a few days, a measure which was rendered still more necessary from the want of provisions and of provender for the horses. Leaving Inverness, Baillie crossed the Spey, and proceeded to Aberdeenshire, arriving on the 3d of June at Newton, in the Garioch, “where he encamped, destroying the country, and cutting the green growing crops to the very clod.”[303]

Having got quit of the presence of Baillie’s army, Montrose resolved to make a descent into Angus, and attack the Earl of Crawford, who lay at the castle of Newtyle with an army of reserve to support Baillie, and to prevent Montrose from crossing the Forth, and carrying the war into the south. This nobleman, who stood next to Argyle, as head of the Covenanters, had often complained to the Estates against Argyle, whose rival he was, for his inactivity and pusillanimity; and having insinuated that he would have acted a very different part had the command of such an army as Argyle had, been intrusted to him, he had the address to obtain the command of the army now under him, which had been newly raised; but the earl was without military experience, and quite unfit to cope with Montrose.

Proceeding through Badenoch, Montrose crossed the Grampians, and arrived by rapid marches on the banks of the river Airly, within seven miles of Crawford’s camp, but was prevented from giving battle by the desertion of the Gordons and their friends, who almost all returned to their country.

He now formed the resolution to attack Baillie himself, but before he could venture on such a bold step, he saw that there was an[214] absolute necessity of making some additions to his force. With this view he sent Sir Nathaniel Gordon, an influential cavalier, into the north before him, to raise the Gordons and the other royalists; and, on his march north through Glenshee and the Braes of Mar, Montrose despatched Macdonald into the remoter Highlands with a party to bring him, as speedily as possible, all the forces he could. Judging that the influence and authority of Lord Gordon might greatly assist Sir Nathaniel, he sent him after him, and Montrose himself encamped in the country of Cromar, waiting for the expected reinforcements.

In the meantime, Baillie lay in camp on Dee-side, in the lower part of Mar, where he was joined by Crawford; but he showed no disposition to attack Montrose, who, from the inferiority, in point of number, of his forces, retired to the old castle of Kargarf. Crawford did not, however, remain long with Baillie; but, exchanging a thousand of his raw recruits for a similar number of Baillie’s veterans, he returned with these, and the remainder of his army, through the Mearns into Angus, as if he intended some mighty exploit; he, thereafter, entered Athole, and in imitation of Argyle, plundered and burnt the country.

Raising his camp, Baillie marched towards Strathbogie to lay siege to the Marquis of Huntly’s castle, the Bog of Gight, now Gordon castle; but although Montrose had not yet received any reinforcements, he resolved to follow Baillie and prevent him from putting his design into execution. But Montrose had marched scarcely three miles when he was observed by Baillie’s scouts, and at the same time ascertained that Baillie had taken up a strong position on a rising ground above Keith, about two miles off. Next morning Montrose, not considering it advisable to attack Baillie in the strong position he occupied, sent a trumpeter to him offering to engage him on open ground, but Baillie answered the hostile message by saying, that he would not receive orders for fighting from his enemy.[304]

In this situation of matters, Montrose had recourse to stratagem to draw Baillie from his stronghold. By retiring across the river Don, the covenanting general was led to believe that Montrose intended to march to the south, and he was, therefore, advised by a committee of the Estates which always accompanied him, and in whose hands he appears to have been a mere passive instrument, to pursue Montrose. As soon as Montrose’s scouts brought intelligence that Baillie was advancing, he set off by break of day to the village of Alford on the river Don, where he intended to await the enemy. When Baillie was informed of this movement, he imagined that Montrose was in full retreat before him, a supposition which encouraged him so to hasten his march, that he came up with Montrose at noon at the distance of a few miles from Alford. Montrose, thereupon, drew up his army in order of battle on an advantageous rising ground and waited for the enemy; but instead of attacking him, Baillie made a detour to the left with the intention of getting into Montrose’s rear and cutting off his retreat. Montrose then continued his march to Alford, where he passed the night.

On the following morning, the 2d of July, the two armies were only the distance of about four miles from each other. Montrose drew up his troops on a little hill behind the village of Alford. In his rear was a marsh full of ditches and pits, which would protect him from the inroads of Baillie’s cavalry should they attempt to assail in that quarter, and in his front stood a steep hill, which prevented the enemy from observing his motions. He gave the command of the right wing to Lord Gordon and Sir Nathaniel; the left he committed to Viscount Aboyne and Sir William Rollock; and the main body was put under the charge of Angus Macvichalaster, chief of the Macdonells of Glengarry, Drummond younger of Balloch, and Quarter-master George Graham, a skilful officer. To Napier his nephew, Montrose intrusted a body of reserve, which was concealed behind the hill.

Scarcely had Montrose completed his arrangements, when he received intelligence that the enemy had crossed the Don, and was moving in the direction of Alford. This was a fatal step on the part of Baillie, who, it is said, was forced into battle by the rashness of Lord Balcarras, “one of the bravest men of the[215] kingdom,”[305] who unnecessarily placed himself and his regiment in a position of such danger that they could not be rescued without exposing the whole of the covenanting army.[306]

When Baillie arrived in the valley adjoining the hill on which Montrose had taken up his position, both armies remained motionless for some time, viewing each other, as if unwilling to begin the combat. Owing to the commanding position which Montrose occupied, the Covenanters could not expect to gain any advantage by attacking him even with superior forces; but now, for the first time, the number of the respective armies was about equal, and Montrose had this advantage over his adversary, that while Baillie’s army consisted in part of the raw and undisciplined levies which the Earl of Crawford had exchanged for some of his veteran troops, the greater part of Montrose’s men had been long accustomed to service. These circumstances determined Baillie not to attempt the ascent of the hill, but to remain in the valley, where, in the event of a descent by Montrose, his superiority in cavalry would give him the advantage.

This state of inaction was, however, soon put an end to by Lord Gordon, who observing a party of Baillie’s troops driving away before them a large quantity of cattle which they had collected in Strathbogie and the Enzie, and being desirous of recovering the property of his countrymen, selected a body of horse, with which he attempted a rescue. The assailed party was protected by some dykes and enclosures, from behind which they fired a volley upon the Gordons, which did considerable execution amongst them. Such a cool and determined reception, attended with a result so disastrous and unexpected, might have been attended by dangerous consequences, had not Montrose, on observing the party of Lord Gordon giving indications as if undetermined how to act, resolved immediately to commence a general attack upon the enemy with his whole army. But as Baillie’s foot had intrenched themselves amongst the dykes and fences which covered the ground at the bottom of the hill, and could not be attacked in that position with success, Montrose immediately ordered the horse, who were engaged with the enemy, to retreat to their former position, in the expectation that Baillie’s troops would leave their ground and follow them. And in this hope he was not disappointed, for the Covenanters thinking that this movement of the horse was merely the prelude to a retreat, advanced from their secure position, and followed the supposed fugitives with their whole horse and foot in regular order.

Both armies now came to close quarters, and fought face to face and man to man with great obstinacy for some time, without either party receding from the ground they occupied. At length Sir Nathaniel Gordon, growing impatient at such a protracted resistance, resolved to cut his way through the enemy’s left wing, consisting of Lord Balcarras’s regiment of horse; and calling to the light musketeers who lined his horse, he ordered them to throw aside their muskets, which were now unnecessary, and to attack the enemy’s horse with their drawn swords. This order was immediately obeyed, and in a short time they cut a passage through the ranks of the enemy, whom they hewed down with great slaughter. When the horse which composed Baillie’s right wing, and which had been kept in check by Lord Aboyne, perceived that their left had given way, they also retreated.[307] An attempt was made by the covenanting general to rally his left wing by bringing up the right, after it had retired, to its support, but they were so alarmed at the spectacle or mêlée which they had just witnessed on the left, where their comrades had been cut down by the broad swords of Montrose’s musketeers, that they could not be induced to take the place of their retiring friends.

Thus abandoned by the horse, Baillie’s foot were attacked on all sides by Montrose’s forces. They fought with uncommon bravery, and although they were cut down in great numbers, the survivors exhibited a perseverance and determination to resist to the last extremity. An accident now occurred, which, whilst it threw a melancholy gloom over the fortunes of the day, and the spirits of Montrose’s men served to hasten the work of carnage and death. This was the fall of Lord Gordon, who having[216] incautiously rushed in amongst the thickest of the enemy, was unfortunately shot dead, it is said,[308] when in the act of pulling Baillie, the covenanting general, from his horse, having, it is said, in a moment of exultation, promised to his men, to drag Baillie out of the ranks and present him before them. The Gordons, on perceiving their young chief fall, set no bounds to their fury, and falling upon the enemy with renewed vigour, hewed them down without mercy; yet these brave men still showed no disposition to flee, and it was not until the appearance of the reserve under the Master of Napier, which had hitherto been kept out of view of the enemy at the back of the hill, that their courage began to fail them. When this body began to descend the hill, accompanied by what appeared to them a fresh reinforcement of cavalry, but which consisted merely of the camp or livery boys, who had mounted the sumpter-horses to make a display for the purpose of alarming the enemy, the entire remaining body of the covenanting foot fled with precipitation. A hot pursuit took place, and so great was the slaughter that very few of them escaped. The covenanting general and his principal officers were saved by the fleetness of their horses, and the Marquis of Argyle, who had accompanied Baillie as a member of the committee, and who was closely pursued by Glengarry and some of his Highlanders, made a narrow escape by repeatedly changing horses.

Thus ended one of the best contested battles which Montrose had yet fought, yet strange as the fact may appear, his loss was, as usual, extremely trifling, Lord Gordon being the only person of importance slain. A considerable number of Montrose’s men, however, were wounded, particularly the Gordons, who, for a long time, sustained the attacks of Balcarras’s horse, amongst whom were Sir Nathaniel, and Gordon, younger of Gicht.[309] The loss on the side of the Covenanters was immense; by far the greater part of their foot, and a considerable number of their cavalry having been slain. Some prisoners were taken from them, but their number was small, owing to their obstinacy in refusing quarter. These were sent to Strathbogie under an escort.

The brilliant victory was, however, clouded by the death of Lord Gordon, “a very hopeful young gentleman, able of mind and body, about the age of twenty-eight years.”[310] Wishart gives an affecting description of the feelings of Montrose’s army when this amiable young nobleman was killed. “There was,” he says, “a general lamentation for the loss of the Lord Gordon, whose death seemed to eclipse all the glory of the victory. As the report spread among the soldiers, every one appeared to be struck dumb with the melancholy news, and a universal silence prevailed for some time through the army. However, their grief soon burst through all restraint, venting itself in the voice of lamentation and sorrow. When the first transports were over, the soldiers exclaimed against heaven and earth for bereaving the king, the kingdom, and themselves, of such an excellent young nobleman; and, unmindful of the victory or of the plunder, they thronged about the body of their dead captain, some weeping over his wounds and kissing his lifeless limbs; while others praised his comely appearance even in death, and extolled his noble mind, which was enriched with every valuable qualification that could adorn his high birth or ample fortune: they even cursed the victory bought at so dear a rate. Nothing could have supported the army under this immense sorrow but the presence of Montrose, whose safety gave them joy, and not a little revived their drooping spirits. In the meantime he could not command his grief, but mourned bitterly over the melancholy fate of his only and dearest friend, grievously complaining, that one who was the honour of his nation, the ornament of the Scots nobility, and the boldest asserter of the royal authority in the north, had fallen in the flower of his youth.”[311]

The victories of Montrose in Scotland were more than counterbalanced by those of the parliamentary forces in England. Under different circumstances, the success at Alford[217] might have been attended with consequences the most important to the royal cause; but the defeat of the king on the 14th of June, at Naseby, had raised the hopes of the Covenanters, and prepared their minds to receive the tidings of Baillie’s defeat with coolness and moderation.

Upon the day on which the battle of Alford was fought, the parliament had adjourned to Stirling from Edinburgh, on account of a destructive pestilence which had reached the capital from Newcastle, by way of Kelso. Thither General Baillie, Lord Balcarras, and the committee of Estates, which had accompanied the covenanting army, repaired, to lay a statement of the late disaster before the parliament, and to receive instructions as to their future conduct. With the exception of Baillie, they were well received. Balcarras, who had particularly distinguished himself in the battle at the head of his horse, received a vote of thanks, and a similar acknowledgment was, after some hesitation, awarded to Baillie, notwithstanding some attempts made to prejudice the parliament against him. But the fact was, they could not dispense in the present emergency with an officer of the military talents of Baillie, who, instead of shrinking from responsibility for the loss of the battle of Alford, offered to stand trial before a court martial, and to justify his conduct on that occasion. To have withheld, therefore, the usual token of approbation from him, while bestowing it upon an inferior officer, would have been to fix a stigma upon him which he was not disposed to brook consistently with the retention of the command of the army; and as the parliament resolved to renew his commission, by appointing him to the command of the army then being concentrated at Perth, they afterwards professed their unqualified satisfaction with him.

After the battle of Alford the army of Montrose was considerably diminished, in consequence of the Highlanders, according to custom, taking leave of absence, and returning home with the spoil they had taken from the enemy. This singular, though ordinary practice, contributed more to paralyze the exertions of Montrose, and to prevent him from following up his successes, than any event which occurred in the whole course of his campaigns, and it may appear strange that Montrose did not attempt to put an end to it; but the tenure by which he held the services of these hardy mountaineers being that they should be allowed their wonted privileges, any attempt to deviate from their established customs would have been an immediate signal for desertion.

As it would have been imprudent in Montrose, with forces thus impaired, to have followed the fugitives, who would receive fresh succours from the south, he, after allowing his men some time to refresh themselves, marched to Aberdeen, where he celebrated the funeral obsequies of his valued friend, Lord Gordon, with becoming dignity.

The district of Buchan in Aberdeenshire, which, from its outlying situation, had hitherto escaped assessment for the supply of the hostile armies, was at this time subjected to the surveillance of Montrose, who despatched a party from Aberdeen into that country to collect all the horses they could find for the use of his army, and also to obtain recruits. About the same time the Marquis of Huntly, who had been living in Strathnaver for some time, having heard of the death of his eldest son, Lord Gordon, meditated a return to his own country, intending to throw the influence of his name and authority into the royal scale. But as he might be exposed to danger in passing through countries which were hostile to the royal cause, it was arranged between Montrose and Viscount Aboyne, who had just been created an earl, that the latter should proceed to Strathnaver, with a force of 2,000 men to escort his father south. This expedition was, however, abandoned, in consequence of intelligence having been brought to Montrose that the Covenanters were assembling in great strength at Perth.

The parliament which, as we have seen, had left Edinburgh, and gone to Stirling on account of the pestilence, had been obliged, in consequence of its appearance in Stirling, to adjourn to Perth, where it was to meet on the 24th of July; but before leaving Stirling, they ordered a levy of 10,000 foot to be raised in the counties to the south of the Tay; and to insure due obedience to this mandate, all noblemen, gentlemen, and heritors, were required to attend[218] at Perth on or before that day, well mounted, and to bring with them such forces as they could raise, under a heavy penalty.[312]

On leaving Aberdeen, Montrose took up his quarters at Crabston, situated a few miles from Aberdeen, between the rivers Don and Dee, where he remained for some time in the expectation of being joined by reinforcements from the Highlands under Major-general Macdonald, who had been absent about two months from the army in quest of recruits. As, however, these expected succours did not arrive within the time expected, Montrose, impatient of delay, crossed the Dee, and marching over the Grampians, descended into the Mearns, and pitched his camp at Fordoun in Kincardineshire.

Proceeding on his march through Angus and Blairgowrie to Dunkeld, Montrose had the good fortune to be successively joined by his cousin, Patrick Graham of Inchbrakie, at the head of the brave Athole Highlanders, and by Macdonald, his major-general, who brought with him the chief of the Macleans, and about 700 of that clan, all animated by a strong feeling of animosity against Argyle and his partisans. He was also joined by John Muidartach, the celebrated captain of the Clanranald, at the head of 500 of his men; by the Macgregors and Macnabs, headed by their respective chieftains; by the Clandonald, under the command of the uncles of Glengarry and other officers, Glengarry himself, “who,” says Bishop Wishart, “deserves a singular commendation for his bravery and steady loyalty to the king, and his peculiar attachment to Montrose,”[313] having never left Montrose since he joined him at the time of his expedition into Argyle. Besides all these, the Stewarts of Appin, some of the Farquharsons of Braemar, and small parties of inferior clans from Badenoch, rallied round the standard of Montrose.

Having obtained these reinforcements, Montrose now formed the design of marching upon Perth, and breaking up the parliament which had there assembled, and thereafter of proceeding to the south, and dissipating the levies which were being raised beyond the Tay. But the want of cavalry, in which he was constantly deficient, formed a bar to this plan, and Montrose was, therefore, obliged to defer his project till he should be joined by the Earls of Aboyne and Airly, whom he expected soon with a considerable body of horse. In the meantime, Montrose crossed the Tay at Dunkeld, and encamped at Amulree. The covenanting army, with the exception of the garrison of Perth, was then lying on the south side of the Earn, and a body of 400 horse was posted near the town, for the protection of the Estates or parliament.

This movement, on the part of Montrose, created some alarm in the minds of the Covenanters, which was greatly increased by a report from their horse, stationed in the neighbourhood of the town, who, seeing some of his scouts approach it, had fancied that he was going to storm it. While this panic was at its height, Montrose, who had no intention of attacking the town, raised his camp, and took up a position in the wood of Methven, about five miles from Perth. During this movement, the town was thrown into a state of the greatest consternation, from an apprehension that Montrose was about to attack it, and the nobility and the other members of the parliament were earnestly solicited to secure their safety by a speedy flight, but the Estates remained firm, and could not be persuaded to abandon their posts. In order, if possible, still farther to increase the panic in the town, Montrose advanced almost to the very gates of Perth with his horse the following day, which, although not exceeding 100, were made to appear formidable by the addition of the baggage-horses, on which some musketeers were mounted. This act of bold defiance magnified the fears of those who were in the town, and made them imagine that Montrose was well provided in cavalry. The covenanting troops, therefore, were afraid to venture beyond the gates; and Montrose having thus easily accomplished his object, was encouraged, still farther, to cross the Earn at Dupplin, when he openly reconnoitred the enemy’s army on the south of that river, and surveyed the Strath with great deliberation and coolness, without interruption.

Both armies remained in their positions for several days without attempting any thing,[219] each waiting for reinforcements. During all this time, the enemy had been deceived respecting the strength of Montrose’s horse, but having learned his weakness in that respect, and the deception which he had practised so successfully upon them, and being joined by three regiments from Fife, they resolved to offer him battle. Montrose, however, from his great inferiority of numbers, particularly in horse, was not in a condition to accept the challenge, and wisely declined it. Accordingly, when he saw the enemy advancing towards him, he prepared to retreat among the neighbouring mountains; but to deceive the enemy, and to enable him to carry off his baggage, he drew out his army as if he intended to fight, placing his horse in front, and securing the passes into the mountains with guards. While making these dispositions, he sent off his baggage towards the hills under an escort; and when he thought the baggage out of danger, gave orders to his army to march off in close rank; and to cover its retreat and protect it from the cavalry of the enemy, he placed his horse, lined as usual with the best musketeers, in the rear.

As soon as Baillie, the covenanting general, perceived that Montrose was in full retreat, he despatched General Hurry with the cavalry in pursuit of him; but from a most unaccountable delay on Hurry’s part in crossing the Pow—so slow, indeed, had his movements been, that Baillie’s foot overtook him at the fords of the Almond—Montrose had almost reached the passes of the mountains before he was overtaken. Chagrined at his easy escape, and determined to perform some striking exploit before Montrose should retire into his fastnesses, a body of 300 of the best mounted covenanting cavalry set off at full gallop after him, and attacked him with great fury, using at the same time the most insulting and abusive language. To put an end to this annoyance, Montrose selected twenty expert Highlanders, and requested them to bring down some of the assailants. Accordingly these marksmen advanced in a crouching attitude, concealing their guns, and having approached within musket-shot, took deliberate aim, and soon brought down the more advanced of the party. This unexpected disaster made the assailants more cautious in their advances, and caused them to resolve upon an immediate retreat; but the marksmen were so elated with their success that they actually pursued them down into the plain, “and resolutely attacked the whole party, who, putting spurs to their horses, fled with the utmost precipitation, like so many deer before the hunters.”[314] In this retreat Montrose did not lose a single man.

After giving over this fruitless pursuit, the enemy returned to Montrose’s camp at Methven, where, according to Wishart, they committed a most barbarous act in revenge of their late affront, by butchering some of the wives of the Highlanders and Irish who had been left behind. Montrose took up his quarters at Little Dunkeld, both because he was there perfectly secure from the attacks of the enemy’s cavalry, and because it was a convenient station to wait for the reinforcements of horse which he daily expected from the north under the Earls of Airly and Aboyne. Although both armies lay close together for several days, nothing was attempted on either side. The covenanting general had become quite disgusted with the service in consequence of the jealousies and suspicions which it was too evident the committee entertained of him. His disgust was increased by the sudden return to their country of the Fife men, who preferred their domestic comforts to the vicissitudes of war, but who unfortunately were, as we shall soon see, to be sacrificed at its shrine.

At length the Earl of Aboyne, accompanied by Sir Nathaniel Gordon, arrived at Little Dunkeld, but with a force much inferior in numbers to what was expected. They only brought 200 horse and 120 musketeers, which last were mounted upon carriage horses. The smallness of their number was compensated, however, in a great measure by their steadiness and bravery. The Earl of Airly and his son, Sir David Ogilvie, joined Montrose at the same time, along with a troop of 80 horse, consisting chiefly of gentlemen of the name of Ogilvie, among whom was Alexander Ogilvie, son of Sir John Ogilvie of Innerquharity, a young man who had already distinguished himself in the field.

[220]

Perth in the 17th century.—From Slezer’s Theatrum Scotiæ (1693).

Never, at any former period of his eventful career, did the probabilities of ultimate success on the side of Montrose appear greater than now. His army, ardent and devoted to the royal cause, now amounted to nearly 5,000 foot and about 500 horse, the greater part of which consisted of brave and experienced warriors whom he had often led to victory. A considerable portion of his army was composed of some of the most valiant of the Highland clans, led by their respective chiefs, among whom stood conspicuous the renowned captain of clan Ranald, in himself a host. The clans were animated by a feeling of the most unbounded attachment to what they considered the cause of their chiefs, and by a deadly spirit of revenge for the cruelties which the Covenanters under Argyle had exercised in the Highlands. The Macleans and the Athole Highlanders in particular, longed for an opportunity of retaliating upon the covenanting partisans of Argyle the injuries which they had repeatedly received at his hands, and thereby wiping out the stain which, as they conceived, had been cast upon them. But fortunate as Montrose now was in having such an army at his disposal, the chances in his favour were greatly enhanced by the circumstance, that whereas in his former campaigns he had to watch the movements of different armies, and to fight them in detail, he was now enabled, from having annihilated or dispersed the whole armies formerly opposed to him, to concentrate his strength and to direct all his energies to one point. The only bar which now stood in the way of the entire subjugation of Scotland to the authority of the king, was the army of Baillie, and the defeat or destruction of this body now became the immediate object of Montrose. His resolution to attack the enemy was hastened by the receipt of information that the Fife regiments had left Baillie’s camp and returned home, and that the general himself was so dissatisfied with the conduct of the covenanting committee, who thwarted all his plans and usurped his authority, that he was about to resign the command of the army.

Montrose, therefore, without loss of time, raised his camp, and descending into the Lowlands, arrived at Logie Almond, where he halted his foot. Thence he went out with his cavalry to reconnoitre the enemy, and came in[221] full view of them before sunset. They made no attempt to molest him, and testified their dread of this unexpected visit by retiring within their lines. Early next morning Montrose again rode out to make his observations, but was surprised to learn that the enemy had abandoned their camp at Methven during the night, and had retired across the Earn, and taken up a position at Kilgraston, near Bridge-of-Earn. Montrose immediately put his army in motion towards the Earn, which he crossed by the bridge of Nether Gask, about eight miles above Kilgraston. He then proceeded forward as far as the Kirk of Dron, by which movement he for the first time succeeded in throwing open to the operations of his army the whole of the country south of the Tay, from which the enemy had hitherto carefully excluded him. The enemy, alarmed at Montrose’s approach, made every preparation for defending themselves by strengthening the position in which they were intrenched, and which, from the narrowness of the passes and the nature of the ground, was well adapted for sustaining an attack.

Montrose was most anxious to bring the enemy to an engagement before they should be joined by a large levy then raising in Fife; but they were too advantageously posted to be attacked with much certainty of success. As he could not by any means induce them to leave their ground, he marched to Kinross for the double purpose of putting an end to the Fife levies and of withdrawing the enemy from their position, so as to afford him an opportunity of attacking them under more favourable circumstances. This movement had the effect of drawing Baillie from his stronghold, who cautiously followed Montrose at a respectful distance. In the course of his march, Baillie was again joined by the three Fife regiments. On arriving at Kinross in the evening, Montrose learned from an advanced party he had sent out to collect information through the country, under the command of Colonel Nathaniel Gordon, and Sir William Rollock, that the people of Fife were in arms, a piece of intelligence which made him resolve immediately to retrace his steps, judging it imprudent to risk a battle in such a hostile district. Although the men of Fife were stern Covenanters, and were ready to fight for the Covenant on their own soil, yet living for the most part in towns, and following out the sober pursuits of a quiet and domestic life, they had no relish for war, and disliked the service of the camp. Hence the speedy return of the Fife regiments from the camp at Methven, to their own country, and hence another reason which induced Montrose to leave their unfriendly soil, viz., that they would probably again abandon Baillie, should he attempt to follow Montrose in his progress west.

Accordingly, after remaining a night at Kinross, Montrose, the following morning, marched towards Alloa, in the neighbourhood of which he arrived in the evening, and passed the night in the wood of Tullybody. The Irish plundered the town of Alloa, and the adjoining lordship, which belonged to the Earl of Mar; but notwithstanding this unprovoked outrage, the earl and Lord Erskine gave Montrose, the Earl of Airly, and the principal officers of the army, an elegant entertainment in the castle of Alloa. Montrose, however, did not delay the march of his army while partaking of the hospitality of the Earl of Mar, but immediately despatched Macdonald west to Stirling with the foot, retaining only the horse to serve him as a body-guard. In this route the Macleans laid waste the parishes of Muckhart and Dollar, of which the Marquis of Argyle was the superior, and burnt Castle Campbell, the principal residence of the Argyle family in the lowlands, in requital of similar acts done by the marquis and his followers in the country of the Macleans.[315]

As the pestilence was still raging in the town of Stirling, Montrose avoided it altogether, lest his army might catch the infection. He halted within three miles of the town, where his army passed the night, and being apprised next morning, by one of Baillie’s scouts who had been taken prisoner, that Baillie was close at hand with the whole of his army, Montrose marched quickly up to the fords of Frew, about eight miles above Stirling bridge, and there crossed the Forth. Pursuing his march the following morning in the direction of Glasgow, he made a short halt about six miles from Stirling, to ascertain the enemy’s movements,[222] and being informed that Baillie had not yet crossed the Forth, he marched to Kilsyth, where he encamped. During the day, Baillie passed the Forth by Stirling bridge, and marching forwards, came within view of Montrose’s army, and encamped that evening within three miles of Kilsyth.[316]

The covenanting army had, in its progress westward, followed exactly the tract of Montrose through the vale of the Devon. The Marquis of Argyle availing himself of this circumstance, caused the house of Menstrie, the seat of the Earl of Stirling, the king’s secretary, and that of Airthrie, belonging to Sir John Graham of Braco, to be burnt. He, moreover, sent an insolent message to the Earl of Mar, notifying to him, that, on the return of the army from the pursuit of Montrose, he, the earl, might calculate on having his castle also burnt, for the hospitality he had shown Montrose.[317]

The conjecture of Montrose, that the Fife regiments would not cross the Forth, was not altogether without foundation. In fact, when they arrived near Stirling, they positively refused to advance further, and excused themselves by alleging, that they were raised on the express condition that they should not be called upon to serve out of their own shire, and that, having already advanced beyond its limits, they would on no account cross the Forth. But their obstinacy was overcome by the all-powerful influence of the ministers, who, in addition to the usual scriptural appeals, “told them jolly tales that Lanark, Glencairn, and Eglinton, were lifting an army to join them, and therefore entreated that they would, for only one day more, go out,” until that army approached, when they should be discharged.[318]

While the Fife regiments were thus persuaded to expose themselves to the unforeseen destruction which unfortunately awaited them, an incident occurred on the opposite bank of the Forth, which betokened ill for the future prospects of the covenanting army. This will be best explained by stating the matter in General Baillie’s own words. “A little above the park (the king’s park at Stirling), I halted until the Fife regiments were brought up, hearing that the rebels were marching towards Kilsyth. After the upcoming of these regiments, the Marquis of Argyle, Earl of Crawford, and Lord Burleigh, and, if I mistake not, the Earl of Tulliebardine, the Lords Elcho and Balcarras, with some others, came up. My lord marquis asked me what next was to be done. I answered, the direction should come from his lordship and those of the committee. My lord demanded what reason was for this? I answered, I found myself so slighted in every thing belonging to a commander-in-chief, that, for the short time I was to stay with them, I would absolutely submit to their direction and follow it. The marquis desired me to explain myself, which I did in these particulars, sufficiently known to my lord marquis and the other lords and gentlemen then present. I told his lordship, (1.) Prisoners of all sorts were exchanged without my knowledge; the traffickers therein received passes from others, and, sometimes passing within two miles of me, did neither acquaint me with their business, nor, at their return, where, or in what posture they had left the enemy: (2.) While I was present, others did sometimes undertake the command of the army: (3.) Without either my order or knowledge, fire was raised, and that destroyed which might have been a recompense to some good deserver, for which I would not be answerable to the public. All which things considered, I should in any thing freely give my own opinion, but follow the judgment of the committee, and the rather because that was the last day of my undertaking.”[319] It is here necessary to state, by way of explanation, that Baillie had, in consequence of the previous conduct of the committee, resigned his commission, and had only been induced, at the earnest solicitation of the parliament, to continue his services for a definite period, which, it appears, was just on the point of expiring.

The differences between Baillie and the committee being patched up, the covenanting army proceeded on the 14th of August in the direction of Denny, and having crossed the Carron at Hollandbush, encamped, as we have stated, about 3 miles from Kilsyth.

[223]

Before the arrival of Baillie, Montrose had received information which made him resolve to hazard a battle immediately. The intelligence he had obtained was to the effect, that the Earls of Cassilis, Eglinton, and Glencairn, and other heads of the Covenanters, were actively engaged in levying forces in the west of Scotland, and that the Earl of Lanark had already raised a body of 1,000 foot and 500 horse in Clydesdale, among the vassals and dependents of the Hamilton family, and that this force was within 12 miles of Kilsyth.

Having taken his resolution, Montrose made the necessary arrangements for receiving the enemy, by placing his men in the best position which the nature of the ground afforded. In front of his position were several cottages and gardens, of which he took possession. Baillie, seeing the advantageous position chosen by Montrose, would have willingly delayed battle till either the expected reinforcements from the west should arrive, or till Montrose should be induced to become the assailant; but his plans were over-ruled by Argyle and the other members of the committee, who insisted that he should immediately attack Montrose. Accordingly, early in the morning he put his army in motion from Hollandbush, and advanced near Auchinclogh, about two miles to the east of Kilsyth, where he halted. As the ground between him and Montrose was full of quagmires, which effectually prevented Montrose from attacking him in front, he proposed to take up a defensive position without advancing farther, and await an attack. But here again the committee interposed, and when he was in the very act of arranging the stations of his army, they advised him to take a position on a hill on his right, which they considered more suitable. It was in vain that Baillie remonstrated against what he justly considered an imprudent advice—the committee were inexorable in their resolution, and Baillie had no alternative but to obey. In justice, however, to Lord Balcarras, it must be mentioned that he disapproved of the views of the committee.

When Montrose saw the covenanting army approach from Hollandbush, he was exceedingly delighted, as, from the excellent state of his army, the courageous bearing of his men, and the advantage of his position, he calculated upon obtaining a decisive victory, which might enable him to advance into England and retrieve the affairs of his sovereign in that kingdom. But while Montrose was thus joyfully anticipating a victory which, he flattered himself, would be crowned with results the most favourable to the royal cause, an incident occurred which might have proved fatal to his hopes, had he not, with that wonderful self-possession and consummate prudence for which he was so distinguished, turned that very incident to his own advantage. Among the covenanting cavalry was a regiment of cuirassiers, the appearance of whose armour, glittering in the sun, struck such terror into Montrose’s horse, that they hesitated about engaging with such formidable antagonists, and, while riding along the line to encourage his men and give the necessary directions, Montrose heard his cavalry muttering among themselves and complaining that they were now for the first time to fight with men clad in iron, whose bodies would be quite impenetrable to their swords. When the terror of a foe has once taken hold of the mind, it can only be sufficiently eradicated by supplanting it with a feeling of contempt for the object of its dread, and no man was better fitted by nature than Montrose for inspiring such a feeling into the minds of his troops. Accordingly, scarcely had the murmurings of his cavalry broken upon his ears, when he rode up to the head of his cavalry, and (pointing to the cuirassiers) thus addressed his men:—“Gentlemen, these are the same men you beat at Alford, that ran away from you at Auldearn, Tippermuir, &c.; they are such cowardly rascals that their officers could not bring them to look you in the face till they had clad them in armour; to show our contempt of them we’ll fight them in our shirts.”[320] No sooner had these words been uttered, when, to add to the impression they could not fail to produce, Montrose threw off his coat and waistcoat, and, drawing his[224] sword with the air of a hero, stood before his men, at once an object of their wonder and a model for their imitation. The effect was instantaneous. The example thus set by Montrose was immediately followed by the whole army, every man stripping himself to his shirt, and the cavalry, partaking in the general enthusiasm, assured themselves of victory. As the day was uncommonly hot and oppressive, the troops found great relief by disburdening themselves of their clothes, and the infantry were, in consequence, enabled to display greater agility in combat. The extraordinary appearance of Montrose’s men after they had parted with their clothes, excited the astonishment of the Covenanters, and as they could only attribute such a singular preparation for battle to a fixed determination on the part of the royalists to conquer or to die, fearful doubts arose in their minds as to the probable result of the contest in which they were just about to engage.

In moving to take up the new position which had been assigned to it by the committee, the utmost disorder prevailed among the covenanting army, which the general was unable to correct. Indeed, so unruly had the troops become, that some regiments, instead of taking the stations assigned to them by the commander, took up, at the suggestion of Argyle, quite different ground, while others, in utter disregard of Baillie’s instructions, actually selected positions for themselves. Thus, at the moment the battle was about to begin, Baillie found all his plans completely overruled, and as he now saw how utterly impossible it would be for him to carry any of his contemplated arrangements into effect, he was necessitated to engage Montrose under the most unfavourable circumstances.

The covenanting general, however, might have so accommodated himself in the unexpected dilemma in which he had been placed as to have prevented the disastrous result which followed, had not his horse regiments, from an impression that Montrose had begun a retreat, rashly commenced the action before all the infantry had come up, by attempting to carry the cottages and gardens in which the advanced guard of Montrose was placed. Although they made a violent charge, they were as warmly received by Montrose’s musketeers, who, being protected by the dikes and enclosures, kept up such a galling fire upon their assailants as to oblige them to retreat with precipitation and some loss.

A body of about 1,000 Highlanders, who were posted next to Montrose’s advanced guard, became so suddenly elated with this success that, without waiting for orders from Montrose, they immediately ran up that part of the hill where the main body of the covenanting army was posted. Montrose was highly displeased with the Highlanders for this rash act, which seemed to threaten them with instant destruction; but there was no time for remonstrance, and as he saw an absolute necessity for supporting this intrepid body, he stifled his displeasure, and began to consider how he could most effectually afford support. Owing to the tardy advance of the enemy’s rear, it was some little time before the covenanting army attacked this resolute body. At length three troops of horse and a body of about 2,000 foot were seen advancing against them, and in a short time both parties closed upon each other. The Highlanders, as usual, displayed great intrepidity, and firmly maintained their ground; but as it was evident that they could not long withstand the overwhelming force opposed to them, the Earl of Aboyne, who, with a select body of horsemen, had been placed by Montrose at some distance from the main army, taking with him 12 horsemen, rode forward to see if he could render any assistance. Seeing the critical position in which the rash Highlanders were placed, he sent back for the cavalry to advance immediately, at the same time bravely shouting to the few followers that were with him, “Let us go, Monsieurs, and assist these our distressed friends, in so great hazard through the foolish rashness of their commander. We shall, God willing, bring them off, at least in some good order, so as they shall neither be all lost, nor endanger the army by their sudden flight, whereto they may be forced.”[321] He thereupon charged the enemy’s lancers, who, seeing him make such a furious onset, retired to the left, thus putting the foot between themselves and[225] Aboyne. The latter, without halting, charged forward upon the foot, until, when within pistol-shot, he perceived them preparing to receive him upon their pikes. He then nimbly turned a little to the left, and charged with such impetuosity and suddenness a regiment of musketeers, that although they received him with three volleys from the three first ranks, he broke right through them, till he came out to where his distressed friends were environed with horse and foot, and so sorely straightened as to be crying out for quarter. His presence caused them to rally, and they took heart as he cried with a lusty voice, “Courage, my hearts, follow me, and let them have one sound charge.” “And this he gives with such brave and invincible resolution, as he breaks, disperses, and discourages both foot and horse, who seek no more to pursue, but strive to retire in order, to the which their commanders often invite them, but in vain.” They got into complete disorder, and began to run for their lives. What had been begun by Aboyne, was completed by the Earl of Airly, who, at the urgent request of Montrose, now came up at the head of the Ogilvies to the assistance of the Highlanders. Montrose had made several ineffectual attempts to induce different parties of his army to volunteer in defence of the brave men who were struggling for their existence within view of their companions in arms, and, as a dernier ressort, appealed to his tried friend the Earl of Airly, in behalf of the rash men who had thus exposed themselves to imminent danger. This appeal to the chivalrous feelings of the venerable earl met with a ready and willing response from him, and after stating his readiness to undertake the duty assigned him, he immediately put himself at the head of a troop of his own horse, commanded by Colonel John Ogilvie of Baldavie, who had distinguished himself in the Swedish service, and rode off with great speed towards the enemy. He instantly ordered his squadron to charge the enemy’s horse, who were so closely pressed that they got entangled among the covenanting foot, whom they put into disorder.

As soon as Baillie perceived that his horse were falling back, he endeavoured to bring up his reserve to support them; but this body, which consisted chiefly of the Fife militia, became so alarmed at the retreat of the horse, that they immediately abandoned their ranks and fled. On the other hand, the rest of Montrose’s men, encouraged by the success of the Ogilvies, could no longer restrain themselves, and rushing forward upon the enemy with a loud shout, completed the disorder. The wild appearance of the royalists, added to the dreadful yells which they set up, created such a panic among the astonished Covenanters, that, in an instant, and as if by a simultaneous impulse, every man threw away his arms, and endeavoured to secure his personal safety by flight. In the general rout which ensued, the covenanting horse, in their anxiety to escape, galloped through the flying foot, and trampled many of their companions in arms almost to death.

In the pursuit which followed, Montrose’s men cut down the defenceless Covenanters without mercy, and so great was the carnage, that, out of a body of upwards of 6,000 foot, probably not more than 100 escaped with their lives. The royalists were so intent upon hewing down the unfortunate foot, that a considerable part of the cavalry effected their escape. Some of them, however, in the hurry of their flight, having run unawares into a large morass, called Dolater bog, now forming a part of the bed of the Forth and Clyde canal, there perished, and, many years afterwards, the bodies of men and horses were dug up from the bog, without any marks of decomposition; and there is a tradition still current, that one man was found upon horseback, fully attired in his military costume, in the very posture in which he had sunk.[322] Very few prisoners were taken, and with the exception of Sir William Murray of Blebo, James Arnot, brother to Lord Burleigh, and Colonels Dyce and Wallace, and a few other gentlemen, who received quarter, and, after being well treated by Montrose, were afterwards released upon parole, all the officers of the covenanting army escaped. Some of them fled to Stirling, and took temporary refuge in the castle; others galloped down to the south shore of the Frith of Forth. Among the latter, Argyle was the most conspicuous, who, according to Bishop[226] Guthry, “never looked over his shoulder until, after 20 miles’ riding, he reached the South Queensferry, where he possessed himself of a boat again.”[323] Wishart sarcastically observes, that this was the third time that Argyle had “saved himself by means of a boat; and, even then, he did not reckon himself secure till they had weighed anchor and carried the vessel out to sea.”[324]

The whole of the baggage, arms, and stores, belonging to the covenanting army were captured by the royalists. The loss on the side of Montrose was, as usual, extremely trifling, amounting, it is said, only to six or eight men, three of whom were Ogilvies, who fell in the charge which decided the fortune of the day.

The news of this disastrous and melancholy defeat, speedily spread throughout the kingdom and filled it with mourning. The plague, which had devastated some of the most populous of the covenanting districts, was still carrying on its depopulating career, and the spirits of the people, already broken and subdued under that scourge, were reduced to a state almost bordering on despair, when they received the afflicting intelligence of the utter annihilation of an army on which their only hopes were placed. No alternative, therefore, now remained for them but unconditional submission to the conqueror, and accordingly, deputies were sent to him from different parts of the kingdom, to assure him of the return of the people to their allegiance to the king, to proffer their obedience to Montrose as his lieutenant, and to offer him assistance in support of the royal cause. The nobility and other persons of note who had hitherto kept aloof, or whose loyalty had been questionable, also crowded to the royal standard to congratulate Montrose upon the favourable aspect of affairs and to offer their services.

While at Kilsyth, two commissioners, Sir Robert Douglas and Mr. Archibald Fleming, commissary, arrived at Montrose’s camp on the part of the inhabitants of Glasgow, to obtain favour and forgiveness, by congratulating him upon his success, and inviting him to visit their city. Montrose received these commissioners and the other numerous deputations and individuals who afterwards waited on him, not merely with courtesy but with kindness, and promised to bury all past occurrences in perfect oblivion, but on the condition that they should return to their allegiance and conduct themselves in future as loyal subjects. “The whole country now,” says Wishart, “resounded Montrose’s praise. His unparalleled magnanimity and bravery, his happiness in devising his plan of operations, and his quickness in executing them, his unshaken resolution and intrepidity, even in the greatest dangers, and his patience in bearing the severest hardships and fatigues; his faithfulness and strict observance of his promises to such as submitted, and his clemency towards his prisoners; in short, that heroic virtue which displayed itself in all his actions, was extolled to the skies, and filled the mouths of all ranks of men, and several poems and panegyrics were wrote upon this occasion.”[325] It is believed, however, that there was little sincerity in these professions.

This submission of the people was accelerated by the dispersion of the Covenant nobility, an event that put a temporary end to the government which they had established. Argyle, Crawford, Lanark, and others, sought protection in Berwick, and Glencairn, and Cassilis took refuge in Ireland.

Montrose might now have marched directly upon, and seized the capital, where many of his friends were confined as prisoners; but he considered it of more importance to march to the west and disperse some levies which were there raising. Accordingly, after refreshing his troops two days at Kilsyth, he dispatched a strong body under the command of Macdonald, his major-general, into Ayrshire to suppress a rising under the Earls of Cassilis and Glencairn; and with the remainder of his army he proceeded towards Glasgow, which he entered amidst the general acclamations of the citizens. Here Montrose immediately commenced an inquiry into the conduct of the leading Covenanters of the city, some of whom he put to death as a terror to others. Montrose remained only a day in Glasgow, and encamped the following day on Bothwell moor, about twelve miles from the city. His object[227] in doing so, was to put an end to some excesses on the part of his Irish and Highland troops, whom, from the precarious tenure of their services, and his inability to pay them, he could not venture to control by the severities of martial law.[326] And as he was apprehensive that some of his men might lurk behind, or visit the city for the purpose of plunder, he allowed the inhabitants to form a guard among themselves to protect it. The citizens, in gratitude for the favour and clemency thus shown them, presented Montrose with the sum of 10,000 merks.

In the meantime, Major-general Macdonald arrived in Ayrshire, where he was received with open arms. The levies, which had been raised in the west quietly dispersed; and, as above mentioned, the Earls of Cassilis and Glencairn fled to Ireland. The Countess of Loudon, whose husband had acted a conspicuous part against the king, received Macdonald with great kindness at Loudon castle, embracing him in her arms, and entertaining him with great splendour and hospitality; she even sent a servant to Montrose to offer her respects to him.[327]

During Montrose’s stay at Bothwell, where he remained till the 4th of September, he was waited upon by many of the nobility in person, to congratulate him upon his recent victory, and to tender their services. Others sent similar communications by their friends. The Marquis of Douglas, the Earls of Linlithgow and Annandale, Lords Seton, Drummond, Fleming, Maderty, Carnegie and Johnston, were among the first who came forward. Deputations also arrived from the counties of Linlithgow, Lanark, Renfrew, and Ayr, and also from the towns of Greenock, Ayr, and Irvine, to implore forgiveness for past offences, and to give pledges for their future loyalty. Montrose received them all very graciously, and relying upon their assurances, granted them an amnesty.

Montrose expected that the city of Edinburgh, which had been the focus of rebellion, would have followed the example of Glasgow and the other towns; but whether from obstinacy or from the dread of a refusal of pardon, the authorities did not send commissioners to Montrose, and it was not until a body of the royalist horse appeared within four miles of the city, that they resolved to proffer their submission, and to throw themselves on the mercy of the conqueror.

After the battle of Kilsyth, Montrose dispatched his nephew, Archibald, Master of Napier, and Nathaniel Gordon, with a select body of horse, to summon Edinburgh to surrender, to secure its obedience and fidelity, and to set at liberty the royalist prisoners, many of whom were confined in the Tolbooth. Should the city refuse to submit, it was to be subjected to fire and sword. On his way to Edinburgh, Napier set at liberty his father and wife, Stirling of Keir, his brother-in-law, and sisters, from the prison of Linlithgow. When four miles from Edinburgh they came to a halt, and waited to see how the citizens would conduct themselves. The inhabitants, so far from having any intention of resisting the royal army, were in a state of consternation and despair lest their submission should not be accepted by Montrose, “accusing themselves as sacrilegious, perjured and ungrateful traitors, unworthy of that clemency and forgiveness for which they so ardently prayed.” In the most grovelling and humble manner they besought the prisoners, whom not long before they had treated with harshness and contempt, to intercede with Montrose on their behalf, promising to submit to any conditions.

The citizens, having chosen deputies, selected from the prisoners two of the most eminent and stanch royalists, Ludovic Earl of Crawford and James Lord Ogilvie, the Earl of Airly’s son, to wait upon Montrose and introduce the deputation, implore his pardon, and tender the city’s humble submission. These two noblemen and the deputies having joined Napier, the latter returned directly to his uncle Montrose, who was unfeignedly delighted at the sight of his dear friends Crawford and Ogilvie.

The city delegates, on being admitted to audience, “made a free surrender to him of the town, and humbly deprecated his vengeance and implored his pardon and forgiveness, promising, in name of the whole inhabitants, an inviolable fidelity and obedience for the future,[228] and committing themselves and all their concerns to his patronage and protection, which they humbly entreated he would grant them. They promised also, immediately to release all the prisoners in their custody, and desired him to assure himself that any thing else he should desire of them should be instantly complied with. The town, they said, had been almost depopulated by a dreadful plague, so that no supplies of men could be expected from it; but they were ready to contribute all they could to defray the expense of what troops he might raise in other places. Above all, they most earnestly implored him to intercede for them with their most gracious and merciful king, to obtain his pity and pardon, and that he would not condemn the whole city for the crime of rebellion, in which they had been involved by the craft and example of a few seditious men, armed with power and authority. Montrose gave them reason to hope for the royal forgiveness; and the only conditions he required of them, were, sacredly to observe their loyalty and allegiance to his majesty for the future; to renounce all correspondence with the rebels, whether within or without the kingdom: the castle of Edinburgh, which he well knew was then in their power, he required they should surrender to the king’s officers; and that, as soon as the delegates returned to the city, all the prisoners should be immediately set at liberty, and sent to his camp.”[328]

Although the commissioners agreed to these conditions, and promised to perform them, the only one they ever fulfilled was that which stipulated the release of the prisoners, who were immediately on the return of the commissioners sent to Montrose’s camp. Indeed, it was scarcely to be expected, from the character of the times, that the citizens of Edinburgh, who had all along been warm partisans of the covenanting interest, would show a readiness to comply with stipulations which had been extorted from their commissioners under the circumstances we have mentioned.

While at Bothwell, Montrose received various communications from the king, who was then at Oxford. The most important of these were two commissions under the great seal, one appointing Montrose Captain-general and Lieutenant-governor of Scotland, and conferring on him full powers to raise forces, punish state offenders, and make knights, &c.; and the other authorising him to summon a parliament to meet at Glasgow, to settle the affairs of the kingdom. The bearer of these important documents was Sir Robert Spottiswood, formerly president of the Court of Session, and who now acted as secretary of state for Scotland. As a person so well known as Sir Robert could not travel by any of the ordinary roads without risk of apprehension, he took a circuitous route from Oxford, passing through Wales, and thence crossing over to the Isle of Man, took shipping and landed in the West Highlands. From Lochaber he proceeded down into Athole, whence he was conducted by a party of Athole-men to Montrose, at Bothwell Moor.

The instructions brought by Sir Robert Spottiswood, regarding the holding of a parliament and the matters connected therewith, were in the meantime superseded by orders from the king of a later date, brought by a more direct route. By these he was directed to march immediately to the borders, where he would, it was said, be joined by the Earls of Roxburgh, Traquair, and Home, and the other royalist nobility of the southern counties, at the head of their numerous vassals and tenants, as well as by a body of horse which his majesty would send from England; that, with these united forces, he should watch the motions of General David Leslie, who was advancing to the north with a body of 6,000 cavalry. In fact, Leslie, who had acquired great celebrity by his conduct in the battle of Marston Moor, had reached Berwick in the beginning of September, having been called thither on his road to Hereford by the covenanting nobility, who had taken refuge there after the battle of Kilsyth.

Montrose reviewed his army on the 3d of September, on which occasion Sir Robert Spottiswood delivered to him the commission appointing him his majesty’s Lieutenant-governor for Scotland and General of all his majesty’s forces.[329] After this and the other commission[229] had been read, Montrose addressed his army in a short and feeling speech, in the course of which he took occasion to praise their bravery and loyalty, and expressed great affection for them. In conclusion, addressing Macdonald, his major-general, he bestowed upon him the tribute of his praise, and, by virtue of the power with which he had been invested, conferred upon him the honour of knighthood, in presence of the whole army. Little did Montrose imagine, that the man whose services he was now so justly rewarding had resolved immediately to abandon him, and, under the pretence of revenging some injuries which his friends had sustained at the hands of Argyle four years before, to quit for ever the service of his royal master.

Montrose’s ranks had, before the review alluded to, been thinned by private desertions among the Highlanders, who carried off with them all the booty they had been able to collect; but as soon as Montrose announced his intention, in terms of the instructions he had received from the king, to march south, the Highlanders in a body demanded liberty to return home for a short time to repair their houses, which had been reduced to ruins by the enemy, and to provide a stock of provisions for their wives and families during the ensuing winter. To induce Montrose to comply the more readily with their request, they promised to return to his camp within forty days, and to bring some of their friends along with them. As Montrose saw that the Highlanders were determined to depart, and that consequently any attempt to retain them would be unavailing, he dissembled the displeasure he felt, and after thanking them in the king’s name for their services, and entreating them to return to him as soon as possible, he granted them leave of absence with apparent goodwill. But when Sir Alaster Macdonald also announced his intention to return to the Highlands, Montrose could not conceal his chagrin, and strongly remonstrated against such a step. “Montrose,” says Guthry, “dealt most seriously with him to have staid until they had been absolute conquerors, promising then to go thither himself, and be concurring with him in punishing them, (Argyle and his party,) as they deserved; and withal told him that his separating at this time must be the occasion of ruin to them both. But all was to no purpose; he would needs be gone, and for a reason enlarged himself in reckoning up the Marquis of Argyle’s cruelties against his friends, who, as he said, did four years ago draw his father and brother to Inverary upon trust, and then made them prisoners; and since, (his friends having retired to the isles of Jura and Rachlin for shelter,) sent Ardkinlass and the captain of Skipness to the said isles to murder them, which, (said he,) they did without mercy, sparing neither women nor children. With such discourses he justified his departure, and would not be hindered.” Macdonald accordingly, after returning thanks to Montrose in a formal oration for the favours he had received, and pledging himself for the early return of the Highlanders, departed for the Highlands on the day of the review, accompanied by about 3,000 Highlanders, the elite of Montrose’s army, and by 120 of the best of the Irish troops, whom he had selected as a body guard.

The desertion of such a large body of men, consisting of the flower of his army, was a subject of the deepest concern to Montrose, whose sole reliance for support against the powerful force of Leslie, now depended upon the precarious succours he might obtain on his march to the south. Under such circumstances a commander more prudent than Montrose would have hesitated about the course to be pursued, and would probably have either remained for some time in his position, till the levies raising in the south should assemble, or retreat across the Forth, and there awaited reinforcements from the north; but the ardent and chivalrous feelings of Montrose so blinded him, as to make him altogether disregard prudential considerations, and the splendour of his victories had dazzled his imagination so much, as to induce him to believe that he had only to engage the enemy to defeat him.

Accordingly, on the day following the departure of the Highlanders, viz., the 4th of September, Montrose began his march to the south; but he had not proceeded far, when he had the mortification to find himself also abandoned by the Earl of Aboyne, who not only carried off the whole of his own men, but induced the other horsemen of the north, who[230] were not of his party, to accompany him. Sir Nathaniel Gordon appears to have been the only individual of the name of Gordon who remained behind. The cause of such a hasty proceeding on the part of the Earl of Aboyne, is not very evident; but it seems probable, that his lordship had taken some offence at Montrose, who, according to a partisan of the Gordon family, arrogated to himself all the honour of the victories which the earl had greatly contributed to obtain.[330]

The army of Montrose was now reduced to a mere handful of men, consisting only of about 200 gentlemen who had joined him at Bothwell, and 700 foot, chiefly Irish.[331] Yet he resolved to proceed on his march, and reached Cranstoun-Kirk in Mid-Lothian, on Saturday the 6th of September, where he received intelligence that General David Leslie had arrived at Berwick with a great body of cavalry. He encamped at Cranstoun-Kirk with the intention of remaining there over the Sunday, and hearing Dr. Wishart preach; but having, the following morning, been put in possession of a correspondence between Leslie and the heads of the Covenanters, at Berwick, which developed their plans, he quickly raised his camp, without waiting for sermon, and advanced into the district of the Gala. A more imprudent step than this cannot be well conceived, as Montrose threw his little band into the jaws of Leslie’s army, which was lying ready to pounce upon him. In his march along Gala-water, he was joined by the Marquis of Douglas and Lord Ogilvie at the head of a small party, the remains of a larger body which had been diminished by desertion. Montrose was waited upon at Galashiels by the Earl of Traquair, who professed the most fervent attachment to the king, and promised to obtain information for him respecting Leslie’s movements; and in proof of his sincerity, sent his son Lord Linton with a troop of well-mounted horse, who joined him the following day.

From Galashiels Montrose marched to Kelso, where he expected to be joined by the Earls of Home and Roxburgh, and their vassals; but on his arrival there, he was surprised to find that these two noblemen had taken no measures to raise the levies they had promised. He, therefore, resolved to pay them a visit, to compel them to fulfil their engagements; but anticipating such a step, they had allowed themselves to be made voluntary prisoners by a party of Leslie’s horse and carried to Berwick. Roxburgh, whom Wishart calls “a cunning old fox,” was the contriver of this artful scheme, which, while it secured him and his colleague Home the favour of the Covenanters, was intended to induce the king to believe that they were suffering for their loyalty.

This act of perfidy opened the eyes of Montrose to the danger of his situation, and made him instantly resolve to retrace his steps, so as to prevent his retreat to the north being cut off by David Leslie, who had by this time crossed the Tweed. He, therefore, marched from Kelso westward to Jedburgh, and from thence to Selkirk, where he arrived on the 12th of September, and encamped that night in a wood, called Hareheadwood, in the neighbourhood of the town at the head of a long and level piece of ground called Philiphaugh, on the north bank of the Ettrick. Montrose himself, with his horse, took up his quarters in the town.

The position thus selected by Montrose was well calculated to prevent his being taken by surprise, as Leslie, from the direction in which he had necessarily to advance, could only approach it by coming up the open vale of Philiphaugh; but unfortunately, Montrose did not, on this occasion, take those extraordinary precautions which he had been accustomed to do. It had always been his practice hitherto, to superintend in person the setting of the night watches, and to give instructions himself to the sentinels, and to the scouts he sent out, to watch the motions of the enemy; but having important letters to write to the king, which he was desirous of sending off before the break of day by a trusty messenger, he intrusted these details to his cavalry officers, whom he exhorted to great vigilance, and to take care that the scouts kept a sharp outlook for the enemy. Montrose had the utmost confidence in the wisdom and integrity of his officers, whose long experience in military affairs he had many times witnessed; and as there seemed[231] to be no immediate danger, he thought that, for one night at least, he could safely leave the direction of affairs to such men.

While occupied during the night preparing his dispatches for the king, Montrose received several loose reports, from time to time, respecting the alleged movements of the enemy, of which he sent due notice to his officers, but he was as often assured, both by the reports of his officers and of the scouts, that not a vestige of an enemy was to be seen. Thus the night passed without any apparent foundation for the supposition that the enemy was at hand, and to make assurance doubly sure, some of the fleetest of the cavalry were sent out at break of day to reconnoitre. On their return, they stated that they had examined with care all the roads and passes for ten miles round, and solemnly averred, that there was not the least appearance of an enemy within the range they had just scoured. Yet singular as the fact may appear, Leslie was lying at that very time at Melrose, with 4,000 horse, within six miles of Montrose’s camp.

It appears that on the day of Montrose’s march from Jedburgh, General Leslie, who had a few days before crossed the Tweed at Berwick, held a council of war on Gladsmuir in East Lothian, at which it was determined that he should proceed towards Stirling to cut off Montrose’s retreat to the Highlands, whither it was supposed that he meant instantly to retire, for the purpose of obtaining reinforcements. But the council had scarcely risen, when letters were brought to Leslie, acquainting him with the low and impaired state of Montrose’s forces, and his design of marching into Dumfries-shire to procure an accession of strength. On receiving this intelligence, Leslie abandoned his plan of marching northward, and ordering his army to turn to the left, he immediately marched to the south, and entering the vale of Gala, proceeded to Melrose, where he took up his quarters for the night, intending to attack Montrose’s little band next morning, in the hope of annihilating it altogether. Both Wishart and Guthry suspect that the Earl of Traquair was the informant, and they rest their conjecture upon the circumstance of his having withdrawn during the night, (without acquainting Montrose,) the troop of horse under his son, Lord Linton; but this is not sufficient, of itself, to warrant us in charging him with such an act.

But the most extraordinary and unaccountable circumstance which preceded the battle of Philiphaugh, was, that although Leslie was within six miles of Montrose’s camp, neither the scouts nor the cavalry, who are stated to have scoured the country for four miles beyond the place where Leslie lay, could discover, as they reported, any traces of him. Did the scouts deceive Montrose, or did they not proceed in the direction of Leslie’s camp, or did they confine their perambulations within a more limited range? These are questions which it is impossible to answer with any degree of certainty. But what is to be said of the cavalry who having made their observations at day-break, and confessedly several miles beyond the enemy’s camp, returned as luckless as the midnight scouts? The only plausible answer that can be given to this question is, either that they had not visited the neighbourhood of Melrose, or that a thick mist which prevailed on the morning of the 13th of September, had concealed the enemy from their view. However, be this as it may, certain it is that owing to the thickness of the fog, Leslie was enabled to advance, unobserved, till he came within half a mile of Montrose’s head quarters. On the alarm occasioned by this sudden and unexpected appearance of the enemy, Montrose instantly sprung upon the first horse that came to hand, and galloped off to his camp. On his arrival, he fortunately found that all his men, though the hour was very early, had risen, but considerable disorder prevailed in the camp in consequence of preparations they were making for an immediate march into Dumfries-shire in terms of instructions they had received the previous evening. The cavalry, however, were quite dismounted, some of the officers were absent, and their horses were scattered through the adjoining fields taking their morning repast. Short as the time was for putting his small band in a defensive position, Montrose acted with his accustomed presence of mind, and before the enemy commenced his attack, he had succeeded in drawing up his men in order of battle, in the position which they had occupied[232] the preceding night. Nothing but self-preservation, on which the cause of the king, his master, was chiefly dependant, could have justified Montrose in attempting to resist the powerful force now about to assail him. With about 1,000 foot and 500 horse, the greater part of which was composed of raw and undisciplined levies hastily brought into the field, and lukewarm in the cause, he had to resist the attack of a body of about 6,000 veteran troops, chiefly English cavalry, who had distinguished themselves at the battle of Marston Moor, and who, though they could make no addition to their laurels by defeating such a handful of men, may be supposed to have been especially desirous of annihilating the remains of an army which had been so long formidable and victorious.

The covenanting general began the battle by charging Montrose’s right wing, consisting of horse, with the great body of his cavalry; but so firmly was the charge received by the brave cavaliers with Montrose at their head, that the assailants were forced to retire with loss. A second charge met a similar fate. Thus foiled in their attempts on the right, they next attacked Montrose’s left wing, consisting of foot, which, after a gallant resistance, retired a little up the face of the hill, where it was posted, to avoid the attacks of the cavalry. While this struggle was going on on the left, a body of 2,000 covenanting foot which had made a circuitous route, appeared in the rear of the right wing, which they attacked. The right wing not being able to resist this force, and apprehensive that a new attack would be made upon them by the enemy’s cavalry, and that they would thus be surrounded and perhaps cut to pieces, fled from the field. The foot who had taken up a position on the side of the hill, being thus abandoned to their fate, surrendered themselves as prisoners of war after a slight resistance; but horrible to tell, they were afterwards shot by orders of the covenanting general, at the instigation, it is said, of some presbyterian ministers, who declared that no faith should be kept with such persons.

Montrose was still on the field with about 30 brave cavaliers, and witnessed the rout of one part of his army and the surrender of another, with the most poignant feelings of regret. He might have instantly retreated with safety, but he could not brook the idea of running away, and, therefore, resolved not to abandon the post of honour, but to fight to the last extremity, and to sell his life as dearly as possible. It was not long before he and his noble band were nearly surrounded by the enemy, who kept pressing so hard upon him, and in such numbers, as almost to preclude the possibility of escape. Yet they did not venture to attack Montrose and his brave associates in a body, but in detached parties, every one of which was successively repulsed with loss. As the enemy grew tired of attacking him, and seemed to be more intent upon plundering his baggage than capturing his person, Montrose saw that the danger was not so great as he supposed, and therefore he began to reflect upon the folly of sacrificing his life so long as a ray of hope remained. He had lost a battle, no doubt; but in this there was no dishonour when the disparity of his force with that of the enemy was considered. Besides, he had lost few of his men, and the Highlanders, on whom he chiefly relied, were still entire, and were ready to take the field as soon as he appeared again among them. And as to the effect which such a defeat might be supposed to have upon the adherents of the king, who were still numerous and powerful, it could be easily removed as soon as they saw him again at the head of a fresh force. That he could only expect to retrieve the present state of affairs by escaping from the present danger and raising new troops; but that if he rashly sacrificed his life the king’s affairs might be irretrievably ruined. These reflections being seconded by the Marquis of Douglas and a few trusty friends, who implored him not to throw away a life so valuable to the king and to the country, Montrose resolved to consult his safety by an immediate flight. Putting himself, therefore, at the head of his troop, he cut his way through the enemy, without the loss of a single man. They were pursued by a party of horse, some of whom they killed, and actually carried off one Bruce, a captain of horse, and two standard-bearers, with their ensigns, as prisoners. Montrose went in the direction of Peebles, which he entered about sunset, and here he was[233] joined by various straggling parties of his men who had escaped.

Montrose lost in this engagement very few of his horse, but a considerable part of his foot was destroyed. He carried off, as we have seen, two of the enemy’s standards, and fortunately preserved his own, two in number, from the enemy. That belonging to his infantry was saved by an Irish soldier of great bravery, who, on seeing the battle lost, and the enemy in possession of the field, tore it from the pole, and, wrapping it round his body, which was without any other covering, nobly cut his way through the enemy sword in hand. He overtook Montrose at Peebles, and delivered the standard into his hands the same night. Montrose rewarded him for his bravery by appointing him one of his life-guard, and by committing the standard to his future charge. The other was preserved and delivered to Montrose by the Honourable William Hay, brother to the Earl of Kinnoul, a youth of a martial and enterprising spirit.

Montrose passed the night at Peebles, where he was joined by most of his horse and part of his infantry; but some of his officers who had mistaken their way, or fled in a different direction, were seized by the country people and delivered over to Leslie. Among these were the Earl of Hartfell, Lords Drummond and Ogilvie, Sir Robert Spottiswood, Sir Alexander Leslie of Auchintoul, Sir William Rollock, Sir Philip Nisbet, the Honourable William Murray, brother to the Earl of Tulliebardine, Alexander Ogilvie of Inverquharity, Colonel Nathaniel Gordon, and Mr. Andrew Guthry, son of the bishop of Murray.[332] Montrose left Peebles early the following morning, and, crossing the Clyde at a ford shown him by Sir John Dalziel, where he was, to his great joy, joined by the Earls of Crawford and Airly, and other noblemen who had effected their escape by a different route, he proceeded rapidly to the north, and entered Athole, after dispatching the Marquis of Douglas and the Earl of Airly into Angus, and Lord Erskine into Mar, to raise forces. Montrose then sent letters to Sir Alexander Macdonald and the Earl of Aboyne, requesting them to join him without delay, and to bring with them all the forces they could muster, to enable him to enter on a new campaign.

As soon as the members of the Committee of Estates, who had taken refuge in Berwick, heard of Montrose’s defeat at Philiphaugh, they joined Leslie’s army, which they accompanied to Edinburgh, and there concocted those measures of revenge against the unhappy royalists who had fallen into their hands, which they afterwards carried into execution. The first who suffered were Colonel O’Kean, to whose distinguished bravery at the battle of Fyvie we have already alluded, and Major Lauchlan, another brave officer. Both these were hanged, without trial, upon the Castle-hill at Edinburgh. Perhaps the circumstance of being Irishmen appeared a sufficient reason in the eyes of their enemies for dispatching them so summarily; but they were, nevertheless, the subjects of the king, and as fully entitled to all the privileges of war as the other prisoners. This hatred of the Irish by the Covenanters was not confined to the cases of these individuals. Having in their march westward to Glasgow fallen in, near Linlithgow, with a body of helpless Irish women and children, who, in consequence of the loss of their husbands and fathers at the battle of Philiphaugh, were now seeking their way home to their own country, they were all seized by orders of the heads of the Covenanters, and thrown headlong by the brutal soldiers over the bridge of Avon into the river below. Some of these unfortunate beings, who had sufficient strength left to reach the banks of the river, were not allowed to save themselves from drowning, but after being beaten on the head and stunned by blows from the butt ends of muskets and by clubs, were pushed back into the stream, where they all perished.[333] According to Gordon of Ruthven, many of the women who were with child were ripped up and cut to pieces, “with such savage and inhuman cruelty, as neither Turk nor Scythian was ever heard to have done the like.”[334]

The covenanting army continued its march[234] to Glasgow, where a convention of the Estates was held, to determine upon farther measures. To testify their gratitude to Leslie, they granted him a present of 50,000 merks and a gold chain, and they also voted the sum of 25,000 merks to Middleton, the second in command.[335]

CHAPTER XV.

A.D. 1645–1649.

BRITISH SOVEREIGN:—Charles I., 1625–1649.

Montrose appeared among his Athole friends at a time the most unfavourable for obtaining their aid. Many of them were engaged in the occupation of the harvest, securing, for the support of themselves and their families, the scanty and precarious crops which were then upon the ground, and which, if neglected to be cut down in due time, might be destroyed by unfavourable weather. It was, besides, little more than a month since they had left him at Bothwell, for the purpose partly of repairing the damages which had been committed by Argyle’s men upon their houses, and the interval which had since elapsed had not been sufficient for accomplishing their object. Yet, notwithstanding these drawbacks, Montrose succeeded in inducing about 400 of the men of Athole to join him immediately, and to follow him to the north in quest of additional reinforcements; and he obtained a promise that, on his return, the whole of the Athole Highlanders would join him in a body.

While in Athole, Montrose received promises both from Lord Aboyne and Sir Alexander Macdonald, that they would speedily join him with considerable reinforcements; but, growing impatient at Aboyne’s delay, he resolved to proceed north himself to ascertain in person the cause of it, and to urge that nobleman to fulfil his promise. Crossing, therefore, the Grampians, he marched with great haste through Aberdeenshire, and had an interview with Lord Aboyne, whom he expected to rouse from his apathy. Montrose, however, soon perceived, that whatever Lord Aboyne’s own intentions were, he was thwarted by his father, the Marquis of Huntly, who, on hearing of Montrose’s success at Kilsyth, had left his retreat in Strathnaver, where he had passed a year and a half in absolute supineness, and returned to his own country. The marquis appears to have been filled with envy towards Montrose, and although, being a royalist in his heart, he did not care to expose the crown and monarchy to danger to gratify his spleen and vanity, yet he could not endure to see a man whom he looked upon as his inferior in rank, monopolize the whole power and authority in Scotland.

“He was,” says Bishop Wishart, “a man equally unfortunate and inconsiderate; and, however much he would seem, or was really attached to the king, yet he often betrayed that interest through a pride and unaccountable envy he had conceived against Montrose, whose glory and renown he endeavoured rather to extenuate than make the object of his emulation. He durst not venture to depreciate Montrose’s actions before his own people, who had been eye-witnesses of them, and were well acquainted with his abilities, lest it might be construed into a sign of disaffection to the king himself. However, he gave out that he would take the charge of commanding them himself during the remainder of the war; and in that view he headed all his own vassals, and advised his neighbours, not without threats if they acted otherwise, to enlist under no other authority than his own. They remonstrated against being asked to disobey the commands of Montrose, who was appointed by the king his deputy-governor and captain-general of all the forces within the kingdom. Huntly replied,[235] that he himself should in no way be wanting in his duty to the king; but, in the meantime, it tended no less to their honour than his own that it should appear to the king and the whole kingdom how much they contributed to the maintenance of the war; and this, he said, could never be done, unless they composed a separate army by themselves. He spoke in very magnificent terms of his own power, and endeavoured as much as possible to extenuate that of Montrose. He extolled immoderately the glory and achievements of his ancestors, the Gordons; a race, worthy indeed of all due commendation, whose power had for many ages been formidable, and an overmatch for their neighbours; and was so even at this day. It was therefore, he said, extremely unjust to ascribe unto another, meaning Montrose, the glory and renown acquired by their courage, and at the expense of their blood. But, for the future, he would take care that neither the king should be disappointed of the help of the Gordons, nor should they be robbed of the praise due to their merit.”

Notwithstanding Huntly’s reasoning, some of his clan perceived the great danger to which the king’s affairs would be exposed by such conduct, and they did everything in their power to induce him to alter his resolution. It was, however, in vain that they represented to him the danger and impropriety of dividing the friends of the king at such a crisis, when union and harmony were so essentially necessary for accomplishing the objects they had in view, and when, by allowing petty jealousies to interfere and distract their councils, they might ruin the royal cause in Scotland. Huntly lent a deaf ear to all their entreaties, and instead of adopting the advice of his friends to support Montrose, by ordering his vassals to join him, he opposed him almost in everything he proposed by underhand means, although affecting a seeming compliance with his wishes. Seeing all their efforts fruitless, those friends who had advised Huntly to join Montrose declared that they would range themselves under Montrose’s banner, as the king’s lieutenant, regardless of consequences, and they kept their word.

The author of the history of the family of Gordon, and Gordon of Ruthven, author of Britane’s Distemper, endeavour to defend Huntly from these charges made against him by Wishart. They assert that Wishart has given only one side of the case, and that Huntly acted as he did from a genuine desire to serve the highest interests of the king, and through no envy towards Montrose. They lament that any misunderstanding should ever have arisen between these two eminent royalists, as it undoubtedly tended materially to prejudice the cause of the king. No doubt Huntly sincerely wished to serve the royal cause: but we are afraid that jealousy towards Montrose helped considerably to obscure his mental vision and prejudice his judgment.[336]

Among other reasons which induced Montrose to take the speedy step he did of marching north himself, was a report which had reached him that the king was to send from England a large body of horse to support him, and he was most anxious to collect such forces as he could to enable him to be in a condition to advance to the south, and unite with this body. In fact, the king had given orders to Lord Digby and Sir Marmaduke Langdale to proceed to Scotland with a body of 1,500 horse; but they were, unfortunately, completely defeated, even before Montrose’s departure to the north, by Colonel Copley at Sherburn, with the loss of all their baggage. Digby and Langdale, accompanied by the Earls of Carnwath and Nithsdale, fled to Skipton, and afterwards to Dumfries, whence they took ship to the Isle of Man.

Notwithstanding the evasions of the Marquis of Huntly, Montrose succeeded in inducing the Earl of Aboyne to join him at Drumminor, the seat of Lord Forbes, with a force of 1,500 foot and 300 horse, all of whom appeared to be actuated by the best spirit. To remove every unfavourable impression from the mind of Montrose, Aboyne assured him with great frankness, that he and his men were ready to follow him wherever he should be pleased to lead them; that they would obey his orders; and that his brother, Lord Lewis, would also speedily join him, as he soon did, with an additional force.

On receiving this reinforcement, Montrose[236] turned his face to the south, and marched towards Mar, where he was to be joined by forces which Lord Erskine had raised there; but he had not proceeded far, when Lord Lewis Gordon, under some pretence or other, returned home with a considerable party of horse, promising to return to the army the following day. The desertion of Lord Lewis had a most pernicious influence upon the remainder of Aboyne’s men, who, before the army had reached Alford, were greatly diminished by desertion. As the remainder showed great unwillingness to march forward, and as the desertions continued, Aboyne requested leave of absence, alleging as his reason, that his father had expressly commanded him to return to defend his possessions against a party of the enemy who were in Lower Mar, and who were threatening an attack. The demand of Aboyne excited the astonishment of Montrose, who remonstrated with him, and gave many reasons to induce him to remain. He showed that Aboyne’s apprehensions of danger were groundless, as, with the exception of a few troops of the enemy’s horse quartered in Aberdeen, there were no other forces in the north which could disturb his father’s possessions, and that these horse were too weak to attempt any thing—that by marching south, the seat of war would be transferred from the north country, and that, in this way, the Marquis of Huntly would be relieved altogether of the presence of the enemy—that it would be impossible to join the royalist forces, which were on their way from England, without crossing the Forth, and that it was only by adopting the latter step that they could ever expect to rescue their brave friends from the fangs of the Covenanters, and save their lives.

Aboyne did not attempt to answer these reasons, which were urged with Montrose’s peculiar energy, but he requested him to send some persons who had influence with his father to acquaint him with them. Donald, Lord Reay, at whose house Huntly had lived during his exile in Strathnaver, and Alexander Irvine, younger of Drum, Huntly’s son-in-law, both of whom had been indebted to Montrose for their liberty, were accordingly sent by him to the Marquis of Huntly, as the most likely persons he could select to induce Huntly to allow Aboyne to remain with the army. But all their arguments and entreaties were to no purpose. Lord Reay was so heartily ashamed at the failure of his mission, that he declined to return to Montrose; and Irvine, who brought some evasive letters from Huntly, frankly declared to Montrose, that he could obtain no satisfactory explanation from his father-in-law of his real intentions, farther, than that he remained fixed in his resolution that Aboyne should return home immediately. After declaring that he parted from Montrose with reluctance, and promising to join him within a fortnight with a force even larger than that which he had lately brought, Aboyne left the army and returned to his father.

Montrose then continued his march through Braemar and Glenshee into Athole, where he obtained an accession of force. He next proceeded to Strathearn, where he was met by two messengers,—Captain Thomas Ogilvie, younger of Pourie, and Captain Robert Nisbet,—who arrived by different routes, with orders from the king, desiring Montrose to join Lord George Digby, near the English border, as soon as possible. On receiving these commands, Montrose immediately sent the messengers north to the Marquis of Huntly, to acquaint him with the king’s wishes, in the expectation that the use of his majesty’s name would at once induce him to send Aboyne south with reinforcements.

While Montrose lay in Strathearn waiting for reinforcements, intelligence was brought to him that the Covenanters were about to imbrue their hands in the blood of his friends who had been taken prisoners after the battle of Philiphaugh. The committee of Estates, which had accompanied the covenanting army to Glasgow, had now determined upon this bold and illegal step, for which hitherto, with the recent exceptions of O’Kean and Laughlane, no example had been set by either of the belligerent parties in Scotland since the commencement of the war. They had wisely abstained from staining the scaffolds with blood, but from different motives. Montrose, in general, refrained from inflicting capital punishment, and, as we have seen, often released his prisoners on parole. The heads of the Covenanters had been deterred by fear alone from carrying their bloody purposes into execution; but considering[237] that they had now nothing to fear, they soon appeared in their true colours.

Besides the committee of the Estates, a committee of the kirk held sittings in Glasgow at the same time, which sittings were afterwards transferred to Perth, where, after deposing some ministers who were considered disaffected to the Covenant, because they had not “mourned” for Montrose’s victory at Kilsyth, they “concerned” themselves, as Guthry observes, about “the disposition of men’s heads.” Accordingly, thinking the committee of Estates remiss in condemning and executing the prisoners, they appointed Mr. William Bennet, who acted as Moderator in the absence of Mr. Robert Douglas, and two others of their number, to wait upon the committee of Estates, and remonstrate with them for their supineness. Guthry relates, that the deputation reported on their return, in his own hearing, that some of the lords of the committee slighted the desire of the committee of the kirk, and that they were likely to have obtained nothing had not the Earl of Tulliebardine made a seasonable speech to the effect, “that because he had a brother among those men, it might be that their lordships so valued his concurrence with them in the good cause, that for respect of him they were the more loth to resolve upon the question. But that, as for himself, since that young man had joined with that wicked crew, he did not esteem him his brother, and therefore declared that he would take it for no favour if upon that account any indulgence was granted him.”[337],[338] This fratricidal speech made those members of the committee, who had disliked the shedding of blood, hang down their heads, according to Bennet’s report, and the committee, thereupon, resolved that 10 of the prisoners should be executed, viz., the Earl of Hartfell, Lord Ogilvie, Sir Robert Spottiswood, the Honourable William Murray, brother to the Earl of Tulliebardine, Alexander Ogilvie of Inverquharity, Sir William Rollock, Sir Philip Nisbet, Colonel Nathaniel Gordon, Adjutant Stewart, and Captain Andrew Guthry.

Apprehensive, however, that Montrose might still be in a condition to avenge the blood of his friends, the committee did not venture to carry their sentence into immediate execution upon any of them; but hearing of the division between Montrose and Huntly, and the desertion of the Gordons, they thought they might now safely venture to immolate a few victims at the shrine of the Covenant. Accordingly three of the prisoners were ordered for execution, viz., Sir William Rollock, Sir Philip Nisbet, chief of that name, and Alexander Ogilvie, younger of Inverquharity, a youth not quite 18 years of age, who had already given proofs of ability. This excellent young man was sacrificed to gratify the malignant animosity of Argyle at the Ogilvies. Sir William was executed at the market cross of Glasgow, on the 28th of October, and Sir Philip and Ogilvie suffered at the same place on the following day. Wishart relates a circumstance connected with Sir William Rollock’s condemnation, which exhibits a singular instance of the ferocity and fanaticism of the times. He says, that the chief crime laid to Sir William’s charge was, that he had not perpetrated a deed of the most villanous and atrocious nature. Having been sent by Montrose, after the battle of Aberdeen, with some despatches to the king, he was apprehended by the enemy, and would undoubtedly have been immediately executed, but for Argyle, who used all his endeavours to engage him to assassinate Montrose, and who at length, by threatening him with immediate death, and promising him, in case of compliance, very high rewards, prevailed on him to undertake that barbarous office, for which, however, he secretly entertained the utmost abhorrence. Having thereby obtained his life and liberty, he returned straight to Montrose and disclosed the whole matter to him, entreating him, at the same time, to look more carefully to his own safety; as it could not be supposed that he, Sir William, was the only person who had been practised upon in this shameful manner or that others would equally detest the deed, but that some persons would undoubtedly be[238] found who, allured with the bait, would use their utmost industry and pains to obtain the promised reward.[339] Another instance of fanaticism is related by Guthry, of David Dickson the “bloody preacher,” who, on witnessing the execution of Nisbet and Ogilvie, was heard to utter the barbarous expression—“The work goes bonnyly on,” an expression which afterwards became proverbial.

About the time this tragedy was performing, Montrose crossed the Forth and entered Lennox with a force of 300 horse and 1,200 foot, and took up his quarters on the lands of Sir John Buchanan, an ardent Covenanter, whence he sent out his cavalry every day, who hovered about Glasgow, and plundered the neighbouring country without opposition, although the Covenanters had a force of about 3,000 cavalry in Glasgow and the neighbourhood. When Montrose heard of the execution of his friends, his heart was filled with the most poignant grief, and he longed for a suitable opportunity to avenge their deaths, but he was too weak to venture upon an immediate attack. He sent repeated messengers from his present head-quarters to Sir Alexander Macdonald to join him; but after hovering several weeks about Glasgow, like a hawk ready to pounce upon its quarry, he had the mortification to find, that Macdonald had no intention of ever again returning to him, and that his expectations of being joined by the Earl of Aboyne were to be equally disappointed.

Under these untoward circumstances, therefore, and as the winter, which turned out unusually severe, was far advanced, Montrose resolved to retire into the north where he could remain undisturbed. With this view he began his march from the Lennox on the 19th of November, and crossing the hills of Monteith, which were covered with snow to a considerable depth, he entered Strathearn, and crossing the Tay, marched into Athole. Here Montrose received the melancholy news of the death of his brother-in-law, Archibald Lord Napier of Merchiston, whom he had left behind him in Athole on account of indisposition; a man, says Bishop Wishart, “not less noble in his personal accomplishments than in his birth and descent; a man of the greatest uprightness and integrity, and of a most happy genius, being, as to his skill in the sciences, equal to his father and grandfather, who were famous all the world over for their knowledge in philosophy and mathematics, and in the doctrine of civil prudence far beyond them.” Montrose had been accustomed from his earliest years to look up to this gifted nobleman with feelings of reverential and filial awe, nor were these feelings impaired as he advanced in life. He was interred in the Kirk of Blair with becoming solemnity by Montrose.

When Montrose arrived in Athole, he there found Captain Ogilvie and Captain Nisbet, who had just returned from the north to give an account of their embassy to the Marquis of Huntly. They reported that they found him quite inflexible in his determination not to send assistance to Montrose, that he had spoken disdainfully to them, and even questioned the authenticity of the message which they brought from the king. It was truly grievous for Montrose to see the cause for which he had fought so long, and for which he had encountered so many personal risks, thus endangered by the apparently wilful and fatal obstinacy of an individual who had abandoned his country and his friends in the most trying circumstances, and skulked in Strathnaver, without showing any inclination to support the tottering throne of his sovereign. But Montrose did not yet despair of bringing the marquis to a due sense of his duty; and as he considered that it was more expedient, in the present conjuncture, to endeavour to soothe the wounded pride of the marquis than to use the language of menace, he sent Sir John Dalziel to Huntly with a message of peace and reconciliation; intending, if necessary, as soon as circumstances permitted, to follow him, and enforce by his personal presence, at a friendly conference, which Sir John was requested to ask from the marquis, the absolute necessity of such a reconciliation.

As Dalziel was quite unsuccessful in his mission, and could not prevail upon Huntly to agree to a conference with Montrose, the latter hastened to put into effect his intention of paying a personal visit to Huntly, “that nothing might be unattempted to bring him to a right way of thinking,” and “by[239] heaping favours and benefits upon him, force him even against his will, to a reconciliation, and to co-operate with him in promoting the king’s affairs.”[340] Montrose accordingly left Athole with his army in the month of December, and marching into Angus, crossed the Grampians, then covered with frost and snow, by rapid marches, and arrived in Strathbogie, before Huntly was aware of his movements. To avoid Montrose, Huntly immediately shut himself up in his castle of Bog of Gicht, on the Spey, but Montrose having left his head-quarters with a troop of horse, unexpectedly surprised him very early in the morning before he had time to secrete himself. Instead of reproaching Huntly with his past conduct, Montrose spoke to him in the most affable manner, and apparently succeeded in removing his dissatisfaction so far, that a plan for conducting the future operations of the army was agreed upon between them. The reduction of the garrison of Inverness, which, though strong and well fortified, was but scantily stored with provisions, and an attempt to induce the Earl of Seaforth to join them, were the leading parts of this plan. Accordingly, while Montrose was to march through Strathspey, on his way to Inverness, it was agreed that Huntly should also advance upon it by a different road along the sea-coast of Morayshire, and thereby hem in the garrison on both sides.

In prosecution of this design, Montrose proceeded through Strathspey, and sat down before Inverness, waiting for the arrival of Huntly. When marching through Strathspey, Montrose received intelligence that Athole was threatened with a visit from the Campbells—a circumstance which induced him to despatch Graham of Inchbrakie and John Drummond, younger of Balloch, to that country, for the purpose of embodying the Athole Highlanders, who had remained at home, in defence of their country. The inhabitants of Argyle, on hearing of Sir Alexander Macdonald’s arrival in their country, after the battle of Kilsyth, had fled to avoid his vengeance, and concealed themselves in caverns or in the clefts of the rocks; but being compelled by the calls of hunger to abandon their retreats, they had been collected together by Campbell of Ardkinlass to the number of about 1,200, and had attacked the Macgregors and Macnabs for favouring Montrose. Being joined by the Stuarts of Balquidder, the Menzieses, and other partisans of Argyle, to the number of about 300, they meditated an invasion of Athole, and had advanced as far as Strathample, with the intention of carrying their design into execution, when intelligence was brought to Inchbrakie of their approach. Inchbrakie and Balloch had by this time collected a body of 700 able-bodied men, and, with this force, they immediately proceeded to meet the Campbells. These had laid siege to Castle Ample; but, on being apprised of the advance of the Athole-men, they retired to Monteith, whither they were hotly pursued by the Athole-men, who overtook them at Callander, near the village of Monteith. After crossing the river Teith, they halted and prepared for battle, having previously stationed a large party of musketeers to guard the ford.

Having ascertained the strength and position of the Campbells, Inchbrakie ordered 100 of his men to advance to the ford, as if with the intention of crossing it, in order to draw the attention of the Campbells to this single point, while, with the remainder of his men, he hastened to cross the river by another ford, higher up, and nearer the village. This movement was immediately perceived by the Argyle-men, who, alarmed at such a bold step, and probably thinking that the Athole-men were more numerous than they really were, abandoned their position, and fled with precipitation towards Stirling. As soon as the Athole party, stationed at the lower ford, saw the opposite bank deserted, they immediately crossed the river and attacked the rear of the retiring Campbells. They were soon joined in the pursuit by the party which had crossed the higher ford; but, as the Athole-men had performed a tedious march of ten miles that morning, they were unable to continue the pursuit far. About 80 of the Campbells were killed in the pursuit. They loitered about Stirling for some time in a very pitiful state, till visited by their chief, on his way to Ireland, who, not knowing how to dispose of them, led them into Renfrewshire, under the impression[240] that as the inhabitants of that district were friendly to the Covenant, they would be well received; but the people of Renfrewshire, instead of showing sympathy for these unfortunate wanderers, threatened to take arms and cut them down, unless they departed immediately. The marquis, thereupon, sent them into Lennox, and quartered them upon the lands of Lord Napier and other “malignants,” as the royalists were called.[341]

The support of General Leslie’s army being heavily felt by the people, complaints were made to the Committee of Estates for retaining such a large body of men in Scotland, without any necessity, and whose habits and mode of living were so different from those of the inhabitants of North Britain. The Committee sent Leslie back to England, retaining only a small brigade under General Middleton, to watch the motions of Montrose.

The Covenanters, emboldened by recent events, had summoned a parliament to meet at St. Andrews, which accordingly assembled on the 26th of November, 1645; and, that the ministers might not be behind their lay brethren in zeal for the blood of the “malignants,” the general assembly of the church also met at the same time and place. It is truly humiliating to find men, no doubt sincerely believing they were serving the cause of religion, demanding the lives of their countrymen as a sacrifice which they considered would be well-pleasing to God; yet, whilst every unprejudiced mind must condemn the fanaticism of the Covenanters, it must be remembered that the unconstitutional attempts of the king to force Episcopacy upon them—a system which they detested,—the severe losses which they had sustained from the arms of Montrose, and the dread of being subjected to the yoke of prelacy, and punished for their resistance, had aroused them to a state of frenzy, over which reason and religion could have little control.

As a preparative for the bloody scenes about to be enacted, Sir Archibald Johnston of Warriston, on the day the parliament met, addressed the house in a long harangue, in which he entreated them to “unity amongst themselves, to lay all private respects and interests aside, and to do justice on delinquents and malignants; showing that their dallying formerly had provoked God’s two great servants against them—the sword and plague of pestilence—which had ploughed up the land with deep furrows: he showed that the massacre of Kilsyth was never to be forgotten, and that God, who was the just Judge of the world, would not but judge righteously, and keep in remembrance that sea of innocent blood which lay before his throne, crying for vengeance on these bloodthirsty rebels, the butchers of so many innocent souls. He showed, likewise, that the times required a more narrow and sharp looking into than formerly, in respect that the house of parliament was become at this present like to Noah’s ark, which had in it both foul and clean creatures, and therefore he besought the Estates there now convened by God’s especial permission and appointment, before that they went about the constitution of that high court of parliament, that they would make a serious search and inquiry after such as were ears and eyes to the enemies of the commonwealth, and did sit there as if there was nothing to say to them; and, therefore, he humbly desired that the house might be adjourned till to-morrow at two o’clock in the afternoon, and that the several Estates might consider what corrupted members were amongst them, who had complied with the public enemy of the state, either by themselves or by their agents or friends.”[342]

On the 4th of December, a petition was presented to the parliament from the prisoners confined in the castle of St. Andrews, praying to be tried either by their peers, the justice-general, or before the whole parliament, and not by a committee, as proposed; and they very properly objected to Sir Archibald Johnston’s sitting as a judge, he having already prejudged their case; but the house, “in one voice,” most iniquitously rejected the petition, reserving, however, to the prisoners still to object to Sir Archibald before the committee, “if they had not any personal exception against his person.”[343]

As the ministers considered the parliament tardy in their proceedings against the royalists, the commissioners of the general assembly presented,[241] on the 5th of December, a remonstrance, praying them “for justice upon delinquents and malignants who had shed the blood of their brethren,” and on the same day, four petitions and remonstrances to the same effect were presented to the parliament, from the provincial assemblies and from Fife, Dumfries, Merse, Teviotdale, and Galloway, by a body of about 200 persons. The parliament, says Balfour, by their president, answered, that they had taken their “modest petitions and seasonable remonstrances very kindly, and rendered them hearty thanks, and wished them to be confident that, with all alacrity and diligence, they would go about and proceed in answering the expectations of all their reasonable desires, as they might themselves perceive in their procedure hitherto; and, withal, he entreated them, in the name of the house, that they would be earnest with God to implore and beg his blessing to assist and encourage them to the performance of what they demanded.”[344]

Notwithstanding the entreaties of the ministers to proceed with the condemnation of the prisoners, the parliament postponed proceedings till the 17th of January, 1646; but, as a peace-offering, they ordered, in the mean time, some Irish prisoners, composed partly of those who had been taken at Philiphaugh, and who had escaped assassination, and partly of stragglers who had been picked up after that battle, and who were confined in various prisons throughout the kingdom, especially in those of Selkirk, Jedburgh, Glasgow, Dumbarton, and Perth, to be executed without trial, “conform to the treaty betwixt both kingdoms.”[345] A more illegal act it is scarcely possible to conceive, but in these times even the forms of justice were set aside.

The Committee of Estates, when sitting in Glasgow, had condemned the Earl of Hartfell and Lord Ogilvie to death, along with Sir William Rollock, Sir Philip Nisbet, and Alexander Ogilvie; but, for some reason or other, their execution was deferred. So that, with the exception of Adjutant Stuart, who escaped while under the charge of General Middleton, there remained only four persons of any note for condemnation, viz., Colonel Nathaniel Gordon, Sir Robert Spottiswood, the Honourable William Murray, and Captain Guthry. It appears from the parliamentary register of Sir James Balfour, that these four prisoners pleaded exemption from trial, or rather from condemnation, on the ground of “quarters;” but after three hours’ debate, on the 10th of January, the parliament overruled this defence; and the committee having, of course, found them all “guilty of high treason against the states of the kingdom,” they fixed the 16th of that month for taking into consideration the punishment to be inflicted upon them.

The first case taken up on the appointed day, was that of Colonel Nathaniel Gordon, who, after a debate of three hours’ duration, was sentenced to be beheaded at the cross of St. Andrews, on Tuesday, the 20th of January, at twelve o’clock, noon, and his lands and goods were declared forfeited to the public. The lord chancellor declined voting. Similar sentences were pronounced upon the Honourable William Murray and Captain Guthry, by a majority of votes, a few of the members having voted that they should be imprisoned during life. Mr. Murray’s brother, the Earl of Tulliebardine, absented himself. These three fell under an act passed the preceding year, declaring that all persons who, after having subscribed the Covenant, should withdraw from it, should be held as guilty of high treason. But the case of Sir Robert Spottiswood, who had not subscribed the Covenant, not falling within the scope of this ex-post-facto law, the committee had stated in a special report the grounds on which they found Sir Robert guilty of high treason, namely, 1st, that he had advised, docketed, signed, carried, and delivered to Montrose the commission appointing him “lieutenant-governor and captain-general” of all his majesty’s forces in Scotland; and 2dly, that he had been taken in arms against the country at Philiphaugh. After a lengthened debate, the parliament decided that both these charges were capital offences, and accordingly Sir Robert was condemned by a large majority to lose his head.[346]

It was the intention of the parliament to[242] have ordered the Earl of Hartfell and Lord Ogilvie to be executed along with the other prisoners; but on the evening of the 19th of January Lord Ogilvie effected his escape in the following way. Pretending sickness he applied for, and obtained, though with considerable difficulty, liberty to his mother, wife, and sister, to visit and attend him in prison. On entering his chamber the sentinels retired out of respect to the ladies; and, as soon as the door was shut, his lordship jumped out of bed, and attired himself in his sister’s clothes, who, on undressing, took the place of her brother in bed, and put on his night-cap. After spending some time together to prevent suspicion, the two other ladies and his lordship, after opening the door ajar so as to be seen by the guards, pretended to take a most affectionate and painful leave of the unfortunate bed-ridden prisoner, and drawing the door after them, passed the sentinels without interruption. This happened about eight o’clock in the evening; and as horses had been prepared for his lordship and two companions who were waiting to escort him, he immediately mounted, and was out of all danger before next morning, when the deception was discovered. The escape of Lord Ogilvie highly incensed Argyle, who hated the Ogilvies, and who, it is said, longed for the death of his lordship. He could not conceal the chagrin he felt on the occasion, and even had the audacity to propose that the three ladies should be immediately punished; but the Hamiltons and Lord Lindsay, who, on account of their relationship to Lord Ogilvie, were suspected of being privy to his escape, protected them from his vengeance. The escape of Lord Ogilvie was a fortunate occurrence for the Earl of Hartfell, for whose life it is alleged the Hamiltons thirsted in their turn; and to disappoint whom Argyle insisted that the earl’s life should be spared, a concession which he obtained.[347]

Of the four prisoners, Colonel Nathaniel Gordon, “a man,” says Wishart, “of excellent endowments both of body and mind,” was the first that suffered. He had been long under the ban of the church for adultery; but on signing a paper, declaratory of his repentance, he was absolved from the sentence of excommunication. He died expressing great sorrow for the vices and follies of his youth; but vindicated himself for the part he had taken in the troubles of his country, professed the most unshaken loyalty to his king, and declared that if there were any thing in the instrument he had signed which might be construed as dishonourable to the king, or repugnant to his authority, he completely disowned it.

Colonel Gordon was followed to the scaffold by Sir Robert Spottiswood, a man of spotless integrity, and one of the most profound scholars of the age. He was the eldest son of Archbishop Spottiswood, and had, by his rare endowments and great merit, been noticed with distinction by King James and his successor Charles. James conferred on him the order of knighthood, and made him a privy councillor, and Charles promoted him to the high situation of lord president of the court of session; and, upon the desertion of the Earl of Lanark to the Covenanters, the king appointed him principal secretary of state for Scotland instead of that nobleman. This appointment drew down upon him the hatred of the leading Covenanters, but still there were some among them who continued to respect him on account of his worth and shining talents; and when the vote was taken in parliament whether he should suffer, the Earls of Eglintoun, Cassilis, Dunfermline, and Carnwath, voted that his life should be spared; and the lord chancellor and the Earl of Lanark, by leave of the house, declined voting. “Though many liked not his party, they liked his person, which made him many friends even among the Covenanters, insomuch, that after his sentence was read, some of the nobility spoke in his behalf, and entreated the house to consider the quality and parts of that excellent gentleman and most just judge, whom they had condemned, and begged earnestly his life might be spared. But an eminent knowledge and esteem, which, in other cases, might be a motive to save a criminal, was here only the cause of taking an innocent man’s life—so dangerous is it, in a corrupt age, to be eminently constant and virtuous. The gentlemen who spoke were told that the authority of the established government was not secure while Sir Robert’s life was spared.[243] Whereupon the noblemen who presided at the meeting of the estates at Glasgow, and in the parliament at St. Andrews, openly declared, when they signed the respective sentences, that they did sign as preses, and in obedience to the command of the estates, but not as to their particular judgment.”[348]

After he had mounted the scaffold, still reeking with the blood of Colonel Gordon, Sir Robert surveyed the terrific scene around him with singular composure, which, added to his naturally grave and dignified appearance, filled the breasts of the spectators with a feeling of compassion. Sir Robert had intended to have addressed the people, and had prepared a written speech for the occasion; but on turning round to address the spectators, he was prevented from proceeding by the provost of St. Andrews, formerly a servant of Sir Robert’s father, who had been instigated to impose silence upon him by Robert Blair, one of those ministers who, to the scandal of religion, had dishonoured their profession by calling out for the blood of their countrymen. Blair’s motive in occasioning this interruption is said to have arisen from a dread he entertained that Sir Robert would expose the designs of the Covenanters, and impress the bystanders with an unfavourable opinion of their proceedings. Sir Robert bore the interruption with the most unruffled composure, and, as he saw no chance of succeeding, he threw the manuscript of his speech amongst the crowd, and applied himself to his private devotions. But here again he was annoyed by the officious impertinence of Blair, who rudely asked him whether he (Blair) and the people should pray for the salvation of his soul? To this question Sir Robert answered, that he indeed desired the prayers of the people; but knowing the bloodthirsty character of the man he was addressing, who had come to tease him in his last moments, he told him that he “would have no concern with his prayers, which he believed were impious, and an abomination unto God; adding, that of all the plagues with which the offended majesty of God had scourged the nation, this was certainly by far the greatest, greater than even the sword, fire, or pestilence; that for the sins of the people God had sent a lying spirit into the mouths of the prophets.”[349] This answer raised the fury of Blair, who assailed Sir Robert with the most acrimonious imputations, and reviled the memory of his father by the most infamous charges; but Sir Robert was too deeply absorbed in meditation to regard such obloquy. Having finished his devotions, this great and good man, after uttering these words, “Merciful Jesus! gather my soul unto thy saints and martyrs who have run before me in this race,” laid his neck upon the fatal block, and in an instant his head was severed from his body.

After Sir Robert Spottiswood’s execution, Captain Guthry, son of the ex-bishop of Moray, was next led to the scaffold. The fierce and unfeeling Blair, who had already officiously witnessed, with the most morbid complacency, the successive executions of Colonel Gordon and Sir Robert, not satisfied with reviling the latter gentleman in his last moments, and lacerating his feelings by heaping every sort of obloquy upon the memory of his father, vented the dregs of his impotent rage upon the unfortunate victim now before him; but Guthry bore all this man’s reproaches with becoming dignity, and declared that he considered it an honour to die in defence of the just cause of his sovereign. He met his death with the fortitude of a hero and the firmness of a Christian.

In consequence of an application to the parliament by the Earl of Tulliebardine, the execution of his brother, William Murray, was delayed till the 23d of January. The case of this unfortunate young man excited a strong feeling of regret among the Covenanters themselves, and some writers have not scrupled to blame the earl as the cause of his death, that he might succeed to his patrimony. Some countenance is afforded to this conjecture from the circumstance that the earl not only made no exertions to save his brother from condemnation, but that he even absented himself from parliament the day that his brother’s case came to be discussed, when, by his presence or his vote, he might have saved his brother’s life. Nor is this supposition, it is contended, in any[244] shape weakened by the attempt he afterwards made to get off his brother; for he must have known that the parliament had gone too far to retract, and could not, without laying itself open to the charge of the grossest partiality, reprieve Mr. Murray, and allow their sentence to be carried into execution against the other prisoners. If true, however, that the earl delivered the speech imputed to him by Bennet, there can be no doubt of his being a participator in the death of his brother, but, it would be hard to condemn him on such questionable authority. To whatever cause it was owing, Mr. Murray was not, during his last moments, subjected to the annoyances of Blair, nor was he prevented from delivering the following speech to the persons assembled to witness his execution. He spoke in a loud tone of voice as follows: “I hope, my countrymen, you will reckon that the house of Tulliebardine, and the whole family of Murray, have this day acquired a new and no small addition of honour; that a young man, descended of that ancient race, has, though innocent, and in the flower of his age, with the greatest readiness and cheerfulness, delivered up his life for his king, the father of his country, and the most munificent patron and benefactor of that family from which he is sprung. Let not my honoured mother, my dearest sisters, my kindred or my friends, lament the shortness of my life, seeing that it is abundantly recompensed by the honour of my death. Pray for my soul, and God be with you.”[350]

Many prisoners, but of less note, still remained to be disposed of; but the parliament, either averse to shed more blood, or from other considerations, took no steps against them. The committee of the kirk, however, being actuated by other motives, pressed the parliament to dispose of some more of the “malignants;” but the bloody zeal of these clerical enthusiasts was checked by the better sense of the parliament; and in order to get rid of their importunities for blood, a suggestion was made to them by the leading men in parliament to lay before them an “overture,” proposing some more lenient mode of punishment. The “godly” brotherhood soon met, but a considerable difference of opinion prevailing as to the nature of the punishment to be submitted to parliament in the proposed overture, the moderator asked David Dickson what he thought best to be done with the prisoners, who answered “in his homely way of speaking, ‘shame them and herry (plunder) them.’” This proposal, being adopted, was made the subject of an overture, which was accordingly presented to parliament; and to meet the views of the ministers, a remit was made to a large committee, which was appointed to meet at Linlithgow, on the 25th of February, to fix the amount of the fines to be imposed upon the different delinquents.

While the proceedings before detailed were going on at St. Andrews, Montrose was ineffectually endeavouring to reduce the garrison of Inverness, the acquisition of which would have been of some importance to him. Had the Marquis of Huntly kept his promise, and joined Montrose, its capture might have been effected; but that nobleman never made his appearance, and as Inverness was thus left open on the side which it was intended he should block up, the enemy were enabled to supply themselves with provisions and warlike stores, of which they stood in great need. Huntly, however, afterwards crossed the Spey, and entered Moray with a considerable force; but instead of joining Montrose, who repeatedly sent for him, he wasted his time in fruitless enterprises, besieging and taking a few castles of no importance.

As Huntly probably did not think that the capture of a few obscure castles was sufficient to establish his pretensions as Montrose’s rival, he resolved to seize Aberdeen, and had advanced on his way as far as Kintore, where he was met by Ludovick Lindsay, Earl of Crawford, who had retired from the Mearns, where he had been stationed with Montrose’s horse, on hearing of the approach of the parliamentary army under the command of General Middleton towards Aberdeen. This intelligence was quite sufficient to induce the marquis to desist from his enterprise. Lindsay then marched into Buchan, and burnt the town of Fraserburgh. He, thereafter, went to Banff, but was compelled to retire hastily into Moray with some loss in February 1646, by a division of[245] Middleton’s army under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Montgomery and Major David Barclay.[351]

About this time intelligence was brought to Montrose that General Middleton had arrived at Aberdeen with a force of 600 horse and 800 foot. He now renewed his entreaties to Huntly to join him immediately, that they might either reduce Inverness or march jointly upon Aberdeen and attack Middleton; Huntly, however, refused to accede to Montrose’s request. This refusal exasperated Montrose to such a degree that he resolved to have recourse to force to compel compliance, as he could no longer endure to see the authority of the sovereign, whose deputy he was, thus trampled upon and despised. As he had already brought over to his side the Earl of Seaforth, who had induced the heads of some of the principal clans to form a confederation for obtaining a national peace, he was fully in a condition to have reduced Huntly to obedience. Montrose having got a new commission, sent a copy of it to Huntly, and, as governor and general of the royal forces, charged him to come without delay, with his whole force to Inverness, and there receive further orders. Huntly appears to have made preparations for complying with this order, but Middleton’s sudden advance on Inverness induced him to alter his purpose.[352]

Wishart relates rather an incredible story respecting an alleged piece of treachery on the part of Lord Lewis Gordon on this occasion. He states that, as Montrose had no reliance on Huntly, and as he began now to think it high time to look more carefully to his own safety, lest Huntly’s malice might at last carry him the length even to betray him, he sent three troops of horse to the fords of the Spey to watch the motions of the enemy, with orders, if they approached, to send him immediate intimation of their movements. This body, it is said, occupied the most convenient stations, and watched with very great diligence for some time, till Lord Lewis, who then kept the castle of Rothes, having contrived his scheme of villany, assured the officers who commanded the horse, that the enemy was very far distant, and had no intention to pass the river; he, therefore, advised them to cease watching, and having invited them to the castle where they were sumptuously entertained by him, plied with wine and spirits, and detained till such time as Lord Middleton had crossed the Spey with a large army of horse and foot, and penetrated far into Moray, he dismissed his guests with these jeering remarks—“Go, return to your general Montrose, who will now have better work than he had at Selkirk.” Gordon of Ruthven, however, contradicts this very improbable story, and attributes Middleton’s unmolested crossing of the Spey to the negligence of the troops who guarded the passage; asserting that Lord Lewis knew nothing of it till Mortimer, one of the captains in command of the troops, appeared at Rothes to tell him that Middleton was on the other side of the Spey on his way to Inverness. Moreover such a statement carries its own condemnation upon the face of it, for even supposing that Montrose’s officers had acted the stupid part imputed to them, they would certainly not have forgotten their duty so far as to order their men to abandon their posts.

It was in the month of May, 1646, that General Middleton left Aberdeen at the head of his army, on his way to Inverness. He left behind him in Aberdeen a regiment of horse, and another of foot, for the protection of the town, under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Montgomery. Middleton made a rapid march, and arrived in the neighbourhood of Inverness on the 9th of May, driving before him the few troops of horse which Montrose had stationed on the Spey to watch his motions. On being warned of Middleton’s approach, Montrose drew his troops together, and took up a position at some distance from the town; but having ascertained that Middleton was strong in cavalry, he hastily crossed the river Ness. Middleton, thereupon, despatched two regiments of cavalry after him, who attacked his rear, cut off some of his men, and captured two pieces of cannon and part of his baggage. Montrose continued his retreat by Beauly into Ross-shire, whither he was pursued by Middleton, who, however, suffered some loss in the pursuit. As Montrose’s forces were far inferior, in point of numbers, to those of Middleton, he[246] avoided coming to an engagement, and as Seaforth’s men, who had joined Montrose at Inverness, under their chief, began to desert him in great numbers, and as he could not depend on the population by which he was surrounded, Montrose turned to the right, and passing by Lochness, marched through Strathglass and Stratherrick to the banks of the Spey. Middleton did not follow Montrose, but went and laid siege to the castle of the Earl of Seaforth in the canonry of Ross, which he took after a siege of four days. He behaved towards the Countess of Seaforth, who was within the castle, with great politeness, and restored it to her after taking away the ammunition which it contained.

The absence of Middleton from Aberdeen afforded Huntly an opportunity of accomplishing the design which he formerly entertained, till prevented by the approach of Middleton from the south, of taking Aberdeen, and accordingly he ordered his men to march from Deeside to Inverury, where he appointed a general rendezvous to be held on the 10th of May. Colonel Montgomery being aware of his motions, beat up his quarters the same night at Kintore with a party of horse, and killed some of his men. But Montgomery was repulsed by Lord Lewis Gordon, with some loss, and forced to retire to Aberdeen. The marquis appeared at the gates of Aberdeen at 12 o’clock on the following day, with a force of 1,500 Highland foot and 600 horse, and stormed it in three different places. The garrison defended themselves with courage, and twice repulsed the assailants, in which contest a part of the town was set on fire; but a fresh reinforcement having entered the town, under Lord Aboyne, the attack was renewed, and Montgomery and his horse were forced to retire down to the edge of the river Dee, which they crossed by swimming. The covenanting foot, after taking refuge in the tolbooth and in the houses of the Earl Marischal and Menzies of Pitfoddles, craved quarter and surrendered at discretion. Although, the city of Aberdeen had done nothing to incur Huntly’s displeasure, he allowed his Highlanders to pillage it. About twenty officers were taken prisoners, among whom were Colonels Hurry, Barclay, and David Leighton; besides Sir William Forbes of Craigievar, and other country gentlemen, particularly of the name of Forbes; but they were all released next day on their parole of honour not to serve against the king in future. There were killed on the side of the Covenanters, Colonel William Forbes, Captain Lockhart, son of Sir James Lockhart of Lee, and three captains of foot, besides a number of privates; but Huntly lost only about twenty men.

Old Aberdeen in the 17th century.—From Slezer’s Theatrum Scotiæ (1693).

[247]

As Huntly’s force was considerably reduced by the return of the Highlanders, who had accompanied him, to their own houses, with the booty which they had collected in Aberdeen, and, as he was apprehensive of the immediate return of Middleton from the north, he remained but a short time in Aberdeen. Marching up the north bank of the Dee, he encamped in Cromar; but the sudden appearance of Middleton, who, on hearing of Huntly’s advance on Aberdeen, had retraced his steps and re-crossed the Spey, made him retire into Mar. Middleton, after pursuing him for a short distance, returned to Aberdeen, which he found had suffered severely from Huntly’s visit.

After an ineffectual attempt by Montrose to obtain an interview with Huntly at the bog of Gight, whither he had gone after Middleton’s return to Aberdeen, Montrose resolved to make a tour through the Highlands, in the hope that he would be able, by his personal presence, and by promising suitable rewards, to induce the clans to rise in defence of their sovereign; but with the determination, in case of refusal, to enforce obedience to his commands. This resolution was not taken by Montrose, without the concurrence of some of his best friends, who promised to aid him by every means in their power, in carrying it into effect. In pursuance of his design, Montrose was just about setting out on his proposed journey, when, on the last day of May, a messenger arrived with a letter from the king, requesting him to disband his forces, and to retire, himself, to France, where he would receive “further directions.” After the disastrous battle of Naseby, which was fought on the 14th of June, 1644, between the English royalists and the parliamentary forces, the campaign in England, on the part of the king, “presented little more than the last and feeble struggles of an expiring party.”[353] The king had been enabled, in consequence of the recall of the horse, which had reached Nottingham, on their way to Hereford, under General David Leslie, after the battle of Kilsyth, to drive the parliamentary infantry back from the siege of Hereford; but the surrender of Bristol to the forces of the parliament, on the 10th of September, and the defeat of the royalists at Chester, on the 23d of the same month, completed the ruin of the king’s affairs. Having shut himself up in Oxford, for the last time, in November following, Charles, after the discovery of the secret treaty with the Catholics of Ireland, which had been entered into by the Earl of Glamorgan, endeavoured to negotiate with the English parliament in the expectation that if he could gain either the presbyterians or independents over to his side, by fair promises, he would be enabled to get the upper hand of both.[354] That negotiation, however, not succeeding, another was set on foot, through the medium of Montrevil, the French envoy, with the Scots army before Newark, the leaders of which offered an asylum to the king on certain conditions. At length Charles, undetermined as to the course he should pursue, on hearing of the approach of the parliamentary army, under Fairfax, left Oxford at midnight, on the 27th of April, 1646, in the disguise of a servant, accompanied by Mr. Ashburnham and Dr. Hudson, a clergyman, and, after traversing the neighbouring country, arrived at Southwell on the 5th of May, where he was introduced by Montrevil to the Earl of Leven, the commander of the Scots army, and the officers of his staff. The arrival of the king seemed to surprise the officers very much, although it is generally supposed that they had been made previously aware of his intentions by Hudson, who had preceded him, and they treated him with becoming respect, the commander tendering his bare sword upon his knee;[355] but when Charles, who had retained Leven’s sword, indicated his intention to take the command of the army, by giving orders to the guard, that crafty veteran unhesitatingly thus addressed him:—“I am the older soldier, Sire, your majesty had better leave that office to me.”[356] The king was, in fact, now a prisoner. As soon as the intelligence reached the capital, that the king had retired to the Scots camp, the two parliamentary factions united in accusing the Scots of perfidy, and sent a body of 5,000 horse to watch their motions; but the Scots being desirous to avoid hostilities, raised their camp[248] before Newark, and hastily retired to Newcastle, carrying the king along with them.

On arriving at Newcastle, the king was waited upon by the Earls of Lanark and Callander, and Lord Balmerino, who paid their respects to him. As Callander was understood to be favourably inclined to the king, Lanark and Balmerino were desirous to get rid of him, and accordingly they prevailed upon his majesty to send Callander back to Edinburgh with a letter, which they had induced his majesty to write to the Committee of Estates, expressive of his desire to comply with the wishes of the Scots parliament, and containing instructions to them to order Montrose, Huntly, and Sir Alexander Macdonald to disband their forces. And it was also at the desire of these two noblemen that the king wrote the letter to Montrose already referred to.

After Montrose had read this letter he was filled with deep amazement and concern. All those visionary schemes for accomplishing the great object of his ambition, which a few minutes before had floated in his vivid imagination, were now dispelled. He was now placed in one of the most painful and difficult situations it is possible to conceive. He had no doubt that the letter had been extorted from the king, yet he considered that it would neither be prudent nor safe for him to risk the responsibility of disobeying the king’s orders. Besides, were he to attempt to act contrary to these instructions, he might thereby compromise the safety of the king, as his enemies would find it no difficult affair to convince the army that Montrose was acting according to private instructions from the king himself. On the other hand, by instantly disbanding his army, Montrose considered that he would leave the royalists, and all those friends who had shared his dangers, to the mercy of their enemies. In this dilemma, he determined to convene a general meeting of all the principal royalists, to consult as to how he should act—a resolution which showed his good sense, and kind and just feeling towards those who had been induced by his means to risk their lives and fortunes in the cause of the king. Notwithstanding the many slights which had been put upon him by the Marquis of Huntly, Montrose, anxious to preserve a good understanding with him, sent Sir John Hurry and Sir John Innes to Huntly, to invite him to attend the proposed meeting, and that there might be no appearance of dictation on the part of Montrose, the time and place of meeting was left to Huntly’s own choice. But this nobleman answered that he himself had received orders similar to those sent to Montrose, which he was resolved to obey immediately, and, therefore, he declined to attend any meeting on the subject.

In this situation of matters, Montrose considered that his best and wisest course would be to keep his army together till he should receive another communication from the king, in answer to a letter which he sent by a messenger of his own, in which he begged his majesty to acquaint him with the real situation of matters, whether he considered his person safe in the hands of the Covenanters, and if he could be of any farther service to him. Montrose begged also to be informed by the king, if he persevered in his resolution to disband an army which had fought so bravely in his defence, and that at a time when his enemies, in both kingdoms, were still under arms; and if so, he wished to be instructed by his majesty as to the course he should pursue, for the protection and security of the lives and fortunes of those brave men, who had encountered so many dangers, and had spent their blood in his defence, as he could not endure the idea of leaving such loyal subjects to the mercy of their enemies.[357] The king returned an answer[358] to this letter, by the former messenger, Ker, in which he assured him that he no less esteemed his willingness to lay down arms at his command, “for a gallant and real expression” of his zeal and affection to his service than any of his former actions; but he hoped that Montrose had not such a mean opinion of him, that for any particular or worldly respects he would suffer him (Montrose) to be ruined,—that his only reason for sending Montrose out of the country was that he might return with greater glory, and, in the meantime, to have as honourable an employment as he (the king) could confer upon him,—that Ker would tell him the care he had of all Montrose’s friends, and his own, to whom, although he could not[249] promise such conditions as he would have wished, yet they would be such, all things considered, as were most fit for them to accept. “Wherefore,” continues his majesty, “I renew my former directions, of laying down arms, unto you, desiring you to let Huntly, Crawford, Airly, Seaforth, and Ogilvy, know, that want of time hath made me now omit to reiterate my former commands unto you, intending that this shall serve for all; assuring them, and all the rest of my friends, that, whensoever God shall enable me, they shall reap the fruits of their loyalty and affection to my service.”

These ‘conditions,’ which consisted of several articles, and in the drawing up of which the king probably had no concern, were far from satisfactory to Montrose, who refused to accede to them. He even refused to treat with the Covenanters, and sent back the messenger to the king to notify to him, that as he had acted under his majesty’s commission, he would admit of no conditions for laying down his arms, or disbanding his army, which did not come directly from the king himself; but that if his majesty imposed conditions upon him, he would accept of them with the most implicit submission. The king, who had no alternative but to adopt these conditions as his own, put his name to them and sent back the messenger with them, with fresh instructions to Montrose to disband his army forthwith under the pain of high treason. Besides Ker, the king despatched another trusty messenger to Montrose with a private letter[359] urging him to accept of the conditions offered, as in the event of his refusal to break up his army, his majesty might be placed “in a very sad condition,” such as he would rather leave Montrose to guess at than seek himself to express. From this expression, it would appear that Charles already began to entertain some apprehensions about his personal safety. These commands of the king were too peremptory to be any longer withstood, and as Montrose had been informed that several of the leading royalists, particularly the Marquis of Huntly, Lord Aboyne, and the Earl of Seaforth, were negotiating with the Estates in their own behalf, and that Huntly and Aboyne had even offered to compel Montrose to lay down his arms in compliance with the orders of the king, he immediately resolved to disband his army.

As Middleton had been intrusted by the Committee of Estates with ample powers to negotiate with the royalists, and to see the conditions offered to Montrose implemented by him in case of acceptance, a cessation of arms was agreed upon between Montrose and Middleton; and in order to discuss the conditions, a conference was held between them on the 22d day of July, on a meadow, near the river Isla, in Angus, where they “conferred for the space of two hours, there being none near them but one man for each of them to hold his horse.”[360] The conditions agreed upon were these, that with the exception of Montrose himself, the Earl of Crawford, Sir Alexander Macdonald, and Sir John Hurry, all those who had taken up arms against the Covenanters would be pardoned on making their submission, and that Montrose, Crawford, Hurry, and Graham of Gorthy, should transport themselves beyond seas, before the last day of August, in a ship to be provided by the Estates. This arrangement was ratified by the committee of Estates, but the committee of the kirk exclaimed against it, and petitioned the Committee of Estates not to sanction it.

Preparatory to disbanding his army, Montrose appointed it to rendezvous at Rattray, in the neighbourhood of Coupar-Angus, at which place, on the 30th of July, he discharged his men, after addressing them with feeling and animation. After giving them due praise for their faithful services and good behaviour, he told them his orders, and bade them farewell, an event no less sorrowful to the whole army than to himself; and, notwithstanding that he used his utmost endeavours to raise their drooping spirits, and encourage them with the flattering prospect of a speedy and desirable peace, and assured them that he contributed to the king’s safety and interest by his present ready submission, no less than he had formerly done by his military attempts; yet they concluded, that a period was that day put to the king’s authority, which would expire with the dissolution of their army, for disbanding which,[250] they were all convinced the orders had been extorted from the king, or granted by him on purpose to evite a greater and more immediate evil. And, upon whatever favourable conditions their own safety might be provided for, yet they lamented their fate, and would much rather have undergone the greatest fatigue and hardships than be obliged to remain inactive and idle spectators of the miseries and calamities befalling their dearest sovereign. Neither were their generous souls a little concerned for the unworthy and disgraceful opinion which foreign nations and after ages could not fail to conceive of the Scots, as universally dipt in rebellion, and guilty of defection from the best of kings. Their sorrow was likewise considerably augmented by the thoughts of being separated from their brave and successful general, who was now obliged to enter into a kind of banishment, to the irreparable loss of the king, the country, themselves, and all good men, at a time when they never had greater occasion for his services: And falling down upon their knees, with tears in their eyes, they obtested him, that seeing the king’s safety and interest required his immediate departure from the kingdom, he would take them along with him to whatever corner of the world he would retire, professing their readiness to live, to fight, nay, if it so please God, even to die under his command. And not a few of them had privately determined, though at the evident risk of their lives and fortunes, to follow him without his knowledge, and even against his inclination, and to offer him their service in a foreign land, which they could not any longer afford him in their own distressed native country.[361]

Such is the account of the affecting farewell between Montrose and the few remaining brave and adventurous men who had shared with him all the dangers and vicissitudes of the battle-field, as related by a warm partisan of fallen royalty; yet there is no reason for supposing that he has given an exaggerated view of the feelings of the warlike and devoted band at parting, under existing circumstances, with their beloved commander who had so often led them to victory, and whose banishment from his native country they regarded as the death-blow to their hopes.

Upon the dissolution of Montrose’s army, the Scots officers and soldiers retired to their homes, and the Irish troops marched westward into Argyle, whence they embarked for their own country, being accompanied thither by the Earl of Crawford, who from thence went to Spain. Montrose, along with the few friends who were to follow him abroad, took up his abode at his seat of Old Montrose, there to wait the arrival of the vessel destined to convey them to the continent. The day fixed for Montrose’s departure was the 1st of September, and he waited with impatience for the arrival of the expected vessel; but as the month of August was fast expiring without such vessel making its appearance, or any apparent preparation for the voyage, Montrose’s friends applied to the committee of the Estates for a prorogation of the day stipulated for his departure, but they could obtain no satisfactory answer.

At length, on the last day of August, a vessel for the reception of the marquis entered the harbour of Montrose, in which he proposed immediately to embark, but he was told by the shipmaster, “a violent and rigid Covenanter,” that he meant to careen his vessel before going to sea, an operation which would occupy a few days. In the course of conversation, the shipmaster bluntly stated to his intended passengers, that he had received express instructions to land them at certain ports. The behaviour of the captain, joined to the information he had communicated, and the fact that several English ships of war had been seen for several days off the coast, as if watching his embarkation and departure, created a strong suspicion in Montrose’s mind that a plan had been laid for capturing him, and induced him to consult his own safety and that of his friends, by seeking another way of leaving the kingdom. The anxiety of Montrose and his followers was speedily relieved by the arrival of intelligence, that a small vessel belonging to Bergen, in Norway, had been found in the neighbouring harbour of Stonehaven; and that the master had engaged, on being promised a handsome freight, to be in readiness, on an appointed day, to sail with such passengers as should appear.

[251]

Accordingly, after sending off Sir John Hurry, John Drummond of Balloch, Graham of Gorthy, Dr. Wishart, and a few other friends by land to Stonehaven, on the 3d of September 1646, he himself left the harbour of Montrose in a small boat, disguised as the servant of James Wood, a clergyman, who accompanied him; and the same evening went safely on board the vessel, into which his friends had embarked, and setting sail with a fair wind, arrived in a few days at Bergen, in Norway, where he received a friendly welcome from Thomas Gray, a Scotsman, the governor of the castle of Bergen.[362]

It is beyond the province of this history to give a detailed account of the transactions which took place between the Scotch and English concerning the disbanding of the Scottish army and the delivery of the king to the English parliament. Although the Scotch are certainly not free from blame for having betrayed their king, after he had cast himself upon their loyalty and mercy, still it must be remembered, in extenuation, that the king was merely playing a game, that his giving himself up to the Scotch army was his last desperate move, and that he would not have had the least scruple in outwitting, deceiving, and even destroying his protectors. In September, 1646, an agreement was come to between the Scotch commissioners and the English parliament, that the army should be disbanded, on the latter paying £400,000 as payment in full of the arrears of pay due to the army for its services. There was no mention then made of the delivery of the king, and a candid examination of the evidence on both sides proves that the one transaction was quite independent of the other. “That fanaticism and self-interest had steeled the breasts of the Covenanters against the more generous impulses of loyalty and compassion, may, indeed, be granted; but more than this cannot be legitimately inferred from any proof furnished by history.”[363]

While the negotiations for the delivery of the king were pending, Charles, who seems to have been fully aware of them, meditated the design of escaping from the Scots army, and putting himself at the head of such forces as the Marquis of Huntly could raise in the north. In pursuance of this design, his majesty, about the middle of December, sent Robert Leslie, brother of General David Leslie, with letters and a private commission to Huntly, by which he was informed of his majesty’s intentions, and Huntly was, therefore, desired to levy what forces he could, and have them in readiness to take the field on his arrival in the north. On receipt of his majesty’s commands, Huntly began to raise forces, and having collected them at Banff, fortified the town, and there awaited the king’s arrival.[364] But the king was prevented from putting his plan into execution by a premature discovery, and was thenceforth much more strictly guarded.

After the delivery of the king to the English, on the 28th of January, 1647, the Scots army returned to Scotland. It was thereupon remodelled and reduced, by order of the parliament, to 6,000 foot, and 1,200 horse; a force which was considered sufficient not only to keep the royalists in awe, but also to reduce the Marquis of Huntly and Sir Alexander Macdonald, who were still at the head of some men. The dispersion, therefore, of the forces under these two commanders became the immediate object of the parliament. An attempt had been made in the month of January, by a division of the covenanting army stationed in Aberdeenshire, under the command of Major Bickerton, to surprise the Marquis of Huntly at Banff, but it had been obliged to retire with loss; and Huntly continued to remain in his position till the month of April, when, on the approach of General David Leslie with a considerable force, he fled with a few friends to the mountains of Lochaber for shelter. Leslie thereupon reduced the castles belonging to the marquis. He first took that of Strathbogie, and sent the commander thereof, the laird of Newton-Gordon, to Edinburgh; then the castle of Lesmore; and lastly, the Bog of Gicht, or Gordon castle, the commander of which, James Gordon of Letterfurie, and his brother, Thomas Gordon of Clastirim, and other gentlemen of the name of Gordon, were sent to Edinburgh as prisoners. Leslie next took the isle of Lochtanner, in Aboyne, which[252] had been fortified by Huntly.[365] Quarter was given to the men who garrisoned those different strengths, with the exception of the Irish and deserters, who were hanged immediately on their capture.[366]

Having taken these different places, Leslie, in quest of the marquis, next marched into Badenoch, where he captured the castle of Ruthven. Thence he proceeded into Lochaber, and took the fortress of Inverlochy. Huntly disbanded his forces in Badenoch, reserving only a few as a body-guard for himself and his son; “showing them that he was resolved to live an outlaw till provident heaven should be pleased to change the king’s fortune, upon whose commandments his life and fortune should always depend.”[367] The covenanting general, thereupon, marched to the south with a part of his forces, leaving the remainder in the north, under the command of Middleton, and encamped in Strathallan, he himself taking up his head-quarters in Dunblane. Here he remained till the middle of May, when he was joined by the Marquis of Argyle, and ordered to advance into that nobleman’s country to drive out Sir Alexander Macdonald. Accordingly, he set out on the 17th of May, and arrived at Inverary on the 21st. Sir Alexander Macdonald was at this time in Kintyre, with a force of about 1,400 foot and two troops of horse, which would have been fully sufficient to check Leslie, but he seems not to have been aware of the advance of the latter, and had taken no precautions to guard the passes leading into the peninsula, which might have been successfully defended by a handful of men against a considerable force. Having secured these difficult passes, Leslie advanced into Kintyre, and after skirmishing the whole of the 25th of May with Macdonald, forced him to retire. After throwing 300 men into a fortress on the top of the hill of Dunaverty, and in which “there was not a drop of water but what fell from the clouds,”[368] Macdonald, on the following day, embarked his troops in boats provided for the occasion, and passed over into Islay.

Leslie, thereupon, laid siege to the castle of Dunaverty, which was well defended; but the assailants having carried a trench at the bottom of the hill which gave the garrison the command of water, and in the storming of which the besieged lost 40 men, the latter craved a parley, in consequence of which Sir James Turner, Leslie’s adjutant-general, was sent to confer with the garrison on the terms of surrender. Leslie would not grant “any other conditions than that they should yield on discretion or mercy. And it seemed strange to me,” continues Sir James Turner, “to hear the lieutenant-general’s nice distinction, that they should yield themselves to the kingdom’s mercy, and not to his. At length they did so, and after they had come out of the castle, they were put to the sword, every mother’s son, except one young man, Maccoul, whose life I begged to be sent to France, with 100 fellows which we had smoked out of a cave, as they do foxes, who were given to Captain Campbell, the chancellor’s brother.”[369] This atrocious act was perpetrated at the instigation of John Nave or Neaves, “a bloody preacher,”[370] but, according to Wodrow, an “excellent man,” who would not be satisfied with less than the blood of the prisoners. As the account given by Sir James Turner, an eye-witness of this infamous transaction, is curious, no apology is necessary for inserting it. “Here it will be fit to make a stop, till this cruel action be canvassed. First, the lieutenant-general was two days irresolute what to do. The Marquis of Argyle was accused at his arraignment of this murder, and I was examined as a witness. I declared, which was true, that I never heard him advise the lieutenant-general to it. What he did in private I know not. Secondly, Argyle was but a colonel then, and he had no power to do it of himself. Thirdly, though he had advised him to it, it was no capital crime; for counsel is no command. Fourthly, I have several times spoke to the lieutenant-general to save these men’s lives, and he always assented to it, and I know of himself he was unwilling to shed their blood. Fifthly, Mr. John Nave (who was appointed by the commission of the kirk to wait on him as his chaplain) never ceased to tempt him to that bloodshed, yea, and threatened him with the curses befell Saul for[253] sparing the Amalekites, for with them his theology taught him to compare the Dunaverty men. And I verily believe that this prevailed most with David Leslie, who looked upon Nave as the representative of the kirk of Scotland.” The fact of Sir James and David Leslie’s repugnance to shed the blood of those defenceless men is fully corroborated by Bishop Guthry, on the authority of many persons who were present, who says that while the butchery was going on, and while Leslie, Argyle, and Neaves were walking over the ancles in blood, Leslie turned out and thus addressed the latter:—“Now, Mr. John, have you not once got your fill of blood?” The sufferers on this occasion were partly Irish, and partly belonging to the clan Dougal or Coull, to the castle of whose chief, in Lorne, Colonel Robert Montgomerie now laid siege, while Leslie himself, with a part of his forces, left Kintyre for Islay in pursuit of Macdonald.

On landing in Islay, Leslie found that Macdonald had fled to Ireland, and had left Colkittoch, his father, in the castle of Dunniveg, with a force of 200 men to defend the island against the superior power of Leslie. The result turned out as might have been anticipated. Although the garrison made a brave resistance, yet, being wholly without water, they found themselves unable to resist, and offered to capitulate on certain conditions. These were, that the officers should be entitled to go where they pleased, and that the privates should be sent to France. These conditions were agreed to, and were punctually fulfilled. Old Colkittoch had, however, the misfortune not to be included in this capitulation, for, before the castle had surrendered, “the old man, Coll,” says Sir James Turner, “coming foolishly out of the house, where he was governor, on some parole or other,[371] to speak with his old friend, the captain of Dunstaffnage castle, was surprised, and made prisoner, not without some stain to the lieutenant-general’s honour. He was afterwards hanged by a jury of Argyle’s sheriff-depute, one George Campbell, from whose sentence few are said to have escaped that kind of death.”

Leaving Islay, Leslie “boated over to Jura, a horrible isle,” says Sir James Turner, “and a habitation fit for deer and wild beasts; and so from isle to isle,” continues he, “till he came to Mull, which is one of the best of the Hebrides. Here Maclaine saved his lands, with the loss of his reputation, if he ever had any. He gave up his strong castles to Leslie, gave his eldest son for hostage of his fidelity, and, which was unchristian baseness in the lowest degree, he delivered up fourteen prettie Irishmen, who had been all along faithful to him, to the lieutenant-general, who immediately caused hang them all. It was not well done to demand them from Maclaine, but inexcusablie ill done in him to betray them. Here I cannot forget one Donald Campbell, fleshed in blood from his very infancie, who with all imaginable violence pressed that the whole clan Maclaine should be put to the edge of the sword; nor could he be commanded to forbear his bloody suit by the lieutenant-general and two major-generals; and with some difficulty was he commanded silence by his chief, the Marquis of Argyle. For my part, I said nothing, for indeed I did not care though he had prevailed in his suit, the delivery of the Irish had so irritated me against that whole clan and name.”

While Leslie was thus subduing the Hebrides, Middleton was occupied in pursuing the Marquis of Huntly through Glenmoriston, Badenoch, and other places. Huntly was at length captured by Lieutenant-Colonel Menzies, in Strathdon, in December, 1647. Having received intelligence of the place of the marquis’s retreat, Menzies came to Dalnabo with a select body of horse, consisting of three troops, about midnight, and immediately entered the house just as Huntly was going to bed. The marquis was attended by only ten gentlemen and servants, as a sort of body-guard, who notwithstanding the great disparity of numbers, made a brave attempt to protect the marquis, in which six of them were killed and the rest mortally wounded, among whom was John Grant, the landlord. On hearing that the marquis had been taken prisoner, the whole of his vassals in the neighbourhood, to the number of between 400 and 500, with Grant of Carron at their head, flew to arms to rescue him. Lieutenant-Colonel Menzies thereupon[254] carried the marquis to the castle of Blairfindie, in Glenlivet, about four miles from Dalnabo, where the latter received a notice from Grant and his party by the wife of Gordon of Munmore, that they had solemnly sworn either to rescue him or die to a man, and they requested him to give them such orders to carry their plan into effect as he might judge proper. But the marquis dissuaded his people from the intended attempt, and returned for answer that, now almost worn out with grief and fatigue, he could no longer live in hills and dens; and hoped that his enemies would not drive things to the worst; but, if such was the will of heaven, he could not outlive the sad fate he foresaw his royal master was likely to undergo; and be the event as it would, he doubted not but the just providence of God would restore the royal family, and his own along with it.[372]

Besides the gentlemen and servants about Huntly’s person, there were some Irish who were quartered in the offices about Dalnabo. These were carried prisoners by Menzies to Strathbogie, where Middleton then was, who ordered them all to be shot. In consequence of an order from the committee of Estates at Edinburgh, Menzies carried the marquis under a strong guard of horse to Leith, where, after being kept two days, he was delivered up to the magistrates, and incarcerated in the jail of the city. The committee had previously debated the question whether the marquis should be immediately executed or reprieved till the meeting of parliament, but although the Argyle faction, notwithstanding the Marquis of Argyle withdrew before the vote was taken, and the committee of the church did every thing in their power to procure the immediate execution of the marquis, his life was spared till the meeting of the parliament by a majority of one vote.[373] The Earl of Aboyne and Lord Lewis Gordon had the good fortune to escape to the continent. The first went to France, where he shortly thereafter died—the second took refuge in Holland. A reward of £1,000 sterling had been promised to any person who should apprehend Huntly, which sum was duly paid to Menzies by the Committee of Estates.[374]

Second Marquis of Huntly.—From a rare print in the
collection of W. F. Watson, Esq., Edinburgh.

There appears to be no doubt that Argyle was highly gratified at the capture of Huntly. It is related by Spalding, that taking advantage of Huntly’s situation, Argyle bought up all the comprisings on his lands, and that he caused summon at the market-cross of Aberdeen by sound of trumpet, all Huntly’s wadsetters and creditors to appear at Edinburgh in the month of March following Huntly’s imprisonment, calling on them to produce their securities before the lords of session, with certification that if they did not appear, their securities were to be declared null and void. Some of Huntly’s creditors sold their claims to Argyle, and having thus bought up all the rights he could obtain upon Huntly’s estate at a small or nominal value, under the pretence that he was acting for the benefit of his nephew, Lord Gordon, he granted bonds for the amount which, according to Spalding, he never paid.[255] In this way did Argyle possess himself of the marquis’s estates, which he continued to enjoy upwards of twelve years; viz., from 1648, till the restoration of Charles II. in 1660.

When the king, who was then a prisoner in Carisbrook castle, heard of the capture of Huntly, he wrote a letter to the Earl of Lanark, then in London, earnestly urging him to do all in his power in behalf of the Marquis. The earl, however, either from unwillingness or inability, appears to have paid no attention to this letter.

Shortly before the capture of the Marquis of Huntly, John Gordon of Innermarkie, Gordon, younger of Newton-Gordon, and the laird of Harthill, three of his chief friends, had been taken prisoners by Major-General Middleton, and sent to Edinburgh, where they were imprisoned. The two latter were condemned to die by the Committee of Estates, and although their friends procured a remission of the sentence from the king, they were, notwithstanding, both beheaded at the market-cross of Edinburgh.

While the hopes of the royalists, both in England and Scotland, seemed to be almost extinguished, a ray of light, about this time, darted through the dark gloom of the political horizon, which they fondly imagined was the harbinger of a new and, for them, a better order of things; but all their expectations were destined to end in bitter disappointment. The Duke of Hamilton, who had lately formed an association to release the king from his captivity, which went under the name of the “Engagement,” prevailed upon the parliament, which met in March, 1648, to appoint a committee of danger, and to consent to a levy of 40,000 men. The bulk of the English population, with the exception of the army, had grown quite dissatisfied with the state of matters. Their eyes were now directed towards Scotland, and the news of the Scots’ levy made them indulge a hope that they would soon be enabled, by the aid of the Scots auxiliaries, to throw off the military yoke, and restore the king on conditions favourable to liberty. But Hamilton, being thwarted by Argyle and his party, had it not in his power to take advantage of the favourable disposition of the English people, and instead of raising 40,000 men, he found, to his great mortification, that, at the utmost, he could, after upwards of three months’ labour, only bring about 15,000 men into the field, and that not until several insurrections in England, in favour of the king, had been suppressed.

It was the misfortune of Hamilton that with every disposition to serve the cause of his royal master, he had neither the capacity to conceive, nor the resolution to adopt bold and decisive measures equal to the emergency of the times. Like the king, he attempted to act the part of the cunning politician, but was wholly unfitted for the performance of such a character. Had he had the address to separate old Leslie and his nephew from the party of Argyle, by placing the direction of military affairs in their hands, he might have succeeded in raising a force sufficient to cope with the parliamentary army of England; but he had the weakness, after both these generals had joined the kirk in its remonstrance to the parliament that nothing should be done without the consent of the committee of the general assembly, to get himself appointed commander-in-chief of the army, a measure which could not fail to disgust these hardy veterans. He failed in an attempt to conciliate the Marquis of Argyle, who did all in his power to thwart Hamilton’s designs. Argyle went to Fife and induced the gentry of that county not only to oppose the levies, but to hold themselves in readiness to rise on the other side when called upon. He was not so successful in Stirlingshire, none of the gentlemen of that county concurring in his views except the laird of Buchanan, Sir William Bruce of Stenhouse, and a few persons of inferior note; but in Dumbartonshire he succeeded to the utmost of his wishes. After attending a meeting with the Lord Chancellor, (Loudon,) the Earls of Cassilis and Eglinton, and David Dick and other ministers, at Eglinton’s house, on the 29th of May, Argyle went home to raise his own people.

Several instances of opposition to the levy took place; but the most formidable one, and the only one worthy of notice, was in Ayrshire, where a body of armed insurgents, to the[256] number of 800 horse and 1,200 foot according to one writer,[375] and 500 horse and 2,000 foot according to another,[376] headed by several ministers, assembled at Mauchline; but they were defeated and dispersed, on the 10th of June, by Middleton, who had been appointed lieutenant-general of horse, with the loss of 80 men.

There are no data by which to ascertain the number of men raised in the Highlands for Hamilton’s army; but it must necessarily have been very inconsiderable. Not a single man was of course raised in Argyleshire, and scarcely any in the adjoining part of Inverness-shire, to which the influence or power of Argyle extended. The Earl of Sutherland, who had been appointed a colonel of foot in his own division, declined the office, and Lord Reay was so disgusted with “Duke Hamilton’s failure,” that he took shipping at Thurso in the month of July, and went to Norway,[377] where he was appointed governor of Bergen, and received the colonelcy of a regiment from the King of Denmark, whom he had formerly served. The only individual who could have benefitted the royal-cause in the north was the Marquis of Huntly, but by a strange fatality the Duke of Hamilton, who could have easily procured an order from the parliament for his liberation from prison, allowed him to continue there, and merely contented himself with obtaining a warrant for changing the marquis’s place of confinement from the jail to the castle of Edinburgh.

In consequence of the many difficulties which occurred in collecting his troops, and providing the necessary matériel for the use of the army, the duke was not able to begin his march till the 8th of July, on which day he put his army in motion towards the borders. His force, which amounted to about 10,000 foot and 4,000 horse, was composed of raw and undisciplined levies, and he had not a single field-piece. He entered England by the western border, where he was met by Sir Marmaduke Langdale and a body of 4,000 brave cavaliers, all devotedly attached to the king. At this time Lambert, the parliamentary general, had invested Carlisle, and Hamilton was induced by the English royalists, contrary to his own views, to march upon Carlisle, and force Lambert to raise the siege. That general, who had received orders from Cromwell not to engage the Scots till he should join him, accordingly retired, and Carlisle was delivered up next day to Hamilton by the English royalists, who also put him in possession of Berwick.

It is unnecessary to enter into details concerning this mismanaged and unfortunate expedition, the result of which is well known to every reader of English history. Sir Marmaduke Langdale was defeated by Cromwell at Preston on the 17th of August, and on entering the town after the defeat, was mortified to find that his Scotch allies had abandoned it. Langdale having now no alternative but flight, disbanded his infantry, and along with his cavalry and Hamilton, who, refusing to follow the example of his army, had remained in the town, swam across the Ribble.

The Scotch army retired during the night towards Wigan, where it was joined by the duke next morning, but so reduced in spirits and weakened by desertion as to be quite unable to make any resistance to the victorious troops of Cromwell, who pressed hard upon them. The foot, under the command of Baillie, continued to retreat during the day, but were overtaken at Warrington, and, being unable either to proceed or to resist, surrendered. The number which capitulated amounted to about 3,000. Upwards of 6,000 had previously been captured by the country people, and the few who had the good fortune to escape joined Munro and returned to Scotland. These prisoners were sold as slaves, and sent to the plantations.

The duke, abandoning Baillie to his fate, carried off the whole cavalry; but he had not proceeded far when his rear was attacked by the parliamentary army. Middleton made a gallant defence, and was taken prisoner; but the duke escaped, and fled to Uttoxeter, followed by his horse, where he surrendered himself to General Lambert and Lord Grey of Groby, who sent him prisoner to Windsor. The Earl of Callander, having effected his escape, went over to Holland, disgusted at the conduct of the duke.

[257]

As soon as the news of the defeat of Hamilton reached Scotland, the Covenanters of the west began to bestir themselves, and a party of them, under the command of Robert Montgomery, son of the Earl of Eglinton, attacked a troop of Lanark’s horse, quartered in Ayrshire, killed some and routed the rest. The Committee of Estates, apprehensive that the spirit of insurrection would speedily spread, immediately ordered out all the fencible men in the kingdom to put down the rising in the west. A difference, however, arose in the committee in the choice of a commander. The Earl of Lanark and the Earl Marischal were proposed by their respective friends. Lanark’s chief opponent was the Earl of Roxburgh, who, (says Wishart,) “in a grave and modest speech, earnestly entreated him, for the sake of their dear sovereign and their distressed country, not to insist in demanding that dignity, which was extremely unseasonable and ill-judged at that time.”[378] Roxburgh’s remonstrance had no effect upon Lanark, who, on a vote being taken, was found to have the majority, and so anxious was he to obtain the command of the army that he actually voted for himself.[379] He had even the indiscretion to declare, that he would not permit any other person to command in his brother’s absence. This rash and imprudent behaviour on the part of Lanark so exasperated Roxburgh and his friends, who justly dreaded the utter ruin of the king’s affairs, that they henceforth withdrew altogether from public affairs.

As soon as Lanark had been appointed to the command of the new levy, he set about raising it with great expedition. For this purpose he sent circulars, plausibly written, to every part of Scotland, calling upon all classes to join him without delay. These circulars had the desired effect. The people beyond the Forth, and even the men of Fife, showed a disposition to obey the call. The Earl of Seaforth raised 4,000 men in the Western Islands and in Ross-shire, whom he brought south, and the Earl of Morton also brought into Lothian 1,200 men from the Orkneys. In short, with the exception of Argyle, there were few places in Scotland from which considerable bodies of men might not have been expected.

Before the defeat of Hamilton’s army, Lanark had raised three regiments of horse, which were now under his command. These, with the accessions of force which were daily arriving from different parts of the kingdom, were quite sufficient to have put down the insurrection in the west; but instead of marching thither, Lanark, to the surprise of every person, proceeded through East Lothian towards the eastern borders to meet Sir George Munro, who was retiring upon Berwick before the army of Cromwell. The people of the west being thus relieved from the apprehensions of a visit, assembled in great numbers, and taking advantage of Lanark’s absence, a body of them, to the number of no less than 6,000 men, headed by the chancellor, the Earl of Eglinton, and some ministers, advanced upon the capital, which they entered without opposition, the magistrates and ministers of the city welcoming their approach by going out to meet them. Bishop Wishart describes this body as “a confused rabble, composed of farmers, cow-herds, shepherds, coblers, and such like mob, without arms, and without courage,” and says, that when they arrived in Edinburgh, “they were provided with arms, which, as they were unaccustomed to, were rather a burden and incumbrance than of any use,”—that “they were mounted upon horses, or jades rather, which had been long used to the drudgery of labour, equipped with pack saddles and halters, in place of saddles and bridles.”[380] This tumultuary body, however, was soon put into proper order by the Earl of Leven, who was invested with the chief command, and by David Leslie, as his lieutenant-general, and presented a rather formidable appearance, for on Lanark’s return from the south, he did not venture to engage it, though his force amounted to 4,000 or 5,000 horse and as many foot, many of whom were veterans who had served in Ireland under Munro.

In thus declining to attack Leslie, Lanark acted contrary to the advice of Munro and his other officers. According to Dr. Wishart, Lanark’s advanced guard, on arriving at[258] Musselburgh, fell in with some of Leslie’s outposts, who defended the bridge over the Esk, and Lanark’s advanced guard, though inferior in number, immediately put them in great disorder, and killed some of them without sustaining any loss. This success was reported to Lanark, and it was represented to him, that by following it up immediately, while the enemy continued in the state of alarm into which this affair of outposts had thrown them, he might, perhaps, obtain a bloodless victory, and secure possession of the city of Edinburgh and the town of Leith, with all the warlike stores, before sunset.

Leading his army along the base of the Pentland hills, Lanark proceeded to Linlithgow, which he entered on the evening of the 11th of September, where he almost surprised the Earl of Cassilis, who, at the head of 800 horse from Carrick and Galloway, had taken up his quarters there for the night; but a notice having been sent to him of the Earl of Lanark’s approach by some friend, he fled precipitately to Queensferry, leaving the supper which was cooking for him and his men on the fire, which repast was greedily devoured by Lanark’s troops.

Ever since Lanark’s march to the borders to meet Munro, the Marquis of Argyle had been busily employed in raising men in his own territory to assist the insurgents, but it had been so much depopulated by the ravages of Montrose and Macdonald, that he could scarcely muster 300 men. With these and 400 more which he had collected in the Lennox and in the western part of Stirlingshire, he advanced to Stirling, entering it upon the 12th of September at eleven o’clock forenoon. After assigning to the troops their different posts in the town, and making arrangements with the magistrates for their support, Argyle went to dine with the Earl of Mar at his residence in the town. But while the dinner was serving up, Argyle, to his infinite alarm, heard that a part of Lanark’s forces had entered Stirling. This was the advanced guard, commanded by Sir George Munro, who, on hearing that Argyle was in possession of the town when only within two miles of it, had, unknown to Lanark, who was behind with the main body of the army, pushed forward and entered the town before Argyle’s men were aware of his approach. Argyle, as formerly, having a great regard for his personal safety, immediately mounted his horse, galloped across Stirling bridge, and never looked behind till he reached North Queensferry, where he instantly crossed the Frith in a small boat and proceeded to Edinburgh. Nearly 200 of Argyle’s men were either killed or drowned, and the remainder were taken prisoners.

A negotiation for peace immediately ensued between the two parties, and on the 15th of September a treaty was entered into by which the Hamilton party agreed to refer all civil matters in dispute to a Parliament, to be held before the 10th of January, and all ecclesiastical affairs to an assembly of the kirk. It was also stipulated that both armies should be disbanded before the 29th of September, or at farthest on the 5th of October, that the adherents of the king should not be disturbed, and that all the prisoners taken in Scotland should be released. Munro perceiving that the king’s affairs would be irretrievably ruined by this compromise, objected to the treaty, and would have stood out had he been backed by the other officers; but very few seconding his views, he addressed the troops, who had accompanied him from Ireland, in St Ninian’s church, and offered to lead back to Ireland such as were inclined to serve under their old commander, Major-General Robert Munro; but having received intelligence at Glasgow that that general had been taken prisoner and sent to London, he disbanded the troops who had followed him thither, and retired to Holland.

According to the treaty the two armies were disbanded on the appointed day, and the “Whigamores,” as the insurgents from the west were called, immediately returned home to cut down their corn, which was ready for the sickle. Argyle’s men, who had been taken prisoners at Stirling, were set at liberty, and conducted home to their own country by one of Argyle’s officers.

MUNRO.

The Marquis of Argyle, Loudon the chancellor, the Earls of Cassilis and Eglinton, and others, now met at Edinburgh, and formed themselves into a body under the title of the Committee of Estates, and having arranged matters for the better securing their own[259] influence, they summoned a parliament to meet on the 4th of January. In the meantime, Oliver Cromwell, who, after the pursuit of Munro, had laid siege to Berwick, was waited upon by Argyle, Lord Elcho, and Sir Charles Erskine, to compliment him upon his success at Preston, and after making Ludovick Leslie deliver up Berwick to him, they invited him and Lambert to Edinburgh. Cromwell took up his residence in the House of Lady Home in the Canongate, where he received frequent visits from Argyle, Loudon, the Earl of Lothian, Lords Arbuthnot, Elcho, and Burleigh, and the most noted of the ministers. It is said, that during these conferences, Cromwell communicated to his visitors his intentions with respect to the king, and obtained their consent.[381]

In the meantime the Independents were doing their utmost to induce the English parliament to bring the king to trial for high treason. They, having in the meantime been disappointed in their views by the presbyterians, prevailed upon Fairfax to order Hammond, the governor of the Isle of Wight, to attend him at Windsor, and to send Colonel Eure with orders to seize the king at Newport, where he was conferring with the commissioners, and imprison him again in Carisbrook castle; but Hammond having declined to allow Eure to interfere without an order from the parliament, Eure left the island without attempting to fulfil his instructions. Hammond, however, afterwards left the island with the commissioners, and committed Charles to the custody of one Major Rolfe, a person who, only six months before, had been charged with a design on the life of the king, and who had escaped trial because only one witness had attested the fact before the grand jury.

The king seemed to be fully aware of the danger of his present situation, and on the morning of the 28th of November, when the commissioners left the island, he gave vent to his feelings in a strain of the most pathetic emotions, which drew tears from his attendants; “My lords,” said he to the commissioners, “I believe we shall scarce ever see each other again, but God’s will be done! I have made my peace with him, and shall undergo without fear whatever he may suffer men to do to me. My lords, you cannot but know, that in my fall and ruin you see your own, and that also near you. I pray God send you better friends than I have found. I am fully informed of the carriage of those who plot against me and mine; but nothing affects me so much as the feeling I have of the sufferings of my subjects, and the mischief that hangs over my three kingdoms, drawn upon them by those who, upon pretences of good, violently pursue their own interests and ends.”[382] As soon as the commissioners and Hammond had quitted the island, Fairfax sent a troop of horse and a company of foot, under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Cobbett, to seize the king, who received notice of the approach of this body and of its object next morning from a person in disguise; but although advised by the Duke of Richmond, the Earl of Lindsay, and Colonel Coke to make his escape, which he could easily have accomplished, he declined to do so, because he considered himself bound in honour to remain twenty days after the treaty. The consequence was, that Charles was taken prisoner by Cobbett, and carried to Hurst castle.

The rest of this painful tragedy is well known. After the purified house of commons had passed a vote declaring that it was high treason in the king of England, for the time being, to levy war against the parliament and kingdom of England, his majesty was brought to trial before a tribunal erected pro re nata by the house called the high court of justice, which adjudged him “as a tyrant, traitor, murderer, and public enemy to the good people of the nation, to be put to death by the severing of his head from his body,” a sentence which was carried into execution, in front of Whitehall, on the 30th of January 1649. The unfortunate monarch conducted himself throughout the whole of these melancholy proceedings with becoming dignity, and braved the terrors of death with fortitude and resignation.

The Duke of Hamilton, who, by his incapacity, had ruined the king’s affairs when on the[260] point of being retrieved, was not destined long to survive his royal master. In violation of the articles of his capitulation, he was brought to trial, and although he pleaded that he acted under the orders of the Scottish parliament, and was not amenable to an English tribunal, he was, under the pretence that he was Earl of Cambridge in England, sentenced to be beheaded. He suffered on the 9th of March.

The Marquis of Huntly had languished in prison since December 1647, and during the life of the king the Scottish parliament had not ventured to bring him to the block; but both the king and Hamilton, his favourite, being now put out of the way, they felt themselves no longer under restraint, and accordingly the parliament, on the 16th of March, ordained the marquis to be beheaded, at the market-cross of Edinburgh, on the 22d of that month. As he lay under sentence of ecclesiastical excommunication, one of the “bloody ministers,” says the author of the History of the family of Gordon, “asked him, when brought upon the scaffold, if he desired to be absolved from the sentence;” to which the marquis replied, “that as he was not accustomed to give ear to false prophets, he did not wish to be troubled by him.” And thereupon turning “towards the people, he told them that he was going to die for having employed some years of his life in the service of the king his master; that he was sorry he was not the first of his majesty’s subjects who had suffered for his cause, so glorious in itself that it sweetened to him all the bitterness of death.” He then declared that he had charity to forgive those who had voted for his death, although he could not admit that he had done any thing contrary to the laws. After throwing off his doublet, he offered up a prayer, and then embracing some friends around him, he submitted his neck, without any symptoms of emotion, to the fatal instrument.

CHAPTER XVI.

A.D. 1649–1650.

Commonwealth, 1649–1660; including Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell, 1653–1658.

While the dominant party in England were contemplating the erection of a commonwealth upon the ruins of the monarchy they had just overthrown, the faction in Scotland, with Argyle at its head, which had usurped the reins of government in that country, in obedience to the known wish of the nation, resolved to recognise the principle of legitimacy by acknowledging the Prince of Wales as successor to the crown of Scotland. No sooner, therefore, had the intelligence of the execution of the king reached Edinburgh, than the usual preparations were made for proclaiming Charles II., a ceremony which was performed at the market-cross of Edinburgh, on the 5th of February, with the usual formalities.

This proceeding was contrary to the policy of Argyle, whose intentions were in exact accordance with those of the English Independents; but, as the melancholy fate of the king had excited a feeling of indignation in the Scottish nation, he was afraid to imitate the example of his English friends, and dissembling his views, adopted other measures without changing his object. At the instigation of Argyle it was agreed in parliament to propose certain conditions to the prince as the terms on which alone he should be entitled to sway the sceptre of his father. These were, in substance, 1st, that he should sign the Covenants, and endeavour to establish them by his authority in all his dominions; 2d, that he should ratify and confirm all the acts of the Estates, approving of the two Covenants, the directory, confession of faith, and the catechism, that he should renounce episcopacy and adopt the presbyterian form of worship; 3d, that in all civil matters he should submit to the parliament, and in things ecclesiastical to the authority of the general assembly; and,[261] lastly, that he should remove from his person and court the Marquis of Montrose, “a person excommunicated by the church, and forfaulted by the parliament of Scotland, being a man most justly, if ever any, cast out of the church of God.”

These conditions, so flattering to popular prejudice and the prevailing ideas of the times, appear to have been proposed only because Argyle thought they would be rejected by the youthful monarch, surrounded as he then was by counsellors to whom these terms would be particularly obnoxious. To carry these propositions to Charles II., then at the Hague, seven commissioners from the parliament and kirk were appointed, who set sail from Kirkcaldy roads on the 17th of March,[383] arriving at the Hague on the 26th. His court, which at first consisted of the few persons whom his father had placed about him, had been lately increased by the arrival of the Earl of Lanark, now become, by the death of his brother, Duke of Hamilton, the Earls of Lauderdale and Callander, the heads of the Engagers; and by the subsequent addition of Montrose, Kinnoul, and Seaforth. The following graphic sketch is given by Dr. Wishart of the appearance and reception of the commissioners:—“When these commissioners, or deputies from the Estates were admitted to their first audience of the king, their solemn gait, their grave dress, and dejected countenances, had all the appearance imaginable of humility; and many who were not acquainted with the temper and practices of the men, from thence concluded that they were about to implore of his majesty a general oblivion and pardon for what was past, and to promise a perfect obedience and submission in time coming; and that they were ready to yield every thing that was just and reasonable, and would be sincere in all their proposals of peace and accommodation. They acted in a double capacity, and had instructions both from the Estates and from the commission of the kirk, in both of which the Earl of Cassilis was the chief person, not only in what they were charged with from the Estates, as being a nobleman, but also from the commission of the kirk, of which he was a ruling elder. Their address to the king was introduced with abundance of deep sighs and heavy groans, as if they had been labouring, as Virgil says of the Sibyl, to shake the ponderous load from off their breasts, after which they at last exhibited their papers, containing the ordinances of the Estates, and acts of the commission of the kirk, and pretended that the terms demanded in them were moderate, just, and reasonable, and absolutely necessary for settling the present confusions, and restoring the king; with which, if he complied, he would be immediately settled upon his father’s throne by the unanimous consent of the people.”[384]

The king, after vainly endeavouring to induce the commissioners to modify the conditions to which his acceptance was required, and to declare publicly their opinions of the murder of his father, to which they had made no allusion, declined to agree to the terms proposed. He at the same time stated, that as he had been already proclaimed king of Scotland by the Committee of Estates, it was their duty to obey him, and that he should expect the Committee of Estates, the assembly of the kirk, and the nation at large, to perform their duty to him, humbly obeying, maintaining, and defending him as their lawful sovereign.[385] The commissioners having got their answer on the 19th of May, returned to Scotland, and Charles went to St. Germain in France, to visit Queen Henrietta Maria, his mother, before going to Ireland, whither he had been invited by the Marquis of Ormond to join the royalist army.

During the captivity of Charles I., Montrose used every exertion at the court of France to raise money and men to enable him to make a descent upon the coast of England or Scotland, to rescue his sovereign from confinement; but his endeavours proving ineffectual, he entered into the service of the Emperor of Germany, who honoured him with especial marks of his esteem. He had been lately residing at Brussels engaged in the affairs of the emperor, where he received letters from the Prince of Wales, then at the Hague, requiring his attendance to consult on the state of his father’s affairs; but before he set out for the Hague, he received[262] the news of the death of Charles I. He was so overwhelmed with grief at this intelligence, that according to Bishop Wishart, who was an eye-witness, he fainted and fell down in the midst of his attendants, and appeared for some time as if quite dead. When he had sufficiently recovered to give full vent to his feelings, he expressed a desire to die with his sovereign, as he could no longer enjoy, as he said, a life which had now become a grievous and heavy burden. But on Wishart remonstrating with him upon the impropriety of entertaining such a sentiment, and informing him that he should be rather more desirous of life that he might avenge the death of his royal master, and place his son and lawful successor upon the throne of his ancestors, Montrose replied with composure, that in that view he should be satisfied to live; “but,” continued he, “I swear before God, angels, and men, that I will dedicate the remainder of my life to the avenging the death of the royal martyr, and re-establishing his son upon his father’s throne.”

On arriving at the Hague, Montrose was received by Charles II. with marked distinction. After some consultation, a descent upon Scotland was resolved upon, and Montrose, thereupon, received a commission, appointing him Lieutenant-governor of Scotland, and commander-in-chief of all the forces there both by sea and land. The king also appointed him his ambassador to the emperor, the princes of Germany, the King of Denmark, and other friendly sovereigns, to solicit supplies of money and warlike stores, to enable him to commence the war. Thus, before the commissioners had arrived, the king had made up his mind as to the course he should pursue, and being backed by the opinion of a man of such an ardent temperament as Montrose, the result of the communing between the king and the commissioners was as might have been expected.

Connected probably with Montrose’s plan of a descent, a rising took place in the north under Thomas Mackenzie of Pluscardine, brother of the Earl of Seaforth, Sir Thomas Urquhart of Cromarty, Colonel John Munro of Lumlair, and Colonel Hugh Fraser, who, at the head of a number of their friends and followers, entered the town of Inverness, on the 22d of February, expelled the troops from the garrison, and demolished and razed the walls and fortifications of the town. The pretext put forward by Mackenzie and his friends was, that the parliament had sent private commissioners to apprehend them; but the fact appears to be, that this insurrection had taken place at the instigation of the king, between whom and Pluscardine a correspondence had been previously opened.[386] General David Leslie was sent to the north with a force to suppress the insurgents, who, on his approach, fled to the mountains of Ross; but he was soon obliged to retrace his steps, in consequence of a rising in Athole under the direction of Lord Ogilvie, General Middleton, and others, in favour of the king. Leslie had previously made terms with Urquhart, Munro, and Fraser, but as Mackenzie would not listen to any accommodation, he left behind him a garrison in the castle of Chanonry, and also three troops of horse in Moray under the charge of Colonel Gilbert Ker, and Lieutenant-colonels Hacket and Strachan, to watch Pluscardine’s motions. But this force was quite insufficient to resist Pluscardine, who, on the departure of Leslie, descended from the mountains and attacked the castle of Chanonry, which he re-took. He was thereupon joined by his nephew, Lord Reay, at the head of 300 well-armed able-bodied men, which increased his force to between 800 and 900.

Having suppressed the rising in Athole, Leslie was again sent north by the parliament, accompanied by the Earl of Sutherland; but he had not proceeded far, when he ascertained that Mackenzie had been induced by Lord Ogilvie and General Middleton, who had lately joined him, to advance southward into Badenoch, with the view of raising the people in that and the neighbouring districts, and that they had been there joined by the young Marquis of Huntly, formerly Lord Lewis Gordon, and had taken the castle of Ruthven. Leslie thereupon divided his army, with one part of which he himself entered Badenoch, while he despatched the Earl of Sutherland to the north to collect forces in Ross, Sutherland, and Caithness, with another part, consisting of five troops of horse, under the command of[263] Ker, Hacket, and Strachan. To hinder the royalists from retiring into Athole, Leslie marched southward towards Glenesk, by which movement he compelled them to leave Badenoch and to march down Spey-side towards Balveny. On arriving at Balveny, they resolved to enter into a negotiation with Leslie, and accordingly Pluscardine and Middleton left Balveny with a troop of horse to meet Leslie, leaving Huntly, Reay, and Ogilvie, in charge of the forces, the former of whom sent his brother Lord Charles Gordon to the Enzie, to raise some horse.

While waiting for the return of Pluscardine and Middleton, the party at Balveny had not the slightest idea that they might be taken by surprise; but on the 8th of May at day-break, they were most unexpectedly attacked by the horse which had been sent north with the Earl of Sutherland, and which, returning from Ross, had speedily crossed the Spey. Seizing the royalist sentinels, they surprised Lord Reay at the castle of Balveny, where he and about 900 foot were taken prisoners and about 80 killed. Huntly and Ogilvie, who had their quarters at the church of Mortlach, about a mile from Balveny castle, escaped. Colonel Ker at once dismissed all the prisoners to their own homes on giving their oaths not to take up arms against the parliament in time coming. He sent Lord Reay along with some of his kinsmen and friends and Mackenzie of Redcastle and other prisoners of his surname to Edinburgh; all of whom were imprisoned. Huntly, Ogilvie, Pluscardine, and Middleton, on giving security to keep the peace, were forgiven by Leslie and returned to their homes. Colonel Ker afterwards returned to Ross, took Redcastle, which he demolished, and hanged the persons who had defended it. Thus ended this premature insurrection which, had it been delayed till the arrival of Montrose, might have been attended with a very different result.[387]

The projected descent by Montrose upon Scotland, was considered by many persons as a desperate measure, which none but those quite reckless of consequences would attempt; but there were others, chiefly among the ultra-royalists, who viewed the affair in a different light, and who, although they considered the enterprise as one not without considerable risk, anticipated its success. Such, at least, were the sentiments of some of the king’s friends before the insurrection under Mackenzie of Pluscardine had been crushed; but it is very probable that these were greatly altered after its suppression. The failure of Pluscardine’s ill-timed attempt was indeed considered by Montrose as a great misfortune, but a misfortune far from irreparable, and as he had invitations from the royalist nobility of Scotland, requesting him to enter upon his enterprise, and promising him every assistance in their power, and as he was assured that the great body of the Scottish nation was ready to second his views, he entered upon the task assigned him by his royal master, with an alacrity and willingness which indicated a confidence on his part of ultimate success.

In terms of the powers he had received from the king, Montrose visited the north of Europe, and obtained promises of assistance of men, money, and ammunition, from some of the northern princes; but few of them fulfilled their engagements in consequence of the intrigues of the king’s enemies with the courtiers, who thwarted with all their influence the measures of Montrose. By the most indefatigable industry and perseverance, however, he collected a force of 1,200 men at Gottenburg, about 800 of whom had been raised in Holstein and Hamburg, and having received from the Queen of Sweden 1,500 complete stands of arms, for arming such persons as might join his standard on landing in Scotland, he resolved, without loss of time, to send off this armament to the Orkneys, where, in consequence of a previous arrangement with the Earl of Morton, who was favourable to the king, it was agreed that a descent should be made. Accordingly, the first division of the expedition, which consisted of three parts, was despatched early in September; but it never reached its destination, the vessels having foundered at sea in a storm. The second division was more fortunate, and arrived at Kirkwall, about the end of the month. It consisted of 200 common soldiers and 80 officers, under the command of the Earl of Kinnoul, who on landing was joined by his[264] uncle the Earl of Morton and by many of the Orkney gentlemen. Kinnoul immediately laid siege to the castle of Birsay, which was soon surrendered to him; and he proceeded to raise levies among the Orcadians, but was checked in his progress in consequence of a difference with Morton, who claimed the privilege, as superior of Orkney, of commanding his own vassals, a claim which Kinnoul would not allow. Morton felt the repulse keenly, and died soon thereafter of a broken heart, as is believed. His nephew, perhaps hurt at the treatment he had given his uncle, speedily followed him to the grave.

General David Leslie.

The news of Kinnoul’s landing reached Edinburgh about the 14th of October, when General David Leslie was despatched to the north with seven or eight troops of horse to watch him if he attempted to cross the Pentland Frith; but seeing no appearance of an enemy, and hearing of intended commotions among the royalists in Angus and the Mearns, he returned to the south after an absence of fifteen days,[388] having previously placed strong garrisons in some of the northern strengths.[389]

Montrose himself, with the remainder of the expedition, still tarried at Gottenburg, in the expectation of obtaining additional reinforcements or of procuring supplies of arms and money. It appears from a letter[390] which he addressed to the Earl of Seaforth, of the date of 15th December, that he intended to sail for Scotland the following day; but owing to various causes he did not leave Gottenburg till about the end of February 1650. He landed in Orkney in the beginning of March, with a force of 500 men, accompanied by Lord Frendraught, Major General Hurry, and other gentlemen who had attached themselves to his service and fortunes.

To prepare the minds of the people of Scotland for the enterprise he was about to undertake, Montrose, about the close of the year, had circulated a “Declaration” in Scotland, as “Lieutenant-governor and Captain-general for his Majesty of the Kingdom of Scotland,” in which, after detailing the proceedings of those whom he termed “an horrid and infamous faction of rebels within the kingdom of Scotland,” towards his late majesty, he declared that his present majesty was not only willing to pardon every one, with the exception of those who upon clear evidence should be found guilty “of that most damnable fact of murder of his father,” provided that immediately or upon the first convenient occasion, they abandoned the rebels and joined him, and therefore, he expected all persons who had “any duty left them to God, their king, country, friends, homes, wives, children, or would change now at last the tyranny, violence, and oppression of those rebels, with the mild and innocent government of their just prince, or revenge the horrid and execrable murdering of their sacred king, redeem their nation from infamy, restore the present and oblige the ages to come, would join themselves with him in the service he was about to engage.”

This declaration which, by order of the Committee of Estates, was publicly burnt at the market cross of Edinburgh, by the hands of the common hangman, was answered on the 2d of January, by a “declaration and warning of the commission of the General Assembly,”[265] addressed to “all the members of the kirk and kingdom,” which was followed on the 24th of the same month, by another “declaration” from the Committee of Estates of the parliament of Scotland, in vindication of their proceedings from “the aspersions of a scandalous pamphlet, published by that excommunicate traitor, James Graham, under the title of a ‘Declaration of James, Marquis of Montrose.’” The last of these documents vindicates at great length, and apparently with great success, those whom Montrose had designated the “infamous faction of rebels,” not because the committee thought “it worth the while to answer the slanders and groundless reproaches of that viperous brood of Satan, James Graham, whom the Estates of parliament had long since declared traitor, the church delivered into the hands of the devil, and the nation doth generally detest and abhor;” but because “their silence might be subject to misconstruction, and some of the weaker sort might be inveigled by the bold assertions and railing accusations of this impudent braggard, presenting himself to the view of the world clothed with his majesty’s authority, as lieutenant-governor and captain-general of this kingdom.” These declarations of the kirk and Estates, backed as they were by fulminations from all the pulpits of the kingdom against Montrose, made a deep impression on men’s minds, highly unfavourable to him; and as the Committee of Estates discharged all persons from aiding or assisting him under the pain of high treason, and as every action and word of those considered friendly to him were strictly watched, they did not attempt, and had they attempted, would have found it impossible, to make any preparations to receive him on his arrival.

Such was the situation of matters when Montrose landed in Orkney, where, in consequence of the death of Morton and Kinnoul, little progress had been made in raising troops. He remained several weeks in Orkney, without exciting much notice, and having collected about 800 of the natives, which, with the addition of the 200 troops carried over by Kinnoul, made his whole force amount to about 1,500 men, he crossed the Pentland Frith in a number of boats collected among the islands, and landed without opposition at the northern extremity of Caithness, in the immediate vicinity of John o’Groat’s house. On landing, he displayed three banners, one of which was made of black taffeta, in the centre of which was exhibited a representation of the bleeding head of the late king, as struck off from the body, surrounded by two inscriptions, “Judge and avenge my cause, O Lord,” and “Deo et victricibus armis.” Another standard had this motto, “Quos pietas virtus et honor fecit amicus.” These two banners were those of the king. The third, which was Montrose’s own, bore the words, “Nil medium,” a motto strongly significant of the uncompromising character of the man.[391] Montrose immediately compelled the inhabitants of Caithness to swear obedience to him as the king’s lieutenant-governor. All the ministers, with the exception of one named William Smith, took the oath, and to punish Smith for his disobedience, he was sent in irons on board a vessel.[392] A number of the inhabitants, however, alarmed at the arrival of foreign troops, with whose presence they considered carnage and murder to be associated, were seized with a panic and fled, nor did some of them stop till they reached Edinburgh, where they carried the alarming intelligence of Montrose’s advance to the parliament which was then sitting.

As soon as the Earl of Sutherland heard of Montrose’s arrival in Caithness, he assembled all his countrymen to oppose his advance into Sutherland. He sent, at the same time, for two troops of horse stationed in Ross, to assist him, but their officers being in Edinburgh, they refused to obey, as they had received no orders. Being apprized of the earl’s movements, and anticipating that he might secure the important pass of the Ord, and thus prevent him from entering Sutherland, Montrose despatched a body of 500 men to the south, who obtained possession of the pass. The next step Montrose took, was against the castle of Dunbeath, belonging to Sir John Sinclair, who, on Montrose’s arrival, had fled and left the place in charge of his lady. The castle was strong and well supplied with provisions, and the possession of it was considered very[266] important by Montrose, in case he should be obliged to retreat into Orkney. The castle, which was defended by Sir John’s lady and a few servants, surrendered to General Hurry, after a short resistance, on condition that persons and property should be respected. Hurry put a strong garrison in the castle, under the command of Major Whiteford.

Having secured this important strength, Montrose marched into Sutherland, leaving Henry Graham, his natural brother, behind him with a party to raise men for the service. While in Caithness, the only persons that proffered their services to Montrose, were Hucheon Mackay of Skoury, Hugh Mackay of Dirlet, and Alexander Sinclair of Brims, whom he despatched to Strathnaver, to collect forces, but they appear to have neglected the matter. On the approach of Montrose, the Earl of Sutherland, not conceiving himself in a condition to resist, retired with his men, and putting strong garrisons into Dunrobin, Skelbo, Skibo, and Dornoch, and sending off a party with cattle and effects to the hills to be out of the reach of the enemy, he went himself into Ross with 300 of his men. Montrose continued to advance, and encamped the first night at Garty and Helmsdale, the second at Kintredwell, and the third night at Rhives. In passing by Dunrobin, a part of his men went between the castle and the sea, some of whom were killed, and others taken prisoners, in a sortie from the garrison. On the following day, Montrose demanded the prisoners from William Gordon the commander of Dunrobin, but his request was refused. Montrose encamped at Rian in Strathfleet the fourth night, at Gruidy on the fifth, and at Strathoikel on the sixth. He then marched to Carbisdale, on the borders of Ross-shire, where he halted a few days in expectation of being joined by the Mackenzies. While reposing here in fancied security and calculating on complete success, he sent a notification to the Earl of Sutherland to the effect, that though he had spared his lands for the present, yet the time was at hand when he would make his own neighbours undo him. Little did Montrose then imagine that his own fate was so near at hand.

As soon as intelligence of Montrose’s descent was received in Edinburgh, the most active preparations were made to send north troops to meet him. David Leslie, the commander-in-chief, appointed Brechin as the place of rendezvous for the troops; but as a considerable time would necessarily elapse before they could be all collected, and as apprehensions were entertained that Montrose might speedily penetrate into the heart of the Highlands, where he could not fail to find auxiliaries, Lieutenant-Colonel Strachan, an officer who had been particularly active in suppressing Pluscardine’s insurrection, was despatched, in the meantime, to the north with a few troops of horse, for the purpose of keeping Montrose in check, and enabling the Earl of Sutherland, and the other presbyterian leaders in the north to raise their levies. These troops, which were those of Ker, Hacket, Montgomery, and Strachan, and an Irish troop commanded by one Collace, were joined by a body of about 500 foot under the Earl of Sutherland, Ross of Balnagown, and Munro of Lumlair, all of whom were assembled at Tain when Montrose encamped at Strathoikel. This movement brought the hostile parties within twenty miles of each other, but Montrose was not aware that his enemy was so near at hand. Strachan, who had early intelligence brought him of Montrose’s advance, immediately called a council of war to deliberate, at which it was resolved that the Earl of Sutherland should, by a circuitous movement, throw himself into Montrose’s rear, in order to prevent a junction between him and Henry Graham, and such of the Strathnaver and Caithness men as should attempt to join him. It was resolved that, at the same time, Strachan with his five troops of horse, and the Munroes, and Rosses, under Balnagown, and Lumlair, should march directly forward and attack Montrose in the level country before he should, as was contemplated, retire to the hills on the approach of Leslie, who was hastening rapidly north with a force of 4,000 horse and foot, at the rate of thirty miles a-day.

SUTHERLAND OR 93^D.

It was Saturday the 27th of April, when Strachan’s officers were deliberating whether they should move immediately forward or wait till Monday, “and so decline the hazard of engaging upon the Lord’s day,”[393] when notice[267] being brought that Montrose had advanced from Strathoikel to Carbisdale, a movement which brought him six miles nearer to them, they made arrangements for attacking him without delay. Strachan advanced without observation as far as Fearn, within a mile and a half or two miles of Montrose, where he concealed his men on a moor covered with broom, whence he sent out a party of scouts under Captain Andrew Munro, son of Munro of Lumlair, to reconnoitre Montrose. Munro soon returned and reported that Montrose had sent out a body of 40 horse to ascertain their movements. In order to deceive this body, Strachan ordered one troop of horse out of the broom, which being the only force observed by Montrose’s scouts, they returned and reported to Montrose what they had seen. This intelligence threw Montrose completely off his guard, who, conceiving that the whole strength of the enemy consisted of a single troop of horse, made no preparations for defending himself.

In the meantime, Strachan formed his men into four divisions. The first, which consisted of about 100 horsemen, he commanded himself; the second, amounting to upwards of 80, was given in charge to Hacket; and the third, also horse, to the number of about 40, was led by Captain Hutcheson. The fourth division, which was composed of a body of musketeers belonging to Lawer’s regiment, was commanded by one Quarter-master Shaw.[394]

The deception which had been so well practised upon Montrose by Strachan, in concealing the real amount of his force, might not have been attended with any serious effect to Montrose, but for another stratagem which Strachan had in reserve, and which proved Montrose’s ruin. Strachan’s scheme was first to advance with his own division to make it appear as if his whole strength consisted of only 100 horse, and while Montrose was impressed with this false idea, to bring up the other three divisions in rapid succession, and thus create a panic among Montrose’s men as if a large army were about to attack them. This contrivance was crowned with the most complete success. Montrose little suspecting the trick, was thrown quite off his guard, and alarmed at the sudden appearance of successive bodies of cavalry, he immediately gave orders for a retreat to a wood and craggy hill at a short distance in his rear; but before Montrose’s men could reach their intended place of retreat, they were overtaken when almost breathless, by Strachan’s troopers, who charged them violently. The foreign troops received the charge with firmness, and, after discharging a volley upon the horse, flew into the wood; but most of the Orcadians threw down their arms in terror and begged for quarter. The Munroes and Rosses followed the Danish troops into the wood and killed many of them. 200 of the fugitives in attempting to cross the adjoining river were drowned.

Montrose for some time made an unavailing effort to rally some of his men, and fought with his accustomed bravery; but having his horse shot under him, and seeing it utterly impossible longer to resist the enemy, he mounted the horse of Lord Frendraught, which that young and generous nobleman proffered him, and galloped off the field; and as soon as he got out of the reach of the enemy, he dismounted, and throwing away his cloak, which was decorated with the star of the garter, and his sword, sought his safety on foot.

The slaughter of Montrose’s men continued about two hours, or until sunset, during which time ten of his best officers and 386 common soldiers were killed. The most conspicuous among the former for bravery was Menzies younger of Pitfoddles, the bearer of the black standard, who repeatedly refused to receive quarter. Upwards of 400 prisoners were taken, including 31 officers, among whom were Sir John Hurry and Lord Frendraught, the latter of whom was severely wounded. Among the prisoners taken were two ministers. This victory was achieved almost without bloodshed on the part of the victors, who had only two men wounded, and one trooper drowned. After the slaughter, the conquerors returned thanks to God on the open field for the victory they had obtained, and returned to Tain, carrying the prisoners along with them.[395] For several days the people of Ross and Sutherland[268] continued to pursue some unfortunate stragglers, whom they despatched. The result was most calamitous to Orkney, as appears from a petition and memorandum by the gentlemen of Orkney to Lord Morton in 1662, in which it is stated, that there was scarcely a gentleman’s house in that country “but lost either a son or a brother.”[396]

Montrose, accompanied by the Earl of Kinnoul, who had lately succeeded to the title on the death of his brother, and six or seven companions, having, as before stated, dismounted from his horse and thrown away his cloak and sword, and having, by the advice of his friends, to avoid detection, exchanged his clothes for the more homely attire of a common Highlander, wandered all night and the two following days among bleak and solitary regions, without knowing where to proceed, and ready to perish under the accumulated distresses of hunger, fatigue, and anxiety of mind. The Earl of Kinnoul, unable, from exhaustion, to follow Montrose any farther, was left among the mountains, where it is supposed he perished. When upon the point of starvation, Montrose was fortunate to light upon a small cottage, where he obtained a supply of milk and bread,[397] on receiving which he continued his lonely and dangerous course among the mountains of Sutherland, at the risk of being seized every hour, and dragged as a felon before the very man whom, only a few days before, he had threatened with his vengeance.

In the meantime, active search was made after Montrose. As it was conjectured that he might attempt to reach Caithness, where his natural brother, Henry Graham, still remained with some troops in possession of the castle of Dunbeath, and as it appeared probable, from the direction Montrose was supposed to have taken, that he meant to go through Assynt, Captain Andrew Munro sent instructions to Neil Macleod, the laird of Assynt, his brother-in-law, to apprehend every stranger that might enter his bounds, in the hope of catching Montrose, for whose apprehension a splendid reward was offered. In consequence of these instructions, Macleod sent out various parties in quest of Montrose, but they could not fall in with him. “At last,” says Bishop Wishart, “the laird of Assynt being abroad in arms with some of his tenants in search of him, lighted on him in a place where he had continued three or four days without meat or drink, and only one man in his company.” The bishop then states, that “Assynt had formerly been one of Montrose’s own followers; who immediately knowing him, and believing to find friendship at his hands, willingly discovered himself; but Assynt not daring to conceal him, and being greedy of the reward which was promised to the person who should apprehend him by the Council of the Estates, immediately seized and disarmed him.”[398] This account differs a little from that of the author of the continuation of Sir Robert Gordon’s history, who, however, it must be remembered, represents the Earl of Sutherland and his friends in as favourable a light as possible. Gordon says, that it was one of Macleod’s parties that apprehended Montrose, and is altogether silent as to Assynt’s having been his follower; but both writers inform us that Montrose offered Macleod a large sum of money for his liberty, which he refused to grant. Macleod kept Montrose and his companion, Major Sinclair, an Orkney gentleman, prisoners in the castle of Ardvraick, his principal residence. By order of Leslie, Montrose was thence removed to Skibo castle, where he was kept two nights, thereafter to the castle of Braan, and thence again to Edinburgh.

In his progress to the capital, Montrose had to endure all those indignities which vulgar minds, instigated by malevolence and fanaticism, could suggest; but he bore every insult with perfect composure. At a short interview which he had with two of his children at the house of the Earl of South Esk, his father-in-law, on his way to Edinburgh, he exhibited the same composure, for “neither at meeting nor parting could any change of his former countenance be discerned, or the least expression heard which was not suitable to the greatness of his spirit, and the fame of his former actions. His behaviour was, during the whole journey, such as became a great man; his countenance was serene and cheerful, as one[269] who was superior to all those reproaches which they had prepared the people to pour out upon him in all the places through which he was to pass.”[399]

Castle of Ardvraick.

At Dundee, which had particularly suffered from his army, a very different feeling was shown by the inhabitants, who displayed a generosity of feeling and a sympathy for fallen greatness, which did them immortal honour. Instead of insulting the fallen hero in his distress, they commiserated his misfortunes, and prevailed upon his guards to permit him to exchange the rustic and mean apparel in which he had been apprehended, and which, to excite the derision of the mob, they had compelled him to wear, for a more becoming dress which had been provided for him by the people of Dundee. The sensibilities of the inhabitants had probably been awakened by a bold and ineffectual attempt to rescue Montrose, made by the lady of the laird of Grange, at whose house, in the neighbourhood of Dundee, he had passed the previous night. The author of the Memoirs of the Somervilles gives the following characteristic account of this affair:—

“It was at this ladye’s house that that party of the Covenanters their standing armie, that gairded in the Marques of Montrose, efter his forces was beat and himself betrayed in the north, lodged him, whom this excellent lady designed to sett at libertie, by procureing his escape from her house; in order to this, soe soon as ther quarters was settled, and that she had observed the way and manner of the placeing of the guairds, and what officers commanded them, she not only ordered her butlers to let the souldiers want for noe drink, but she herself, out of respect and kyndnesse, as she pretended, plyed hard the officers and souldiers of the main-guaird, (which was keeped in her owne hall) with the strongest ale and acquavite, that before midnight, all of them, (being for the most part Highlandmen of Lawer’s regiment) became starke drunke. If her stewarts and other servants had obeyed her directions in giving out what drinke the out-gairds should have called for, undoubtedly the business had been effectuat; but unhappily, when the marques had passed the first and second centinells[270] that was sleeping upon their musquets, and likewayes through the main-gaird, that was lying in the hall lyke swyne on a midding, he was challenged a little without the outmost guaird by a wretched trouper of Strachan’s troupe, that had been present at his taking. This fellow was none of the guaird that night, but being quartered hard by, was come rammelling in for his bellieful of drinke, when he made this unluckie discovery, which being done, the marques was presently seized upon, and with much rudenesse (being in the ladye’s cloaths which he had put on for a disguize) turned back to his prisone chamber. The lady, her old husband, with the wholl servants of the house, were made prisoners for that night, and the morrow efter, when they came to be challenged before these that had the command of this party, and some members of that wretched Committee of Estates, that satt allways at Edinbrough (for mischief to the royall interest,) which they had sent for the more security, to be still with this party, fearing the great friends and weill-wishers this noble heroe had upon the way he was to come, should either by force or stratageme, be taken from them. The ladie, as she had been the only contryver of Montrose’s escape, soe did she avow the same before them all; testifying she was heartily sorry it had not taken effect according to her wished desyre. This confidence of hers, as it bred some admiratione in her accusors, soe it freed her husband and the servants from being farder challenged; only they took security of the laird for his ladye’s appearing before the Committie of Estates when called, which she never was. Ther worships gott something else to thinke upon, then to conveen soe excellent a lady before them upon such ane account, as tended greatly to her honour and ther oune shame.”

The parliament, which had been adjourned till the 15th of May, met on the appointed day, and named a committee to devise the mode of his reception into the capital and the manner of his death. In terms of the committee’s report an act was passed on the 17th of May, ordaining “James Graham” to be conveyed bareheaded from the Water Gate (the eastern extremity of the city) on a cart, to which he was to be tied with a rope, and drawn by the hangman in his livery, with his hat on, to the jail of Edinburgh, and thence to be brought to the parliament house, and there on his knees to receive sentence of death. It was resolved that he should be hanged on a gibbet at the cross of Edinburgh, with the book which contained the history of his wars and the declaration which he had issued, tied to his neck, and after hanging for the space of three hours, that his body should be cut down by the hangman, his head severed from his body, fixed on an iron spike, and placed on the pinnacle on the west end of the prison; that his hands and legs should also be cut off, the former to be placed over the gates of Perth and Stirling, and the latter over those of Aberdeen and Glasgow; that if at his death he showed any signs of repentance, and should in consequence be relieved from the sentence of excommunication which the kirk had pronounced against him, that the trunk of his body should be interred by “pioneers” in the Gray Friars’ churchyard; but otherwise, that it should be buried by the hangman’s assistants, under the scaffold on the Boroughmuir, the usual place of execution.[400]

The minds of the populace had, at this time, been wrought up to the highest pitch of hatred at Montrose by the ministers, who, during a fast which had lately been held in thanksgiving for his apprehension, had launched the most dreadful and bloody invectives against him, and to this circumstance perhaps is to be attributed the ignominious plan devised for his reception.

On the day following the passing of the act, Montrose was brought up from Leith, mounted on an outworn horse, to the Water Gate, along with 23 of his officers, his fellow-prisoners, where he was met about four o’clock, P.M., by the magistrates of the city in their robes, followed by the “town guard,” and the common executioner. Having been delivered by his guards to the civic authorities, whose duty it now was to take charge of his person, Montrose was, for the first time, made acquainted with the fate which awaited him, by one of the magistrates putting a copy of the sentence into his hands. He perused the paper with composure, and after he had read it he informed[271] the magistrates that he was ready to submit to his fate, and only regretted, “that through him the king’s majesty, whose person he represented, should be so much dishonoured.”[401]

Montrose (his signature)
THE GREAT MARQUIS OF MONTROSE.
From a rare contemporary print in possession of W. F. Watson Esq^r. Edin^r.

Before mounting the vehicle brought for his reception, Montrose was ordered by the hangman to uncover his head; but as the mandate was not immediately attended to, that abhorred instrument of the law enforced his command with his own hands. He thereupon made Montrose go into the cart, and placing him on a high chair fixed upon a small platform raised at the end of the cart, he pinioned his arms close to his sides by means of cords, which being passed across his breast, and fastened behind the vehicle, kept him so firmly fixed as to render his body immoveable. The other prisoners, who were tied together in pairs, having been marshalled in front of the cart in walking order and uncovered, the hangman, clothed in his official attire, mounted one of the horses[402] attached to the cart, and the procession thereupon moved off at a slow pace up the Canongate, in presence of thousands of spectators, who lined the long street, and filled the windows of the adjoining houses. Among the crowd which thronged the street to view the mournful spectacle was a great number of the inferior classes of the community, chiefly females, who had come with the determined intention of venting abuse upon the fallen hero, and pelting him, as he proceeded along the street, with dirt, stones, and other missiles, incited thereto by the harangues of the ministers on occasion of the late fast; but they were so overawed by the dignity of his demeanour, and the undaunted courage of soul which he displayed, that their feelings were at once overcome, and instead of covering him with reproaches, they dissolved into tears of pity at the sight of fallen greatness, and invoked the blessings of heaven upon the head of the illustrious captive. A result so totally unlooked-for, could not be but exceedingly displeasing to the enemies of Montrose, and particularly to the ministers, who, on the following day (Sunday), denounced the conduct of the people from the pulpits of the city, and threatened them with the wrath of heaven.

But displeasing as the humane reception of Montrose was to the clergy, it must have been much more mortifying to Argyle, his mortal enemy, who, contrary to modern notions of decency and good feeling, surrounded by his family and the marriage party of his newly-wedded son, Lord Lorn, appeared publicly on a balcony in front of the Earl of Moray’s house[403] in the Canongate, from which he beheld undaunted the great Montrose, powerless now to do him personal harm. To add to the insult, either accidentally or on purpose, the vehicle which carried Montrose was stopped for some time beneath the place where Argyle and his party stood, so that they were able to take a leisurely view of the object of their hate and fear, and it would appear that they took advantage of their fallen foe’s position to indulge in unseemly demonstrations of triumph and insult. For the sake of humanity and the honour of tender-hearted woman, we would fain disbelieve the statement that the Marchioness of Argyle had the effrontery to vent her hatred toward the fallen enemy of her house by spitting upon him. Whatever were the inward workings of Montrose’s soul, he betrayed no symptoms of inquietude, but preserved, during this trying scene, a dignified demeanour which is said to have considerably discomposed his triumphant rival and his friends.

Although the distance from the Water Gate to the prison was only about half a mile, yet so slow had the procession moved, that it was almost seven o’clock in the evening before it reached the prison. When released from the cart Montrose gave the hangman some money for his services in having driven so well his “triumphal chariot,”[404] as he jocularly termed the cart. On being lodged in jail, he was immediately visited by a small committee appointed by the parliament, which had held an extraordinary meeting at six o’clock in the evening. Balfour says, that the object of the committee, which consisted of three members and two ministers, was to ask “James Grahame if he had any thing to say, and to show him[272] that he was to repair to the house to receive his sentence.” The house remained sitting till the return of the deputation, who reported that Montrose had refused to answer any of the questions put to him till he was informed upon what terms they stood with the king, and whether they had concluded any agreement with him. In consequence of this information, the parliament delayed passing sentence till Monday the 20th of May; and, in the meantime, appointed seven of their members to wait upon the marquis and examine him on some points respecting “Duke Hamilton and others;” and to induce him to answer, the deputation was instructed to inform him, that an agreement had been concluded between the commissioners on the part of the estates and his majesty, who was coming to Scotland.[405] Montrose, however, excused himself from annoyance by stating, that as his journey had been long, and as “the ceremony and compliment they had paid him that day had been somewhat wearisome and tedious,” he required repose;[406] in consequence of which the deputation left him.

Montrose meant to have spent the whole of the following day, being Sunday, in devotional exercises suitable to his trying situation; but he was denied this consolation by the incessant intrusions of the ministers and members of parliament, who annoyed him by asking a variety of ensnaring questions, which he having refused to answer, they gave vent to the foulest reproaches against him. These insults, however, had no effect on him, nor did he show the least symptoms of impatience, but carried himself throughout with a firmness which no menaces could shake. When he broke silence at last, he said that “they were much mistaken if they imagined that they had affronted him by carrying him in a vile cart the day before; for he esteemed it the most honourable and cheerful journey he had ever performed in his life; his most merciful God and Redeemer having all the while manifested his presence to him in a most comfortable and inexpressible manner, and supplied him by his divine grace, with resolution and constancy to overlook the reproaches of men, and to behold him alone for whose cause he suffered.”[407]

Agreeably to the order of parliament, Montrose was brought up by the magistrates of Edinburgh on Monday at ten o’clock forenoon to receive sentence. As if to give dignity and importance to the cause for which he was about to suffer, and to show how indifferent he was to his own fate, Montrose appeared at the bar of the parliament in a superb dress which he had provided for the purpose, after his arrival in Edinburgh. His small clothes consisted of a rich suit of black silk, covered with costly silver lace, over which he wore a scarlet rochet which reached to his knee, and which was trimmed with silver galloons, and lined with crimson taffeta. He also wore silk stockings of a carnation colour, with garters, roses and corresponding ornaments, and a beaver hat having a very rich silver band.[408]

Having ascended “the place of delinquents,” a platform on which criminals received sentence, Montrose surveyed the scene before him with his wonted composure, and though his countenance was rather pale, and exhibited other symptoms of care, his firmness never for a moment forsook him. Twice indeed was he observed to heave a sigh and to roll his eyes along the house,[409] during the virulent invectives which the lord-chancellor (Loudon) poured out upon him, but these emotions were only the indications of the warmth of his feelings while suffering under reproaches which he could not resent.

The lord-chancellor, in rising to address Montrose, entered into a long detail of his “rebellions,” as he designated the warlike actions of Montrose, who, he said, had invaded his native country with hostile arms, and had called in Irish rebels and foreigners to his assistance. He then reproached Montrose with having broken not only the national covenant, which he had bound himself to support, but also the solemn league and covenant, to which the whole nation had sworn; and he concluded by informing Montrose, that for the many murders, treasons, and impieties of which he had been guilty, God had now brought him to suffer condign punishment. After the chancellor[273] had concluded his harangue, Montrose requested permission to say a few words in his own vindication, which being granted, though not without some difficulty, he proceeded to vindicate his conduct, showing that it was the result of sincere patriotism and devoted loyalty.

“He had,” he said, “not spilt any blood, not even that of his most inveterate enemies, but in the field of battle; and that even in the greatest heat of action he had preserved the lives of many thousands; and that as he had first taken up arms at the command of the king, he had laid them down upon his orders, without any regard to his own interest, and had retired beyond the seas.

“With regard to his late invasion, he said, he had undertaken it at the command and by the express orders of the present king, (to whom they all owed duty and allegiance, and for whose long and happy reign he offered his sincere and earnest prayers,) in order to accelerate the treaty which was then begun betwixt him and them—that it was his intention, as soon as the treaty had been concluded, to lay down arms and retire at the call of his majesty; and such being his authority and determination, he might justly affirm, that no subject ever acted upon more honourable grounds, nor by a more lawful power and authority than he had done in the late expedition.

“In conclusion, he called upon the assemblage to lay aside all prejudice, private animosity, and desire of revenge, and to consider him, in relation to the justice of his cause, as a man and a Christian, and an obedient subject, in relation to the commands of his sovereign, which he had faithfully executed. He then put them in mind of the great obligations which many of them were under to him, for having preserved their lives and fortunes at a time when he had the power and authority, had he inclined, of destroying both, and entreated them not to judge him rashly, but according to the laws of God, the laws of nature and nations, and particularly by the laws of the land—that if they should refuse to do so, he would appeal to the just Judge of the world, who would at last judge them all, and pronounce a righteous sentence.”[410]

This speech was delivered without affectation or embarrassment, and with such firmness and clearness of intonation, that, according to a cavalier historian, many persons present were afterwards heard to declare, that he looked and spoke as he had been accustomed when at the head of his army.[411] The chancellor replied to Montrose, in a strain of the most furious invective, “punctually proving him,” says Balfour, “by his acts of hostility, to be a person most infamous, perjured, treacherous, and of all that this land ever brought forth, the most creuell and inhumane butcher and murtherer of his natione, a sworne enimy to the Covenant and peace of his countrey, and one quhosse boundlesse pryde and ambition had lost the father, and by his wicked counsells done quhat in him lay to distroy the sone lykwayes.”[412]

Montrose attempted to address the court a second time, but was rudely interrupted by the chancellor, who ordered him to keep silence, and to kneel down and receive his sentence. The prisoner at once obeyed, but remarked, that on falling on his knees, he meant only to honour the king his master, and not the parliament. While Sir Archibald Johnston, the clerk-register, was reading the sentence, Montrose kept his countenance erect and displayed his usual firmness. “He behaved all this time in the house with a great deal of courage and modesty, unmoved and undaunted.”[413] The execution was fixed for three o’clock the following day.

The feelings of humanity and the voice of religion, now demanded that the unfortunate prisoner should be allowed to spend the short time he had to live, in those solemn preparations for death, enjoined by religion, in privacy and without molestation; but it was his fate to be in the hands of men in whose breasts such feelings were stifled, and whose religion was deeply imbued with a stern and gloomy fanaticism, to which charity was an entire stranger. However, it would be unfair and uncharitable to look upon the conduct of these men as if they had been surrounded with all the advantages of the present enlightened age. We ought to bear in mind their recent[274] escape from the most intolerant of all religions, of whose persecuting principles they had not yet got rid; the hard treatment to which they had been subjected by the late king and his father; and the fact that they really believed they were doing their duty to God and serving the best interests of true religion. It is indeed difficult to be charitable to the uncharitable, tolerant to persecutors.

No sooner had Montrose returned to prison, than he was again assailed by the ministers, who endeavoured to induce him to submit to the kirk, no doubt considering the conversion of such an extraordinary malignant as Montrose, as a theological achievement of the first importance. To subdue his obstinacy, they magnified the power of the keys, which they said had been committed to them, and informed him that unless he reconciled himself to the kirk and obtained a release from the sentence of excommunication which had been pronounced against him, he would be eternally damned. But Montrose, regardless of their threats and denunciations, remained inflexible. Besides the ministers, he was frequently waited upon by the magistrates of the city, with whom he entered into conversation. He told them that he was much indebted to the parliament for the great honour they had decreed him,—that he was prouder to have his head fixed upon the top of the prison, than if they had decreed a golden statue to be erected to him in the market-place, or ordered his portrait to be placed in the king’s bed-chamber,—that so far from grieving for the mutilation which his body was about to undergo, he was happy that the parliament had taken such an effectual method of preserving the memory of his loyalty, by transmitting such proofs of them to the four principal cities of the kingdom, and he only wished that he had flesh enough to have sent a piece to every city in Christendom, as a testimony of his unshaken love and fidelity to his king and country.[414] But annoying as the visits of the ministers and magistrates undoubtedly were, Montrose was still farther doomed to undergo the humiliation of being placed under the more immediate charge of Major Weir, who afterwards obtained an infamous notoriety in the annals of criminal jurisprudence. This incestuous wretch, who laid claim to superior godliness, and who pretended to be gifted with the spirit of prayer, of which he gave proofs by many extemporary effusions, gave Montrose great uneasiness by smoking tobacco, to the smell of which he had, like Charles I., a particular aversion.

During the night, when free from the intrusion of the ministers, Montrose occupied himself in devotional exercises, and even found leisure to gratify his poetic taste, by composing the following lines which he wrote upon the window of the chamber in which he was confined.

On the morning of the 21st of May, 1650, the city of Edinburgh was put into a state of commotion by the noise of drums and trumpets, which was heard in every quarter of the city. The sound attracted the notice of Montrose, who inquired at the captain of the guard the cause of it. The officer told him that the parliament, dreading that an attempt might be made by the mob, under the influence of the malignants, to rescue him, had given orders to call out the soldiers and citizens to arms. “Do I,” said the marquis, “who was such a terror to these good men when alive, continue still so formidable to them, now that I am about to die? But let them look to themselves; for even after I am dead, I will be continually present to their wicked consciences, and become more formidable to them than while I was alive.”

After partaking of a hearty breakfast, Montrose entered upon the business of the toilet, to which he paid particular attention. While in the act of combing his hair, he was visited by Sir Archibald Johnston, the clerk-register, one of his most inveterate foes, who made some remarks on the impropriety, as he thought, of a person in the dreadful situation of the marquis, occupying some of the precious moments he had yet to live in frivolous attentions[275] to his person. The marquis, who knew well the character of this morose man, thus addressed him with a smile of contempt, “While my head is my own, I will dress and adorn it; but to-morrow, when it becomes yours, you may treat it as you please.”

About an hour before the time fixed for his execution, Montrose was waited upon by the magistrates of the city, who saw him conveyed to the scaffold on the same vehicle on which he had been carried into the city. In addition to the dress which he wore on that occasion, he was now habited in a superb scarlet cloak, ornamented with gold and silver lace, which his friends had provided him with. Long before his removal from prison, an immense assemblage of persons had congregated around the place of execution in the High-street, all of whom were deeply affected on Montrose’s appearance. As he proceeded along, he had, says Wishart, “such a grand air, and so much beauty, majesty, and gravity appeared in his countenance, as shocked the whole city at the cruelty that was designed him; and extorted even from his enemies this unwilling confession, that he was a man of the most lofty and elevated soul, and of the most unshaken constancy and resolution that the age had produced.”

It had always been the uniform practice in Scotland to permit all persons about to suffer the last penalty of the law to address the assembled spectators, and on mounting the scaffold Montrose was proceeding to avail himself of this privilege; but the magistrates, who probably had received their instructions from the parliament, refused to allow him to harangue the multitude. His friends, however, anticipating this, had hired a young man, skilled in stenography, who, having stationed himself near the scaffold, was enabled to take down the substance of some observations which Montrose was permitted to make in answer to questions put by some persons who surrounded him.

He began by remarking that he would consider it extremely hard indeed if the mode of his death should be esteemed any reflection upon him, or prove offensive to any good Christian, seeing that such occurrences often happened to the good at the hands of the wicked, and often to the wicked at the hands of the good—and that just men sometimes perish in their righteousness, while wicked men prosper in their villanies. That he, therefore, expected that those who knew him well would not esteem him the less for his present sufferings, especially as many greater and more deserving men than he had undergone the same untimely and disgraceful fate. Yet, that he could not but acknowledge that all the judgments of God were just, and that the punishment he was about to suffer was very deservedly inflicted upon him for the many private sins he had committed, and he therefore willingly submitted to it;—that he freely pardoned his enemies, whom he reckoned but the instruments of the Divine will, and prayed to God to forgive them, although they had oppressed the poor, and perverted judgment and justice.

That he had done nothing contrary to the laws of the kingdom, and that he had undertaken nothing but in obedience to the just commands of his sovereign, when reduced to the greatest difficulties by his rebellious subjects, who had risen up in arms against him—that his principal study had always been to fear God and honour the king, in a manner agreeable to the law of God, the laws of nature, and those of his own country; and that, in neither of these respects, had he transgressed against men, but against God alone, with whom he expected to find abundant mercy, and in the confidence of which, he was ready to approach the eternal throne without terror—that he could not pretend to foretell what might happen, or to pry into the secrets of Divine Providence; but he prayed to God that the indignities and cruelties which he was that day to suffer might not be a prelude of still greater miseries which would befall his afflicted country, which was fast hastening to ruin.

That with regard to the grievous censure of the church, which he was sorry some good people thought it a crime in him to die under, he observed, that he did not incur it from any fault of his own, but in the performance of his duty to his lawful prince, for the security of religion, and the preservation of his sacred person and royal authority—that the sentence of excommunication, so rashly laid upon him[276] by the clergy, gave him much concern, and that he earnestly desired to be released from it, so far as that could be done, agreeably to the laws of God, and without hurting his conscience or allegiance, which, if they refused, he appealed to God, the righteous judge of the world, who, ere long, was to be his impartial judge and gracious redeemer.

In answer to the reproaches of some persons who had endeavoured to destroy the marquis’s character and reputation by spreading a report that he had laid the whole blame of what he had done upon the king and his royal father, he observed that such a thought had never once entered into his breast—that the late king had lived a saint and died a martyr, and he prayed to God, that as his own fate was not unlike his, so his death might be attended with the same degree of piety and resignation; for if he could wish his soul in another man’s stead, or to be conjoined with it in the same condition after this life, it would be his alone.

He then requested that the people would judge charitably of him and his actions, without prejudice and without passion. He desired the prayers of all good men for his soul; for his part, he said he prayed earnestly for them all; and with the greatest seriousness, submission and humility, deprecated the vengeance of Almighty God, which had been so long awakened, and which was still impending over his afflicted country—that his enemies were at liberty to exult and triumph over the perishing remains of his body, but the utmost indignities they could inflict should never prevail on him, now at his death, to swerve from that duty and reverence to God, and obedience and respect to the king, which he had manifested all his life long. “I can say no more,” concluded the marquis, “but remit myself to your charity, and I desire your prayers. You that are scandalized at me, give me your charity; I shall pray for you all. I leave my soul to God, my service to my prince, my goodwill to my friends, and my name in charity to you all. I might say more, but I have exonered my conscience; the rest I leave to God’s mercy.”[415]

A party of ministers who occupied the lower end of the scaffold now attempted, partly by persuasion and partly by threats, to induce Montrose to yield to the kirk by acknowledging his own criminality; but he denied that he had acted contrary to religion and the laws of the land, and, of course, refused to accept of a reconciliation upon such terms. Finding him inflexible, they refused to pray for him as he desired, observing, that no prayers could be of any avail to a man who was an outcast from the church of God. Being desired to pray by himself apart, he told them that if they would not permit the people to join with him, his prayers alone and separately before so large an assembly would perhaps be offensive both to them and him—that he had already poured out his soul before God, who knew his heart, and to whom he had committed his spirit. He then shut his eyes, and holding his hat before his face with his left hand, he raised his right in the attitude of prayer, in which posture he continued about a quarter of an hour in silent and fervent prayer.

As the fatal hour was fast approaching when this unfortunate nobleman was to bid a last adieu to sublunary things, he desired the executioner to hasten his preparations. This gloomy functionary, accordingly, brought the book of Montrose’s wars, and his late declaration, which, by the sentence, were ordered to be tied round his neck with a cord. Montrose himself assisted in carrying this part of his sentence into execution, and while the operation was performing, good-humouredly remarked, that he considered himself as much honoured then by having such tokens of his loyalty attached to his person as he had been when his majesty had invested him with the order of the garter.[416]

Hitherto, Montrose had remained uncovered; but, before ascending the ladder that conducted to the top of the gibbet, which rose to the height of thirty feet from the centre of the scaffold, he requested permission to put on his hat. This request was, however, refused. He then asked leave to keep on his cloak; but this favour was also denied him. Irritated, probably at these refusals, he appears for a moment to have lost his usual equanimity of temper, and when orders were given to pinion[277] his arms, he told the magistrates that if they could invent any further marks of ignominy, he was ready to endure them all for the sake of the cause for which he suffered.

On arriving at the top of the ladder, which he ascended with astonishing firmness, Montrose asked the executioner how long his body was to be suspended to the gibbet. “Three hours,” was the answer. He then presented the executioner with three or four pieces of gold, told him he freely forgave him for the part he acted, and instructed him to throw him off as soon as he observed him uplifting his hands. The executioner watched the fatal signal, and on the noble victim raising his hands, obeyed the mandate, and, it is said, burst into tears. A feeling of horror seized the assembled multitude, who expressed their disapprobation by a general groan. Among the spectators were many persons who had indulged during the day in bitter invectives against Montrose, but whose feelings were so overpowered by the sad spectacle of his death that they could not refrain from tears.[417] Even the relentless Argyle, who had good feeling enough to absent himself from the execution, is said to have shed tears on hearing of Montrose’s death, but if a cavalier writer is to be believed, his son, Lord Lorne, disgraced himself by the most unfeeling barbarity.[418]

Thus died, at the early age of thirty-eight, James Graham, Marquis of Montrose, who had acquired during a short career of military glory greater reputation than perhaps ever fell to the lot of any commander within the same compass of time. That partisans may have exaggerated his actions, and extolled his character too highly, may be fairly admitted; but it cannot be denied that Montrose was really a great commander, and that there were noble and generous traits about him which indicated a high and cultivated mind, in many respects far superior to the age in which he lived. But however much the military exploits of Montrose may be admired, it must never be forgotten that his sword was drawn against his own countrymen in their struggles against arbitrary power, and that although there was much to condemn in the conduct of the Covenanters, subsequent events, in the reign of the second Charles and James, showed that they were not mistaken in the dread which they entertained of the extinction of their religious liberties, had Charles I. succeeded in his designs.

Among Montrose’s officers five of the most distinguished were selected for execution, all of whom perished under ‘the Maiden,’ a species of guillotine, introduced into Scotland by the Regent Morton, to which he himself became the first victim. The officers who suffered were Sir John Hurry,[419] Captain Spottiswood,[278] younger of Dairsie, Sir Francis Hay of Dalgetty, Colonel William Sibbald, and Captain Charteris, a cadet of the ancient family of Amisfield. All these met death with extraordinary fortitude. Sir Francis Hay, who was a Catholic, “and therefore,” as a cavalier historian quaintly observes, “not coming within the compass of the ministers’ prayers,”[420] displayed in particular an intrepidity worthy of his name and family.[421] After a witty metaphorical allusion to “the Maiden,” he kissed the fatal instrument, and kneeling down, laid his head upon the block. Colonel Sibbald exhibited a surprising gaiety, and, “with an undaunted behaviour, marched up to the block, as if he had been to act the part of a gallant in a play.”[422] An instance of the unfeeling levity with which such melancholy scenes were witnessed, even by those who considered themselves the ministers of the gospel, occurred on the present as on former occasions. Captain Spottiswood, grandson of the archbishop of that name, having on his knees said the following prayer:—“O Lord, who hath been graciously pleased to bring me through the wilderness of this world, I trust at this time you will waft me over this sea of blood to my heavenly Canaan;” was rebuked by a minister who was near him in the following words:—“Take tent (heed), take tent, sir, that you drown not by the gate!” (way). Spottiswood replied with great modesty that “he hoped he was no Egyptian,” an answer which forced the base intruder to retire among the crowd to conceal his shame.

The execution of Captain Charteris (the last who suffered) was a source of melancholy regret to his friends, and of triumph to the ministers. He was a man of determined mind; but his health being much impaired by wounds which he had received, he had not firmness to resist the importunities of his friends, who, as a means of saving his life, as they thought, prevailed upon him to agree to make a public declaration of his errors. This unhappy man, accordingly, when on the scaffold, read a long speech, which had been prepared for him by the ministers, penned in a peculiarly mournful strain, in which he lamented his apostacy from the Covenant, and acknowledged “other things which he had vented to them (the ministers) in auricular confession.”[423] Yet, notwithstanding the expectations which he and his friends were led to entertain that his life would be spared, he had no sooner finished his speech than he was despatched.

CHAPTER XVII.

A.D. 1650–1660.

Commonwealth, 1649–1660.

Having arranged with the commissioners the conditions on which he was to ascend the Scottish throne, Charles, with about 500 attendants, left Holland on the 2d of June, in some vessels furnished him by the Prince of Orange, and after a boisterous voyage of three weeks, during which he was daily in danger of being captured by English cruizers, arrived in the Moray frith, and disembarked at Garmouth, a small village at the mouth of the Spey, on the 23d[279] of that month. Before landing, however, Charles readily gave his signature to the Covenant, which subsequent events showed he had no intention of observing longer than suited his purpose.

The news of the king’s arrival reached Edinburgh on the 26th of June. The guns of the castle were fired in honour of the event, and the inhabitants manifested their joy by bonfires and other demonstrations of popular feeling. The same enthusiasm spread quickly throughout the kingdom, and his majesty was welcomed with warm congratulations as he proceeded on his journey towards Falkland, which had been fixed upon by parliament as the place of his residence. The pleasure he received from these professions of loyalty was, however, not without alloy, as he was obliged, at the request of the parliament, to dismiss from his presence some of his best friends, both Scotch and English, particularly the Duke of Hamilton, the Earl of Lauderdale, and other “engagers,” who, by an act passed on the 4th of June against “classed delinquents,” were debarred from returning to the kingdom, or remaining therein, “without the express warrant of the Estates of parliament.”[424] Of the English exiles the Duke of Buckingham, Lord Wilmot, and seven gentlemen of the household were allowed to remain with him.[425] In fact, with these exceptions, every person even suspected of being a “malignant,” was carefully excluded from the court, and his majesty was thus surrounded by the heads of the Covenanters and the clergy. These last scarcely ever left his person, watched his words and motions, and inflicted upon him long harangues, in which he was often reminded of the misfortunes of his family.

The rulers of the English commonwealth, aware of the negotiations which had been going on between the young king and the Scots commissioners in Holland, became apprehensive of their own stability, should a union take place between the Covenanters and the English Presbyterians, to support the cause of the king, and they therefore resolved to invade Scotland, and by reducing it to their authority extinguish for ever the hopes of the king and his party. Fairfax was appointed commander-in-chief, and Cromwell lieutenant-general of the army destined for this purpose; but as Fairfax considered the invasion of Scotland as a violation of the solemn league and covenant which he had sworn to observe, he refused, notwithstanding the most urgent entreaties, to accept the command, which in consequence devolved upon Cromwell.

The preparations making in England for the invasion of Scotland were met with corresponding activity in Scotland, the parliament of which ordered an army of 30,000 men to be immediately raised to maintain the independence of the country. The nominal command of this army was given to the Earl of Leven, who had become old and infirm; but David Leslie his relative, was in reality the commander. The levies went on with considerable rapidity, but before they were assembled Cromwell crossed the Tweed on the 22d of July at the head of 16,000 well appointed and highly disciplined troops. On his march from Berwick to Musselburgh a scene of desolation was presented to the eyes of Cromwell, far surpassing anything he had ever before witnessed. With the exception of a few old women and children, not a human being was to be seen, and the whole country appeared as one great waste over which the hand of the ruthless destroyer had exercised its ravages. To understand the cause of this it is necessary to mention, that, with the view of depriving the enemy of provisions, instructions had been issued to lay waste the country between Berwick and the capital, to remove or destroy the cattle and provisions, and that the inhabitants should retire to other parts of the kingdom under the severest penalties. To induce them to comply with this ferocious command, appalling statements of the cruelties of Cromwell in Ireland were industriously circulated among the people; that he had given orders to put all the males between 16 and 60 to death, to cut of the right hands of all the boys between 6 and 16, and to bore with red-hot irons the breasts of all females of age for bearing children.[426] Fortunately for his army Cromwell had provided a fleet in[280] case of exigency, which kept up with him in his march along the coast, and supplied him with provisions.

The English general continued his course along the coast till he arrived at Musselburgh, where he established his head-quarters. Here he learnt that the Scots army, consisting of upwards of 30,000 men, had taken up a strong position between Edinburgh and Leith, and had made a deep entrenchment in front of their lines, along which they had erected several batteries. Cromwell reconnoitered this position, and tried all his art to induce the Scots to come to a general engagement; but as Leslie’s plan was to act on the defensive, and thus force Cromwell either to attack him at a considerable disadvantage, or to retreat back into England after his supply of provisions should be exhausted, he kept his army within their entrenchments.

As Cromwell perceived that he would be soon reduced to the alternative of attacking the Scots in their position, or of retracing his steps through the ruined track over which his army had lately passed, he resolved upon an assault, and fixed Monday the 29th of July for advancing on the enemy. By a singular coincidence, the king, at the instigation of the Earl of Eglinton, but contrary to the wish of his council and the commanders, visited the army that very day. His presence was hailed with shouts of enthusiasm by the soldiers, who indulged in copious libations to the health of their sovereign. The soldiers in consequence neglected their duty, and great confusion prevailed in the camp;[427] but on the approach of Cromwell sufficient order was restored, and they patiently waited his attack. Having selected the centre of the enemy’s position, near a spot called the Quarry Holes, about half-way between Edinburgh and Leith, as appearing to him the most favourable point for commencing the operations of the day, Cromwell led forward his army to the assault; but after a desperate struggle he was repulsed with the loss of a considerable number of men and horses.[428] Cromwell renewed the attack on the 31st, and would probably have carried Leslie’s position but for a destructive fire from some batteries near Leith. Cromwell retired to Musselburgh in the evening, where he was unexpectedly attacked by a body of 2,000 horse and 500 foot, commanded by Major-General Montgomery, son of the Earl of Eglinton, and Colonel Strachan, which had been despatched at an early part of the day by a circuitous route to the right, for the purpose of falling on Cromwell’s rear. If Balfour is to be credited, this party beat Cromwell “soundlie,” and would have defeated his whole army if they had had an additional force of 1,000 men; but an English writer informs us, that the Scots suffered severely.[429] According to the first-mentioned author the English had 5 colonels and 500 men killed, while the latter states the loss of the Scots to have been about 100 men, and a large number of prisoners. On the following day, Cromwell, probably finding that he had enough of mouths to consume his provisions, without the aid of prisoners, offered to exchange all those he had taken the preceding day, and sent the wounded Scots back to their camp.

These encounters, notwithstanding the expectations of the ministers, and the vaunts of the parliamentary committee of their pretended successes, inspired some of Leslie’s officers with a salutary dread of the prowess of Cromwell’s veterans. An amusing instance of this feeling is related by Balfour in the case of the earl of W. (he suppresses the name) who “being commandit the nixt day (the day after the last mentioned skirmish) in the morning, to marche out one a partey, saw he could not goe one upone service untill he had his brackefaste. The brackefaste was delayed above four hours in getting until the L. General being privily advertissed by a secrett frind, that my Lord was peaceably myndit that morning, sent him expresse orders not to marche, to save his reputation. One this, the gallants of the army raissed a proverbe, ‘That they wold not goe out one a partey until they gate ther brackefaste.’”[430]

For several days Cromwell remained inactive in his camp, during which the parliamentary committee subjected the Scots army to a purging operation, which impaired its efficiency,[281] and, perhaps, contributed chiefly to its ruin. As the Solemn League and Covenant was considered by the Covenanters a sacred pledge to God, which no true Christian could refuse to take, they looked upon those who declined to subscribe it as the enemies of religion, with whom it would be criminal in the eye of Heaven to associate. Before the purgation commenced, the king received a hint, equivalent to a command, from the heads of the Covenanters to retire to Dunfermline, an order which he obeyed “sore against his own mind,”[431] by taking his departure on Friday the 2d of August, after spending the short space of two hours at a banquet, which had been provided for him by the city of Edinburgh. No sooner had the king departed than the purging process was commenced, and on the 2d, 3d, and 5th of August, during which the committee held their sittings, no less than 80 officers, all men of unquestionable loyalty, besides a considerable number of common soldiers, were expelled from the army.[432]

Cromwell retired with his army to Dunbar on the 5th of August. Here he found the few inhabitants who had remained in the town in a state of starvation. Touched with commiseration, he generously distributed among them, on his supplies being landed, a considerable quantity of wheat and pease.[433]

While the ministers were thanking God “for sending the sectarian army (for so they designated the Independents) back the way they came, and flinging such a terror into their hearts, as made them fly when none pursued,”[434] Cromwell suddenly re-appeared at Musselburgh, and thus put an end to their thanksgivings.

Seeing no hopes of the Scots army leaving its entrenchments, and afraid that farther delay might be injurious to him, Cromwell made a movement on the 13th of August to the west, as far as the village of Colinton, three miles south-west from Edinburgh, where he posted the main body of his army. The Scottish general thinking that Cromwell had an intention of attacking him in his rear, raised his camp and marched towards Corstorphine, about two miles north from Colinton, where he drew out his army. Both armies surveyed each other for several days, but neither attempted to bring the other to action. As he could not, from the nature of the ground which lay between the two armies, attack his opponents with any probability of success, Cromwell again returned to Musselburgh with his army on a Sunday, that he might not be harassed in his march by the Covenanters, who never fought but on the defensive on that day.

Although the king before his landing had subscribed the Solemn League and Covenant, and although they had purged the army to their heart’s content, still Argyle and his party were not satisfied, and they, therefore, required his majesty to subscribe a declaration “for the satisfaction of all honest men.” On the 16th of August, after some hesitation and with slight modification of the terms, Charles was induced to sign a most humiliating declaration, which reflected upon the conduct of his father, lamented the “idolatry” of his mother, pledged him to renounce the friendship of all who were unfriendly to the Covenant, establish Presbyterianism in England, in short, made him a mere tool in the hands of the extreme Covenanters.

Although every sober and judicious person must have perceived that there was little probability that such a declaration would be regarded by the young monarch when released from his trammels, yet so greatly important was his majesty’s subscription to the instrument considered by the Covenanters, that they hailed it with the most lively emotions of joy and gratitude; and the ministers who, only two days before, had denounced the king from the pulpits as the root of malignancy, and a hypocrite, who had shown, by his refusal to sign the declaration, that he had no intention to keep the Covenant, were the first to set the example. The army, excited by the harangues of the ministers during a fast, which they proclaimed to appease the anger of heaven for the sins of the king and his father, longed to meet the enemy, and it required all the influence and authority of General Leslie to restrain them from leaving their lines and rushing upon the “sectaries;” but, unfortunately for the Covenanters, their wish was soon to be gratified.

[282]

It does not appear that the chiefs of the Covenanters were actuated by the same enthusiasm as the ministers and the common soldiers, or that the generals of the army were very sanguine of success. They were too well aware of the composition of Cromwell’s veteran host, to suppose that their raw and undisciplined levies, though numerically superior, could meet the enemy in the open field; and hence they deemed it a wise course of policy to act on the defensive, and to harass them by a desultory warfare as occasion offered. This system had been so successful as to embarrass Cromwell greatly, and to leave him no alternative but a retreat into England—a course which he was obliged to adopt more speedily, perhaps, than he would otherwise have done, in consequence of extensive sickness in his army. No indications of any movement had appeared up to the 29th of August, as on that day the Committee of Estates adjourned the meeting of parliament, which was to have then assembled, till the 10th of September, “in respecte that Oliver Cromwell and his armey of sectaries and blasphemers have invadit this kingdome, and are now laying within the bosome thereof.”[435]

On the 30th of August, however, Cromwell collected his army at Musselburgh, and having put all his sick on board his fleet, which lay in the adjoining bay, he gave orders to his army to march next morning to Haddington, and thence to Dunbar. He made an attempt to obtain the consent of the Committee of Estates to retire without molestation, promising never again to interfere in the affairs of Scotland; but they refused to agree to his proposal, as they considered that they would be able to cut off his retreat and compel him to surrender at discretion.

Next morning Cromwell’s army was in full retreat towards Haddington. The Scots army followed in close pursuit, but with the exception of some slight skirmishing between the advanced guard of the Scots and Cromwell’s rear, nothing important took place. Cromwell halted during the night at Haddington, and offered battle next day; but as the Scots declined, he continued his retreat to Dunbar, which he reached in the evening. With the intention of cutting off his retreat, Leslie drew off his army to the south towards the heights of Lammermuir, and took up a position on Doon hill. Having at the same time secured an important pass called the Peaths, through which Cromwell had necessarily to pass on his way to Berwick, the situation of the latter became extremely critical, as he had no chance of escape but by cutting his way through the Scots army, which had now completely obstructed his line of retreat. Cromwell perceived the danger of his situation, but he was too much of an enthusiast to give way to despair; he deliberately, and within view of the enemy, shipped off the remainder of his sick at Dunbar, on the 2d of September, intending, should Providence not directly interpose in his behalf, to put his foot also on board, and at the head of his cavalry to cut his way through the Scots army.[436] But as, in an affair of such importance, nothing could be done without prayer, he directed his men to “seek the Lord for a way of deliverance and salvation.”[437] A part of the day was accordingly spent in prayer, and at the conclusion, Cromwell declared, that while he prayed he felt an enlargement of heart and a buoyancy of spirit which assured him that God had hearkened to their prayers.[438]

While Cromwell and his men were employed in their devotional exercises, a council of war was held by the Scottish commander to deliberate upon the course to be pursued in the present crisis. As Leslie considered himself perfectly secure in his position, which could not be assailed by the enemy without evident risk of a defeat, and as he was apprehensive of a most formidable and desperate resistance should he venture to attack the brave and enthusiastic Independents, who were drawn out within two miles of his camp; he gave as his opinion that the Scottish army should not only remain in its position, but that Cromwell should be allowed to retire into England on certain easy conditions. The officers of the army concurred in the views of the general, but this opinion was overruled by the Committees of the Estates and kirk, who, anxious[283] to secure their prey, lest by any possibility it might escape, insisted that the army should descend from the heights and attack the “army of sectaries and blasphemers,” which they fully expected the Lord would deliver into their hands.

In pursuance of the orders of the Committees to attack Cromwell early the following morning, Leslie drew down his men on the evening of the 2d of September from the heights which they occupied to the level ground below, that he might be ready to commence the attack before the enemy should be fully on their guard. But nothing could escape the penetrating eye of Cromwell, who, though pondering with solicitude upon the difficulties of his situation, was not inattentive to the enemy, whose motions he personally watched with the utmost vigilance and assiduity. He was about retiring for the night, when looking through his glass for the last time that evening, he perceived, to his infinite joy, the Scottish army in motion down the hill. The object of this movement at once occurred to him, and in a rapture of enthusiasm he exclaimed, “They are coming down;—the Lord hath delivered them into our hands.” A strong spirit of religious enthusiasm had in fact seized both armies, and each considered itself the peculiar favourite of heaven.

Unfortunately for the Scots their movements were considerably impeded by the state of the weather, which, during the night, became very rainy and tempestuous. Confident in their numbers, they seem to have disregarded the ordinary rules of military prudence, and such was the slowness of their movements, that they found themselves unexpectedly attacked at the dawn of day before the last of their forces had left the hill where they had been stationed. Cromwell had, during the night, advanced his army to the edge of a deep ravine which had separated the advanced posts of both parties, along which his troops reposed waiting in deep silence the order for attack. As soon as Cromwell was enabled by the approach of day to obtain a partial view of the position selected by the Scots, he perceived that the Scottish general had posted a large body of cavalry on his right wing near to a pass on the road from Dunbar to Berwick, with the evident intention of preventing the English from effecting an escape. To this point, therefore, Cromwell directed his attack with the main body of his horse, and some regiments of foot, with which he endeavoured to obtain possession of the pass; but they were charged by the Scottish lancers, who, aided by some artillery, drove them down the hill. Cromwell, thereupon, brought up a reserve of horse and foot and renewed the attack, but was again repulsed. He still persevered, however, and the cavalry were again giving way, when just as the sun was emerging from the ocean, and beginning, through the mist of the morning, to dart its rays upon the armour of the embattled hosts, he exclaimed with impassioned fervour,—“Let God arise, let his enemies be scattered.” In a moment Cromwell’s own regiment of foot, to whom his exclamation had been more particularly addressed, advanced with their pikes levelled, the cavalry rallied, and the Scottish horse, as if seized with a panic, turned their backs and fled, producing the utmost confusion among the foot, who were posted in their rear.

As soon as the Scots perceived the defeat and flight of their cavalry, they were seized with a feeling of consternation, and throwing away their arms, sought their safety in flight. They were closely pursued by Cromwell’s dragoons, who followed them to the distance of many miles in the direction of Edinburgh, and cut them down without mercy. Out of a force of 27,000 men, who, a few hours before, had assured themselves of victory, not more than 14,000 escaped. 3,000 of the Scots lay lifeless on the fertile plains of East Lothian, and about 10,000 were taken prisoners, of whom not less than 5,000 were wounded.[439] All the ammunition, artillery, and baggage of the Scots army fell into the hands of the conquerors. The loss on the side of Cromwell was trifling, not amounting to more than 30 men killed. The battle of Dunbar took place on the 3d of September, 1650, and was long familiarly known among the Scots by the name of “the Tyesday’s chase.”

Cromwell spent the following day at Dunbar writing despatches to the parliament. He[284] ordered all the wounded to be taken particular care of, and after their wounds were dressed they were released on their parole. The remainder of the prisoners were sent to England, where about 2,000 of them died of a pestilential disease, and the rest were sent as slaves to the English plantations in the West Indies. Cromwell, of course, now abandoned his intention of returning to England. In furtherance of his design to subject Scotland to his authority, he marched to Edinburgh, which he entered without opposition.

In the meantime, the Scottish horse and the few foot which had escaped from the slaughter of Dunbar were collected together at Stirling. Here the Commissioners of the General Assembly held a meeting on the 12th of September, at which they drew up a “declaration and warning to all the congregations of the kirk of Scotland,” exhorting the people to bear the recent disaster with becoming fortitude, and to humble themselves before God that he might turn away his anger from them; at the same time ordaining a “soleme publicke humiliatione upone the defait of the armey,” to be kept throughout the kingdom.

It is probable that this “declaration and warning” had little effect upon the minds of the people, whose enthusiasm had been somewhat cooled by Cromwell’s success, and although they did not, perhaps, like their unfortunate countrymen, who were taken captives on the 3d of September and sent into England, curse the king and clergy for insnaring them in misery, as Whitelock observes, they could not but look upon the perpetual meddling of the ministers with the affairs of the State, as the real source of all the calamities which had recently befallen the country. As to the king he had become so thoroughly disgusted with the conduct of the Argyle faction, whose sole object seemed to be to use him as a tool for their own purposes, that he regarded the recent defeat of the Covenanters in the light of a triumph to his cause, which, by destroying the power of Argyle, would pave the way for the due exercise of the royal authority.

The king now entertained the idea of forming a party for himself among the numerous royalists in the Highlands, for which purpose he opened up a correspondence with Huntly, Moray, and Athole, and other chiefs; but before matters were fully concocted, the negotiation was disclosed to Argyle, who took immediate means to defeat it. Accordingly, on the 27th of September, the Committee of Estates ordered the whole cavaliers who still remained about the king’s person, with the exception of three, one of whom was Buckingham, to quit the court within 24 hours, and the kingdom in 20 days.

As Charles was to be thus summarily deprived of the society and advice of his friends, he took the resolution of leaving Perth, and retiring to the Highlands among his friends. Accordingly, under the pretence of hawking, he left Perth about half-past one o’clock in the afternoon of the 4th of October, accompanied by five of his livery servants, and rode at full gallop, until he arrived at Dudhope near Dundee, which he did in an hour and a half. He then proceeded to Auchter-house along with Viscount Dudhope, whence he was conveyed by the Earl of Buchan and the Viscount to Cortuquhuy, the seat of the Earl of Airly. After partaking of some refreshment he proceeded the same night up the glen, under the protection of 60 or 80 Highlanders, to a poor cottage, 42 miles from Perth, belonging to the laird of Clova. Fatigued by such a long journey, he threw himself down on an old mattress, but he had not enjoyed many hours repose when the house was entered, a little before break of day, by Lieutenant-Colonel Nairne, and Colonel Baynton, an Englishman, who had been sent by Colonel Montgomery in quest of him. Shortly after Montgomery himself appeared, accompanied by the laird of Scotscraig, who had given him information of the place of his Majesty’s retreat, and Sir Alexander Hope bearing one of the king’s hawks. This party advised the king to get on horseback, offered to attend him, and promised to live and die with him if necessary.

Perceiving their intention to carry him back to Perth, the king told Montgomery that he had left Perth in consequence of information he had received from Dr. Fraser, his physician, that it was the intention of the Committee of Estates to have delivered him up to the English,[285] and to hang all his servants: Montgomery assured his Majesty that the statement was false, and that no person but a traitor could have invented it. While this altercation was going on, Dudhope and the Highlanders who attended the king strongly advised him to retire instantly to the mountains, and they gave him to understand that a force of 2,000 horse and 5,000 foot was waiting for him within the distance of five or six miles ready to execute his orders; but before his Majesty had come to any resolution as to the course he should adopt, two regiments of covenanting horse appeared, on observing which, says Balfour, “Buchan, Dudhope and ther begerly guard begane to shecke ther eares, and speake more calmley, and in a lower strain.” The king thereupon gave his consent to return to Perth, whither he was accordingly conducted by Montgomery at the head of his horse.[440]

This attempt of the king to escape (familiarly known by the name of “the Start”) produced a salutary effect upon the Committee of Estates, and they now began to treat him with more respect, admitting him to their deliberations, and even suspending the act they had issued ordering the English cavaliers to leave the kingdom.

As a considerable part of the Highlands was now up in arms to support the king, the committee induced him to write letters to the chief leaders of the insurrection desiring them to lay down their arms, which correspondence led to a protracted negotiation. An act of indemnity was passed on the 12th of October, in favour of the people of Athole, who had taken up arms; but as it was couched in language which they disliked, and contained conditions of which they disapproved, the Earl of Athole and his people presented a petition to his majesty and the committee, craving some alteration in the terms.

In order to enforce the orders of the king to the northern royalists, to lay down their arms, Sir John Brown’s regiment was despatched to the north; but they were surprised during the night of the 21st of October, and defeated by a party under Sir David Ogilvie, brother to Lord Ogilvie. On receiving this intelligence, General Leslie hastened to Perth from Stirling, and crossed the Tay on the 24th, with a force of 3,000 cavalry, with which he was ordered to proceed to Dundee and scour Angus. At this time General Middleton was lying at Forfar, and he, on hearing of Leslie’s advance, sent him a letter, inclosing a copy of a “bond and oath of engagement” which had been entered into by Huntly, Athole, Seaforth, Middleton, and other individuals, by which they had pledged themselves to join firmly and faithfully together, and neither for fear, threatening, allurement, nor advantage, to relinquish the cause of religion, of the king and of the kingdom, nor to lay down their arms without a general consent; and as the best undertakings often did not escape censure and malice, they promised and swore, for the satisfaction of all reasonable persons, that they would maintain the true religion, as then established in Scotland, the National Covenant, and the Solemn League and Covenant; and defend the person of the king, his prerogative, greatness, and authority, and the privileges of parliament, and the freedom of the subject. Middleton stated that Leslie would perceive from the terms of the document inclosed, that the only aim of himself and friends was to unite Scotsmen in defence of their common rights, and that the grounds on which they had entered into the association were precisely the same as those professed by Leslie himself. As the independence of Scotland was at stake, and as Scotsmen should unite for the preservation of their liberties, he proposed to join Leslie, and to put himself under his command, and he expressed a hope that Leslie would not shed the blood of his countrymen, or force them to the unhappy necessity of shedding the blood of their brethren in self-defence.[441] The negotiation thus begun was finally concluded on the 4th of November at Strathbogie, agreeably to a treaty between Leslie and the chief royalists, by which the latter accepted an indemnity and laid down their arms.

Cromwell did not follow up his success as might have been expected, but contented himself with laying siege to the castle of Edinburgh,[286] and pushing forward his advanced posts as far as Linlithgow.

Among the leading Covenanters both in parliament and the church, there were some whose political ideas were pretty similar to those of Cromwell, respecting monarchical government, and who had not only approved of the execution of the late king, but were desirous of excluding his son from the crown of Scotland. This party, though a minority, made up for its numerical inferiority, by the talents, fanaticism, and restless activity of its partisans; but formidable as their opposition in parliament was, they found themselves unable effectually to resist the general wish of the nation in favour of the king, and yielded to the force of circumstances. By excluding, however, the royalists from the camp, and keeping the king in a state of subjection to their authority, they had succeeded in usurping the government, and had the disaster of Dunbar not occurred, might have been enabled to carry their designs against the monarchy into effect; but notwithstanding this catastrophe, they were not discouraged, and as soon as they had recovered from the temporary state of alarm into which the success of Cromwell had thrown them, they began to concert measures, in accordance with a plan they now contemplated, for making themselves altogether independent of parliament. For this purpose, under the pretence of opposing the common enemy, they solicited and obtained permission from the Committee of Estates to raise forces in the counties of Dumfries, Galloway, Wigton, Ayr, and Renfrew, the inhabitants of which were imbued with a sterner spirit of fanaticism, and therefore more ready to support their plans than those of any other parts of Scotland. By bringing in the exhortations of Gillespie and others of the more rigid among the ministers to their aid, they succeeded in a short time in raising a body of nearly 5,000 horse, over which Strachan, Kerr, and two other colonels, all mere tools of the party, were placed.

As soon as the leaders of this faction, of whom Johnston of Warriston, the clerk-register, was chief, had collected these levies, they began to develop the plan they had formed of withdrawing themselves from the control of the Committee of Estates by raising a variety of objections against the line of conduct pursued by the Committee, and, till these were removed, they refused to unite “the western army,” as this new force was called, with the army under Leslie. Cromwell, aware of this division in the Scottish army, endeavoured to widen the breach by opening a correspondence with Strachan, who had fought under him at Preston, the consequence being that Strachan soon went over to the English army with a body of troopers. Leslie complained to the Estates of the refusal of the western forces to join him, and solicited to be recalled from his charge; but they declined to receive his resignation, and sent a deputation, consisting of Argyle, Cassilis, and other members to the western army, “to solicit unity for the good of the kingdom.”[442] So unsuccessful, however, was the deputation in bringing about this desired “unity,” that, on the 17th October, an elaborate paper, titled, “the humble Remonstrance of the Gentlemen-Commanders, and Ministers attending the forces in the west,” addressed to the Committee of Estates, was drawn up and presented by Sir George Maxwell to them at Stirling, on the 22d. The compilers of this document proposed to remove from the presence of the king, the judicatories and the armies, the “malignants,” whom many of the committee were accused of having received “into intimate friendship,” admitting them to their councils, and bringing in some of them to the parliament and committees, and about the king, thereby affording “many pregnant presumptions,” of a design on the part of some of the Committee of Estates, “to set up and employ the malignant party,” or, at least, giving “evidences of a strong inclination to intrust them again in the managing of the work of God.”[443] The Committee of Estates paid no regard to this remonstrance, a circumstance which gave such umbrage to Warriston and the leaders of the western army, that they drew up another, couched in still stronger language, on the 30th of October, at Dumfries, whither they had retired with the army on a movement made by Cromwell to the west. In this fresh remonstrance the faction declared that as it was now manifest that the king was[287] opposed to the work of God and the Covenants, and cleaving to the enemies of both, they would not regard him or his interest in their quarrel with the invaders; that he ought not to be intrusted in Scotland with the exercise of his power till he gave proofs of a real change in his conduct; and that an effectual course ought to be taken for preventing, in time coming, “his conjunction with the malignant party,” and for investigating into the cause of his late flight; and that the malignants should be rendered incapable in future of hurting the work and people of God.[444]

A petition having been presented to the Committee of Estates on the 9th of November, requiring a satisfactory answer to the first remonstrance, a joint declaration was issued by the king and the committee on the 25th, declaring “the said paper, as it related to the parliament and civil judicatories, to be scandalous and injurious to his majesty’s person, and prejudicial to his authority.” The commission of the General Assembly having been required to give their opinion upon the remonstrance, in so far as it related to religion and church judicatories, acknowledged that, although it contained “many sad truths,” nevertheless, the commission declared itself dissatisfied with the remonstrance, which it considered apt to breed division in kirk and kingdom.[445] This declaration of the commission was not only approved of by the General Assembly, but what was of equal importance, that venerable body passed a resolution declaring that in such a perilous crisis all Scotsmen might be employed to defend their country. An exception of persons “excommunicated, forfeited, notoriously profane, or flagitious, and professed enemies and opposers of the Covenant and cause of God,”[446] was no doubt made, but this exemption did not exclude all the “malignants.” A breach was now made in the unity of the Scottish church, and the nation was split into two parties—a division which paved the way for the subjugation of Scotland by Cromwell. The party which adhered to the king was distinguished by the name of Resolutioners, and the other was denominated Protesters, a distinction which was kept up for several years.

Nothing could be more gratifying to Cromwell than to see the Scots thus divided among themselves, and keeping up two distinct armies in the field, mutually opposed to each other. He had by negotiation and intrigue contributed to increase the irritation between the two parties, and had even succeeded in sowing the seeds of dissension among the leaders of the western army itself. Strachan, his old friend, had resigned the command which had been conferred on Kerr, who was by no means hearty in the cause. In this situation of matters Cromwell resolved, in the meantime, to confine his attention to the operations of the western army, with the intention, if he succeeded in defeating it, of marching north with the whole of his forces, and attacking the royal army. As the castle of Edinburgh was still in the hands of the Covenanters, Cromwell could only spare a force of about 7,000 horse, which he accordingly sent west about the end of November, under Lambert, to watch Kerr’s motions. Intelligence of this movement was received by the parliament then sitting at Perth, on the 30th of November, in consequence of which Colonel Robert Montgomery was despatched with three regiments to support the western army, the command of which he was requested by the parliament to take; and, to enforce this order, the committee on military affairs was directed to send a deputation to the western forces to intimate to them the command of the parliament. Before the arrival however, of Montgomery, Kerr was defeated on the 1st of December, in an attack he made on Lambert at Hamilton, in which he himself was taken prisoner, and the whole of his forces dispersed.[447] This victory gave Cromwell quiet possession of the whole of Scotland, south of the Clyde and the Forth, with the exception of Stirling, and a small tract around it; and as the castle of Edinburgh surrendered on the 24th of December, Stirling castle was the only fortress of any note, south of the Forth, which remained in the possession of the royalists at the close of the year.

A considerable time, however, elapsed before[288] Cromwell found himself in a condition to commence his intended campaign beyond the Forth. His inactivity is to be ascribed partly to an ague with which he was seized in February, 1651, and which had impaired his health so much that in May he obtained permission to return to England to recruit his debilitated constitution; but a sudden and favourable change having taken place in the state of his health, he gladly remained with the army, which he put in motion towards Stirling on the 3d of July.

The Scottish parliament was fully aware of the impending danger, and made the necessary preparations to meet it, but the Engagers and the party of Argyle did not always draw together; yet the king had the address, by his accommodating and insinuating behaviour, to smooth down many differences, and thus prepared the way for that ascendency which his friends, the Hamiltons, afterwards obtained. The coronation of the king took place at Scone, on the 1st of January, 1651, in pursuance of an order of the parliament. His conduct on that occasion added greatly to his growing popularity. The first trial of strength, to borrow a modern parliamentary phrase, which took place in the parliament, was on the 23d of December, 1650, on the nomination of colonels to the different horse and foot regiments then in the course of being raised. A list of them had been submitted to the house on the 20th, which contained about an equal number of royalists and Covenanters. This gave rise to a long debate, but the list was finally approved of.

Among the colonels of foot, were the Earls of Athole and Tulliebardine, and the Master of Gray for Perth; the lairds of Maclean and Ardkinlass for Argyle and Bute; the laird of Grant and the sheriff of Moray for Nairne, Elgin, and “Grant’s Lands;” the lairds of Pluscardine, Balnagowan, the master of Lovat, and the laird of Lumlair, for Inverness and Ross; Lord Sutherland and Henry Mackay of Skowrie, for Sutherland and Strathnaver; the master of Caithness for Caithness; and Duncan Macpherson for Badenoch. The clans in the Highlands and the Isles were to be commanded respectively by Macdonald, the tutor of Macleod, Clanranald, the tutor of Keppoch, the laird of Lochaber, the tutor of Maclean, Lochiel, Macneil of Barra, Lauchlane Mackintosh, and the laird of Jura.[448]

Argyle and his party made several attempts, afterwards, to check the rising influence of the Hamiltons, by opposing the different plans submitted to the parliament for rendering the army more efficient, but they were outvoted. The finishing blow was given to their hopes by the appointment of the king to the chief command of the army, and by the repeal of the “act of classes,” which excluded the royalists from having any share in the administration of the affairs of the kingdom, and from serving their country.

In expectation of Cromwell’s advance, the Scots had raised, during the spring, strong fortifications along the fords of the river Forth, to obstruct his passage, and had entrenched themselves at the Torwood, having the town of Stirling at their back, in which position Cromwell found them when he advanced west in July. As he considered it dangerous to attempt to carry such a strong position in the face of an army of about 20,000 men, (for such it is said was the number of the Scots), he endeavoured, by marches and countermarches, to draw them out; but although they followed his motions, they took care not to commit themselves, by going too far from their lines of defence. Seeing no chance of bringing them to a general engagement, Cromwell adopted the bold plan of crossing the Frith of Forth at Queensferry, and of throwing himself into the rear of the Scottish army. While therefore, he continued, by his motions along the Scottish lines, to draw off the attention of the Scottish commanders from his plan, he, on the 20th of July, sent over Lambert, with a large division of his army in a number of boats which had been provided for the occasion. He landed without opposition, and proceeded immediately to fortify himself on the hill between the North Ferry and Inverkeithing. General Holburn was immediately despatched with a large force to keep Lambert in check, and though the Scots fought with great bravery, they were defeated. A body of Highlanders particularly distinguished themselves. The[289] loss of the Scots was considerable; and among the slain were the young chief of Maclean and about 100 of his friends and followers. This victory opened a free passage to Cromwell to the north of Scotland. He immediately, therefore, crossed the Forth with the remainder of his army, and proceeded to Perth, of which he took possession on the 2d of August.

While the Scottish leaders were puzzled how to extricate themselves from the dilemma into which they had been thrown by the singular change which had lately taken place in the relative position of the two armies, the king alone seemed free from embarrassment, and at once proposed to his generals, that, instead of following Cromwell, or waiting till he should attack them, they should immediately invade England, where he expected to be joined by numerous royalists, who only required his presence among them at the head of such an army, to declare themselves. Under existing circumstances, the plan, though at once bold and decisive, was certainly judicious, and, therefore, it is not surprising that it should have received the approbation of the chiefs of the army. Having obtained their concurrence, the king immediately issued a proclamation on the 30th of July, to the army, announcing his intention of marching for England the following day, accompanied by such of his subjects as were willing to give proofs of their loyalty by sharing his fortunes. This appeal was not made in vain, and Charles found himself next morning in full march on the road to Carlisle, at the head of 11,000, or, as some accounts state, of 14,000 men. Argyle, as was to be expected, excused himself from accompanying the army, and obtained permission to retire to his castle.[449]

Although Cromwell was within almost a day’s march of the Scottish army, yet, so sudden and unexpected had been its departure, and so secretly had the whole affair been managed, that it was not until the 4th of August that he received the extraordinary intelligence of its departure for England. Cromwell was now as much embarrassed as the Scottish commander had lately been, for he had not the most distant idea, when he threw himself so abruptly into their rear, that they would adopt the bold resolution of marching into England. As soon, however, as he had recovered from the surprise into which such an alarming event had thrown him, he despatched letters to the parliament, assuring them of his intention to follow the Scottish army without delay, and exhorting them not to be discouraged, but to rely on his activity. He also sent Lambert with a force of 3,000 cavalry to harass the rear of the Scottish army, and forwarded orders to Harrison, who was then at Newcastle, to press upon their flank with a similar number; and, in a few days, he himself crossed the Forth with an army of 10,000 men, and proceeded along the eastern coast, in the direction of York, leaving Monk behind him with a force of 5,000 horse and foot to complete the reduction of Scotland.

The Scottish army reached Worcester on the 22d, and on being mustered the king found that he had at his command only 14,000 men, 2,000 of whom were Englishmen. To attack this force, large bodies of parliamentary troops were concentrated at Worcester, and on the 28th of August, when Cromwell arrived to take the command, the army of the republic amounted to upwards of 30,000 men, who hailed the presence of their commander with rapture. The two armies met on the 3d of September, the anniversary of the battle of Dunbar, and the disastrous result is well known, it being out of place here to enter into details. The king himself, at the head of the Highlanders, fought with great bravery: his example animated the troops, and had he been supported by Leslie’s cavalry, as was expected, the issue of the struggle might have been different. As it was, the royal army was completely defeated, and the king had to provide for his personal safety by flight.

This battle, which Cromwell admits “was as stiff a contest for four or five hours as ever he had seen,” was very disastrous to the royalists, 3,000 of whom were killed on the spot, and a considerably larger number taken prisoners, and even the greater part of the cavalry, who escaped from the city, were afterwards taken by detachments of the enemy. The Duke of Hamilton was mortally wounded[290] in the field of battle; the Earls of Derby, Lauderdale, Rothes, Cleveland and Kelly, Lords Sinclair, Kenmure and Grandison, and Generals Leslie, Middleton, Massey and Montgomery, were made prisoners after the battle. When the king considered himself free from immediate danger, he separated, during the darkness of the night, from the body of cavalry which surrounded him, and with a party of 60 horse proceeded to Whiteladies, a house belonging to one Giffard a recusant and royalist, at which he arrived at an early hour in the morning, after a ride of 25 miles. After a series of extraordinary adventures and of the most singular hair-breadth escapes, he landed in safety at Fecamp in Normandy, on the 17th of October.

While Cromwell was following the king through England, Monk proceeded to complete the subjugation of Scotland. He first laid siege to Stirling castle, into which he threw shells from batteries he had raised, the explosion of which so alarmed the Highlanders who composed the garrison, that they forced the governor to surrender. All the records of the kingdom, the royal robes, and part of the regalia, which had been locked up in the castle as a place of perfect security, fell into the hands of the captors, and were sent by Monk to England. He next proceeded to Dundee, which was strongly fortified and well garrisoned, and contained within it an immense quantity of costly furniture and plate, besides a large sum of money, all of which had been lodged in the town for safety. Monk, hearing that the Committees of the Estates and of the kirk were sitting at Alyth in Angus, sent a company of horse, who surprised the whole party and made them prisoners.

When the necessary preparations for an assault had been completed, Monk sent a summons to Lumsden, the governor of Dundee, to surrender, but he rejected it with disdain. The obstinacy of Lumsden exasperated Monk, who ordered his troops to storm the town, and to put the garrison and all the inhabitants, without regard to age or sex, to the sword. The town was accordingly carried by assault on the 1st of September, and was followed by all the horrors which an infuriated soldiery could inflict upon a defenceless population. The townsmen gave no aid to the garrison, and when the republican troops entered the town, they found the greater part of them lying drunk in the streets. The carnage was stayed, but not until 800 males, including the greater part of the garrison, and about 200 women and children, were killed. Among the slain, was Lumsden the governor, who, although he had quarter given him by Captain Kelly, was nevertheless shot dead by Major Butler as Kelly was conducting him along the street to Monk. Besides the immense booty which was in the town, about 60 ships which were in the harbour of Dundee with their cargoes, fell into the hands of the English.[450]

The capture of Dundee was immediately followed by the voluntary surrender of St. Andrews, Montrose and Aberdeen. Some of the Committee of Estates who had been absent from Alyth, held a meeting at Inverury, to deliberate on the state of matters, at which the Marquis of Huntly presided, and at which a motion was made, to invest him with full authority to act in the absence of the king, but the meeting broke up on hearing of Monk’s approach. The committee retired across the Spey, but Huntly went to Strathdon along with his forces. Monk did not proceed farther north than Aberdeen at this time.

The Marquis of Argyle, who had given great offence to Cromwell, by his double dealing, seeing now no chance of opposing successfully the republican arms, made an attempt at negotiation, and sent a letter by a trumpeter to Monk, proposing a meeting at some convenient place, “as a means to stop the shedding of more Christian blood.” The only answer which Monk gave to the messenger, who arrived at Dundee on the 19th of October, was, that he could not treat without orders from the parliament of England. This refusal on the part of Monk to negotiate, was a sore disappointment to Argyle, as it disappointed the hopes he entertained of getting the English government to acknowledge a debt which he claimed from them.[451]

Monk now turned his whole attention to[291] the state of matters in the North, where some forces were still on foot, under the command of the Marquis of Huntly and Lord Balcarras. With the former he concluded an agreement on the 21st of November, under which Huntly consented to disband his men; and on the 3d of December, a similar treaty was entered into between Balcarras and Colonels Overton and Lilburn. Shortly after the English army crossed the Spey and entered Inverness, where they planted a garrison; so that before the end of the year, the whole of the Lowlands and a part of the Highlands had submitted to the arms of the republic.[452] To complete the destruction of the independence of Scotland, a destruction accomplished less by the power of her enemy than by the perversity of her sons, and to reduce it to a province of England, the English army was augmented to 20,000 men, and citadels erected in several towns, and a long chain of military stations drawn across the country to curb the inhabitants. All the crown lands were declared public property by the English parliament, and the estates of all persons who had joined in the English invasions, under the king and the Duke of Hamilton, were confiscated by the same authority. A proclamation was issued, abolishing all authority not derived from the English parliament: all persons holding public appointments, whose fidelity to the new order of things was suspected, were dismissed, and their places supplied by others of more subservient principles; the supreme courts of justice were abolished, and English judges appointed to discharge the judicial functions, aided by a few natives.[453]

As several bodies of Highlanders still remained under arms in the interior of the Highlands, Monk directed three distinct parties to cross the mountains, simultaneously, in the summer of 1652. While Colonel Lilburn advanced from Inverness towards Lochaber on one side, General Dean led his troops from Perth in the same direction on the other, and Colonel Overton landed in Kintyre with a force from Ayr. But they were all obliged speedily to retrace their steps, amid the jeers and laughter of the Highlanders.[454]

The administration of the affairs of Scotland was committed to Monk, than whom a more prudent person, and one better calculated to disarm the indignant feelings of the Scots at their national degradation, could not have been selected. But as it was evident that order could not be restored, or obedience enforced, as long as the clergy were allowed to continue their impertinent meddling in state affairs, he prohibited the meetings of the General Assembly, and, in one instance, dispersed that body by a military force. In doing so, it was afterwards admitted by some of the clergy themselves, that he had acted wisely, as the shutting up of the assembly tended greatly to allay those fierce contentions between the protesters and resolutioners, which, for several years, distracted the nation, and made them attend more to the spiritual concerns of their flocks.[455] The spirit of dissension was not,[292] however, confined to the clergy, but extended its withering influence to many of the laity, who, to gratify their revenge, accused one another of the most atrocious crimes before the newly constituted tribunal. The English judges were called to decide upon numerous acts alleged to have been committed twenty or thirty years before, of which no proofs were offered, but extorted confessions in the kirk, and no less than sixty persons were brought before them accused of witchcraft, who had been tortured into an admission of its practices. All these cases were dismissed, and the new judges administered the laws throughout with an equity and moderation which was almost unknown before in Scotland, and which formed a singular contrast with the disregard of justice, and the extreme violence which had of late disgraced the Scottish tribunals.

William, Ninth Earl of Glencairn.

With a short interruption, occasioned by an insurrection, under the Earl of Glencairn, in the Highlands, Scotland now enjoyed tranquillity till the restoration of Charles II., and comparative prosperity and happiness, a compensation in some degree for the loss of her liberties. The interruption alluded to took place in the year 1653, on the departure of Monk from Scotland to take the command of the English fleet.

In the month of August, 1653, a meeting was held at Lochearn, which was attended by Glencairn, the Earl of Athole, Lord Lorn, eldest son of the Marquis of Argyle, Glengarry, Lochiel, Graham of Duchray, Donald Macgregor tutor of Macgregor, Farquharson of Inverey, Robertson of Strowan, Macnaughton of Macnaughton, and Colonel Blackadder of Tullyallan. At this meeting, which continued several days, it was ultimately agreed that the persons present should assemble their vassals and dependents with as little delay as possible, and place themselves under the command of Glencairn, who was to wait in the neighbourhood of Lochearn till the different parties should collect and bring together their respective forces. Six weeks were, however, allowed to expire before any assemblage took place, during all which time Glencairn roamed through the neighbouring mountains, attended only by one companion and three servants. The first who made his appearance was Graham of Duchray, at the head of 40 men. He was followed, in two or three days, by the tutor of Macgregor, and 80 of that clan. With this force he went to Duchray house, in Stirlingshire, near Loch Ard, where he was joined by Lord Kenmure, and about 40 horsemen, and by Colonel Blackadder, with 30 more from Fife. The Laird of Macnaughton also arrived with 12 horse, and a party of between 60 and 80 lowlanders, under the command of Captain Hamilton, brother to the laird of Milntown. The earl’s force thus amounted to nearly 300 men.

On hearing of the assemblage of this body, Colonel Kidd, the governor of Stirling castle, at the head of the greater part of a regiment of foot, and a troop of horse, marched towards Aberfoyle, which was within three miles of Glencairn’s camp; but having received notice of his approach, the earl took care to secure the adjoining pass. He posted his foot to the best advantage on both sides, and he drew up the horse under Lord Kenmure in the centre.[293] Although Kidd must have perceived the great risk he would run in attempting to carry the pass, he nevertheless made the attempt, but his advance was driven back at the first charge by the lowlanders and Duchray’s men, with whom they first came in contact, with the loss of about 60 men. The whole of Kidd’s party, thereupon, turned their backs and fled. They were hotly pursued by Glencairn’s horse and foot, who killed about 80 of them.

The news of Kidd’s defeat, trifling as it was, raised the hopes of the royalists, and small parties of Highlanders flocked daily to Glencairn’s standard. Leaving Aberfoyle, he marched to Lochearn, and thence to Loch Rannoch, where he was met by several of the clans. Glengarry brought 300, Lochiel 400, and Macgregor about 200 men. The Earl of Athole appeared at the head of 100 horse, and brought also a regiment of foot, consisting of about 1,200 men, commanded by Andrew Drummond, brother to Sir James Drummond of Mechaney, as his lieutenant-colonel. Sir Arthur Forbes and some officers, with about 80 horsemen, also joined the royal army.

Having despatched some officers to the lowlands, with instructions to raise forces, Glencairn marched north to join Farquharson of Inverey, who was raising a regiment in Cromar. In the course of his march, several gentlemen of the adjoining country joined him. Morgan, the English general, who was lying at the time in Aberdeen, being apprised of Farquharson’s movements, collected a force of 2,000 foot and 1,000 horse, with which he advanced, by forced marches, towards Cromar, and a brisk attack upon the outposts of Glencairn’s army was the first intelligence they received of Morgan’s approach. In the situation in which Glencairn thus found himself unexpectedly placed, he had no remedy but an immediate retreat through a long and narrow glen leading to the forest of Abernethy, which he was enabled to reach chiefly by the bravery of Graham of Duchray, who, at the head of a resolute party of 40 men, kept in check a body of the enemy who had entered the glen before the royalists, and prevented them from securing the passes. Morgan pursued the fugitives through the glen very closely, and did not desist till prevented by the darkness of the night. He thereafter returned to Aberdeen.

Glencairn passed about five weeks in Cromar and Badenoch, waiting for additional reinforcements; and as Lord Lorn had not yet joined him, he despatched Lord Kenmure with 100 horse into Argyleshire to urge him to hurry forward the levies in that quarter. Lorn soon arrived in Badenoch with 1,000 foot and about 50 horse; but he had not remained above a fortnight in the field when, on some pretence or other, he (January 1st, 1654) clandestinely left the army, and carried off his men along with him, taking the direction of Ruthven castle, which was then garrisoned by English troops. Glencairn was greatly exasperated at Lorn’s defection, and sent a party of horse, under the command of Glengarry and Lochiel, with instructions either to bring him and his men back to the army, or, in case of refusal, to attack them. Glengarry followed the Campbells so hard that he came up with them within half a mile of the castle. Lord Lorn escaped, and was followed by his horse, of whom about 20 were brought back by a party sent in pursuit by Glengarry; the foot halted on a hill, and offered to return to the camp. Glengarry, who had had a great antipathy to the whole race of the Campbells ever since Montrose’s wars, would, contrary to his instructions, have attacked them; but Glencairn fortunately arrived in time to prevent bloodshed, and having ordered Graham of Duchray to acquaint them that he could not receive any proposals from them with arms in their hands, they delivered them up. Glencairn, along with some officers, then rode up to them, and having addressed them on the impropriety of their conduct, they all declared their willingness to serve the king and to obey him as their commander, a declaration which both officers and men confirmed with an oath. Their arms were then restored to them, but they all deserted within a fortnight.[456]

About this time Glencairn was joined by a small party of English royalists, under Colonel Wogan, an enterprising officer, who had landed at Dover, and having raised a body of volunteers[294] in London, traversed England under the banners of the commonwealth, and entered Scotland by Carlisle.

Notwithstanding the desertion of the Campbells, Glencairn’s army was so increased by daily accessions of force that he considered himself in a condition to cope with the enemy, and, by the advice of his officers, resolved to descend into Aberdeenshire, and beat up the quarters of the English. Another reason which urged him to leave the Highlands was a scarcity of provisions in the districts which had been occupied by his army, and which could no longer afford to support such a large body of men. Descending by Balveny, he took up his quarters at Whitelums, near the castle of Kildrummie, belonging to the Earl of Mar, then garrisoned by the English. After lying about a fortnight at Whitelums unmolested, Glencairn raised his camp, and marching into Morayshire, took possession of Elgin, where he established his head quarters. Here he was joined by the Marquis of Montrose, Lord Forrester, and some country gentlemen.

After spending a month at Elgin, where, according to Graham of Duchray’s narrative, the army had “very good quarters, and where they made themselves merry,” the earl received letters from General Middleton, who had some time before made his escape from the tower of London, where he had been imprisoned after the battle of Worcester, announcing his arrival in Sutherland, with a commission from the king, appointing him generalissimo of all the royal forces in Scotland. Some dissensions had existed among the royalists respecting the chief command of the army, which had been finally conceded to Glencairn; but neither he nor the nobility who were with him, were prepared to expect that the king would have appointed, to such an important charge, a man so much their inferior in station as Middleton. The intelligence was accordingly received with discontent; but, as the king’s commission could not, without serious injury to the royal cause, be disputed, in the present juncture they stifled their displeasure, and Glencairn, in terms of the instructions he had received from Middleton to march north, put his army in motion. Morgan, the English commander, having drawn together a body of troops, followed Glencairn, between whose rear and Morgan’s advanced guard many warm skirmishes took place.

Glencairn and his men crossed the river Ness, eight miles above Inverness. The earl having placed guards along the northern bank of the river to watch the approach of the enemy, hastened to Dornoch to meet Middleton. In a few days a grand muster of the army took place, when it was found to amount to 3,500 foot, and 1,500 horse. Glencairn then resigned the command to Middleton, in presence of the army, and, riding along the lines, acquainted the troops that he was no longer their general, and expressed a hope that they would find themselves happy in serving under such a commander as Middleton. The troops expressed great dissatisfaction at this announcement by their looks, and some, “both officers and soldiers, shed tears, and vowed that they would serve with their old general in any corner of the world.”[457]

After the review, the earl gave a sumptuous entertainment to Middleton and the principal officers of the army, at which an occurrence took place which soured the temper of the officers, and sowed the seeds of new divisions in the camp. On the cloth being removed, Glencairn proposed the health of the commander-in-chief, whom he thus addressed:—“My lord general, you see what a gallant army these worthy gentlemen here present and I have gathered together, at a time when it could hardly be expected that any number durst meet together: these men have come out to serve his majesty, at the hazard of their lives and all that is dear to them: I hope, therefore, you will give them all the encouragement to do their duty that lies in your power.” Scarcely had these words been uttered when Sir George Munro, who had come over with Middleton from France to act as his lieutenant-general, started up from his seat, and addressing himself to the earl, swore by G— that the men he had that day seen were nothing but a number of thieves and robbers, and that ere long he would bring a very different set of men into the field. These imprudent observations called up Glengarry, but he was restrained by Glencairn, who said that[295] he was more concerned in the affront put upon the army by Munro than he was, and, turning to Munro, he thus addressed him:—“You, Sir, are a base liar; for they are neither thieves nor robbers, but brave gentlemen and good soldiers.” A meeting took place in consequence early next morning between Glencairn and Munro, about two miles to the south of Dornoch, when the latter was severely wounded. The parties then returned to head-quarters, when Glencairn was put under arrest in his chamber, by orders of Middleton, and his sword taken from him.

The partiality thus shown to Munro, who was the aggressor, and who had sent the challenge to Glencairn, was exceedingly mortifying to the earl, which being followed by another affair which soon took place, and in which the same partiality was displayed, made him resolve to retire from the army. The occurrence was this:—A dispute having taken place on the merits of the recent quarrel between a Captain Livingston, a friend of Munro, and a gentleman of the name of Lindsay, who had accompanied Lord Napier from the continent, in which Livingston maintained that Munro had acted properly, and the contrary insisted upon by Lindsay; mutual challenges were given, and the parties met on the links of Dornoch to decide the dispute by the sword. Lindsay, being a superior swordsman, run Livingston through the heart at the first thrust, and he expired immediately. Lindsay was immediately apprehended, and although Glencairn, backed by other officers, used every exertion to save him, he was brought to trial before a court-martial, by order of Middleton, and condemned to be shot at the cross of Dornoch, a sentence which was carried into execution the same day.

These unfortunate disputes divided the officers of the army into two parties, and afforded but a sorry prognostic of the prospects of the royalists. Glencairn, no longer able to curb his displeasure, slipped off about a fortnight after Lindsay’s death, with his own troop of horse, and a few gentlemen volunteers—100 horse in all—and took the direction of Assynt. The laird of Assynt, who had betrayed Montrose, on the arrival of Glencairn’s party on his lands, offered to assist him to secure the passes, so as to prevent him from being overtaken that night, of which offer Glencairn, though distrustful of Macleod, agreed to accept. Middleton indeed sent a party in pursuit, but they did not come up with Glencairn, who reached Kintail the following day, where he was well received by the Earl of Seaforth’s people. He remained there a few days, and afterwards traversed the Highlands till he arrived at Killin, at the head of Loch Tay, where he was successively joined by Sir George Maxwell, the Earl of Selkirk, and Lord Forrester, each of whom brought a small party of horse along with him, by which additions his force was increased to 400 horsemen. The earl now appears, for the first time, to have seen the impropriety of his conduct in withdrawing from the army; but as he could not endure the idea of returning himself, he endeavoured to make some reparation by sending this body north to join Middleton, and sought a retreat with the laird of Luss at his castle of Rosedoe, when he despatched some officers to raise men in the lowlands for the king’s service.

In the meantime Monk had returned to Scotland, and had brought along with him a strong reinforcement of troops from England, with which he joined Morgan in the north, and marched directly into the Highlands in search of Middleton. It was the intention of the latter to have remained for some time in the Highlands, to have collected all the forces he possibly could, to make occasional descents upon the lowlands, and by marches and countermarches to have distracted the enemy; but the advance of Monk into the very bosom of the Highlands, with a large army, frustrated his design. Middleton soon found himself sorely pressed by his able adversary, who brought forward his army in separate divisions, yet not so isolated as not to be able to support each other in case of attack. In an attempt to elude his pursuers, Middleton was surprised in a defile near Lochgarry, by one of these divisions under the command of Morgan. His men were either slain or dispersed, and he himself escaped with difficulty. The chiefs of the insurrection immediately made their peace with Monk, who treated them with great lenity.[458]

[296]

There was one chief, however, whom Monk could neither bribe, cajole, nor threaten into submission; this was the brave and intractable Sir Ewen or Evan Cameron of Lochiel in the north-west of Argyleshire, now about 25 years of age. Having been left an orphan, he was brought up till his 18th year under the care of the Marquis of Argyle, who, endeavouring to instil into him the unsavoury principles of the Covenanters, put him to school at Inverary under the guardianship of a gentleman of his own principles. “But young Lochiel preferred the sports of the field to the labours of the school,” and Argyle finding him totally intractable and utterly disgusted with covenanting principles, allowed him to return to Lochaber, to head his clan in the 18th year of his age. In 1651, Charles II. having written to Lochiel inviting him and his clan to take arms and come to the aid of his country and his sovereign, he, early in spring 1652, was the first to join Glencairn’s expedition.

Monk left no method untried to induce Lochiel to submit, but, in spite of his friends’ entreaties, he refused to lay down his arms. Monk, finding all his attempts useless, resolved to plant a garrison at Inverlochy, (now Fort William,) in order to keep the country in awe and the chief at home. Lochiel resolved that Monk should find it no easy matter to accomplish his task, and took up his station at Achdalew, 3 miles west of Inverlochy, on the north side of Loch Eil. He kept spies in and around the garrison, who informed him of all that was going on. Lochiel, having been informed that the governor was about to despatch 300 of his men, in two vessels, westward, to cut down wood and carry off cattle, resolved that they “should pay well for every tree and every hide.” He had at the time only 38 men beside him, the rest having been sent off to secure their cattle and other goods. In spite of the disparity of numbers, he resolved to watch and attack the governor’s men at a favourable opportunity.

“The Camerons being some more than 30 in number, armed partly with musquets, and partly with bows, kept up their pieces and arrows till their very muzzles and points almost touched their enemies’ breasts, when the very first fire took down above 30. They then laid on with their swords, and laid about with incredible fury. The English defended themselves with their musquets and bayonets with great bravery, but to little purpose. The skirmish continued long and obstinate: at last the English gave way, and retreated towards the ship, with their faces to the enemy, fighting with astonishing resolution. But Lochiel, to prevent their flight, commanded two or three of his men to run before, and from behind a bush to make a noise, as if there was another party of Highlanders to intercept their retreat. This took so effectually, that they stopped, and animated by rage, madness, and despair, they renewed the skirmish with greater fury than ever, and wanted nothing but proper arms to make Lochiel repent of his stratagem. They were at last, however, forced to give way, and betake themselves to their heels; the Camerons pursued them chin deep in the sea; 138 were counted dead of the English, and of the Camerons only 5 were killed.

Sir Ewen Cameron of Lochiel.—From a rare print in the
collection of W. F. Watson, Esq., Edinburgh.

“In this engagement, Lochiel himself had several wonderful escapes. In the retreat of the English, one of the strongest and bravest of the officers retired behind a bush, when he observed Lochiel pursuing, and seeing him[297] unaccompanied with any, he leaped out, and thought him his prey. They met one another with equal fury. The combat was long, and doubtful. The English gentleman had by far the advantage in strength and size; but Lochiel exceeding him in nimbleness and agility, in the end tript the sword out of his hand: upon which, his antagonist flew upon him with amazing rapidity; they closed, and wrestled till both fell to the ground in each other’s arms. The English officer got above Lochiel, and pressed him hard; but stretching forth his neck by attempting to disengage himself, Lochiel, who by this time had his hands at liberty, with his left hand seized him by the collar, and jumping at his extended throat, he bit it with his teeth quite through, and kept such a hold of his grip, that he brought away his mouth full; this, he said, was the sweetest bite he ever had in his life time. Immediately afterwards, when continuing the pursuit after that encounter was over, he found his men chin deep in the sea; he quickly followed them, and observing a fellow on deck aiming his piece at him, plunged into the sea, and escaped, but so narrowly that the hair on the back part of his head was cut, and a little of the skin ruffled. In a little while a similar attempt was made to shoot him: his foster-brother threw himself before him, and received the shot in his mouth and breast, preferring his chief’s life to his own.”[459]

CAMERON OF LOCHIEL.

After Lochiel had joined General Middleton, he heard that the governor of Inverlochy, taking advantage of his absence, was cutting down the woods and collecting all the provisions he could lay hold of. Middleton allowed him to return to Lochaber, but with only 150 men. He soon found that the information was quite correct, and in order to obtain revenge, on the day after his arrival, he posted his men in different parts of a wood, about a mile from the garrison, to which the soldiers resorted every day, to cut down and bring in wood. Lochiel soon observed upwards of 400 approaching the wood, and at the most favourable moment gave his men the signal of attack. A terrible slaughter ensued among the governor’s men; 100 fell on the spot, and the pursuit was carried on to the very walls of the garrison. The officers were the only persons who resisted, and not one of them escaped.

Lochiel, in this manner, continued for a long time to harass the garrison, frequently cutting off small detachments, partly by stratagem and partly by force, until the garrison became so wary that they ultimately gave him few opportunities of pouncing upon them. Even after Middleton and the other chiefs had capitulated and come to terms, Lochiel refused to give in. At last, however, after long cajoling, the obstinate chief was induced to come to terms, the Marquis of Argyle becoming his surety. He was asked simply to give his word of honour to live in peace, on which condition, he and his clan were allowed to keep their arms as before the war broke out. Reparation was to be made to Lochiel and his tenants, for whatever losses they had sustained from the garrison, and an indemnity was granted for all past offences. In fact, the treaty was a very liberal bribe to Lochiel to be quiet. All that was demanded of Lochiel was, that he and his clan should lay down their arms in the name of Charles II., before the governor of Inverlochy, and take them up in the name of the Commonwealth, no mention being made of the Protector; promising at the same time to do his best to make his clan behave themselves.[460]

It would be out of place in a History of the Highlands to enter into a detailed account of the general history of Scotland during the Commonwealth, and of the various intrigues for the restoration of Charles II. There appears to have been no events of any importance during this period in the Highlands, which at that time were so remote and inaccessible as to be almost beyond the influence of the many wise measures introduced by Cromwell for the government of Scotland, as well as the by no means beneficial strictness of the presbyterian clergy. Baillie[461] thus sadly describes the state of some of the noble families of Scotland about this time: “The country lies very quiet; it is exceeding poor; trade is[298] nought; the English has all the moneys. Our noble families are almost gone: Lennox has little in Scotland unsold; Hamilton’s estate, except Arran and the Baronrie of Hamilton, is sold; Argyle can pay little annual rent for seven or eight hundred thousand merks; and he is no more drowned in debt than public hatred, almost of all, both Scottish and English; the Gordons are gone; the Douglasses little better; Eglintoun and Glencairn on the brink of breaking; many of our chief families estates are cracking; nor is there any appearance of any human relief for the time. What is become of the king and his family we do not know.” Nicoll[462] writes in the same strain: “The condition of this nation of Scotland yet remains sad, by reason of poverty and heavy burdens.” “At the same time,” says Dr. Chambers,[463] “that so great poverty prevailed, there was such a protection to life and property as had never before been known. It was not we believe without cause, that the famous Colonel Desborough, in a speech in the House of Commons (March 17th, 1659), made it a boast for his party, that a man may ride over all Scotland, with a switch in his hand and a hundred pounds in his pocket, which he could not have done these five hundred years.” In some of the letters sent home by the English soldiery, we get a slight glimpse into the condition of the Highlands at this time, which shows that the people generally had made but little advance in civilization. Their houses, we are told, were built of earth and turf, and were so low that the horsemen sometimes rode over them; the people generally, both men and women, wore plaids about their middles; they were “simple and ignorant in the things of God,” and some of them as brutish as heathens; nevertheless “some did hear the English preachers with great attention and groaning.”[464]