Chapter I…

Chapter I

Clanship--Principle of kin--Mormaordoms--Traditions as to origin of Clans--Distinction between Feudalism and Clanship--Peculiarities of Clanship--Consequences of Clanship--Manrent--Customs of Succession--Tanistry and Gavel--Highland Marriage Customs--Hand-fasting--Highland gradation of ranks--Calpe--Native-men--Righ or King--Mormaor, Tighern, Thane--Tanist--Ceantighes--Toshach--“Captain” of a Clan--Ogtiern--Duine-wassels, Tacksmen, or Goodmen--Brehon--Position and power of Chief--Influence of Clanship on the people--Chiefs sometimes abandoned by the people--Number and Distribution of Clans.

The term clan, now applied almost exclusively to the tribes into which the Scottish Highlanders were formerly, and still to some extent are divided, was also applied to those large and powerful septs into which the Irish people were at one time divided, as well as to the communities of freebooters that inhabited the Scottish borders, each of which, like the Highland clans, had a common surname. Indeed, in an Act of the Scottish Parliament for 1587, the Highlanders and Borderers are classed together as being alike “dependents on chieftains or captains of clans.” The border clans, however, were at a comparatively early period broken up and weaned from their predatory and warlike habits, whereas the system of clanship in the Highlands continued to flourish in almost full vigour down to the middle of last century. As there is so much of romance surrounding the system, especially in its later manifestations, and as it was the cause of much annoyance to Britain, it has become a subject of interest to antiquarians and students of mankind generally; and as it flourished so far into the historical period, curiosity can, to a great extent, be gratified as to its details and working.

A good deal has been written on the subject in its various aspects, and among other authorities we must own our indebtedness for much of our information to Skene’s Highlanders of Scotland, Gregory’s Highlands and Isles, Robertson’s Scotland under her Early Kings, Stewart’s Sketches of the Highlanders, Logan’s Scottish Gael and Clans, and The Iona Club Transactions, besides the publications of the various other Scottish Clubs.

We learn from Tacitus and other historians, that at a very early period the inhabitants of Caledonia were divided into a number of tribes, each with a chief at its head. These tribes, from all we can learn, were independent of, and often at war with each other, and only united under a common elected leader when the necessity of resisting a common foe compelled them. In this the Caledonians only followed a custom which is common to all barbarous and semi-barbarous peoples; but what was the bond of union among the members of the various tribes it is now not easy to ascertain. We learn from the researches of Mr E. W. Robertson that the feeling of kindred was very strong among all the early Celtic and even Teutonic nations, and that it was on the principle of kin that land was allotted to the members of the various tribes. The property of the land appears to have been vested in the Cean-cinneth, or head of the lineage for the good of his clan; it was “burdened with the support of his kindred and Amasach” (military followers), these being allotted parcels of land in proportion to the nearness of their relation to the chief of the clan.[114] The word clan itself, from its etymology,[115] points to the principle of kin, as the bond which united the members of the tribes among themselves, and bound them to their chiefs. As there are good grounds for believing that the original Caledonians, the progenitors of the present genuine Highlanders, belonged to the Celtic family of mankind, it is highly probable that when they first entered upon possession of Alban, whether peaceably or by conquest, they divided the land among their various tribes in accordance with their Celtic principle. The word clan, as we have said, signifies family, and a clan was a certain number of families of the same name, sprung, as was believed, from the same root, and governed by the lineal descendant of the parent family. This patriarchal form of society was probably common in the infancy of mankind, and seems to have prevailed in the days of Abraham; indeed, it was on a similar principle that Palestine was divided among the twelve tribes of Israel, the descendants of the twelve sons of Jacob.

As far back as we can trace, the Highlands appear to have been divided into a number of districts, latterly known as Mormaordoms, each under the jurisdiction of a Mormaor, to whom the several tribes in each district looked up as their common head. It is not improbable that Galgacus, the chosen leader mentioned by Tacitus, may have held a position similar to this, and that in course of time some powerful or popular chief, at first elected as a temporary leader, may have contrived to make his office permanent, and even to some extent hereditary. The title Mormaor, however, is first met with only after the various divisions of northern Scotland had been united into a kingdom. “In Scotland the royal official placed over the crown or fiscal lands, appears to have been originally known as the Maor, and latterly under the Teutonic appellation of Thane.... The original Thanage would appear to have been a district held of the Crown, the holder, Maor or Thane, being accountable for the collection of the royal dues, and for the appearance of the royal tenantry at the yearly ‘hosting,’ and answering to the hereditary Toshach, or captain of a clan, for the king stood in the place of the Cean-cinneth, or chief.... When lands were strictly retained in the Crown, the Royal Thane, or Maor, was answerable directly to the King; but there was a still greater official among the Scots, known under the title of Mormaor, or Lord High Steward ... who was evidently a Maor placed over a province instead of a thanage--an earldom or county instead of a barony--a type of Harfager’s royal Jarl, who often exercised as a royal deputy that authority which he had originally claimed as the independent lord of the district over which he presided.”[116] According to Mr Skene,[117] it was only about the 16th century when the great power of these Mormaors was broken up, and their provinces converted into thanages or earldoms, many of which were held by Saxon nobles, who possessed them by marriage, that the clans first make their appearance in these districts and in independence. By this, we suppose, he does not mean that it was only when the above change took place that the system of clanship sprang into existence, but that then the various great divisions of the clans, losing their cean-cinneth, or head of the kin, the individual clans becoming independent, sprang into greater prominence and assumed a stronger individuality.

Among the Highlanders themselves various traditions have existed as to the origin of the clans. Mr Skene mentions the three principal ones, and proves them to be entirely fanciful. The first of these is the Scottish or Irish system, by which the clans trace their origin or foundation to early Irish or Scoto-Irish kings. The second is what Mr Skene terms the heroic system, by which many of the Highland clans are deduced from the great heroes in the fabulous histories of Scotland and Ireland, by identifying one of these fabulous heroes with an ancestor of the clan of the same name. The third system did not spring up till the 17th century, “when the fabulous history of Scotland first began to be doubted, when it was considered to be a principal merit in an antiquarian to display his scepticism as to all the old traditions of the country.”[118] Mr Skene terms it the Norwegian or Danish system, and it was the result of a furor for imputing everything and deriving everybody from the Danes. The idea, however, never obtained any great credit in the Highlands. The conclusion to which Mr Skene comes is, “that the Highland clans are not of different or foreign origin, but that they were a part of the original nation, who have inhabited the mountains of Scotland as far back as the memory of man, or the records of history can reach; that they were divided into several great tribes possessing their hereditary chiefs; and that it was only when the line of these chiefs became extinct, and Saxon nobles came into their place, that the Highland clans appeared in the peculiar situation and character in which they were afterwards found.” Mr Skene thinks this conclusion strongly corroborated by the fact that there can be traced existing in the Highlands, even so late as the 16th century, a still older tradition than that of the Irish origin of the clans. This tradition is found in the often referred to letter of “John Elder, clerk, a Reddschanke,” dated 1542, and addressed to King Henry VIII. This tradition, held by the Highlanders of the “more auncient stoke” in opposition to the “Papistical curside spiritualite of Scotland,” was that they were the true descendants of the ancient Picts, then known as “Redd Schankes.”

Whatever may be the value of Mr Skene’s conclusions as to the purity of descent of the present Highlanders, his researches, taken in conjunction with those of Mr E. W. Robertson, seem pretty clearly to prove, that from as far back as history goes the Highlanders were divided into tribes on the principle of kin, that the germ of the fully developed clan-system can be found among the earliest Celtic inhabitants of Scotland; that clanship, in short, is only a modern example, systematised, developed, and modified by time of the ancient principle on which the Celtic people formed their tribes and divided their lands. The clans were the fragments of the old Celtic tribes, whose mormaors had been destroyed, each tribe dividing into a number of clans. When, according to a recent writer, the old Celtic tribe was deprived of its chief, the bolder spirits among the minor chieftains would gather round them each a body of partisans, who would assume his name and obey his orders. It might even happen that, from certain favourable circumstances, a Saxon or a Norman stranger would thus be able to gain a circle of adherents out of a broken or chieftainless Celtic tribe, and so become the founder of a clan.

As might be expected, this primitive, patriarchal state of society would be liable to be abolished as the royal authority became extended and established, and the feudal system substituted in its stead. This we find was the case, for under David and his successors, during the 12th and 13th centuries, the old and almost independent mormaordoms were gradually abolished, and in their stead were substituted earldoms feudally dependent upon the Crown. In many instances these mormaordoms passed into the hands of lowland barons, favourites of the king; and thus the dependent tribes, losing their hereditary heads, separated, as we have said, into a number of small and independent clans, although even the new foreign barons themselves for a long time exercised an almost independent sway, and used the power which they had acquired by royal favour against the king himself.

As far as the tenure of lands and the heritable jurisdictions were concerned, the feudal system was easily introduced into the Highlands; but although the principal chiefs readily agreed, or were induced by circumstances to hold their lands of the Crown or of low-country barons, yet the system of clanship remained in full force amongst the native Highlanders until a very recent period, and its spirit still to a certain extent survives in the affections, the prejudices, the opinions, and the habits of the people.[119]

The nature of the Highlands of Scotland was peculiarly favourable to the clan system, and no doubt helped to a considerable extent to perpetuate it. The division of the country into so many straths, and valleys, and islands, separated from one another by mountains or arms of the sea, necessarily gave rise to various distinct societies. Their secluded situation necessarily rendered general intercourse difficult, whilst the impenetrable ramparts with which they were surrounded made defence easy. The whole race was thus broken into many individual masses, possessing a community of customs and character, but placed under different jurisdictions; every district became a sort of petty independent state; and the government of each community or clan assumed the patriarchal form, being a species of hereditary monarchy, founded on custom, and allowed by general consent, rather than regulated by positive laws.

The system of clanship in the Highlands,[120] although possessing an apparent resemblance to feudalism, was in principle very different indeed from that system as it existed in other parts of the country. In the former case, the people followed their chief as the head of their race, and the representative of the common ancestor of the clan; in the latter, they obeyed their leader as feudal proprietor of the lands to which they were attached, and to whom they owed military service for their respective portions of these lands. The Highland chief was the hereditary lord of all who belonged to his clan, wherever they dwelt or whatever lands they occupied; the feudal baron was entitled to the military service of all who held lands under him, to whatever race they might individually belong. The one dignity was personal, the other was territorial; the rights of the chief were inherent, those of the baron were accessory; the one might lose or forfeit his possessions, but could not thereby be divested of his hereditary character and privileges; the other, when divested of his fee, ceased to have any title or claim to the service of those who occupied the lands. Yet these two systems, so different in principle, were in effect nearly identical. Both exhibited the spectacle of a subject possessed of unlimited power within his own territories, and exacting unqualified obedience from a numerous train of followers, to whom he stood in the several relations of landlord, military leader, and judge, with all the powers and prerogatives belonging to each of those characters. Both were equally calculated to aggrandise turbulent chiefs and nobles, at the expense of the royal authority, which they frequently defied, generally resisted, and but seldom obeyed; although for the most part, the chief was less disloyal than the baron, probably because he was farther removed from the seat of government, and less sensible of its interference with his own jurisdiction. The one system was adapted to a people in a pastoral state of society, and inhabiting a country, like the Highlands of Scotland, which from its peculiar nature and conformation, not only prevented the adoption of any other mode of life, but at the same time prescribed the division of the people into separate families or clans. The other system, being of a defensive character, was necessary to a population occupying a fertile but open country, possessing only a rude notion of agriculture, and exposed on all sides to aggressions on the part of neighbours or enemies. But the common tendency of both was to obstruct the administration of justice, nurse habits of lawless violence, exclude the cultivation of the arts of peace, and generally to impede the progress of improvement; and hence neither was compatible with the prosperity of a civilised nation, where the liberty of the subject required protection, and the security of property demanded an equal administration of justice.

The peculiarities of clanship are nowhere better described than in Burt’s Letters from an Officer of Engineers to his Friend in London.[121] “The Highlanders,” he says, “are divided into tribes or clans, under chiefs or chieftains, and each clan is again divided into branches from the main stock, who have chieftains over them. These are subdivided into smaller branches of fifty or sixty men, who deduce their original from their particular chieftains, and rely upon them as their more immediate protectors and defenders. The ordinary Highlanders esteem it the most sublime degree of virtue to love their chief and pay him a blind obedience, although it be in opposition to the government. Next to this love of their chief is that of the particular branch whence they sprang; and, in a third degree, to those of the whole clan or name, whom they will assist, right or wrong, against those of any other tribe with which they are at variance. They likewise owe good-will to such clans as they esteem to be their particular well-wishers. And, lastly, they have an adherence to one another as Highlanders in opposition to the people of the low country, whom they despise as inferior to them in courage, and believe they have a right to plunder them whenever it is in their power. This last arises from a tradition that the Lowlands, in old times, were the possessions of their ancestors.

“The chief exercises an arbitrary authority over his vassals, determines all differences and disputes that happen among them, and levies taxes upon extraordinary occasions, such as the marriage of a daughter, building a house, or some pretence for his support or the honour of his name; and if any one should refuse to contribute to the best of his ability, he is sure of severe treatment, and, if he persists in his obstinacy, he would be cast out of his tribe by general consent. This power of the chief is not supported by interest, as they are landlords, but by consanguinity, as lineally descended from the old patriarchs or fathers of the families, for they hold the same authority when they have lost their estates, as may appear from several instances, and particularly that of one (Lord Lovat) who commands his clan, though at the same time they maintain him, having nothing left of his own. On the other hand, the chief, even against the laws, is bound to protect his followers, as they are sometimes called, be they never so criminal. He is their leader in clan quarrels, must free the necessitous from their arrears of rent, and maintain such who by accidents are fallen to total decay. Some of the chiefs have not only personal dislikes and enmity to each other, but there are also hereditary feuds between clan and clan, which have been handed down from one generation to another for several ages. These quarrels descend to the meanest vassals, and thus sometimes an innocent person suffers for crimes committed by his tribe at a vast distance of time before his being began.”

This clear and concise description will serve to convey an idea of clanship as it existed in the Highlands, about the beginning of the eighteenth century, when the system was in full force and vigour. It presented a singular mixture of patriarchal and feudal government; and everything connected with the habits, manners, customs, and feelings of the people tended to maintain it unimpaired, amidst all the changes which were gradually taking place in other parts of the country, from the diffusion of knowledge, and the progress of improvement. There was, indeed, something almost oriental in the character of immutability which seemed to belong to this primitive institution, endeared as it was to the affections, and singularly adapted to the condition of the people amongst whom it prevailed. Under its influence all their habits had been formed; with it all their feelings and associations were indissolubly blended. When the kindred and the followers of a chief saw him surrounded by a body of adherents, numerous, faithful, and brave, devoted to his interests, and ready at all times to sacrifice their lives in his service, they could conceive no power superior to his; and, when they looked back into the past history of their tribe, they found that his progenitors had, from time immemorial, been at their head. Their tales, their traditions, their songs, constantly referred to the exploits or the transactions of the same tribe or fraternity living under the same line of chiefs; and the transmission of command and obedience, of protection and attachment, from one generation to another, became in consequence as natural, in the eye of a Highlander, as the transmission of blood or the regular laws of descent. This order of things appeared to him as fixed and as inviolable as the constitution of nature or the revolutions of the seasons. Hence nothing could shake his fidelity to his chief, or induce him to compromise what he believed to be for the honour and interest of his clan. He was not without his feelings of independence, and he would not have brooked oppression where he looked for kindness and protection. But the long unbroken line of chiefs is of itself a strong presumptive proof of the general mildness of their sway. The individuals might change, but the ties which bound one generation were drawn more closely, although by insensible degrees, around the succeeding one; and thus each family, in all its various successions, retained something like the same sort of relation to the parent stem, which the renewed leaves of a tree in spring preserve, in point of form and position, to those which had dropped off in the preceding autumn.

Many important consequences, affecting the character of the Highlanders, resulted from this division of the people into small tribes, each governed in the patriarchal manner already described. The authority of the sovereign, if nominally recognised, was nearly altogether unfelt and inoperative. His mandates could neither arrest the mutual depredations of the clans, nor allay their hereditary hostilities. Delinquents could not be pursued into the bosom of the clan which protected them, nor could the judges administer the laws, in opposition to the will or the interests of the chiefs. Sometimes the sovereign attempted to strengthen his hands by fomenting divisions between the different clans, and entering occasionally into the interests of one, in the hope of weakening another; he threw his weight into one scale that the other might kick the beam, and he withdrew it again, that, by the violence of the reaction, both parties might be equally damaged and enfeebled. Many instances of this artful policy occur in Scottish history, which, for a long period, was little else than a record of internal disturbances. The general government, wanting the power to repress disorder, sought to destroy its elements by mutual collision; and the immediate consequence of its inefficiency was an almost perpetual system of aggression, warfare, depredation, and contention. Besides, the little principalities into which the Highlands were divided touched at so many points, yet they were so independent of one another; they approached so nearly in many respects, yet, in some others, were so completely separated; there were so many opportunities of encroachment on the one hand, and so little disposition to submit to it on the other; and the quarrel or dispute of one individual of the tribe so naturally involved the interest, the sympathies, and the hereditary feelings or animosities of the rest, that profound peace or perfect cordiality scarcely ever existed amongst them, and their ordinary condition was either a chronic or an active state of internal warfare. From opposing interests or wounded pride, deadly feuds frequently arose amongst the chiefs, and being warmly espoused by the clans, were often transmitted, with aggravated animosity, from one generation to another.

If it were profitable, it might be curious to trace the negotiations, treaties, and bonds of amity, or manrent as they were called, by which opposing clans strengthened themselves against the attacks and encroachments of their enemies or rivals, or to preserve what may be called the balance of power. Amongst the rudest communities of mankind may be discovered the elements of that science which has been applied to the government and diplomacy of the most civilised nations. By such bonds they came under an obligation to assist one another; and, in their treaties of mutual support and protection, smaller clans, unable to defend themselves, and those families or septs which had lost their chieftains, were also included. When such confederacies were formed, the smaller clans followed the fortunes, engaged in the quarrels, and fought under the chiefs, of the greater. Thus the MacRaes followed the Earl of Seaforth, the MacColls the Stewarts of Appin, and the MacGillivrays and MacBeans the Laird of Mackintosh; but, nevertheless, their ranks were separately marshalled, and were led by their own subordinate chieftains and lairds, who owned submission only when necessary for the success of combined operations. The union had for its object aggression or revenge, and extended no further than the occasion for which it had been formed; yet it served to prevent the smaller clans from being swallowed up by the greater, and at the same time nursed the turbulent and warlike spirit which formed the common distinction of all. From these and other causes, the Highlands were for ages as constant a theatre of petty conflicts as Europe has been of great and important struggles; in the former were enacted, in miniature, scenes bearing a striking and amusing analogy to those which took place upon a grand scale in the latter. The spirit of opposition and rivalry between the clans perpetuated a system of hostility; it encouraged the cultivation of the military at the expense of the social virtues, and it perverted their ideas both of law and morality. Revenge was accounted a duty, the destruction of a neighbour a meritorious exploit, and rapine an honourable employment. Wherever danger was to be encountered, or bravery displayed, there they conceived that distinction was to be obtained; the perverted sentiment of honour rendered their feuds more implacable, their inroads more savage and destructive; and superstition added its influence in exasperating animosities, by teaching that to revenge the death of a kinsman or friend was an act agreeable to his manes; thus engaging on the side of the most implacable hatred and the darkest vengeance, the most amiable and domestic of all human feelings, namely, reverence for the memory of the dead, and affection for the virtues of the living.

Another custom, which once prevailed, contributed to perpetuate this spirit of lawless revenge. “Every heir or young chieftain of a tribe,” says Martin, who had studied the character and manners of the Highlanders, and understood them well, “was obliged to give a specimen of his valour before he was owned and declared governor or leader of his people, who obeyed and followed him on all occasions. This chieftain was usually attended with a retinue of young men, who had not before given any proof of their valour, and were ambitious of such an opportunity to signalise themselves. It was usual for the chief to make a desperate incursion upon some neighbour or other that they were in feud with, and they were obliged to bring, by open force, the cattle they found in the land they attacked, or to die in the attempt. After the performance of this achievement, the young chieftain was ever after reputed valiant, and worthy of government, and such as were of his retinue acquired the like reputation. This custom being reciprocally used among them, was not reputed robbery; for the damage which one tribe sustained by the inauguration of the chieftain of another, was repaired when their chieftain came in his turn to make his specimen.”[122] But the practice seems to have died out about half a century before the time at which Martin’s work appeared, and its disuse removed one fertile source of feuds and disorders. Of the nature of the depredations in which the Highlanders commonly engaged, the sentiments with which they were regarded, the manner in which they were conducted, and the effects which they produced on the character, habits, and manners of the people, an ample and interesting account will be found in the first volume of General Stewart’s valuable work on the Highlands.

It has been commonly alleged, that ideas of succession were so loose in the Highlands, that brothers were often preferred to grandsons and even to sons. But this assertion proceeds on a most erroneous assumption, inasmuch as election was never in any degree admitted, and a system of hereditary succession prevailed, which, though different from that which has been instituted by the feudal law, allowed of no such deviations or anomalies as some have imagined. The Highland law of succession, as Mr Skene observes, requires to be considered in reference, first, to the chiefship and the superiority of the lands belonging to the clan; and secondly, in respect to the property or the land itself. The succession to the chiefship and its usual prerogatives was termed the law of tanistry; that to the property or the land itself, gavel. But when the feudal system was introduced, the law of tanistry became the law of succession to the property as well as the chiefship; whilst that of gavel was too directly opposed to feudal principles to be suffered to exist at all, even in a modified form. It appears, indeed, that the Highlanders adhered strictly to succession in the male line, and that the great peculiarity which distinguished their law of succession from that established by the feudal system, consisted in the circumstance that, according to it, brothers invariably succeeded before sons. In the feudal system property was alone considered, and the nearest relation to the last proprietor was naturally accounted the heir. But, in the Highland system, the governing principle of succession was not property, but the right of chiefship, derived from being the lineal descendant of the founder or patriarch of the tribe; it was the relation to the common ancestor, to whom the brother was considered as one degree nearer than the son, and through whom the right was derived, and not to the last chief, which regulated the succession. Thus, the brothers of the chief invariably succeeded before the sons, not by election, but as a matter of right, and according to a fixed rule which formed the law or principle of succession, instead of being, as some have supposed, a departure from it, occasioned by views of temporary expediency, by usurpation, or otherwise. In a word, the law of tanistry, however much opposed to the feudal notions of later times, flowed naturally from the patriarchal constitution of society in the Highlands, and was peculiarly adapted to the circumstances of a people such as we have described, whose warlike habits and love of military enterprise, or armed predatory expeditions, made it necessary to have at all times a chief competent to act as their leader or commander.

But if the law of tanistry was opposed to the principles of the feudal system, that of gavel or the succession to property amongst the Highlanders was still more adverse. By the feudal law the eldest son, when the succession opened, not only acquired the superiority over the rest of the family, but he also succeeded to the whole of the property, whilst the younger branches were obliged to push their fortune by following other pursuits. But in the Highlands the case was altogether different. By the law of gavel, the property of the clan was divided in certain proportions amongst all the male branches of the family, to the exclusion of females, who, by this extraordinary Salic anomaly, could no more succeed to the property than to the chiefship itself. The law of gavel in the Highlands, therefore, differed from the English custom of gavel-kind in being exclusively confined to the male branches of a family. In what proportions the property was divided, or whether these proportions varied according to circumstances, or the will of the chief, it is impossible to ascertain. But it would appear that the principal seat of the family, with the lands immediately surrounding it, always remained the property of the chief; and besides this, the latter retained a sort of superiority over the whole possessions of the clan, in virtue of which he received from each dependent branch a portion of the produce of the land as an acknowledgment of his chiefship, and also to enable him to support the dignity of his station by the exercise of a commensurate hospitality. Such was the law of gavel, which, though adverse to feudal principles, was adapted to the state of society amongst the Highlands, out of which indeed it originally sprang; because, where there were no other pursuits open to the younger branches of families except rearing flocks and herds during peace, and following the chief in war; and where it was the interest as well as the ambition of the latter to multiply the connexions of his family, and take every means to strengthen the power as well as to secure the obedience of his clan, the division of property, or the law of gavel, resulted as naturally from such an order of things, as that of hereditary succession to the patriarchal government and chiefship of the clan. Hence, the chief stood to the cadets of his family in a relation somewhat analogous to that in which the feudal sovereign stood to the barons who held their fiefs of the crown, and although there was no formal investiture, yet the tenure was in effect pretty nearly the same. In both cases the principle of the system was essentially military, though it apparently led to opposite results; and, in the Highlands, the law under consideration was so peculiarly adapted to the constitution of society, that it was only abandoned after a long struggle, and even at a comparatively recent period traces of its existence and operation may be observed amongst the people of that country.[123]

Similar misconceptions have prevailed regarding Highland marriage-customs. This was, perhaps, to be expected. In a country where a bastard son was often found in undisturbed possession of the chiefship or property of a clan, and where such bastard generally received the support of the clansmen against the claims of the feudal heir, it was natural to suppose that very loose notions of succession were entertained by the people; that legitimacy conferred no exclusive rights; and that the title founded on birth alone might be set aside in favour of one having no other claim than that of election. But this, although a plausible, would nevertheless be an erroneous supposition. The person here considered as a bastard, and described as such, was by no means viewed in the same light by the Highlanders, because, according to their law of marriage, which was originally very different from the feudal system in this matter, his claim to legitimacy was as undoubted as that of the feudal heir afterwards became. It is well known that the notions of the Highlanders were peculiarly strict in regard to matters of hereditary succession, and that no people on earth was less likely to sanction any flagrant deviation from what they believed to be the right and true line of descent. All their peculiar habits, feelings, and prejudices were in direct opposition to a practice, which, had it been really acted upon, must have introduced endless disorder and confusion; and hence the natural explanation of this apparent anomaly seems to be, what Mr Skene has stated, namely, that a person who was feudally a bastard might in their view be considered as legitimate, and therefore entitled to be supported in accordance with their strict ideas of hereditary right, and their habitual tenacity of whatever belonged to their ancient usages. Nor is this mere conjecture or hypothesis. A singular custom regarding marriage, retained till a late period amongst the Highlanders, and clearly indicating that their law of marriage originally differed in some essential points from that established under the feudal system, seems to afford a simple and natural explanation of the difficulty by which genealogists have been so much puzzled.

“This custom was termed hand-fasting, and consisted in a species of contract between two chiefs, by which it was agreed that the heir of one should live with the daughter of the other as her husband for twelve months and a day. If in that time the lady became a mother, or proved to be with child, the marriage became good in law, even although no priest had performed the marriage ceremony in due form; but should there not have occurred any appearance of issue, the contract was considered at an end, and each party was at liberty to marry or hand-fast with any other. It is manifest that the practice of so peculiar a species of marriage must have been in terms of the original law among the Highlanders, otherwise it would be difficult to conceive how such a custom could have originated; and it is in fact one which seems naturally to have arisen from the form of their society, which rendered it a matter of such vital importance to secure the lineal succession of their chiefs. It is perhaps not improbable that it was this peculiar custom which gave rise to the report handed down by the Roman and other historians, that the ancient inhabitants of Great Britain had their wives in common, or that it was the foundation of that law of Scotland by which natural children became legitimized by subsequent marriage; and as this custom remained in the Highlands until a very late period, the sanction of the ancient custom was sufficient to induce them to persist in regarding the offspring of such marriages as legitimate.”[124]

It appears, indeed, that, as late as the sixteenth century, the issue of a hand-fast marriage claimed the earldom of Sutherland. The claimant, according to Sir Robert Gordon, described himself as one lawfully descended from his father, John, the third earl, because, as he alleged, “his mother was hand-fasted and fianced to his father;” and his claim was bought off (which shows that it was not considered as altogether incapable of being maintained) by Sir Adam Gordon, who had married the heiress of Earl John. Such, then, was the nature of the peculiar and temporary connexion, which gave rise to the apparent anomalies which we have been considering. It was a custom which had for its object, not to interrupt, but to preserve the lineal succession of the chiefs, and to obviate the very evil of which it is conceived to afford a glaring example. But after the introduction of the feudal law, which, in this respect, was directly opposed to the ancient Highland law, the lineal and legitimate heir, according to Highland principles, came to be regarded as a bastard by the government, which accordingly considered him as thereby incapacitated for succeeding to the honours and property of his race; and hence originated many of those disputes concerning succession and chiefship, which embroiled families with one another as well as with the government, and were productive of incredible disorder, mischief, and bloodshed. No allowance was made for the ancient usages of the people, which were probably but ill understood; and the rights of rival claimants were decided according to the principles of a foreign system of law, which was long resisted, and never admitted except from necessity. It is to be observed, however, that the Highlanders themselves drew a broad distinction between bastard sons and the issue of the hand-fast unions above described. The former were rigorously excluded from every sort of succession, but the latter were considered as legitimate as the offspring of the most regularly solemnized marriage.

Having said thus much respecting the laws of succession and marriage, we proceed next to consider the gradation of ranks which appears to have existed amongst the Highlanders, whether in relation to the lands of which they were proprietors, or the clans of which they were members. And here it may be observed, that the classification of society in the Highlands seems to have borne a close resemblance to that which prevailed in Wales and in Ireland amongst cognate branches of the same general race. In the former country there were three different tenures of land, and nine degrees of rank. Of these tenures, the first was termed Maerdir, signifying a person who has jurisdiction, and included three ranks; the second was called Uchilordir, or property, and likewise consisted of three ranks; and the third, denominated Priodordir, or native, included that portion of the population whom we would now call tenants, divided into the degrees of yeomen, labourers, and serfs. A similar order of things appears to have prevailed in Ireland, where, in the classification of the people, we recognise the several degrees of Fuidir, Biadhtach, and Mogh. In the Highlands, the first tenure included the three degrees of Ard Righ, Righ, and Mormaor; the Tighern or Thane, the Armin and the Squire, were analogous to the three Welsh degrees included in the Uchilordir; and a class of persons, termed native men, were evidently the same in circumstances and condition with the Priodordir of Wales. These native men were obviously the tenants or farmers on the property, who made a peculiar acknowledgment, termed calpe, to the chief or head of their clan. For this we have the authority of Martin, who informs us that one of the duties “payable by all the tenants to their chiefs, though they did not live upon his lands,” was called “calpich,” and that “there was a standing law for it,” denominated “calpich law.” The other duty paid by the tenants was that of herezeld, as it was termed, which, along with calpe, was exigible if the tenant happened to occupy more than the eighth part of a davoch of land. That such was the peculiar acknowledgment of chiefship incumbent on the native men, or, in other words, the clan tribute payable by them in acknowledgment of the power and in support of the dignity of the chief, appears from the bonds of amity or manrent, in which we find them obliging themselves to pay “calpis as native men ought and should do to their chief.”

But the native men of Highland properties must be carefully distinguished from the cumerlach, who, like the kaeth of the Welsh, were merely a species of serfs, or adscripti glebæ. The former could not be removed from the land at the will of their lord, but there was no restriction laid on their personal liberty; the latter might be removed at the pleasure of their lord, but their personal liberty was restrained, or rather abrogated. The native man was the tenant who cultivated the soil, and as such possessed a recognised estate in the land which he occupied. As long as he performed the requisite services he could not be removed, nor could a greater proportion of labour or produce be exacted from him than custom or usage had fixed. It appears, therefore, that these possessed their farms, or holdings, by a sort of hereditary right, which was not derived from their lord, and of which, springing as it did from immemorial usage, and the very constitution of clanship, it was not in his power to deprive them. The cumerlach were the cottars and actual labourers of the soil, who, possessing no legal rights either of station or property, were in reality absolute serfs. The changes of succession, however, occasionally produced important results, illustrative of the peculiarities above described. “When a Norman baron,” says Mr Skene, “obtained by succession, or otherwise, a Highland property, the Gaelic nativi remained in actual possession of the soil under him, but at the same time paid their calpes to the natural chief of their clan, and followed him in war. When a Highland chief, however, acquired by the operation of the feudal succession, an additional property which had not been previously in the possession of his clan, he found it possessed by the nativi of another race. If these nativi belonged to another clan which still existed in independence, and if they chose to remain on the property, they did so at the risk of being placed in a perilous situation, should a feud arise between the two clans. But if they belonged to no other independent clan, and the stranger chief had acquired the whole possessions of their race, the custom seems to have been for them to give a bond of manrent to their new lord, by which they bound themselves to follow him as their chief, and make him the customary acknowledgment of the calpe. They thus became a dependent sept upon a clan of a different race, while they were not considered as forming a part of that clan.”[125]

The gradation of ranks considered in reference to the clan or tribe may be briefly described. The highest dignitary was the righ or king, who in point of birth and station was originally on a footing of equality with the other chiefs, and only derived some additional dignity during his life from a sort of regal pre-eminence. “Among the ancient Celtæ the prince or king had nothing actually his own, but everything belonging to his followers was freely at his service;” of their own accord they gave their prince so many cattle, or a certain portion of grain. It seems probable that the Celtic chief held the public lands in trust for his people, and was on his succession invested with those possessions which he afterwards apportioned among his retainers. Those only, we are told by Cæsar, had lands, “magistrates and princes, and they give to their followers as they think proper, removing them at the year’s end.”[126] The Celtic nations, according to Dr Macpherson, limited the regal authority to very narrow bounds. The old monarchs of North Britain and Ireland were too weak either to control the pride and insolence of the great, or to restrain the licentiousness of the populace. Many of those princes, if we credit history, were dethroned, and some of them even put to death by their subjects, which is a demonstration that their power was not unlimited.

Next to the king was the Mormaor, who seems to have been identical with the Tighern[127] and the later Thane. As we have already indicated, the persons invested with this distinction were the patriarchal chiefs or heads of the great tribes into which the Highlanders were formerly divided. But when the line of the ancient mormaors gradually sank under the ascendant influence of the feudal system, the clans forming the great tribes became independent, and their leaders or chiefs were held to represent each the common ancestor or founder of his clan, and derived all their dignity and power from the belief in such representation. The chief possessed his office by right of blood alone, as that right was understood in the Highlands; neither election nor marriage could constitute any title to this distinction; it was, as we have already stated, purely hereditary, nor could it descend to any person except him who, according to the Highland rule of succession, was the nearest male heir to the dignity.

Next to the chief stood the tanist or person who, by the laws of tanistry, was entitled to succeed to the chiefship; he possessed this title during the lifetime of the chief, and, in virtue of his apparent honours, was considered as a man of mark and consequence. “In the settlement of succession, the law of tanistry prevailed in Ireland from the earliest accounts of time. According to that law,” says Sir James Ware, “the hereditary right of succession was not maintained among the princes or the rulers of countries; but the strongest, or he who had the most followers, very often the eldest and most worthy of the deceased king’s blood and name, succeeded him. This person, by the common suffrage of the people, and in the lifetime of his predecessor, was appointed to succeed, and was called Tanist, that is to say, the second in dignity. Whoever received this dignity maintained himself and followers, partly out of certain lands set apart for that purpose, but chiefly out of tributary impositions, which he exacted in an arbitrary manner; impositions from which the lands of the church only, and those of persons vested with particular immunities, were exempted. The same custom was a fundamental law in Scotland for many ages. Upon the death of a king, the throne was not generally filled by his son, or daughter, failing of male issue, but by his brother, uncle, cousin-german, or near relation of the same blood. The personal merit of the successor, the regard paid to the memory of his immediate ancestors, or his address in gaining a majority of the leading men, frequently advanced him to the crown, notwithstanding the precautions taken by his predecessor.”[128]

According to Mr E. W. Robertson,[129] the Tanist, or heir-apparent, appears to have been nominated at the same time as the monarch or chief, and in pursuance of what he considers a true Celtic principle, that of a “divided authority;” the office being immediately filled up in case of the premature death of the Tanist, the same rule being as applicable to the chieftain of the smallest territory as to the chosen leader of the nation. According to Dr Macpherson, it appears that at first the Tanist or successor to the monarchy, or chiefship, was elected, but at a very early period the office seems to have become hereditary, although not in the feudal sense of that term. Mr Skene has shown that the succession was strictly limited to heirs male, and that the great peculiarity of the Highland system was that brothers invariably were preferred to sons. This perhaps arose partly from an anxiety to avoid minorities “in a nation dependent upon a competent leader in war.” This principle was frequently exemplified in the succession to the mormaordoms, and even to the kingly power itself; it formed one of the pleas put forward by Bruce in his competition for the crown with Baliol.

After the family of the chief came the ceantighes, or heads of the subordinate houses into which the clan was divided, the most powerful of whom was the toisich, or toshach, who was generally the oldest cadet. This was a natural consequence of the law of gavel, which, producing a constant subdivision of the chief’s estate, until in actual extent of property he sometimes came to possess less than any of the other branches of the family, served in nearly the same proportion to aggrandise the latter, and hence that branch which had been longest separated from the original became relatively the most powerful. The toshach, military leader, or captain of the clan, certainly appears to have been at first elected to his office among the Celtic nations, as indeed were all the dignitaries who at a later period among the Highlanders succeeded to their positions according to fixed laws.[130] As war was the principal occupation of all the early Celtic nations, the office of toshach, or “war-king,” as Mr Robertson calls him, was one of supreme importance, and gave the holder of it many opportunities of converting it into one of permanent kingship although the Celts carefully guarded against this by enforcing the principle of divided authority among their chiefs, and thus maintaining the “balance of power.” The toshach’s duties were strictly military, he having nothing to do with the internal affairs of the tribe or nation, these being regulated by a magistrate, judge, or vergobreith, elected annually, and invested with regal authority and the power of life and death. It would appear that the duties of toshach sometimes devolved on the tanist, though this appears to have seldom been the case among the Highlanders.[131] From a very early time the oldest cadet held the highest rank in the clan, next to the chief; and when the clan took the field he occupied, as a matter of right, the principal post of honour. On the march he headed the van, and in battle took his station on the right; he was, in fact, the lieutenant-general of the chief, and when the latter was absent he commanded the whole clan.[132] Another function exercised by the oldest cadet was that of maor, or steward, the principal business of which officer was to collect the revenues of the chief; but, after the feudal customs were introduced, this duty devolved upon the baron-bailie, and the maor consequently discontinued his fiscal labours.

The peculiar position of the toshach, with the power and consequence attached to it, naturally pointed him out as the person to whom recourse would be had in circumstances of difficulty; and hence arose an apparent anomaly which has led to no little misconception and confusion. The difficulty, however, may easily be cleared by a short explanation. When, through misfortune or otherwise, the family of the chief had become so reduced that he could no longer afford to his clan the protection required, and which formed the correlative obligation on his part to that of fealty and obedience on theirs, then the clansmen followed the oldest cadet as the head of the most powerful sept or branch of the clan; and he thus enjoyed, sometimes for a considerable period, all the dignity, consequence, and privileges of a chief, without, of course, either possessing a right, jure sanguinis, to that station, or even acquiring the title of the office which he, de facto, exercised. He was merely a sort of patriarchal regent, who exercised the supreme power, and enjoyed prerogatives of royalty without the name. While the system of clanship remained in its original purity, no such regency, or interregnum, could ever take place. But, in process of time, many circumstances occurred to render it both expedient and necessary. In fact, clanship, in its ancient purity, could scarcely co-exist with the feudal system, which introduced changes so adverse to its true spirit; and hence, when the territory had passed, by descent, into the hands of a Lowland baron, or when, by some unsuccessful opposition to the government, the chief had brought ruin upon himself and his house, and was no longer in a condition to maintain his station and afford protection to his clan, the latter naturally placed themselves under the only head capable of occupying the position of their chief, and with authority sufficient to command or enforce obedience. In other words, they sought protection at the hands of the oldest cadet; and he, on his part, was known by the name, not of chief, which would have been considered a gross usurpation, but of captain, or leader of the clan. It is clear, therefore, that this dignity was one which owed its origin to circumstances, and formed no part of the original system, as has been generally but erroneously supposed. If an anomaly, it was one imposed by necessity, and the deviation was confined, as we have seen, within the narrowest possible limits. It was altogether unknown until a recent period in the history of the Highlands, and, when it did come into use, it was principally confined to three clans, namely, Clan Chattan, Clan Cameron, and Clan Ranald; an undoubted proof that it was not a regular but an exceptional dignity, that it was a temporary expedient, not part of a system; and that a captain differed as essentially from a chief as a regent differs from an hereditary sovereign. “It is evident,” says Mr Skene, who has the merit of being the first to trace out this distinction clearly, “that a title, which was not universal among the Highlanders, must have arisen from peculiar circumstances connected with those clans in which it is first found; and when we examine the history of these clans, there can be little doubt that it was simply a person who had, from various causes, become de facto head of the clan, while the person possessing the hereditary right to that dignity remained either in a subordinate situation, or else for the time disunited from the rest of the clan.”[133]

Another title known among the ancient Highlanders was that of ogtiern, or lesser tighern, or Thane, and was applied either to the son of a tighern, or to those members of the clan whose kinship to the chief was beyond a certain degree. They appear to have to a large extent formed the class of duinewassels, or gentry of the clan, intermediate between the chief and the body of the clan, and known in later times as tacksmen or goodmen. “These, again, had a circle of relations, who considered them as their immediate leaders, and who in battle were placed under their immediate command. Over them in peace, these chieftains exercised a certain authority, but were themselves dependent on the chief, to whose service all the members of the clan were submissively devoted. As the duinewassels received their lands from the bounty of the chief, for the purpose of supporting their station in the tribe, so these lands were occasionally resumed or reduced to provide for those who were more immediately related to the laird; hence many of this class necessarily sank into commoners. This transition strengthened the feeling which was possessed by the very lowest of the community, that they were related to the chief, from whom they never forgot they originally sprang.”[134] The duinewassels were all cadets of the house of the chief, and each had a pedigree of his own as long, and perchance as complicated as that of his chief. They were, as might be expected, the bravest portion of the clan; the first in the onset, and the last to quit the strife, even when the tide of battle pressed hardest against them. They cherished a high and chivalrous sense of honour, ever keenly alive to insult or reproach; and they were at all times ready to devote themselves to the service of their chief, when a wrong was to be avenged, an inroad repressed or punished, or glory reaped by deeds of daring in arms.

Another office which existed among the old Gaelic inhabitants of Scotland was that of Brehon, deemster, or judge, the representative of the vergobreith previously referred to. Among the continental Celts this office was elective, but among the Highlanders it appears to have been hereditary, and by no means held so important, latterly at least, as it was on the continent. As we referred to this office in the former part of this work, we shall say nothing farther of it in this place.

To this general view of the constitution of society in the Highlands, little remains to be added. The chief, as we have seen, was a sort of regulus, or petty prince, invested with an authority which was in its nature arbitrary, but which, in its practical exercise, seems generally to have been comparatively mild and paternal. He was subjected to no theoretical or constitutional limitations, yet, if ferocious in disposition, or weak in understanding, he was restrained or directed by the elders of the tribe, who were his standing counsellors, and without whose advice no measure of importance could be decided on. Inviolable custom supplied the deficiency of law. As his distinction and power consisted chiefly in the number of his followers, his pride as well as his ambition became a guarantee for the mildness of his sway; he had a direct and immediate interest to secure the attachment and devotion of his clan; and his condescension, while it raised the clansman in his own estimation, served also to draw closer the ties which bound the latter to his superior, without tempting him to transgress the limits of propriety. The Highlander was thus taught to respect himself in the homage which he paid to his chief. Instead of complaining of the difference of station and fortune, or considering prompt obedience as slavish degradation, he felt convinced that he was supporting his own honour in showing respect to the head of his family, and in yielding a ready compliance to his will. Hence it was that the Highlanders carried in their demeanour the politeness of courts without the vices by which these are too frequently dishonoured, and cherished in their bosoms a sense of honour without any of its follies or extravagances. This mutual interchange of condescension and respect served to elevate the tone of moral feeling amongst the people, and no doubt contributed to generate that principle of incorruptible fidelity of which there are on record so many striking and even affecting examples. The sentiment of honour, and the firmness sufficient to withstand temptation, may in general be expected in the higher classes of society; but the voluntary sacrifice of life and fortune is a species of self-devotion seldom displayed in any community, and never perhaps exemplified to the same extent in any country as in the Highlands of Scotland.[135] The punishment of treachery was a kind of conventional outlawry or banishment from society, a sort of aquæ et ignis interdictio even more terrible than the punishment inflicted under that denomination, during the prevalence of the Roman law. It was the judgment of all against one, the condemnation of society, not that of a tribunal; and the execution of the sentence was as complete as its ratification was universal. Persons thus intercommuned were for ever cut off from the society to which they belonged; they incurred civil death in its most appalling form, and their names descended with infamy to posterity. What higher proof could possibly be produced of the noble sentiments of honour and fidelity cherished by the people, than the simple fact that the breach of these was visited with such a fearful retribution?

On the other hand, when chiefs proved worthless or oppressive, they were occasionally deposed, and when they took a side which was disapproved by the clan, they were abandoned by their people. Of the former, there are several well authenticated examples, and General Stewart has mentioned a remarkable instance of the latter. “In the reign of King William, immediately after the Revolution, Lord Tullibardine, eldest son of the Marquis of Athole, collected a numerous body of Athole Highlanders, together with three hundred Frasers, under the command of Hugh, Lord Lovat, who had married a daughter of the Marquis. These men believed that they were destined to support the abdicated king, but were in reality assembled to serve the government of William. When in front of Blair Castle, their real destination was disclosed to them by Lord Tullibardine. Instantly they rushed from their ranks, ran to the adjoining stream of Banovy, and filling their bonnets with water, drank to the health of King James; then with colours flying and pipes playing, fifteen hundred of the men of Athole put themselves under the command of the Laird of Ballechin, and marched off to join Lord Dundee, whose chivalrous bravery and heroic exploits had excited their admiration more than those of any other warrior since the days of Montrose.”

The number of Highland clans has been variously estimated, but it is probable that when they were in their most flourishing condition it amounted to about forty. Latterly, by including many undoubtedly Lowland houses, the number has been increased to about a hundred, the additions being made chiefly by tartan manufacturers. Mr Skene has found that the various purely Highland clans can be clearly classified and traced up as having belonged to one or other of the great mormaordoms into which the north of Scotland was at one time divided. In his history of the individual clans, however, this is not the classification which he adopts, but one in accordance with that which he finds in the manuscript genealogies. According to these, the people were originally divided into several great tribes, the clans forming each of these separate tribes being deduced from a common ancestor. A marked line of distinction may be drawn between the different tribes, in each of which indications may be traced serving more or less, according to Mr Skene, to identify them with the ancient mormaorships or earldoms.

In the old genealogies each tribe is invariably traced to a common ancestor, from whom all the different branches or clans are supposed to have descended. Thus we have--1. Descendants of Conn of the Hundred Battles, including the Lords of the Isles, or Macdonalds, the Macdougals, the Macneills, the Maclachlans, the Macewens, the Maclaisrichs, and the Maceacherns; 2. Descendants of Fearchar Fada Mac Feradaig, comprehending the old mormaors of Moray, the Mackintoshes, the Macphersons, and the Macnauchtans; 3. Descendants of Cormac Mac Oirbertaig, namely, the old Earls of Ross, the Mackenzies, the Mathiesons, the Macgregors, the Mackinnons, the Macquarries, the Macnabs, and the Macduffies; 4. Descendants of Fergus Leith Dearg, the Macleods and the Campbells; and 5. Descendants of Krycul, the Macnicols.

Whatever may be the merits or defects of this distribution, it is convenient for the purpose of classification. It affords the means of referring the different clans to their respective tribes, and thus avoiding an arbitrary arrangement; and it is further in accordance with the general views which have already been submitted to the reader respecting the original constitution of clanship. We shall not, however, adhere strictly to Mr Skene’s arrangement.

FOOTNOTES:

[114] Scotland under her Early Kings, Ap. D.

[115] Gaelic, clann; Irish, clann, or cland; Manx, cloan, children, offspring, tribe.

[116] Robertson’s Early Kings, i. 102, 103, 104.

[117] Highlanders, i. 16.

[118] Highlanders, p. 7, et. seq.

[119] For details concerning the practical working of the clan system, in addition to what are given in this introduction, we refer the reader to chaps. xviii., xlii., xliii., xliv. of Part First.

[120] We are indebted for much of what follows to Skene’s Highlanders of Scotland, vol. i. p. 153, et seq.

[121] Letter xix., part of which has already been quoted in ch. xlii., but may with advantage be again introduced here.

[122] Description of the Western Islands. London, 1703.

[123] Skene’s Highlanders of Scotland, vol. ii. ch. 7.

[124] Skene’s Highlanders of Scotland, vol. i. chap. 7, pp. 166, 167.

[125] Skene’s Highlanders of Scotland, vol. i. pp. 172, 173.

[126] Logan’s Scottish Gael, i. 171.

[127] According to Dr Macpherson, Tighern is derived from two words, meaning “a man of land.”

[128] Dissertation, pp. 165-6.

[129] Early Kings.

[130] Robertson’s Early Kings, i. 24.

[131] Logan’s Gael, i. 188.

[132] “Toisich,” says Dr Macpherson, “was another title of honour which obtained among the Scots of the middle ages. Spelman imagined that this dignity was the same with that of Thane. But the Highlanders, among whose predecessors the word was once common, distinguished carefully in their language the toisich from the tanistair or the tierna. When they enumerate the different classes of their great men, agreeably to the language of former times, they make use of these three titles, in the same sentence, with a disjunctive particle between them.” “In Gaelic,” he adds, “tus, tos, and tosich signify the beginning or first part of anything, and sometimes the front of an army or battle.” Hence perhaps the name toisich, implying the post of honour which the oldest cadet always occupied as his peculiar privilege and distinction. Mr Robertson, however, thinks toshach is derived from the same root as the Latin dux. (Early Kings, i. 26.)

[133] Skene’s Highlanders, vol. ii. pp. 177, 178. That the captains of clans were originally the oldest cadets, is placed beyond all doubt by an instance which Mr Skene has mentioned in the part of his work here referred to. “The title of captain occurs but once in the family of the Macdonalds of Slate, and the single occurrence of this peculiar title is when the clan Houston was led by the uncle of their chief, then in minority. In 1545, we find Archibald Maconnill, captain of the clan Houston; and thus, on the only occasion when this clan followed as a chief a person who had not the right of blood to that station, he styles himself captain of the clan.”

[134] Logan’s Gael, i. 173.

[135] “All who are acquainted with the events of the unhappy insurrection of 1745, must have heard of a gentleman of the name of M’Kenzie, who had so remarkable a resemblance to Prince Charles Stuart, as to give rise to the mistake to which he cheerfully sacrificed his life, continuing the heroic deception to the last, and exclaiming with his expiring breath, ‘Villains, you have killed your Prince.’” (Stewart’s Sketches, &c., vol. i. p. 59).

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

Chapter II

The Gallgael, or Western Clans--Fiongall and Dubhgall--Lords of the Isles--Somerled--Suibne--Gillebride Mac Gille Adomnan--Somerled in the West--Defeat and death--His children--Dugall and his descendants--Ranald’s three sons, Ruari, Donald, Dugall--Roderick--Ranald--The Clan Donald--Origin--Angus Og--His son John--His sons Godfrey and Donald--Donald marries Mary, sister of Earl of Ross--Battle of Harlaw--Policy of James I.--Alexander of the Isles--Donald Balloch--John of the Isles--Angus Og declares himself Lord of the Isles--Seizes Earl and Countess of Athole--Intrigues with England--Battle of Lagebread--Battle of Bloody Bay--Alexander of Lochalsh--Expedition of James IV.--Donald Dubh--Donald Galda--Donald Gorme--Donald Dubh reappears--Somerled’s descendants fail--The various Island Clans--The Chiefship--Lord Macdonald and Macdonald of Clan Ranald--Donald Gorme Mor--Feuds with the Macleans and Macleods--Sir Donald, fourth Baronet--Sir Alexander’s wife befriends Prince Charles--Sir James, eighth Baronet--Sir Alexander, ninth Baronet, created a peer of Ireland--Present Lord Macdonald--Macdonalds of Islay and Kintyre--Alexander of Islay’s rebellions--Angus Macdonald--Feud with Macleans--Sir James imprisoned--His lands pass to the Campbells--Macdonalds of Keppoch, or Clanranald of Lochaber--Disputes with the Mackintoshes--The Macdonalds at Culloden--Clanranald Macdonalds of Garmoran and their offshoots--Battle of Kinloch-lochy or Blar-nan-leine--Macdonalds of Benbecula, Boisdale, Kinlochmoidart, Glenaladale--Marshal Macdonald, Duke of Tarentum--Macdonalds of Glencoe--Macdonnells of Glengarry--Feud between the Glengarry Macdonalds and Mackenzie of Kintail--General Sir James Macdonnell--Colonel Alexander Ranaldson Macdonnell, last specimen of a Highland Chief--Families descended from the Macdonnells of Glengarry--Strength of the Macdonalds--Characteristic in the arms of the Coast-Gael.

The clans that come first in order in Mr Skene’s classification are those whose progenitor is said by the genealogists to have been the fabulous Irish King Conn “of the hundred battles.” They are mostly all located in the Western Islands and Highlands, and are said by Mr Skene to have been descended from the Gallgael, or Gaelic pirates or rovers, who are said to have been so called to distinguish them from the Norwegian and Danish Fingall and Dugall, or white and black strangers or rovers. Mr Skene advocates strongly the unmixed Gaelic descent of these clans, as indeed he does of almost all the other clans. He endeavours to maintain that the whole of these western clans are of purely Pictish descent, not being mixed with even that of the Dalriadic Scots. We are inclined, however, to agree with Mr Smibert in thinking that the founders of these clans were to a large extent of Irish extraction, though clearly distinguishable from the primitive or Dalriadic Scots, and that from the time of the Scottish conquest they formed intimate relationships with the Northern Picts. “From whatever race,” to quote the judicious remarks of Mr Gregory, “whether Pictish or Scottish, the inhabitants of the Isles, in the reign of Kenneth MacAlpin, were derived, it is clear that the settlements and wars of the Scandinavians in the Hebrides, from the time of Harald Harfager to that of Olave the Red, a period of upwards of two centuries, must have produced a very considerable change in the population. As in all cases of conquest, this change must have been most perceptible in the higher ranks, owing to the natural tendency of invaders to secure their new possessions, where practicable, by matrimonial alliances with the natives. That in the Hebrides a mixture of the Celtic and Scandinavian blood was thus effected at an early period seems highly probable, and by no means inconsistent with the ultimate prevalence of the Celtic language in the mixed race, as all history sufficiently demonstrates. These remarks regarding the population of the Isles apply equally to that of the adjacent mainland districts, which, being so accessible by numerous arms of the sea, could hardly be expected to preserve the blood of their inhabitants unmixed. The extent to which this mixture was carried is a more difficult question, and one which must be left in a great measure to conjecture; but, on the whole, the Celtic race appears to have predominated. It is of more importance to know which of the Scandinavian tribes it was that infused the greatest portion of northern blood into the population of the Isles. The Irish annalists divide the piratical bands, which, in the ninth and following centuries infested Ireland, into two great tribes, styled by these writers Fiongall, or white foreigners, and Dubhgall, or black foreigners. These are believed to represent, the former the Norwegians, the latter the Danes; and the distinction in the names given to them is supposed to have arisen from a diversity, either in their clothing or in the sails of their vessels. These tribes had generally separate leaders; but they were occasionally united under one king; and although both bent first on ravaging the Irish shores, and afterwards on seizing portions of the Irish territories, they frequently turned their arms against each other. The Gaelic title of Righ Fhiongall, or King of the Fiongall, so frequently applied to the Lords of the Isles, seems to prove that Olave the Red, from whom they were descended in the female line, was so styled, and that, consequently, his subjects in the Isles, in so far as they were not Celtic, were Fiongall or Norwegians. It has been remarked by one writer, whose opinion is entitled to weight,[136] that the names of places in the exterior Hebrides, or the Long Island, derived from the Scandinavian tongue, resemble the names of places in Orkney, Shetland, and Caithness. On the other hand, the corresponding names in the interior Hebrides are in a different dialect, resembling that of which the traces are to be found in the topography of Sutherland; and appear to have been imposed at a later period than the first mentioned names. The probability is, however, that the difference alluded to is not greater than might be expected in the language of two branches of the same race, after a certain interval; and that the Scandinavian population of the Hebrides was, therefore, derived from two successive Norwegian colonies. This view is further confirmed by the fact that the Hebrides, although long subject to Norway, do not appear to have ever formed part of the possessions of the Danes.”[137]

As by far the most important, and at one time most extensive and powerful, of these western clans, is that of the Macdonalds, and as this, as well as many other clans, according to some authorities, can clearly trace their ancestry back to Somerled, the progenitor of the once powerful Lords of the Isles, it may not be out of place to give here a short summary of the history of these magnates.

The origin of Somerled, the undoubted founder of the noble race of the Island Lords, is, according to Mr Gregory, involved in considerable obscurity. Assuming that the clan governed by Somerled formed part of the great tribe of Gallgael, it follows that the independent kings of the latter must in all probability have been his ancestors, and should therefore be found in the old genealogies of his family. But this scarcely appears to be the case. The last king of the Gallgael was Suibne, the son of Kenneth, who died in the year 1034; and, according to the manuscript of 1450, an ancestor of Somerled, contemporary with this petty monarch, bore the same name, from which it may be presumed that the person referred to in the genealogy and the manuscript is one and the same individual. The latter, however, calls Suibne’s father Nialgusa; and in the genealogy there is no mention whatever of a Kenneth. But from the old Scottish writers we learn that at this time there was a Kenneth, whom they call Thane of the Isles, and that one of the northern mormaors also bore the same name, although it is not very easy to say what precise claim either had to be considered as the father of Suibne. There is also a further discrepancy observable in the earlier part of the Macdonald genealogies, as compared with the manuscript; and besides, the latter, without making any mention of these supposed kings, deviates into the misty region of Irish heroic fable and romance. At this point, indeed, there is a complete divergence, if not contrariety, between the history as contained in the Irish Annals, and the genealogy developed in the manuscript; for, whilst the latter mentions the Gallgael under their leaders as far back as the year 856, the former connect Suibne, by a different genealogy, with the kings of Ireland. The fables of the Highland and Irish Sennachies now became connected with the genuine history. The real descent of the chiefs was obscured or perplexed by the Irish genealogies, and previously to the eleventh century neither these genealogies nor even that of the manuscript of 1450 can be considered as of any authority whatsoever. It seems somewhat rash, however, to conclude, as Mr Skene has done, that the Siol-Cuinn, or descendants of Conn, were of native origin. This exceeds the warrant of the premises, which merely carry the difficulty a few removes backwards into the obscurity of time, and there leave the question in greater darkness than ever.

From the death of Suibne till the accession of Gillebride Mac Gille Adomnan, the father of Somerled, nothing whatever is known of the history of the clan. The latter, having been expelled from his possessions by the Lochlans and the Fingalls, took refuge in Ireland, where he persuaded the descendants of Colla to espouse his quarrel and assist him in an attempt to recover his possessions. Accordingly, four or five hundred persons put themselves under his command, and at their head he returned to Alban, where he effected a landing; but the expedition, it would seem, proved unsuccessful. Somerled, the son of Gillebride, was, however, a man of a very different stamp. At first he lived retired, musing in solitude upon the ruined fortunes of his house. But when the time for action arrived, he boldly put himself at the head of the inhabitants of Morven; attacked the Norwegians, whom, after a considerable struggle, he expelled; made himself master of the whole of Morven, Lochaber, and northern Argyle; and not long afterwards added to his other possessions the southern districts of that country. In the year 1135, when David I. expelled the Norwegians from Man, Arran, and Bute, Somerled appears to have obtained a grant of those Islands from the king. But finding himself still unable to contend with the Norwegians of the Isles, whose power remained unbroken, he resolved to recover by policy what he despaired of acquiring by force of arms; and, with this view, he succeeded in obtaining (about 1140) the hand of Ragnhildis, the daughter of Olaf, surnamed the Red, who was then the Norwegian king of the Isles. This lady brought him three sons, namely, Dugall, Reginald, and Angus; and, by a previous marriage, he had one named Gillecallum.

The prosperous fortunes of Somerled at length inflamed his ambition. He had already attained to great power in the Highlands, and success inspired him with the desire of extending it. His grandsons having formerly claimed the earldom of Moray, their pretensions were now renewed, and this was followed by an attempt to put them in actual possession of their alleged inheritance. The attempt, however, failed. It had brought the regulus of Argyll into open rebellion against the king, and the war appears to have excited great alarm amongst the inhabitants of Scotland; but Somerled, having encountered a more vigorous opposition than he had anticipated, found it necessary to return to the Isles, where the tyrannical conduct of his brother-in-law, Godred, had irritated his vassals and thrown everything into confusion. His presence gave confidence to the party opposed to the tyrant, and Thorfinn, one of the most powerful of the Norwegian nobles, resolved to depose Godred, and place another prince on the throne of the Isles. Somerled readily entered into the views of Thorfinn, and it was arranged that Dugall, the eldest son of the former, should occupy the throne from which his maternal uncle was to be displaced. But the result of the projected deposition did not answer the expectations of either party. Dugall was committed to the care of Thorfinn, who undertook to conduct him through the Isles, and compel the chiefs not only to acknowledge him as their sovereign, but also to give hostages for their fidelity and allegiance. The Lord of Skye, however, refused to comply with this demand, and, having fled to the Isle of Man, apprised Godred of the intended revolution. Somerled followed with eight galleys; and Godred having commanded his ships to be got ready, a bloody but indecisive battle ensued. It was fought on the night of the Epiphany; and as neither party prevailed, the rival chiefs next morning entered into a sort of compromise or convention, by which the sovereignty of the Isles was divided, and two distinct principalities established. By this treaty Somerled acquired all the islands lying to the southward of the promontory of Ardnamurchan, whilst these to the northward remained in the possession of Godred.

But no sooner had he made this acquisition than he became involved in hostilities with the government. Having joined the powerful party in Scotland, which had resolved to depose Malcolm IV., and place the boy of Egremont on the throne, he began to infest various parts of the coast, and for some time carried on a vexatious predatory warfare. The project, however, failed; and Malcolm, convinced that the existence of an independent chief was incompatible with the interests of his government and the maintenance of public tranquillity, required of Somerled to resign his lands into the hands of the sovereign, and to hold them in future as a vassal of the crown. Somerled, however, was little disposed to comply with this demand, although the king was now preparing to enforce it by means of a powerful army. Emboldened by his previous successes, he resolved to anticipate the attack, and having appeared in the Clyde with a considerable force, he landed at Renfrew, where being met by the royal army under the command of the High Steward of Scotland, a battle ensued which ended in his defeat and death (1164). This celebrated chief has been traditionally described as “a well-tempered man, in body shapely, of a fair piercing eye, of middle stature, and of quick discernment.” He appears, indeed, to have been equally brave and sagacious, tempering courage with prudence, and, excepting in the last act of his life, distinguished for the happy talent, rare at any period, of profiting by circumstances, and making the most of success. In the battle of Renfrew his son Gillecallum perished by his side. Tradition says that Gillecallum left a son Somerled, who succeeded to his grandfather’s possessions in the mainland, which he held for upwards of half a century after the latter’s death. The existence of this second Somerled, however, seems very doubtful although Mr Gregory believes that, besides the three sons of his marriage with Olave the Red, Somerled had other sons, who seem to have shared with their brothers, according to the then prevalent custom of gavelkind, the mainland possessions held by the Lord of Argyle; whilst the sons descended of the House of Moray divided amongst them the South Isles ceded by Godred in 1156. Dugall, the eldest of these, got for his share, Mull, Coll, Tiree, and Jura; Reginald, the second son, obtained Isla and Kintyre; and Angus, the third son, Bute. Arran is supposed to have been divided between the two latter. The Chronicle of Man mentions a battle, in 1192, between Reginald and Angus, in which the latter obtained the victory. He was killed, in 1210, with his three sons, by the men of Skye, leaving no male issue. One of his sons, James, left a daughter and heiress, Jane, afterwards married to Alexander, son and heir of Walter, High Steward of Scotland, who, in her right, claimed the isle of Bute.

Dugall, the eldest son of his father by the second marriage, seems to have possessed not only a share of the Isles, but also the district of Lorn, which had been allotted as his share of the territories belonging to his ancestors. On his death, however, the Isles, instead of descending immediately to his children, were acquired by his brother Reginald, who in consequence assumed the title of King of the Isles; but, by the same law of succession, the death of Reginald restored to his nephews the inheritance of their father. Dugall left two sons, Dugall Scrag and Duncan, who appear in the northern Sagas, under the title of the Sudereyan Kings. They appear to have acknowledged, at least nominally, the authority of the Norwegian king of the Hebrides; but actually they maintained an almost entire independence. Haco, the king of Norway, therefore came to the determination of reducing them to obedience and subjection, a design in which he proved completely successful. In a night attack the Norwegians defeated the Sudereyans, and took Dugall prisoner.

Duncan was now the only member of his family who retained any power in the Sudereys; but nothing is known of his subsequent history except that he founded the priory of Ardchattan, in Lorn. He was succeeded by his son Ewen, who appears to have remained more faithful to the Norwegian kings than his predecessors had shown themselves; for, when solicited by Alexander II. to join him in an attempt he meditated to obtain possession of the Western Isles, Ewen resisted all the promises and entreaties of the king, and on this occasion preserved inviolate his allegiance to Haco. Alexander, it is well known, died in Kerreray (1249), when about to commence an attack upon the Isles, and was succeeded by his son Alexander III. When the latter had attained majority, he resolved to renew the attempt which his father had begun, and with this view excited the Earl of Ross, whose possessions extended along the mainland opposite to the Northern Isles, to commence hostilities against them. The earl willingly engaged in the enterprise, and having landed in Skye, ravaged the country, burned churches and villages, and put to death numbers of the inhabitants without distinction of age or sex. Haco soon appeared with a Norwegian force, and was joined by most of the Highland chiefs. But Ewen having altered his views, excused himself from taking any part against the force sent by the Scottish king; and the unfortunate termination of Haco’s expedition justified the prudence of this timely change. In the year 1263 the Norwegians were completely defeated by the Scots at the battle of Largs; and the Isles were, in consequence of this event, finally ceded to the kings of Scotland. This event, however, rather increased than diminished the power of Ewen, who profited by his seasonable defection from the Norwegians, and was favoured by the government to which that defection had been useful. But he died without any male issue to succeed him, leaving only two daughters, one of whom married the Norwegian king of Man, and the other, Alexander of the Isles, a descendant of Reginald.

The conquest and partition of Argyle by Alexander II., and the subsequent annexation of the Western Islands to the kingdom of Scotland, under the reign of his successor, annihilated the power of the race of Conn as an independent tribe; and, from the failure of the male descendants of Dugall in the person of Ewen, had the effect of dividing the clan into three distinct branches, the heads of which held their lands of the crown. These were the clan Ruari or Rory, the clan Donald, and the clan Dugall, so called from three sons of Ranald or Reginald, the son of Somerled by Ragnhildis, daughter of Olave.

Of this Ranald or Reginald, but little comparatively is known. According to the Highland custom of gavel, Somerled’s property was divided amongst all his sons; and in this division the portion which fell to the share of Reginald appears to have consisted of the island of Islay, with Kintyre, and part of Lorn on the mainland. Contemporary with Reginald there was a Norwegian king of Man and the Isles, who, being called by the same name, is liable to be confounded with the head of the Siol Conn. Reginald, after the death of his brother Dugall, was designated as Lord, and sometimes even as King, of the Isles;[138] and he had likewise the title of Lord of Argyle and Kintyre, in which last capacity he granted certain lands to an abbey that had been founded by himself at Saddel in Kintyre. But these titles did not descend to his children. He was succeeded by his eldest son Roderick,[139] who, on the conquest of Argyle, agreed to hold his lands of Rory, or the crown, and afterwards was commonly styled Lord of Kintyre. In this Roderick the blood of the Norwegian rovers seems to have revived in all its pristine purity. Preferring “the good old way, the simple plan” to more peaceful and honest pursuits, he became one of the most noted pirates of his day, and the annals of the period are filled with accounts of his predatory expeditions. But his sons, Dugall and Allan, had the grace not to follow the vocation of their father, for which they do not seem to have evinced any predilection. Dugall having given important aid to Haco in his expedition against the Western Isles, obtained in consequence a considerable increase of territory, and died without descendants. Allan succeeded to the possessions of this branch of the race of Conn, and, upon the annexation of the Isles to the crown of Scotland, transferred his allegiance to Alexander III., along with the other chiefs of the Hebrides.[140]

Allan left one son, Roderick, of whom almost nothing is known, except that he was not considered as legitimate by the feudal law, and in consequence was succeeded in his lordship of Garmoran by his daughter Christina. Yet the custom or law of the Highlands, according to which his legitimacy could ‘moult no feather,’ had still sufficient force amongst the people to induce the daughter to legalise her father’s possession of the lands by a formal resignation and reconveyance; a circumstance which shows how deeply it had taken root in the habits and the opinions of the people. Roderick, however, incurred the penalty of forfeiture during the reign of Robert Bruce, “probably,” as Mr Skene thinks, “from some connection with the Soulis conspiracy of 1320;” but his lands were restored to his son Ranald by David II. Ranald, however, did not long enjoy his extensive possessions. Holding of the Earl of Ross some lands in North Argyle, he unhappily became embroiled with that powerful chief, and a bitter feud, engendered by proximity, arose between them. In that age the spirit of hostility seldom remained long inactive. In 1346, David II. having summoned the barons of Scotland to meet him at Perth, Ranald, like the others, obeyed the call, and having made his appearance, attended by a considerable body of men, took up his quarters at the monastery of Elcho, a few miles distant from the Fair City. To the Earl of Ross, who was also with the army, this seemed a favourable opportunity for revenging himself on his enemy; and accordingly having surprised and entered the monastery in the middle of the night, he slew Ranald and seven of his followers. By the death of Ranald, the male descendants of Roderick became extinct; and John of the Isles, the chief of the Clan Donald, who had married Amy, the only sister of Ranald, now claimed the succession to that principality.

THE MACDONALDS OR CLAN DONALD.

The Clan Donald derive their origin from a son of Reginald, who appears to have inherited South Kintyre, and the island of Islay; but little is known of their history until the annexation of the Isles to the crown in the year 1266. According to Highland tradition, Donald made a pilgrimage to Rome to do penance, and obtain absolution for the various enormities of his former life; and, on his return, evinced his gratitude and piety by making grants of land to the monastery of Saddel, and other religious houses in Scotland. He was succeeded by his son, Angus Mor, who, on the arrival of Haco with his fleet, immediately joined the Norwegian king, and assisted him during the whole of the expedition; yet, when a treaty of peace was afterwards concluded between the kings of Norway and Scotland, he does not appear to have suffered in consequence of the part which he took in that enterprise. In the year 1284 he appeared at the convention, by which the Maid of Norway was declared heiress of the crown, and obtained as the price of his support on that occasion a grant of Ardnamurchan, a part of the earldom of Garmoran,[141] and the confirmation of his father’s and grandfather’s grants to the monastery of Saddel. Angus left two sons, Alexander and Angus Og (i.e., the younger). Alexander, by a marriage with one of the daughters of Ewen of Ergadia, acquired a considerable addition to his possessions; but having joined the Lord of Lorn in his opposition to the claims of Robert Bruce, he became involved in the ruin of that chief; and being obliged to surrender to the king, he was imprisoned in Dundonald Castle, where he died. His whole possessions were forfeited, and given to his brother, Angus Og, who, having attached himself to the party of Bruce, and remained faithful in the hour of adversity, now received the reward of his fidelity and devotion. Angus assisted in the attack upon Carrick, when the king recovered “his father’s hall;” and he was present at Bannockburn, where, at the head of his clan, he formed the reserve, and did battle “stalwart and stout,” on that never-to-be-forgotten day. Bruce, having at length reaped the reward of all his toils and dangers, and secured the independence of Scotland, was not unmindful of those who had participated in the struggle thus victoriously consummated. Accordingly, he bestowed upon Angus the lordship of Lochaber, which had belonged to the Comyns, together with the lands of Durrour and Glencoe, and the islands of Mull, Tyree, &c., which had formed part of the possessions of the family of Lorn. Prudence might have restrained the royal bounty. The family of the Isles were already too powerful for subjects; but the king, secure of the attachment and fidelity of Angus, contented himself with making the permission to erect a castle or fort at Tarbet in Kintyre, a condition of the grants which he had made. This distinguished chief died early in the fourteenth century, leaving two sons, John his successor, and John Og, the ancestor of the Macdonalds of Glencoe.

Angus, as we have already seen, had all his life been a steady friend to the crown, and had profited by his fidelity. But his son John does not seem to have inherited the loyalty along with the power, dignities, and possessions of his father. Having had some dispute with the Regent concerning certain lands which had been granted by Bruce, he joined the party of Edward Baliol and the English king; and, by a formal treaty concluded on the 12th of December 1335, and confirmed by Edward III. on the 5th October 1336, engaged to support the pretensions of the former, in consideration of a grant of the lands and islands claimed by the Earl of Moray, besides certain other advantages. But all the intrigues of Edward were baffled; Scotland was entirely freed from the dominion of the English; and, in the year 1341, David II. was recalled from France to assume the undisputed sovereignty of his native country. Upon his accession to the throne, David, anxious to attach to his party the most powerful of the Scottish barons, concluded a treaty with John of the Isles, who, in consequence, pledged himself to support his government. But a circumstance soon afterwards occurred which threw him once more into the interest of Baliol and the English party. In 1346, Ranald of the Isles having been slain at Perth by the Earl of Ross, as already mentioned, John, who had married his sister Amy, immediately laid claim to the succession. The government, however, unwilling to aggrandise a chief already too powerful, determined to oppose indirectly his pretensions, and evade the recognition of his claim. It is unnecessary to detail the pretexts employed, or the obstacles which were raised by the government. Their effect was to restore to the party of Baliol one of its most powerful adherents, and to enable John in the meanwhile to concentrate in his own person nearly all the possessions of his ancestor Somerled.

But ere long a most remarkable change took place in the character and position of the different parties or factions, which at that time divided Scotland. The king of Scotland now appeared in the extraordinary and unnatural character of a mere tool or partisan of Edward, and even seconded covertly the endeavours of the English king to overturn the independence of Scotland. Its effect was to throw into active opposition the party which had hitherto supported the throne and the cause of independence; and, on the other hand, to secure to the enemies of both the favour and countenance of the king. But as soon as by this interchange the English party became identified with the royal faction, John of the Isles abandoned it, and formed a connection with that party to which he had for many years been openly opposed. At the head of the national party was the Steward of Scotland, who, being desirous of strengthening himself by alliances with the more powerful barons, hailed the accession of John to his interests as an extraordinary piece of good fortune, and cemented their union by giving to the Lord of the Isles his own daughter in marriage. The real aim of this policy was not for a moment misunderstood; but any open manifestation of force was at first cautiously avoided. At length, in 1366, when the heavy burdens imposed upon the people to raise the ransom of the king had produced general discontent, and David’s jealousy of the Steward had displayed itself by throwing into prison the acknowledged successor to the throne, the northern barons broke out into open rebellion, and refused either to pay the tax imposed, or to obey the king’s summons to attend the parliament.

In this state matters remained for some time, when David applied to the Steward, as the only person capable of restoring peace to the country, and, at the same time, commissioned him to put down the rebellion. The latter, satisfied that his objects would be more effectually forwarded by steady opposition to the court than by avowedly taking part with the insurgents, accepted the commission, and employed every means in his power to reduce the refractory barons to obedience. His efforts, however, were only partially successful. The Earls of Mar and Ross, and other northern barons, whose object was now attained, at once laid down their arms; John of Lorn and Gillespie Campbell likewise gave in their submission; but the Lord of the Isles, secure in the distance and inaccessible nature of his territories, refused to yield, and, in fact, set the royal power at defiance. The course of events, however, soon enabled David to bring this refractory subject to terms. Edward, finding that France required his undivided attention, was not in a condition to prosecute his ambitious projects against Scotland; a peace was accordingly concluded between the rival countries; and David thus found himself at liberty to turn his whole force against the Isles. With this view he commanded the attendance of the Steward and other barons of the realm, and resolved to proceed in person against the rebels. But the Steward, perceiving that the continuance of the rebellion might prove fatal to his party, prevailed with his son-in-law to meet the king at Inverness, where an agreement was entered into, by which the Lord of the Isles not only engaged to submit to the royal authority, and pay his share of all public burdens, but further promised to put down all others who should attempt to resist either; and, besides his own oath, he gave hostages to the king for the fulfilment of this obligation. The accession of Robert Steward or Stewart to the throne of Scotland, which took place in 1371, shortly after this act of submission, brought the Lord of the Isles into close connection with the court; and during the whole of this reign he remained in as perfect tranquillity, and gave as loyal support to the government as his father Angus had done under that of King Robert Bruce.[142] In those barbarous and unsettled times, the government was not always in a condition to reduce its refractory vassals by force; and, from the frequent changes and revolutions to which it was exposed, joined to its general weakness, the penalty of forfeiture was but little dreaded. Its true policy, therefore, was to endeavour to bind to its interests, by the ties of friendship and alliance, those turbulent chiefs whom it was always difficult and often impossible to reduce to obedience by the means commonly employed for that purpose.

The advice which King Robert Bruce had left for the guidance of his successors, in regard to the Lords of the Isles, was certainly dictated by sound political wisdom. He foresaw the danger which would result to the crown were the extensive territories and consequent influence of these insular chiefs ever again to be concentrated in the person of one individual; and he earnestly recommended to those who should come after him never, under any circumstances, to permit or to sanction such aggrandisement. But, in the present instance, the claims of John were too great to be overlooked; and though Robert Stewart could scarcely have been insensible of the eventual danger which might result from disregarding the admonition of Bruce, yet he had not been more than a year on the throne when he granted to his son-in-law a feudal title to all those lands which had formerly belonged to Ranald the son of Roderick, and thus conferred on him a boon which had often been demanded in vain by his predecessors. King Robert, however, since he could not with propriety obstruct the accumulation of so much property in one house, attempted to sow the seeds of future discord by bringing about a division of the property amongst the different branches of the family. With this view he persuaded John, who had been twice married, not only to gavel the lands amongst his offspring, which was the usual practice of his family, but also to render the children of both marriages feudally independent of one another. Accordingly King Robert, in the third year of his reign, confirmed a charter granted by John to Reginald, the second son of the first marriage, by which the lands of Garmoran, forming the dowry of Reginald’s mother, were to be held of John’s heirs; that is, of the descendants of the eldest son of the first marriage, who would, of course, succeed to all his possessions that had not been feudally destined or devised to other parties. Nor was this all. A short time afterwards John resigned into the king’s hands nearly the whole of the western portion of his territories, and received from Robert charters of these lands in favour of himself and the issue of his marriage with the king’s daughter; so that the children of the second marriage were rendered feudally independent of those of the first, and the seeds of future discord and contention effectually sown between them. After this period little is known of the history of John, who is supposed to have died about the year 1380.

During the remainder of this king’s reign, and the greater part of that of his successor, Robert III., no collision seems to have taken place between the insular chiefs and the general government; and hence little or nothing is known of their proceedings. But when the dissensions of the Scottish barons, occasioned by the marriage of the Duke of Rothesay, and the subsequent departure of the Earl of March to the English court, led to a renewal of the wars between the two countries, and the invasion of Scotland by an English army, the insular chiefs appear to have renewed their intercourse with England; being more swayed by considerations of interest or policy, than by the ties of relationship to the royal family of Scotland. At this time the clan was divided into two branches, the heads of which seemed to have possessed co-ordinate rank and authority. Godfrey, the eldest surviving son of the first marriage, ruled on the mainland, as lord of Garmoran and Lochaber; Donald, the eldest son of the second marriage, held a considerable territory of the crown, then known as the feudal lordship of the Isles; whilst the younger brothers, having received the provisions usually allotted by the law of gavel, held these as vassals either of Godfrey or of Donald. This temporary equipoise was, however, soon disturbed by the marriage of Donald with Mary, the sister of Alexander Earl of Ross, in consequence of which alliance he ultimately succeeded in obtaining possession of the earldom. Euphemia, only child of Alexander, Earl of Ross, entered a convent and became a nun, having previously committed the charge of the earldom to her grandfather, Albany. Donald, however, lost no time in preferring his claim to the succession in right of his wife, the consequences of which have already been narrated in detail.[143] Donald, with a considerable force, invaded Ross, and met with little or no resistance from the people till he reached Dingwall, where he was encountered by Angus Dhu Mackay, at the head of a considerable body of men from Sutherland, whom, after a fierce conflict, he completely defeated and made their leader prisoner. Leaving the district of Ross, which now acknowledged his authority, he advanced at the head of his army, through Moray, and penetrated into Aberdeenshire. Here, however, a decisive check awaited him. On the 24th of July, 1411, he was met at the village of Harlaw by the Earl of Mar, at the head of an army inferior in numbers, but composed of better materials; and a battle ensued, upon the event of which seemed to depend the decision of the question, whether the Celtic or the Sassenach part of the population of Scotland were in future to possess the supremacy. The immediate issue of the conflict was doubtful, and, as is usual in such cases, both parties claimed the victory. But the superior numbers and irregular valour of the Highland followers of Donald had received a severe check from the steady discipline and more effective arms of the Lowland gentry; they had been too roughly handled to think of renewing the combat, for which their opponents seem to have been quite prepared; and, as in such circumstances a drawn battle was equivalent to a defeat, Donald was compelled, as the Americans say, “to advance backwards.” The Duke of Albany, having obtained reinforcements, marched in person to Dingwall; but Donald, having no desire to try again the fate of arms, retired with his followers to the Isles, leaving Albany in possession of the whole of Ross, where he remained during the winter. Next summer the war was renewed, and carried on with various success, until at length the insular chief found it necessary to come to terms with the duke, and a treaty was concluded by which Donald agreed to abandon his claim to the earldom of Ross, and to become a vassal of the crown of Scotland.

The vigour of Albany restored peace to the kingdom, and the remainder of his regency was not disturbed by any hostile attempt upon the part of Donald of the Isles. But when the revenge of James I. had consummated the ruin of the family of Albany, Alexander, the son of Donald, succeeded, without any opposition, to the earldom of Ross, and thus realised one grand object of his father’s ambition. At almost any other period the acquisition of such extensive territories would have given a decided and dangerous preponderance to the family of the Isles. The government of Scotland, however, was then in the hands of a man who, by his ability, energy, and courage, proved himself fully competent to control his turbulent nobles, and, if necessary, to destroy their power and influence. Distrustful, however, of his ability to reduce the northern barons to obedience by force of arms, he had recourse to stratagem; and having summoned them to attend a parliament at Inverness, whither he proceeded, attended by his principal nobility and a considerable body of troops, he there caused forty of them to be arrested as soon as they made their appearance. Alexander, Earl of Ross and Lord of the Isles, his mother the Countess of Ross, and Alexander MacGodfrey, of Garmoran, were amongst the number of those arrested on this occasion. Along with several others, MacGodfrey was immediately executed, and his whole possessions forfeited to the crown, and the remainder were detained in captivity. By this bold stroke, James conceived that he had effectually subdued the Highland chiefs; and, under this impression, he soon afterwards liberated Alexander of the Isles. But he seems to have forgotten that “vows made in pain,” or at least in durance, “are violent and void.” The submission of the captive was merely feigned. As soon as he had recovered his liberty, the Lord of the Isles flew to arms, with what disastrous results to himself has already been told.[144] So vigorously did the king’s officers follow up the victory, that the insular chief, finding concealment or escape equally impossible, was compelled to throw himself upon the royal clemency. He went to Edinburgh, and, on the occasion of a solemn festival celebrated in the chapel of Holyrood, on Easter Sunday 1429, the unfortunate chief, whose ancestors had treated with the crown on the footing of independent princes, appeared before the assembled court in his shirt and drawers, and implored on his knees, with a naked sword held by the point in his hand, the forgiveness of his offended monarch. Satisfied with this extraordinary act of humiliation, James granted the suppliant his life, and directed him to be forthwith imprisoned in Tantallon castle.

The spirit of clanship could not brook such a mortal affront. The cry for vengeance was raised; the strength of the clan was mustered; and Alexander had scarcely been two years in captivity when the Isles once more broke out into open insurrection. Under the command of Donald Balloch, the cousin of Alexander and chief of clan Ranald, the Islanders burst into Lochaber, where, having encountered an army which had been stationed in that country for the purpose of overawing the Highlanders, they gained a complete victory. The king’s troops were commanded by the Earls of Mar and Caithness, the latter of whom fell in the action, whilst the former saved with difficulty the remains of the discomfited force. Donald Balloch, however, did not follow up his victory, but having ravaged the adjacent districts, withdrew first to the Isles, and afterwards to Ireland. In this emergency James displayed his usual energy and activity. To repair the reverse sustained by his lieutenants, he proceeded in person to the North; his expedition was attended with complete success; and he soon received the submission of all the chiefs who had been engaged in the rebellion. Not long afterwards he was presented with what was believed to be the head of Donald Balloch; “but,” says Mr Gregory, “as Donald Balloch certainly survived king James many years, it is obvious that the sending of the head to Edinburgh was a stratagem devised by the crafty islander, in order to check further pursuit.” The king, being thus successful, listened to the voice of clemency. He restored to liberty the prisoner of Tantallon, granted him a free pardon for his various acts of rebellion, confirmed to him all his titles and possessions, and further conferred upon him the lordship of Lochaber, which, on its forfeiture, had been given to the Earl of Mar. The wisdom of this proceeding soon became apparent. Alexander could scarcely forget the humiliation he had undergone, and the imprisonment he had endured; and, in point of fact, he appears to have joined the Earls of Crawford and Douglas, who at that time headed the opposition to the court; but during the remainder of his life the peace of the country was not again disturbed by any rebellious proceedings on his part, and thus far the king reaped the reward of his clemency. Alexander died about 1447, leaving three sons, John, Hugh, and Celestine.

The opposition of Crawford, Douglas, and their associates had hitherto been chronic; but, on the death of Alexander, it broke out into active insurrection; and the new Lord of the Isles, as determined an opponent of the royal party as his father had been, seized the royal castles of Inverness, Urquhart, and Ruthven in Badenoch, at the same time declaring himself independent. In thus raising the standard of rebellion, John of the Isles was secretly supported by the Earl of Douglas, and openly by the barons, who were attached to his party. But a series of fatalities soon extinguished this insurrection. Douglas was murdered in Edinburgh Castle; Crawford was entirely defeated by Huntly; and John, by the rebellion of his son Angus, was doomed to experience, in his own territories, the same opposition which he had himself offered to the general government. Submission was, therefore, inevitable. Having for several years maintained a species of independence, he was compelled to resign his lands into the hands of the king, and to consent to hold them as a vassal of the crown. This, however, was but a trifling matter compared with the rebellion of his son, which, fomented probably by the court, proved eventually the ruin of the principality of the Isles, after it had existed so long in a state of partial independence. Various circumstances are stated as having given rise to this extraordinary contest, although in none of these, probably, is the true cause to be found. It appears, however, that Angus Og,[145] having been appointed his father’s lieutenant and representative in all his possessions, took advantage of the station or office which was thus conferred on him, deprived his father of all authority, and got himself declared Lord of the Isles. How this was effected we know not; but scarcely had he attained the object of his ambition, when he resolved to take signal vengeance upon the Earl of Athole, an inveterate enemy of his house, and, at the same time, to declare himself altogether independent of the crown. With this view, having collected a numerous army, he suddenly appeared before the castle of Inverness, and having been admitted by the governor, who had no suspicion whatever of his design, immediately proclaimed himself king of the Isles. He then invaded the district of Athole; stormed and took Blair Castle; and having seized the earl and countess, carried them prisoners to Islay. The reason given by Mr Gregory for Angus’s enmity against the Earl and Countess of Athole is, that the former having crossed over privately to Islay, carried off the infant son of Angus, called Donald Dubh, or the Black, and committed him to the care of Argyle, his maternal grandfather, who placed him in the Castle of Inchconnely, where he was detained for many years. Mr Gregory places this event after the Battle of Bloody Bay. On his return to the Isles with the booty he had obtained, the marauder was overtaken by a violent tempest, in which the greater part of his galleys foundered. Heaven seemed to declare against the spoiler, who had added sacrilege to rapine by plundering and attempting to burn the chapel of St Bridget in Athole. Stricken with remorse for the crime he had committed, he released the earl and countess, and then sought to expiate his guilt by doing penance on the spot where it had been incurred.

As a proof of the sincerity of his repentance, this Angus Og next engaged in treason upon a larger scale. At the instigation of this hopeful son, his father, whom he had already deprived of all authority, now entered into a compact with the king of England and the Earl of Douglas, the object of which was nothing less than the entire subjugation of Scotland, and its partition amongst the contracting parties. By this treaty, which is dated the 18th of February 1462, the Lord of the Isles agreed, on the payment of a stipulated sum, to become the sworn ally of the king of England, and to assist that monarch, with the whole body of his retainers, in the wars in Ireland and elsewhere; and it was further provided, that in the event of the entire subjugation of Scotland, the whole of that kingdom, to the north of the Firth of Forth, should be equally divided between Douglas, the Lord of the Isles, and Donald Balloch of Islay; whilst, on the other hand, Douglas was to be reinstated in possession of those lands between the Forth and the English borders, from which he had, at this time, been excluded. Conquest, partition, and spoliation, were thus the objects contemplated in this extraordinary compact. Yet no proceeding appears to have been taken, in consequence of the treaty, until the year 1473, when we find the Lord of the Isles again in arms against the government. He continued several years in open rebellion; but having received little or no support from the other parties to the league, he was declared a traitor in a parliament held at Edinburgh in 1475, his estates were also confiscated, and the Earls of Crawford and Athole were directed to march against him at the head of a considerable force. The meditated blow was, however, averted by the timely interposition of his father, the Earl of Ross. By a seasonable grant of the lands of Knapdale, he secured the influence of the Earl of Argyll, and through the mediation of that nobleman, received a remission of his past offences, was reinstated in his hereditary possessions, which he had resigned into the hands of the crown, and created a peer of parliament, by the title of the Lord of the Isles. The earldom of Ross, the lands of Knapdale, and the sheriffships of Inverness and Nairn were, however, retained by the crown, apparently as the price of the remission granted to this doubly unfortunate man.

But Angus Og was no party to this arrangement. He continued to defy the power of the government; and when the Earl of Athole was sent to the north to reinstate the Earl of Ross in his remaining possessions, he placed himself at the head of the clan, and prepared to give him battle. Athole was joined by the Mackenzies, Mackays, Frasers, and others; but being met by Angus at a place called Lagebread, he was defeated with great slaughter, and escaped with great difficulty from the field. The Earls of Crawford and Huntly were then sent against this desperate rebel, the one by sea and the other by land; but neither of them prevailed against the victorious insurgent. A third expedition, under the Earls of Argyll and Athole, accompanied by the father of the rebel and several families of the Isles, produced no result; and the two earls, who seem to have had little taste for an encounter with Angus, returned without effecting anything. John the father, however, proceeded onwards through the Sound of Mull, accompanied by the Macleans, Macleods, Macneills, and others, and having encountered Angus in a bay on the south side of the promontory of Ardnamurchan,[146] a desperate combat ensued, in which Angus was again victorious, and his unfortunate parent overthrown. By the battle of the Bloody Bay, as it is called in the traditions of the country, Angus obtained possession of the extensive territories of his clan, and, as “when treason prospers ’tis no longer treason,” was recognised as its head. Angus, some time before 1490, when marching to attack Mackenzie of Kintail, was assassinated by an Irish harper.[147]

The rank of heir to the lordship of the Isles devolved on the nephew of John, Alexander of Lochalsh, son of his brother, Celestine. Placing himself at the head of the vassals of the Isles, he endeavoured, it is said, with John’s consent, to recover possession of the earldom of Ross, and in 1491, at the head of a large body of western Highlanders, he advanced from Lochaber into Badenoch, where he was joined by the clan Chattan. They then marched to Inverness, where, after taking the royal castle, and placing a garrison in it, they proceeded to the north-east, and plundered the lands of Sir Alexander Urquhart, sheriff of Cromarty. They next hastened to Strathconnan, for the purpose of ravaging the lands of the Mackenzies. The latter, however, surprised and routed the invaders, and expelled them from Ross, their leader, Alexander of Lochalsh, being wounded, and as some say, taken prisoner. In consequence of this insurrection, at a meeting of the Estates in Edinburgh in May 1493, the title and possessions of the lord of the Isles were declared to be forfeited to the crown. In January following the aged John appeared in the presence of the king, and made a voluntary surrender of his lordship, after which he appears to have remained for some time in the king’s household, in the receipt of a pension. He finally retired to the monastery of Paisley, where he died about 1498; and was interred, at his own request, in the tomb of his royal ancestor, Robert II.[148]

With the view of reducing the insular chiefs to subjection, and establishing the royal authority in the Islands, James IV., soon after the forfeiture in 1493, proceeded in person to the West Highlands, when Alexander of Lochalsh, the principal cause of the insurrection which had led to it, and John of Isla, grandson and representative of Donald Balloch, were among the first to make their submission. On this occasion they appear to have obtained royal charters of the lands they had previously held under the Lord of the Isles, and were both knighted. In the following year the king visited the Isles twice, and having seized and garrisoned the castle of Dunaverty in South Kintyre, Sir John of Isla, deeply resenting this proceeding, collected his followers, stormed the castle, and hung the governor from the wall, in the sight of the king and his fleet. With four of his sons, he was soon after apprehended at Isla, by MacIan of Ardnamurchan, and being conveyed to Edinburgh, they were there executed for high treason.

In 1495 King James assembled an army at Glasgow, and on the 18th May, he was at the castle of Mingarry in Ardnamurchan, when several of the Highland chiefs made their submission to him. In 1497 Sir Alexander of Lochalsh again rebelled, and invading the more fertile districts of Ross, was by the Mackenzies and Munroes, at a place called Drumchatt, again defeated and driven out of Ross. Proceeding southward among the Isles, he endeavoured to rouse the Islanders to arms in his behalf, but without success. He was surprised in the island of Oransay, by MacIan of Ardnamurchan, and put to death.

In 1501, Donald Dubh, whom the islanders regarded as their rightful lord, and who, from his infancy, had been detained in confinement in the castle of Inchconnell, escaped from prison, and appeared among his clansmen. They had always maintained that he was the lawful son of Angus of the Isles, by his wife the Lady Margaret Campbell, daughter of the first Earl of Argyll, but his legitimacy was denied by the government when the islanders combined to assert by arms his claims as their hereditary chief. His liberation he owed to the gallantry and fidelity of the men of Glencoe. Repairing to the isles of Lewis, he put himself under the protection of its lord, Torquil Macleod, who had married Katherine, another daughter of Argyll, and therefore sister of the lady whom the islanders believed to be his mother. A strong confederacy was formed in his favour, and about Christmas 1503 an irruption of the islanders and western clans, under Donald Dubh, was made into Badenoch, which was plundered and wasted with fire and sword. To put down this formidable rebellion, the array of the whole kingdom north of Forth and Clyde was called out; and the Earls of Argyll, Huntly, Crawford, and Marischal, and Lord Lovat, with other powerful barons, were charged to lead this force against the islanders. But two years elapsed before the insurrection was finally quelled. In 1505 the Isles were again invaded from the south by the king in person, and from the north by Huntly, who took several prisoners, but none of them of any rank. In these various expeditions the fleet under the celebrated Sir Andrew Wood and Robert Barton was employed against the islanders, and at length the insurgents were dispersed. Carniburg, a strong fort on a small isolated rock, near the west coast of Mull, in which they had taken refuge, was reduced; the Macleans and the Macleods submitted to the king, and Donald Dubh, again made a prisoner, was committed to the castle of Edinburgh, where he remained for nearly forty years. After this the great power formerly enjoyed by the Lords of the Isles was transferred to the Earls of Argyll and Huntly, the former having the chief rule in the south isles and adjacent coasts, while the influence of the latter prevailed in the north isles and Highlands.

The children of Sir Alexander of Lochalsh, the nephew of John the fourth and last Lord of the Isles, had fallen into the hands of the king, and as they were all young, they appear to have been brought up in the royal household. Donald, the eldest son, called by the Highlanders, Donald Galda, or the foreigner, from his early residence in the Lowlands, was allowed to inherit his father’s estates, and was frequently permitted to visit the Isles. He was with James IV. at the battle of Flodden, and appears to have been knighted under the royal banner on that disastrous field. Two months after, in November 1513, he raised another insurrection in the Isles, and being joined by the Macleods and Macleans, was proclaimed Lord of the Isles. The numbers of his adherents daily increased. But in the course of 1515, the Earl of Argyll prevailed upon the insurgents to submit to the regent. At this time Sir Donald appeared frequently before the council, relying on a safe-conduct, and his reconciliation to the regent (John, Duke of Albany) was apparently so cordial that on 24th September 1516, a summons was despatched to ‘Monsieur de Ylis,’ to join the royal army, then about to proceed to the borders. Ere long, however, he was again in open rebellion. Early in 1517 he razed the castle of Mingarry to the ground, and ravaged the whole district of Ardnamurchan with fire and sword. His chief leaders now deserted him, and some of them determined on delivering him up to the regent. He, however, effected his escape, but his two brothers were made prisoners by Maclean of Dowart and Macleod of Dunvegan, who hastened to make their submission to the government. In the following year, Sir Donald was enabled to revenge the murder of his father on the MacIans of Ardnamurchan, having defeated and put to death their chief and two of his sons, with a great number of his men. He was about to be forfeited for high treason, when his death, which took place a few weeks after his success against the MacIans, brought the rebellion, which had lasted for upwards of five years, to a sudden close. He was the last male of his family, and died without issue.

In 1539, Donald Gorme of Sleat claimed the lordship of the Isles, as lawful heir male of John, Earl of Ross. With a considerable force he passed over into Ross-shire, where, after ravaging the district of Kinlochewe, he proceeded to Kintail, with the intention of surprising the castle Eilandonan, at that time almost without a garrison. Exposing himself rashly under the wall, he received a wound in the foot from an arrow, which proved fatal.

In 1543, under the regency of the Earl of Arran, Donald Dubh, the grandson of John, last Lord of the Isles, again appeared upon the scene. Escaping from his long imprisonment, he was received with enthusiasm by the insular chiefs, and, with their assistance, he prepared to expel the Earls of Argyll and Huntly from their acquisitions in the Isles. At the head of 1800 men he invaded Argyll’s territories, slew many of his vassals, and carried off a great quantity of cattle, with other plunder. At first he was supported by the Earl of Lennox, then attached to the English interest, and thus remained for a time in the undisputed possession of the Isles. Through the influence of Lennox, the islanders agreed to transfer their alliance from the Scottish to the English crown, and in June 1545 a proclamation was issued by the regent Arran and his privy council against ‘Donald, alleging himself of the Isles, and other Highland men, his partakers.’ On the 28th July of that year, a commission was granted by Donald, ‘Lord of the Isles, and Earl of Ross,’ with the advice and consent of his barons and council of the Isles, of whom seventeen are named, to two commissioners, for treating, under the directions of the Earl of Lennox, with the English king. On the 5th of August, the lord and barons of the Isles were at Knockfergus, in Ireland, with a force of 4000 men and 180 galleys, when they took the oath of allegiance to the king of England, at the command of Lennox, while 4000 men in arms were left to guard and defend the Isles in his absence. Donald’s plenipotentiaries then proceeded to the English court with letters from him both to King Henry and his privy council; by one of which it appears that the Lord of the Isles had already received from the English monarch the sum of one thousand crowns, and the promise of an annual pension of two thousand. Soon after the Lord of the Isles returned with his forces to Scotland, but appears to have returned to Ireland again with Lennox. There he was attacked with fever, and died at Drogheda, on his way to Dublin. With him terminated the direct line of the Lords of the Isles.

All hopes of a descendant of Somerled again governing the Isles were now at an end; and from this period the race of Conn, unable to regain their former united power and consequence, were divided into various branches, the aggregate strength of which was rendered unavailing for the purpose of general aggrandisement, by the jealousy, disunion, and rivalry, which prevailed among themselves.

After the forfeiture of the Lords of the Isles, and the failure of the successive attempts which were made to retrieve their fortunes, different clans occupied the extensive territories which had once acknowledged the sway of those insular princes. Of these some were clans, which, although dependent upon the Macdonalds, were not of the same origin as the race of Conn; and, with the exception of the Macleods, Macleans, and a few others, they strenuously opposed all the attempts which were made to effect the restoration of the family of the Isles, rightly calculating that the success of such opposition would tend to promote their own aggrandisement. Another class, again, were of the same origin as the family of the Isles; but having branched off from the principal stem before the succession of the elder branches reverted to the clan, in the person of John of the Isles, during the reign of David II., they now appeared as separate clans. Amongst these were the Macalisters, the MacIans, and some others. The Macalisters, who are traced to Alister, a son of Angus Mor, inhabited the south of Knapdale and the north of Kintyre. After the forfeiture of the Isles they became independent; but being exposed to the encroachments of the Campbells, their principal possessions were ere long absorbed by different branches of that powerful clan. The MacIans of Ardnamurchan were descended from John, a son of Angus Mor, to whom his father conveyed the property which he had obtained from the crown. The Macdonalds of Glencoe are also MacIans, being descended from John Fraoch, a son of Angus Og, Lord of the Isles; and hence their history is in no degree different from that of the other branches of the Macdonalds. A third class consisted of the descendants of the different Lords of the Isles, who still professed to form one clan, although the subject of the representation of the race soon introduced great dissensions, and all adopted the generic name of Macdonald in preference to secondary or collateral patronymics.

We shall now endeavour to give a short account of the different branches of the Macdonalds, from the time of the annexation of the Lordship of the Isles to the crown in 1540.

Since the extinction of the direct line of the family of the Isles, in the middle of the 16th century, Macdonald of Sleat, now Lord Macdonald, has always been styled in Gaelic Mac Dhonuill nan Eilean, or Macdonald of the Isles.[149]

As the claim of Lord Macdonald, however, to this distinction has been keenly disputed, we shall here lay before the reader, as clearly as possible, the pretensions of the different claimants to the honour of the chiefship of the clan Donald, as these have been very fairly stated by Mr Skene.

That the family of Sleat are the undoubted representatives of John, Earl of Ross, and the last Lord of the Isles, appears to be admitted on all sides; but, on the other hand, if the descendants of Donald, from whom the clan received its name, or even of John of the Isles, who flourished in the reign of David II., are to be held as constituting one clan, then, according to the Highland principles of clanship, the jus sanguinis, or right of blood to the chiefship, rested in the male representative of John, whose own right was undoubted. By Amy, daughter of Roderick of the Isles, John had three sons,--John, Godfrey, and Ranald; but the last of these only left descendants; and it is from him that the Clan Ranald derive their origin. Again, by the daughter of Robert II. John had four sons--Donald, Lord of the Isles, the ancestor of the Macdonalds of Sleat; John Mor, from whom proceeded the Macconnells of Kintyre; Alister, the progenitor of Keppoch; and Angus, who does not appear to have left any descendants. That Amy, the daughter of Roderick, was John’s legitimate wife, is proved, first, by a dispensation which the supreme Pontiff granted to John in the year 1337; and secondly, by a treaty concluded between John and David II. in 1369, when the hostages given to the king were a son of the second marriage, a grandson of the first, and a natural son. Besides, it is certain that the children of the first marriage were considered as John’s feudal heirs; a circumstance which clearly establishes their legitimacy. It is true that Robert II., in pursuance of the policy he had adopted, persuaded John to make the children of these respective marriages feudally independent of each other; and that the effect of this was to divide the possessions of his powerful vassals into two distinct and independent lordships. These were, first, the lordship of Garmoran and Lochaber, which was held by the eldest son of the first marriage,--and secondly, that of the Isles, which passed to the eldest son of the second marriage; and matters appear to have remained in this state until 1427, when, as formerly mentioned, the Lord of Garmoran was beheaded, and his estates were forfeited to the crown. James I., however, reversing the policy which had been pursued by his predecessor, concentrated the possessions of the Macdonalds in the person of the Lord of the Isles, and thus sought to restore to him all the power and consequence which had originally belonged to his house; “but this arbitrary proceeding,” says Mr Skene, “could not deprive the descendants of the first marriage of the feudal representation of the chiefs of the clan Donald, which now, on the failure of the issue of Godfrey in the person of his son Alexander, devolved on the feudal representative of Reginald, the youngest son of that marriage.”

The clan Ranald are believed to have derived their origin from this Reginald or Ranald, who was a son of John of the Isles, by Amy MacRory, and obtained from his father the lordship of Garmoran, which he held as vassal of his brother Godfrey. That this lordship continued in possession of the clan appears evident from the Parliamentary Records, in which, under the date of 1587, mention is made of the clan Ranald of Knoydart, Moydart, and Glengarry. But considerable doubt has arisen, and there has been a good deal of controversy, as to the right of chiefship; whilst of the various families descended from Ranald each has put forward its claim to this distinction. On this knotty and ticklish point we shall content ourselves with stating the conclusions at which Mr Skene arrived ‘after,’ as he informs us, ‘a rigid examination’ of the whole subject in dispute. According to him, the present family of Clanranald have no valid title or pretension whatever, being descended from an illegitimate son of a second son of the old family of Moydart, who, in 1531, assumed the title of Captain of Clanranald; and, consequently, as long as the descendants of the eldest son of that family remain, they can have no claim by right of blood to the chiefship. He then proceeds to examine the question,--Who was the chief previous to this assumption of the captaincy of Clanranald? and, from a genealogical induction of particulars, he concludes that Donald, the progenitor of the family of Glengarry, was the eldest son of the Reginald or Ranald above-mentioned; that from John, the eldest son of Donald, proceeded the senior branch of this family, in which the chiefship was vested; that, in consequence of the grant of Garmoran to the Lord of the Isles, and other adverse circumstances, they became so much reduced that the oldest cadet obtained the actual chiefship, under the ordinary title of captain; and that, on the extinction of this branch in the beginning of the seventeenth century, the family of Glengarry descended from Alister, second son of Donald, became the legal representatives of Ranald, the common ancestor of the clan, and consequently possessed that jus sanguinis of which no usurpation could deprive them. Such are the results of Mr Skene’s researches upon this subject. Latterly, the family of Glengarry have claimed not only the chiefship of clan Ranald, but likewise that of the whole clan Donald, as being the representative of Donald, the common ancestor of the clan; and it can scarcely be denied that the same evidence which makes good the one point must serve equally to establish the other. Nor does this appear to be any new pretension. When the services rendered by this family to the house of Stuart were rewarded by Charles II. with a peerage, the Glengarry of the time indicated his claim by assuming the title of Lord Macdonnell and Aros; and although, upon the failure of heirs male of his body, this title did not descend to his successors, yet his lands formed, in consequence, the barony of Macdonnell.

Donald Gorme, the claimant of the lordship of the Isles mentioned above as having been slain in 1539, left a grandson, a minor, known as Donald Macdonald Gormeson of Sleat. His title to the family estates was disputed by the Macleods of Harris. He ranged himself on the side of Queen Mary when the disputes about her marriage began in 1565. He died in 1585, and was succeeded by Donald Gorme Mor, fifth in descent from Hugh of Sleat. This Donald Gorme proved himself to be a man of superior abilities, and was favoured highly by James VI., to whom he did important service in maintaining the peace of the Isles. “From this period, it may be observed, the family were loyal to the crown, and firm supporters of the national constitution and laws; and it is also worthy of notice that nearly all the clans attached to the old Lords of the Isles, on the failure of the more direct line in the person of John, transferred their warmest affections to those royal Stuarts, whose throne they had before so often and so alarmingly shaken. This circumstance, as all men know, became strikingly apparent when misfortune fell heavily in turn on the Stuarts.”[150]

Donald Gorme Mor, soon after succeeding his father, found himself involved in a deadly feud with the Macleans of Dowart, which raged to such an extent as to lead to the interference of government, and to the passing in 1587 of an act of parliament, commonly called “The general Bond” or Band for maintaining good order both on the borders and in the Highlands and Isles. By this act, it was made imperative on all landlords, bailies, and chiefs of clans, to find sureties for the peaceable behaviour of those under them. The contentions, however, between the Macdonalds and the Macleans continued, and in 1589, with the view of putting an end to them, the king and council adopted the following plan. After remissions under the privy seal had been granted to Donald Gorme of Sleat, his kinsman, Macdonald of Islay, the principal in the feud, and Maclean of Dowart, for all crimes committed by them, they were induced to proceed to Edinburgh, under pretence of consulting with the king and council for the good rule of the country, but immediately on their arrival they were seized and imprisoned in the castle. In the summer of 1591, they were set at liberty, on paying each a fine to the king, that imposed on Sleat being £4,000, under the name of arrears of feu-duties and crown-rents in the Isles, and finding security for their future obedience and the performance of certain prescribed conditions. They also bound themselves to return to their confinement in the castle of Edinburgh, whenever they should be summoned, on twenty days’ warning. In consequence of their not fulfilling the conditions imposed upon them, and their continuing in opposition to the government, their pardons were recalled, and the three island chiefs were cited before the privy council on the 14th July 1593, when, failing to appear, summonses of treason were executed against them and certain of their associates.

In 1601, the chief of Sleat again brought upon himself and his clan the interference of government by a feud with Macleod of Dunvegan, which led to much bloodshed and great misery and distress among their followers and their families. He had married a sister of Macleod; but, from jealousy or some other cause, he put her away, and refused at her brother’s request to take her back. Having procured a divorce, he soon after married a sister of Kenneth Mackenzie of Kintail. Macleod immediately assembled his clan, and carried fire and sword through Macdonald’s district of Trotternish. The latter, in revenge, invaded Harris, and laid waste that island, killing many of the inhabitants, and carrying off their cattle. “These spoliations and incursions were carried on with so much inveteracy, that both clans were brought to the brink of ruin; and many of the natives of the districts thus devastated were forced to sustain themselves by killing and eating their horses, dogs, and cats.” The Macdonalds having invaded Macleod’s lands in Skye, a battle took place on the mountain Benquillin between them and the Macleods, when the latter, under Alexander, the brother of their chief, were defeated with great loss, and their leader, with thirty of their clan, taken captive. A reconciliation was at length effected between them by the mediation of Macdonald of Islay, Maclean of Coll, and other friends; when the prisoners taken at Benquillin were released.[151]

In 1608, we find Donald Gorme of Sleat one of the Island chiefs who attended the court of Lord Ochiltree, the king’s lieutenant, at Aros in Mull, when he was sent there for the settlement of order in the Isles, and who afterwards accepted his invitation to dinner on board the king’s ship, called the Moon. When dinner was ended, Ochiltree told the astonished chiefs that they were his prisoners by the king’s order; and weighing anchor he sailed direct to Ayr, whence he proceeded with his prisoners to Edinburgh and presented them before the privy council, by whose order they were placed in the castles of Dumbarton, Blackness, and Stirling. Petitions were immediately presented by the imprisoned chiefs to the council submitting themselves to the king’s pleasure, and making many offers in order to procure their liberation. In the following year the bishop of the Isles was deputed as sole commissioner to visit and survey the Isles, and all the chiefs in prison were set at liberty, on finding security to a large amount, not only for their return to Edinburgh by a certain fixed day, but for their active concurrence, in the meantime, with the bishop in making the proposed survey. Donald Gorme of Sleat was one of the twelve chiefs and gentlemen of the Isles, who met the bishop at Iona, in July 1609, and submitted themselves to him, as the king’s representative. At a court then held by the bishop, the nine celebrated statutes called the “Statutes of Icolmkill,” for the improvement and order of the Isles, were enacted, with the consent of the assembled chiefs, and their bonds and oaths given for the obedience thereto of their clansmen.[152]

In 1616, after the suppression of the rebellion of the Clanranald in the South Isles, certain very stringent conditions were imposed by the privy council on the different Island chiefs. Among these were, that they were to take home-farms into their own hands, which they were to cultivate, “to the effect that they might be thereby exercised and eschew idleness,” and that they were not to use in their houses more than a certain quantity of wine respectively. Donald Gorme of Sleat, having been prevented by sickness from attending the council with the other chiefs, ratified all their proceedings, and found the required sureties, by a bond dated in the month of August. He named Duntulm, a castle of his family in Trotternish, Skye, as his residence, when six household gentlemen, and an annual consumption of four tun of wine, were allowed to him; and he was once-a-year to exhibit to the council three of his principal kinsmen. He died the same year, without issue, and was succeeded by his nephew, Donald Gorme Macdonald of Sleat.

On July 14th 1625, after having concluded, in an amicable manner, all his disputes with the Macleods of Harris, and another controversy in which he was engaged with the captain of Clanranald, he was created a baronet of Nova Scotia by Charles I., with a special clause of precedency placing him second of that order in Scotland. He adhered to the cause of that monarch, but died in 1643. He had married Janet, commonly called “fair Janet,” second daughter of Kenneth, first Lord Mackenzie of Kintail, by whom he had several children. His eldest son, Sir James Macdonald, second baronet of Sleat, joined the Marquis of Montrose in 1645, and when Charles II. marched into England in 1651, he sent a number of his clan to his assistance. He died 8th December 1678.

Sir James’ eldest son, Sir Donald Macdonald, third baronet of Sleat, died in 1695. His son, also named Sir Donald, fourth baronet, was one of those summoned by the Lord Advocate, on the breaking out of the rebellion of 1715, to appear at Edinburgh, under pain of a year’s imprisonment and other penalties, to give bail for their allegiance to the government. Joining in the insurrection, his two brothers commanded the battalion of his clan, on the Pretender’s side, at Sheriffmuir; and, being sent out with the Earl Marischal’s horse to drive away a reconnoitring party, under the Duke of Argyll, from the heights, may be said to have commenced the battle. Sir Donald himself had joined the Earl of Seaforth at his camp at Alness with 700 Macdonalds. After the suppression of the rebellion, Sir Donald proceeded to the Isle of Skye with about 1000 men; but although he made no resistance, having no assurance of protection from the government in case of a surrender, he retired into one of the Uists, where he remained till he obtained a ship which carried him to France. He was forfeited for his share in the insurrection, but the forfeiture was soon removed. He died in 1718, leaving one son and four daughters.

His son, Sir Alexander Macdonald, seventh baronet, was one of the first persons asked by Prince Charles to join him, on his arrival off the Western Islands, in July 1745, but refused, as he had brought no foreign force with him. After the battle of Preston, the prince sent Mr Alexander Macleod, advocate, to the Isle of Skye, to endeavour to prevail upon Sir Alexander Macdonald and the laird of Macleod to join the insurgents; but instead of doing so, these and other well-affected chiefs enrolled each an independent company for the service of government, out of their respective clans. The Macdonalds of Skye served under Lord Loudon in Ross-shire.

After the battle of Culloden, when Prince Charles, in his wanderings, took refuge in Skye, with Flora Macdonald, they landed near Moydhstat, or Mugstot, the seat of Sir Alexander Macdonald, near the northern extremity of that island. Sir Alexander was at that time with the Duke of Cumberland at Fort Augustus, and as his wife, Lady Margaret Montgomerie, a daughter of the ninth Earl of Eglinton, was known to be a warm friend of the prince. Miss Macdonald proceeded to announce to her his arrival. Through Lady Margaret the prince was consigned to the care of Mr Macdonald of Kingsburgh, Sir Alexander’s factor, at whose house he spent the night, and afterwards departed to the island of Rasay. Sir Alexander died in November 1746, leaving three sons.

His eldest son, Sir James, eighth baronet, styled “The Scottish Marcellus,” was born in 1741. At his own earnest solicitation he was sent to Eton, on leaving which he set out on his travels, and was everywhere received by the learned with the distinction due to his unrivalled talents. At Rome, in particular, the most marked attention was paid to him by several of the cardinals. He died in that city on 26th July 1766, when only 25 years old. In extent of learning, and in genius, he resembled the admirable Crichton. On his death the title devolved on his next brother, Alexander, ninth baronet, who was created a peer of Ireland, July 17, 1776, as Baron Macdonald of Sleat, county Antrim. He married the eldest daughter of Godfrey Bosville, Esq. of Gunthwaite, Yorkshire, and had seven sons and three daughters. Diana, the eldest daughter, married in 1788 the Right Hon. Sir John Sinclair of Ulbster. His lordship died Sept. 12, 1795.

His eldest son, Alexander Wentworth, second Lord Macdonald, died unmarried, June 9, 1824, when his brother, Godfrey, became third Lord Macdonald. He assumed the additional name of Bosville. He married Louise Maria, daughter of Farley Edsir, Esq.; issue, three sons and seven daughters. He died Oct. 13, 1832.

The eldest son, Godfrey William Wentworth, fourth Lord Macdonald, born in 1809, married in 1845, daughter of G. T. Wyndham, Esq. of Cromer Hall, Norfolk; issue, Somerled James Brudenell, born in 1849, two other sons and four daughters.

The MACDONALDS of ISLA and KINTYRE, called the Clan IAN VOR, whose chiefs were usually styled lords of Dunyveg (from their castle in Isla) and the Glens, were descended from John Mor, second son of “the good John of Isla,” and of Lady Margaret Stewart, daughter of King Robert II. From his brother Donald, Lord of the Isles, he received large grants of land in Isla and Kintyre, and by his marriage with Marjory Bisset, heiress of the district of the Glens in Antrim, he acquired possessions in Ulster. He was murdered before 1427 by an individual named James Campbell, who is said to have received a commission from King James I. to apprehend him, but that he exceeded his powers by putting him to death. His eldest son was the famous Donald Balloch. From Ranald Bane, a younger brother of Donald Balloch, sprang the Clanranaldbane of Largie in Kintyre.

Donald Balloch’s grandson, John, surnamed Cathanach, or warlike, was at the head of the clan Ian Vor, when the lordship of the Isles was finally forfeited by James IV. in 1493. In that year he was among the chiefs, formerly vassals of the Lord of the Isles, who made their submission to the king, when he proceeded in person to the West Highlands. On this occasion he and the other chiefs were knighted.

Alexander of Isla was with Sir Donald of Lochalsh when, in 1518, he proceeded against the father-in-law of the former, MacIan of Ardnamurchan, who was defeated and slain, with two of his sons, at a place called Craiganairgid, or the Silver Craig in Morvern. The death of Sir Donald soon after brought the rebellion to a close. In 1529 Alexander of Isla and his followers were again in insurrection, and being joined by the Macleans, they made descents upon Roseneath, Craignish, and other lands of the Campbells, which they ravaged with fire and sword. Alexander of Isla being considered the prime mover of the rebellion, the king resolved in 1531 to proceed against him in person, on which, hastening to Stirling, under a safeguard and protection, he submitted, and received a new grant, during the king’s pleasure, of certain lands in the South Isles and Kintyre, and a remission to himself and his followers for all crimes committed by them during the late rebellion.

In 1543, on the second escape of Donald Dubh, grandson of John, last lord of the Isles, and the regent Arran’s opposing the views of the English faction, James Macdonald of Isla, son and successor to Alexander, was the only insular chief who supported the regent. In the following year his lands of Kintyre were ravaged by the Earl of Lennox, the head of the English party.

After the death of Donald Dubh, the islanders chose for their leader James Macdonald of Isla, who married Lady Agnes Campbell, the Earl of Argyll’s sister, and though the most powerful of the Island chiefs, he relinquished his pretensions to the lordship of the Isles, being the last that assumed that title.

A dispute between the Macleans and the clan Ian Vor, relative to the right of occupancy of certain crown lands in Isla, led to a long and bloody feud between these tribes, in which both suffered severely. In 1562 the matter was brought before the privy council, when it was decided that James Macdonald of Isla was really the crown tenant, and as Maclean refused to become his vassal, in 1565 the rival chiefs were compelled to find sureties, each to the amount of £10,000, that they would abstain from mutual hostilities.

James having been killed while helping to defend his family estates in Ulster, Ireland, his eldest son, Angus Macdonald, succeeded to Isla and Kintyre, and in his time the feud with the Macleans was renewed, details of which will be found in the former part of this work. In 1579, upon information of mutual hostilities committed by their followers, the king and council commanded Lauchlan Maclean of Dowart and Angus Macdonald of Dunyveg or Isla, to subscribe assurances of indemnity to each other, under the pain of treason, and the quarrel was, for the time, patched up by the marriage of Macdonald with Maclean’s sister. In 1585, however, the feud came to a height, and after involving nearly the whole of the island clans on one side or the other, and causing its disastrous consequences to be felt throughout the whole extent of the Hebrides, by the mutual ravages of the contending parties, government interfered, and measures were at last adopted for reducing to obedience the turbulent chiefs, who had caused so much bloodshed and distress in the Isles.

James Macdonald, son of Angus Macdonald of Dunyveg, had remained in Edinburgh for four years as a hostage for his father, and early in 1596 he received a license to visit him, in the hope that he might be prevailed upon to submit to the laws, that the peace of the Isles might be secured. He sent his son, who was soon afterwards knighted, back to court to make known to the privy council, in his father’s name and his own, that they would fulfil whatever conditions should be prescribed to them by his majesty. At this time Angus made over to his son all his estates, reserving only a proper maintenance for himself and his wife during their lives. When Sir William Stewart arrived at Kintyre, and held a court there, the chief of Isla and his followers hastened to make their personal submission to the king’s representative, and early in the following year he went to Edinburgh, when he undertook to find security for the arrears of his crown rents, to remove his clan and dependers from Kintyre and the Rinns of Isla, and to deliver his castle of Dunyveg to any person sent by the king to receive it.

Angus Macdonald having failed to fulfil these conditions, his son, Sir James, was in 1598 sent to him from court, to induce him to comply with them. His resignation of his estates in favour of his son was not recognised by the privy council, as they had already been forfeited to the crown; but Sir James, on his arrival, took possession of them, and even attempted to burn his father and mother in their house of Askomull in Kintyre. Angus Macdonald, after having been taken prisoner, severely scorched, was carried to Smerbie in Kintyre, and confined there in irons for several months. Sir James, now in command of his clan, conducted himself with such violence, that in June 1598 a proclamation for another royal expedition to Kintyre was issued. He, however, contrived to procure from the king a letter approving of his proceedings in Kintyre, and particularly of his apprehension of his father; and the expedition, after being delayed for some time, was finally abandoned.

In August of the following year, with the view of being reconciled to government, Sir James appeared in presence of the king’s comptroller at Falkland, and made certain proposals for establishing the royal authority in Kintyre and Isla; but the influence of Argyll, who took the part of Angus Macdonald, Sir James’s father, and the Campbells, having been used against their being carried into effect, the arrangement came to nothing, and Sir James and his clan were driven into irremediable opposition to the government, which ended in their ruin.

Sir James, finding that it was the object of Argyll to obtain for himself the king’s lands in Kintyre, made an attempt in 1606 to escape from the castle of Edinburgh, where he was imprisoned; but being unsuccessful, was put in irons. In the following year a charter was granted to Argyll of the lands in North and South Kintyre, and in the Isle of Jura, which had been forfeited by Angus Macdonald, and thus did the legal right to the lands of Kintyre pass from a tribe which had held them for many hundred years.[153]

Angus Macdonald and his clan immediately took up arms, and his son, Sir James, after many fruitless applications to the privy council, to be set at liberty, and writing both to the king and the Duke of Lennox, made another attempt to escape from the castle of Edinburgh, but having hurt his ancle by leaping from the wall whilst encumbered with his fetters, he was retaken near the West Port of that city, and consigned to his former dungeon. Details of the subsequent transactions in this rebellion will be found in the former part of this work.[154]

After the fall of Argyll, who had turned Roman Catholic, and had also fled to Spain, where he is said to have entered into some very suspicious dealings with his former antagonist, Sir James Macdonald, who was living there in exile, the latter was, in 1620, with MacRanald of Keppoch, recalled from exile by King James. On their arrival in London, Sir James received a pension of 1000 merks sterling, while Keppoch got one of 200 merks. His majesty also wrote to the Scottish privy council in their favour, and granted them remissions for all their offences. Sir James, however, never again visited Scotland, and died at London in 1626, without issue. The clan Ian Vor from this period may be said to have been totally suppressed. Their lands were taken possession of by the Campbells, and the most valuable portion of the property of the ducal house of Argyll consists of what had formerly belonged to the Macdonalds of Isla and Kintyre.

The MACDONALDS of GARRAGACH and KEPPOCH, called the CLANRANALD of LOCHABER, were descended from Alexander, or Allaster Carrach, third son of John, Lord of the Isles, and Lady Margaret Stewart. He was forfeited for joining the insurrection of the Islanders, under Donald Balloch, in 1431, and the greater part of his lands were bestowed upon Duncan Mackintosh, captain of the clan Chattan, which proved the cause of a fierce and lasting feud between the Mackintoshes and the Macdonalds. It was from Ranald, the fourth in descent from Allaster Carrach, that the tribe received the name of the Clanranald of Lochaber.

In 1498, the then chief of the tribe, Donald, elder brother of Allaster MacAngus, grandson of Allaster Carrach, was killed in a battle with Dougal Stewart, first of Appin. His son John, who succeeded him, having delivered up to Mackintosh, chief of the clan Chattan, as steward of Lochaber, one of the tribe who had committed some crime, and had fled to him for protection, rendered himself unpopular among his clan, and was deposed from the chiefship. His cousin and heir-male presumptive, Donald Glas MacAllaster, was elected chief in his place. During the reign of James IV., says Mr Gregory, this tribe continued to hold their lands in Lochaber, as occupants merely, and without a legal claim to the heritage.[155] In 1546 Ranald Macdonald Glas, who appears to have been the son of Donald Glas MacAllaster, and the captain of the clan Cameron, being present at the slaughter of Lord Lovat and the Frasers at the battle of Kinloch-lochy, and having also supported all the rebellions of the Earl of Lennox, concealed themselves in Lochaber, when the Earl of Huntly entered that district with a considerable force and laid it waste, taking many of the inhabitants prisoners. Having been apprehended by William Mackintosh, captain of the clan Chattan, the two chiefs were delivered over to Huntly, who conveyed them to Perth, where they were detained in prison for some time. They were afterwards tried at Elgin for high treason, and being found guilty, were beheaded in 1547.

Allaster MacRanald of Keppoch and his eldest son assisted Sir James Macdonald in his escape from Edinburgh Castle in 1615, and was with him at the head of his clan during his subsequent rebellion. On its suppression, he fled towards Kintyre, and narrowly escaped being taken with the loss of his vessels and some of his men.

In the great civil war the Clanranald of Lochaber were very active on the king’s side. Soon after the Restoration, Alexander Macdonald Glas, the young chief of Keppoch, and his brother were murdered by some of their own discontented followers. Coll Macdonald was the next chief. Previous to the Revolution of 1688, the feud between his clan and the Mackintoshes, regarding the lands he occupied, led to the last clan battle that was ever fought in the Highlands. The Mackintoshes having invaded Lochaber, were defeated on a height called Mulroy. So violent had been Keppoch’s armed proceedings before this event that the government had issued a commission of fire and sword against him. After the defeat of the Mackintoshes, he advanced to Inverness, to wreak his vengeance on the inhabitants of that town for supporting the former against him, if they did not purchase his forbearance by paying a large sum as a fine. Dundee, however, anxious to secure the friendship of the people of Inverness, granted Keppoch his own bond in behalf of the town, obliging himself to see Keppoch paid 2000 dollars, as a compensation for the losses and injuries he alleged he had sustained from the Mackintoshes. Keppoch brought to the aid of Dundee 1000 Highlanders, and as Mackintosh refused to attend a friendly interview solicited by Dundee, Keppoch, at the desire of the latter, drove away his cattle. We are told that Dundee “used to call him Coll of the cowes, because he found them out when they were driven to the hills out of the way.” He fought at the battle of Killiecrankie, and, on the breaking out of the rebellion of 1715, he joined the Earl of Mar, with whom he fought at Sheriffmuir. His son, Alexander Macdonald of Keppoch, on the arrival of Prince Charles in Scotland in 1745, at once declared for him, and at a meeting of the chiefs to consult as to the course they should pursue, he gave it as his opinion that as the prince had risked his person, and generously thrown himself into the hands of his friends, they were bound, in duty at least, to raise men instantly for the protection of his person, whatever might be the consequences.

At the battle of Culloden, on the three Macdonald regiments giving way, Keppoch, seeing himself abandoned by his clan, advanced with his drawn sword in one hand and his pistol in the other, but was brought to the ground by a musket shot. Donald Roy Macdonald, a captain in Clanranald’s regiment, followed him, and entreated him not to throw away his life, assuring him that his wound was not mortal, and that he might easily rejoin his regiment in the retreat, but Keppoch, after recommending him to take care of himself, received another shot, which killed him on the spot. There are still numerous cadets of this family in Lochaber, but the principal house, says Mr Gregory,[156] if not yet extinct, has lost all influence in that district. Latterly they changed their name to Macdonnell.

CLANRANALD.

The CLANRANALD MACDONALDS of GARMORAN are descended from Ranald, younger son of John, first Lord of the Isles, by his first wife, Amy, heiress of the MacRorys or Macruaries of Garmoran. In 1373 he received a grant of the North Isles, Garmoran, and other lands, to be held of John, Lord of the Isles, and his heirs. His descendants comprehended the families of Moydart, Morar, Knoydart, and Glengarry, and came in time to form the most numerous tribe of the Clandonald. Alexander Macruari of Moydart, chief of the Clanranald, was one of the principal chiefs seized by James I. at Inverness in 1427, and soon after beheaded. The great-grandson of Ranald, named Allan Macruari, who became chief of the Clanranald in 1481, was one of the principal supporters of Angus, the young Lord of the Isles, at the battle of Bloody Bay, and he likewise followed Alexander of Lochalsh, nephew of the Lord of the Isles, in his invasion of Ross and Cromarty in 1491, when he received a large portion of the booty taken on the occasion.[157] In 1495, on the second expedition of James IV. to the Isles, Allan Macruari was one of the chiefs who made their submission.

During the whole of the 15th century the Clanranald had been engaged in feuds regarding the lands of Garmoran and Uist; first, with the Siol Gorrie, or race of Godfrey, eldest brother of Ranald, the founder of the tribe, and afterwards with the Macdonalds or Clanhuistein of Sleat, and it was not till 1506, that they succeeded in acquiring a legal title to the disputed lands. John, eldest son of Hugh of Sleat, having no issue, made over all his estates to the Clanranald, including the lands occupied by them. Archibald, or Gillespock, Dubh, natural brother of John, having slain Donald Gallach and another of John’s brothers, endeavoured to seize the lands of Sleat, but was expelled from the North Isles by Ranald Bane Allanson of Moydart, eldest son of the chief of Clanranald. The latter married Florence, daughter of MacIan of Ardnamurchan, and had four sons--1. Ranald Bane; 2. Alexander, who had three sons, John, Farquhar, and Angus, and a daughter; 3. Ranald Oig; and 4. Angus Reochson. Angus Reoch, the youngest son, had a son named Dowle or Coull, who had a son named Allan, whose son, Alexander, was the ancestor of the Macdonells of Morar.

In 1509 Allan Macruari was tried, convicted, and executed, in presence of the king at Blair-Athol, but for what crime is not known. His eldest son, Ranald Bane, obtained a charter of the lands of Moydart and Arisaig, Dec. 14, 1540, and died in 1541. He married a daughter of Lord Lovat, and had one son, Ranald Galda, or the stranger, from his being fostered by his mother’s relations, the Frasers.

On the death of Ranald Bane, the fifth chief, the clan, who had resolved to defeat his son’s right to succeed, in consequence of his relations, the Frasers, having joined the Earl of Huntly, lieutenant of the north, against the Macdonalds, chose the next heir to the estate as their chief. This was the young Ranald’s cousin-german, John Moydartach, or John of Moydart, eldest son of Alexander Allanson, second son of Allan Macruari, and John was, accordingly, acknowledged by the clan captain of Clanranald. Lovat, apprised of the intentions of the clan against his grandchild, before their scheme was ripe for execution, marched to Castletirrim, and, by the assistance of the Frasers, placed Ranald Galda in possession of the lands. The Clanranald, assisted by the Macdonalds of Keppoch and the Clan Cameron, having laid waste and plundered the districts of Abertarf and Stratherrick, belonging to Lovat, and the lands of Urquhart and Glenmoriston, the property of the Grants, the Earl of Huntly, the king’s lieutenant in the north, to drive them back and put an end to their ravages, was obliged to raise a numerous force. He penetrated as far as Inverlochy in Lochaber, and then returned to his own territories. The battle of Kinloch-lochy, called Blar-nan-leine, “the field of shirts,” followed, as related in the account of the clan Fraser. The Macdonalds being the victors, the result was that John Moydartach was maintained in possession of the chiefship and estates, and transmitted the same to his descendants. On the return of Huntly with an army, into Lochaber, John Moydartach fled to the Isles, where he remained for some time.

The Clanranald distinguished themselves under the Marquis of Montrose in the civil wars of the 17th century. At the battle of Killiecrankie, their chief, then only fourteen years of age, fought under Dundee, with 500 of his men. They were also at Sheriffmuir. In the rebellion of 1745, the Clanranald took an active part. Macdonald of Boisdale, the brother of the chief, then from age and infirmities unfit to be of any service, had an interview with Prince Charles, on his arrival off the island of Eriska, and positively refused to aid his enterprise. On the following day, however, young Clanranald, accompanied by his kinsmen, Alexander Macdonald of Glenaladale and Æneas Macdonald of Dalily, the author of a Journal and Memoirs of the Expedition, went on board the prince’s vessel, and readily offered him his services. He afterwards joined him with 200 of his clan, and was with him throughout the rebellion.

At the battles of Preston and Falkirk, the Macdonalds were on the right, which they claimed as their due, but at Culloden the three Macdonald regiments of Clanranald, Keppoch, and Glengarry, formed the left. It was probably their feeling of dissatisfaction at being placed on the left of the line that caused the Macdonald regiments, on observing that the right and centre had given way, to turn their backs and fly from the fatal field without striking a blow.

At Glenboisdale, whither Charles retreated, after the defeat at Culloden, he was joined by young Clanranald, and several other adherents, who endeavoured to persuade him from embarking for the Isles, but in vain. In the act of indemnity passed in June 1747, young Clanranald was one of those who were specially excepted from pardon.

The ancestor of the Macdonalds of Benbecula was Ranald, brother of Donald Macallan, who was captain of the Clanranald in the latter part of the reign of James VI. The Macdonalds of Boisdale are cadets of Benbecula, and those of Staffa of Boisdale. On the failure of Donald’s descendants, the family of Benbecula succeeded to the barony of Castletirrim, and the captainship of the Clanranald, represented by Reginald George Macdonald of Clanranald.

From John, another brother of Donald Macallan, came the family of Kinlochmoidart, which terminated in an heiress. This lady married Colonel Robertson, who, in her right, assumed the name of Macdonald.

From John Oig, uncle of Donald Macallan, descended the Macdonalds of Glenaladale. “The head of this family,” says Mr Gregory, “John Macdonald of Glenaladale, being obliged to quit Scotland about 1772, in consequence of family misfortunes, sold his Scottish estates to his cousin (also a Macdonald), and emigrating to Prince Edward’s Island, with about 200 followers, purchased a tract of 40,000 acres there, while the 200 Highlanders have increased to 3000.”

One of the attendants of Prince Charles, who, after Culloden, embarked with him for France, was Neil MacEachan Macdonald, a gentleman sprung from the branch of the Clanranald in Uist. He served in France as a lieutenant in the Scottish regiment of Ogilvie, and was father of Stephen James Joseph Macdonald, marshal of France, and Duke of Tarentum, born Nov. 17, 1765; died Sept. 24, 1840.

The MACDONALDS of GLENCOE are descended from John Og, surnamed Fraoch, natural son of Angus Og of Isla, and brother of John, first Lord of the Isles. He settled in Glencoe, which is a wild and gloomy vale in the district of Lorn, Argyleshire, as a vassal under his brother, and some of his descendants still possess lands there. This branch of the Macdonalds was known as the clan Ian Abrach, it is supposed from one of the family being fostered in Lochaber. After the Revolution, MacIan or Alexander Macdonald of Glencoe, was one of the chiefs who supported the cause of King James, having joined Dundee in Lochaber at the head of his clan, and a mournful interest attaches to the history of this tribe from the dreadful massacre, by which it was attempted to exterminate it in February 1692. The story has often been told, but as full details have been given in the former part of this work, it is unnecessary to repeat them here.

The Macdonalds of Glencoe joined Prince Charles on the breaking out of the rebellion in 1745, and General Stewart, in his Sketches of the Highlanders, relates that when the insurgent army lay at Kirkliston, near the seat of the Earl of Stair, grandson of Secretary Dalrymple, the prince, anxious to save his lordship’s house and property, and to remove from his followers all excitement and revenge, proposed that the Glencoe-men should be marched to a distance, lest the remembrance of the share which his grandfather had in the order for the massacre of the clan should rouse them to retaliate on his descendant. Indignant at being supposed capable of wreaking their vengeance on an innocent man, they declared their resolution of returning home, and it was not without much explanation and great persuasion that they were prevented from marching away the following morning.

MACDONNELL OF GLENGARRY.

The GLENGARRY branch of the Macdonalds spell their name MACDONNELL. The word Dhonuill, whence the name Donald is derived, is said to signify “brown eye.” The most proper way, says Mr Gregory, of spelling the name, according to the pronunciation, was that formerly employed by the Macdonalds of Dunyveg and the Glens, who used Macdonnell. Sir James Macdonald, however, the last of this family in the direct male line, signed Makdonall.[158]

The family of Glengarry are descended from Alister, second son of Donald, who was eldest son of Reginald or Ranald (progenitor also of the Clanranald), youngest son of John, lord of the Isles, by Amy, heiress of MacRory. Alexander Macdonnell, who was chief of Glengarry at the beginning of the 16th century, supported the claims of Sir Donald Macdonald of Lochalsh to the lordship of the Isles, and in November 1513 assisted him, with Chisholm of Comer, in expelling the garrison and seizing the Castle of Urquhart in Loch Ness. In 1527 the Earl of Argyll, lieutenant of the Isles, received from Alexander Macranald of Glengarry and North Morar, a bond of manrent or service; and in 1545 he was among the lords and barons of the Isles who, at Knockfergus in Ireland, took the oath of allegiance to the king of England, “at the command of the Earl of Lennox.” He married Margaret, eldest daughter of Celestine, brother of John Earl of Ross, and one of the three sisters and coheiresses of Sir Donald Macdonald of Lochalsh. His son, Angus or Æneas Macdonnell of Glengarry, the representative, through his mother, of the house of Lochalsh, which had become extinct in the male line on the death of Sir Donald in 1518, married Janet, only daughter of Sir Hector Maclean of Dowart, and had a son, Donald Macdonnell of Glengarry, styled Donald MacAngus MacAlister.

In 1581 a serious feud broke out between the chief of Glengarry, who had inherited one half of the districts of Lochalsh, Lochcarron, and Lochbroom in Wester Ross, and Colin Mackenzie of Kintail, who was in possession of the other half. The Mackenzies, having made aggressions upon Glengarry’s portion, the latter, to maintain his rights, took up his temporary residence in Lochcarron, and placed a small garrison in the castle of Strone in that district. With some of his followers he unfortunately fell into the hands of a party of the Mackenzies, and after being detained in captivity for a considerable time, only procured his release by yielding the castle of Lochcarron to the Mackenzies. The other prisoners, including several of his near kinsmen, were put to death. On complaining to the privy council, they caused Mackenzie of Kintail to be detained for a time at Edinburgh, and subsequently in the castle of Blackness. In 1602, Glengarry, from his ignorance of the laws, was, by the craft of the clan Kenzie, as Sir Robert Gordon says, “easalie intrapped within the compass thereof,” on which they procured a warrant for citing him to appear before the justiciary court at Edinburgh. Glengarry, however, paid no attention to it, but went about revenging the slaughter of two of his kinsmen, whom the Mackenzies had killed after the summons had been issued. The consequence was that he and some of his followers were outlawed, and Kenneth Mackenzie, who was now lord of Kintail, procured a commission of fire and sword against Glengarry and his men, in virtue of which he invaded and wasted the district of North Morar, and carried off all the cattle. In retaliation the Macdonalds plundered the district of Applecross, and, on a subsequent occasion, they landed on the coast of Lochalsh, with the intention of burning and destroying all Mackenzie’s lands, as far as Easter Ross, but their leader, Allaster MacGorrie, having been killed, they returned home. To revenge the death of his kinsman, Angus Macdonnell, the young chief of Glengarry, at the head of his followers, proceeded north to Lochcarron, where his tribe held the castle of Strone, now in ruins. After burning many of the houses in the district, and killing the inhabitants, he loaded his boats with the plunder, and prepared to return. In the absence of their chief, the Mackenzies, encouraged by the example of his lady, posted themselves at the narrow strait or kyle which separates Skye from the mainland, for the purpose of intercepting them. Night had fallen, however, before they made their appearance, and taking advantage of the darkness, some of the Mackenzies rowed out in two boats towards a large galley, on board of which was young Glengarry, which was then passing the kyle. This they suddenly attacked with a volley of musketry and arrows. Those on board in their alarm crowding to one side, the galley overset, and all on board were thrown into the water. Such of them as were able to reach the shore were immediately despatched by the Mackenzies, and among the slain was the young chief of Glengarry himself. The rest of the Macdonnells, on reaching Strathaird in Skye, left their boats, and proceeded on foot to Morar. Finding that the chief of the Mackenzies had not returned from Mull, a large party was sent to an island near which he must pass, which he did next day in Maclean’s great galley, but he contrived to elude them, and was soon out of reach of pursuit. He subsequently laid siege to the castle of Strone, which surrendered to him, and was blown up.

In 1603, “the Clanranald of Glengarry, under Allan Macranald of Lundie, made an irruption into Brae Ross, and plundered the lands of Kilchrist, and others adjacent, belonging to the Mackenzies. This foray was signalized by the merciless burning of a whole congregation in the church of Kilchrist, while Glengarry’s piper marched round the building, mocking the cries of the unfortunate inmates with the well-known pibroch, which has been known, ever since, under the name of Kilchrist, as the family tune of the Clanranald of Glengarry.”[159] Eventually, Kenneth Mackenzie, afterwards Lord Kintail, succeeded in obtaining a crown charter to the disputed districts of Lochalsh, Lochcarron, and others, dated in 1607.

Donald MacAngus of Glengarry died in 1603. By his wife, Margaret, daughter of Alexander Macdonald, Captain of Clanranald, he had, besides Angus above mentioned, two other sons, Alexander, who died soon after his father, and Donald Macdonnell of Scothouse.

Alexander, by his wife, Jean, daughter of Allan Cameron of Lochiel, had a son, Æneas Macdonnell of Glengarry, who was one of the first in 1644 to join the royalist army under Montrose, and never left that great commander, “for which,” says Bishop Wishart, “he deserves a singular commendation for his bravery and steady loyalty to the king, and his peculiar attachment to Montrose.”[160] Glengarry also adhered faithfully to the cause of Charles II., and was forfeited by Cromwell in 1651. As a reward for his faithful services he was at the Restoration created a peer by the title of Lord Macdonnell and Aross, by patent dated at Whitehall, 20th December 1660, the honours being limited to the heirs male of his body. This led him to claim not only the chiefship of Clanranald, but likewise that of the whole Clandonald, as being the representative of Donald, the common ancestor of the clan: and on 18th July 1672, the privy council issued an order, commanding him as chief to exhibit before the council several persons of the name of Macdonald, to find caution to keep the peace.

The three branches of the Clanranald engaged in all the attempts which were made for the restoration of the Stuarts. On 27th August 1715, Glengarry was one of the chiefs who attended the pretended grand hunting match at Braemar, appointed by the Earl of Mar, previous to the breaking out of the rebellion of that year. After the suppression of the rebellion, the chief of Glengarry made his submission to General Cadogan at Inverness. He died in 1724. By his wife, Lady Mary Mackenzie, daughter of the third Earl of Seaforth, he had a son, John Macdonnell, who succeeded him.

In 1745, six hundred of the Macdonnells of Glengarry joined Prince Charles, under the command of Macdonnell of Lochgarry, who afterwards escaped to France with the prince, and were at the battles of Preston, Falkirk, and Culloden. The chief himself seems not to have engaged in the rebellion. He was however arrested, and sent to London.

General Sir James Macdonnell, G.C.B., who distinguished himself when lieut.-col. in the guards, by the bravery with which he held the buildings of Hougomont, at the battle of Waterloo, was third son of Duncan Macdonnell, Esq. of Glengarry. He was born at the family seat, Inverness-shire, and died May 15, 1857.

Colonel Alexander Ranaldson Macdonnell of Glengarry, who, in January 1822, married Rebecca, second daughter of Sir William Forbes of Pitsligo, baronet, was the last genuine specimen of a Highland chief. His character in its more favourable features was drawn by Sir Walter Scott, in his romance of Waverley, as Fergus MacIvor. He always wore the dress and adhered to the style of living of his ancestors, and when away from home in any of the Highland towns, he was followed by a body of retainers, who were regularly posted as sentinels at his door. He revived the claims of his family to the chiefship of the Macdonalds, styling himself also of Clanranald. In January 1828 he perished in endeavouring to escape from a steamer which had gone ashore. As his estate was very much mortgaged and encumbered, his son was compelled to dispose of it, and to emigrate to Australia, with his family and clan. The estate was purchased by the Marquis of Huntly from the chief, and in 1840 it was sold to Lord Ward (Earl of Dudley, Feb. 13, 1860,) for £91,000. In 1860 his lordship sold it to Edward Ellice, Esq. of Glenquoich, for £120,000.

The principal families descended from the house of Glengarry, were the Macdonnells of Barrisdale, in Knoydart, Greenfield, and Lundie.

The strength of the Macdonalds has at all times been considerable. In 1427, the Macdonnells of Garmoran and Lochaber mustered 2000 men; in 1715, the whole clan furnished 2820; and in 1745, 2330. In a memorial drawn up by President Forbes of Culloden, and transmitted to the government soon after the insurrection in 1745, the force of every clan is detailed, according to the best information which the author of the report could procure at the time. This enumeration, which proceeds upon the supposition that the chieftain calculated on the military services of the youthful, the most hardy, and the bravest of his followers, omitting those who, from advanced age, tender years, or natural debility, were unable to carry arms, gives the following statement of the respective forces of the different branches of the Macdonalds:--

Men. Macdonald of Sleat, 700 Macdonald of Clanranald, 700 Macdonell of Glengarry, 500 Macdonell of Keppoch, 300 Macdonald of Glencoe, 130 ---- In all, 2330

Next to the Campbells, therefore, who could muster about 5000 men, the Macdonalds were by far the most numerous and powerful clan in the Highlands of Scotland.

“The clans or septs,” says Mr Smibert,[161] “sprung from the Macdonalds, or adhering to and incorporated with that family, though bearing subsidiary names, were very numerous. One point peculiarly marks the Gael of the coasts, as this great connection has already been called, and that is the device of a Lymphad or old-fashioned Oared Galley, assumed and borne in their arms. It indicates strongly a common origin and site. The Macdonalds, Maclachlans, Macdougals, Macneils, Macleans, and Campbells, as well as the Macphersons, Mackintoshes, and others, carry, and have always carried, such a galley in their armorial shields. Some families of Macdonald descent do not bear it; and indeed, at most, it simply proves a common coast origin, or an early location by the western lochs and lakes.”

FOOTNOTES:

[136] Chalmers’ Caledonia, vol. i. p. 266.

[137] Western Highlands, p. 7.

[138] “Both Dugall and Reginald were called Kings of the Isles at the same time that Reginald, the son of Godred the Black, was styled King of Man and the Isles; and in the next generation we find mention of these kings of the Isles of the race of Somerled existing at one time.” The word king with the Norwegians therefore corresponds to Magnate.--Gregory, p. 17.

[139] “The seniority of Roderick, son of Reginald, has not been universally admitted, some authors making Donald the elder by birth. But the point is of little moment, seeing that the direct and legitimate line of Roderick, who, with his immediate progeny, held a large portion of the Isles, terminated in a female in the third generation, when the succession of the house of Somerled fell indisputably to the descendants of Donald, second grandson of Somerled, and head of the entire and potent clan of the Macdonalds.”--Smibert, p. 20.

[140] In the list of the Barons who assembled at Scone in 1284 to declare Margaret, the Maid of Norway, heiress to the crown, he appears under the name of Allangus filius Roderici.

[141] “The Lordship of Garmoran (also called Garbh-chrioch) comprehends the districts of Moidart, Arisaig, Morar, and Knoydart.”--Gregory, p. 27.

[142] The properties of Moidart, Arisaig, Morar, and Knoidart, on the mainland, and the isles of Uist, Barra, Rum, Egg, and Harris, were assigned and confirmed to him and his heirs by charter dated at Scone March 9, 1371-2.

[143] For details, see vol. i., p. 69, et seq.

[144] See vol. i. p. 73.

[145] “The authority of Mr Skene is usually to be received as of no common weight, but the account given by him of this portion of the Macdonald annals does not consist with unquestionable facts. As such, the statements in the national collections of Foedera (Treaties), and the Records of Parliament, ought certainly to be regarded; and a preference must be given to their testimony over the counter-assertions of ancient private annalists. Some of the latter parties seem to assert that John II., who had no children by Elizabeth Livingston (daughter of Lord Livingston), had yet ‘a natural son begotten of Macduffie of Colonsay’s daughter, and Angus Og, his legitimate son, by the Earl of Angus’s daughter.’ No mention of this Angus’ marriage occurs in any one public document relating to the Lords of the Isles, or to the Douglases, then Earls of Angus. On the other hand, the acknowledged wife of John of the Isles, Elizabeth Livingston, was certainly alive in 1475, at which date he, among other charges, is accused of making ‘his bastard son’ a lieutenant to him in ‘insurrectionary convocations of the lieges;’ and Angus could therefore come of no second marriage. He indubitably is the same party still more distinctly named in subsequent Parliamentary Records as ‘Angus of the Isles, bastard son to umquhile John of the Isles.’ The attribution of noble and legitimate birth to Angus took its origin, without doubt, in the circumstance of John’s want of children by marriage having raised his natural son to a high degree of power in the clan, which the active character of Angus well fitted him to use as he willed.”--Smibert’s Clans pp. 23, 24.

[146] Gregory (p. 52) says this combat was fought in a bay in the Isle of Mull, near Tobermory.

[147] See Gregory’s Highlands, p. 54.

[148] Gregory, p. 581.

[149] Gregory’s Highlands, p. 61.

[150] Smibert’s Clans, p. 25.

[151] Gregory’s Highlands, p. 297.

[152] Gregory’s Highlands, p. 330.

[153] Gregory’s Highlands and Isles, p. 312.

[154] Vol. i., chap. x.

[155] Highlands and Isles, p. 109.

[156] Highlands and Isles, p. 415.

[157] Gregory’s Highlands and Isles, page 66.

[158] Highlands and Isles, p. 417, Note.

[159] Gregory’s Highlands, pp. 301-303.

[160] Memoirs, p. 155.

[161] Clans, 29.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

Chapter III

The Macdougalls--Bruce’s adventures with the Macdougalls of Lorn--The Brooch of Lorn--The Stewarts acquire Lorn--Macdougalls of Raray, Gallanach, and Scraba--Macalisters--Siol Gillevray--Macneills--Partly of Norse descent--Two branches of Barra and Gigha--Sea exploits of the former--Ruari the Turbulent’s two families--Gigha Macneills--Macneills of Gullochallie, Carskeay, and Tirfergus--The chiefship--Macneills of Colonsay--Maclauchlans--Kindred to the Lamonds and MacEwens of Otter--Present representative--Castle Lachlan--Force of the clan--Cadets--MacEwens--Macdougall Campbells of Craignish--Policy of Argyll Campbells--Lamonds--Massacred by the Campbells--The laird of Lamond and MacGregor of Glenstrae.

MACDOUGALL.

The next clan that demands our notice is that of the Macdougalls, Macdugalls, Macdovals, Macdowalls, for in all these ways is the name spelled. The clan derives its descent from Dugall, who was the eldest son of Somerled, the common ancestor of the clan Donald; and it has hitherto been supposed, that Alexander de Ergadia, the undoubted ancestor of the clan Dugall, who first appears in the year 1284, was the son of Ewen de Ergadia, who figured so prominently at the period of the cession of the Isles. This opinion, however, Mr Skene conceives to be erroneous; first, because Ewen would seem to have died without leaving male issue; and, secondly, because it is contradicted by the manuscript of 1450, which states that the clan Dugall, as well as the clan Rory and the clan Donald, sprung not from Ewen, but from Ranald, the son of Somerled, through his son Dugall, from whom indeed they derived their name. Mr Smibert’s remarks, however, on this point are deserving of attention. “It seems very evident,” he says, “that they formed one of the primitive branches of the roving or stranger tribes of visitants to Scotland of the Irish, or at least Celtic race. Their mere name puts the fact almost beyond doubt. It also distinguishes them clearly from the Norsemen of the Western Isles, who were always styled Fion-galls, that is, Fair Strangers (Rovers, or Pirates). The common account of the origin of the Macdougalls is, that they sprung from a son or grandson of Somerled, of the name of Dougal. But though a single chieftain of that appellation may have flourished in the primitive periods of Gaelic story, it appears most probable, from many circumstances, that the clan derived their name from their descent and character generally. They were Dhu-Galls, ‘black strangers.’ The son or grandson of Somerled, who is said to have specially founded the Macdougall clan, lived in the 12th century. In the 13th, however, they were numerous and strong enough to oppose Bruce, and it is therefore out of the question to suppose that the descendant of Somerled could do more than consolidate or collect an already existing tribe, even if it is to be admitted as taking from him its name.”[162]

The first appearance which this family makes in history is at the convention which was held in the year 1284. In the list of those who attended on that occasion, we find the name of Alexander de Ergadia, whose presence was probably the consequence of his holding his lands by a crown charter; but from this period we lose sight of him entirely, until the reign of Robert Bruce, when the strenuous opposition offered by the Lord of Lorn and by his son John to the succession of that king, restored his name to history, in connection with that of Bruce. Alister having married the third daughter of the Red Comyn, whom Bruce slew in the Dominican church at Dumfries, became the mortal enemy of the king; and, upon more than one occasion, during the early part of his reign, succeeded in reducing him to the greatest straits.

Bruce, after his defeat at Methven, on the 19th of June 1306, withdrew to the mountainous parts of Breadalbane, and approached the borders of Argyleshire. His followers did not exceed three hundred men, who, disheartened by defeat, and exhausted by privation, were not in a condition to encounter a superior force. In this situation, however, he was attacked by Macdougall of Lorn, at the head of a thousand men, part of whom were Macnabs, who had joined the party of John Baliol; and, after a severe conflict, he was compelled to abandon the field. In the retreat from Dalree, where the battle had been fought, the king was hotly pursued, and especially by three of the clansmen of Lorn, probably personal attendants or henchmen of the Macdougalls, who appear to have resolved to slay the Bruce or die. These followed the retreating party, and when King Robert entered a narrow pass, threw themselves suddenly upon him. The king turning hastily round, cleft the skull of one with his battle-axe. “The second had grasped the stirrup, and Robert fixed and held him there by pressing down his foot, so that the captive was dragged along the ground as if chained to the horse. In the meantime, the third assailant had sprung from the hillside to the back of the horse, and sat behind the king. The latter turned half round and forced the Highlander forward to the front of the saddle, where ‘he clave the head to the harns.’ The second assailant was still hanging by the stirrup, and Robert now struck at him vigorously, and slew him at the first blow.” Whether the story is true or not, and it is by no means improbable, it shows the reputation for gigantic strength which the doughty Bruce had in his day. It is said to have been in this contest that the king lost the magnificent brooch, since famous as the “brooch of Lorn.” This highly-prized trophy was long preserved as a remarkable relic in the family of Macdougall of Dunolly, and after having been carried off during the siege of Dunolly Castle, the family residence, it was, about forty years ago, again restored to the family.[163] In his day of adversity the Macdougalls were the most persevering and dangerous of all King Robert’s enemies.

But the time for retribution at length arrived. When Robert Bruce had firmly established himself on the throne of Scotland, one of the first objects to which he directed his attention, was to crush his old enemies the Macdougalls,[164] and to revenge the many injuries he had suffered at their hands. With this view, he marched into Argyleshire, determined to lay waste the country, and take possession of Lorn. On advancing, he found John of Lorn and his followers posted in a formidable defile between Ben Cruachan and Loch Awe, which it seemed impossible to force, and almost hopeless to turn. But having sent a party to ascend the mountain, gain the heights, and threaten the enemy’s rear, Bruce immediately attacked them in front, with the utmost fury. For a time the Macdougalls sustained the onset bravely; but at length, perceiving themselves in danger of being assailed in the rear, as well as the front, and thus completely isolated in the defile, they betook themselves to flight. Unable to escape from the mountain gorge, they were slaughtered without mercy, and by this reverse, their power was completely broken. Bruce then laid waste Argyleshire, besieged and took the castle of Dunstaffnage, and received the submission of Alister of Lorn, the father of John, who now fled to England. Alister was allowed to retain the district of Lorn: but the rest of his possessions were forfeited and given to Angus of Isla, who had all along remained faithful to the king’s interests.

When John of Lorn arrived as a fugitive in England, King Edward was making preparations for that expedition, which terminated in the ever-memorable battle of Bannockburn. John was received with open arms, appointed to the command of the English fleet, and ordered to sail for Scotland, in order to co-operate with the land forces. But the total defeat and dispersion of the latter soon afterwards confirmed Bruce in possession of the throne; and being relieved from the apprehension of any further aggression on the part of the English kings he resolved to lose no time in driving the Lord of Lorn from the Isles, where he had made his appearance with the fleet under his command. Accordingly, on his return from Ireland, whither he had accompanied his brother Edward, he directed his course towards the Isles, and having arrived at Tarbet, is said to have caused his galleys to be dragged over the isthmus which connects Kintyre and Knapdale. This bold proceeding was crowned with success. The English fleet was surprised and dispersed; and its commander having been made prisoner, was sent to Dumbarton, and afterwards to Lochleven, where he was detained in confinement during the remainder of King Robert’s reign.

In the early part of the reign of David II., John’s son, John or Ewen, married a grand-daughter of Robert Bruce, and through her not only recovered the ancient possessions of his family, but even obtained a grant of the property of Glenlyon. These extensive territories, however, were not destined to remain long in the family. Ewen died without male issue; and his two daughters having married, the one John Stewart of Innermeath, and the other his brother Robert Stewart, an arrangement was entered into between these parties, in virtue of which the descendants of John Stewart acquired the whole of the Lorn possessions, with the exception of the castle of Dunolly and its dependencies, which remained to the other branch of the family; and thus terminated the power of this branch of the descendants of Somerled. The chieftainship of the clan now descended to the family of Dunolly, which continued to enjoy the small portion which remained to them of their ancient possessions until the year 1715, when the representative of the family incurred the penalty of forfeiture for his accession to the insurrection of that period; thus, by a singular contrast of circumstances, “losing the remains of his inheritance to replace upon the throne the descendants of those princes, whose accession his ancestors had opposed at the expense of their feudal grandeur.” The estate, however, was restored to the family in 1745, as a reward for their not having taken any part in the more formidable rebellion of that year. In President Forbes’s Report on the strength of the clans, the force of the Macdougalls is estimated at 200 men.

The Macdougalls of Raray, represented by Macdougall of Ardencaple, were a branch of the house of Lorn. The principal cadets of the family of Donolly were those of Gallanach and Soraba. The Macdougalls still hold possessions in Galloway, where, however, they usually style themselves Macdowall.

MACALISTERS.

A clan at one time of considerable importance, claiming connection with the great clan Donald, is the Macalisters, or MacAlesters, formerly inhabiting the south of Knapdale, and the north of Kintyre in Argyleshire. They are traced to Alister or Alexander, a son of Angus Mor, of the clan Donald. Exposed to the encroachments of the Campbells, their principal possessions became, ere long, absorbed by different branches of that powerful clan. The chief of this sept of the Macdonalds is Somerville MacAlester of Loup in Kintyre, and Kennox in Ayrshire. In 1805 Charles Somerville MacAlester, Esq. of Loup, assumed the name and arms of Somerville in addition to his own, in right of his wife, Janet Somerville, inheritrix of the entailed estate of Kennox, whom he had married in 1792.

From their descent from Alexander, eldest son of Angus Mor, Lord of the Isles and Kintyre in 1281, the grandson of Somerled, thane of Argyle, the MacAlesters claim to be the representatives, after MacDonell of Glengarry, of the ancient Lords of the Isles, as heirs male of Donald, grandson of Somerled.

After the forfeiture of the Lords of the Isles in 1493, the MacAlesters became so numerous as to form a separate and independent clan. At that period their chief was named John or Ian Dubh, whose residence was at Ard Phadriuc or Ardpatrick in South Knapdale. One of the family, Charles MacAlester, is mentioned as steward of Kintyre in 1481.

Alexander MacAlester was one of those Highland chieftains who were held responsible, by the act “called the Black Band,” passed in 1587, for the peaceable behaviour of their clansmen and the “broken men” who lived on their lands. He died when his son, Godfrey or Gorrie MacAlester, was yet under age.

In 1618 the laird of Loup was named one of the twenty barons and gentlemen of the shire of Argyle who were made responsible for the good rule of the earldom during Argyll’s absence. He married Margaret, daughter of Colin Campbell of Kilberry, and though, as a vassal of the Marquis of Argyll, he took no part in the wars of the Marquis of Montrose, many of his clan fought on the side of the latter.

The principal cadet of the family of Loup was MacAlester of Tarbert. There is also MacAlister of Glenbarr, county of Argyle.

SIOL GILLEVRAY.

Under the head of the Siol or clan Gillevray, Mr Skene gives other three clans said by the genealogists to have been descended from the family of Somerled, and included by Mr Skene under the Gallgael. The three clans are those of the Macneills, the Maclauchlans, and the Macewens. According to the MS. of 1450, the Siol Gillevray are descended from a certain Gillebride, surnamed King of the Isles, who lived in the 12th century, and who derived his descent from a brother of Suibne, the ancestor of the Macdonalds, who was slain in the year 1034. Even Mr Skene, however, doubts the genealogy by which this Gillebride is derived from an ancestor of the Macdonalds in the beginning of the 11th century, but nevertheless, the traditionary affinity which is thus shown to have existed between these clans and the race of Somerled at so early a period, he thinks seems to countenance the notion that they had all originally sprung from the same stock. The original seat of this race appears to have been in Lochaber. On the conquest of Argyle by Alexander II., they were involved in the ruin which overtook all the adherents of Somerled; with the exception of the Macneills, who consented to hold their lands of the crown, and the Maclauchlans, who regained their former consequence by means of marriage with an heiress of the Lamonds. After the breaking up of the clan, the other branches appear to have followed, as their chief, Macdougall Campbell of Craignish, the head of a family, which is descended from the kindred race of MacInnes of Ardgour.

MACNEILL.

The Macneills consisted of two independent branches, the Macneills of Barra and the Macneills of Gigha, said to be descended from brothers. Their badge was the sea ware, but they had different armorial bearings, and from this circumstance, joined to the fact that they were often opposed to each other in the clan fights of the period, and that the Christian names of the one, with the exception of Neill, were not used by the other, Mr Gregory thinks the tradition of their common descent erroneous. Part of their possessions were completely separated, and situated at a considerable distance from the rest.

The clan Neill were among the secondary vassal tribes of the lords of the Isles, and its heads appear to have been of Norse or Danish origin. Mr Smibert thinks this probable from the fact that the Macneills were lords of Castle Swen, plainly a Norse term. “The clan,” he says,[165] “was in any case largely Gaelic, to a certainty. We speak of the fundamental line of the chiefs mainly, when we say that the Macneills appear to have at least shared the blood of the old Scandinavian inhabitants of the western islands. The names of those of the race first found in history are partly indicative of such a lineage. The isle of Barra and certain lands in Uist were chartered to a Macneill in 1427; and in 1472, a charter of the Macdonald family is witnessed by Hector Mactorquil Macneill, keeper of Castle Swen. The appellation ‘Mac-Torquil,’ half Gaelic, half Norse, speaks strongly in favour of the supposition that the two races were at this very time in the act of blending with one people. After all, we proceed not beyond the conclusion, that, by heirs male or heirs female, the founders of the house possessed a sprinkling of the blood of the ancient Norwegian occupants of the western isles and coasts, interfused with that of the native Gael of Albyn, and also of the Celtic visitants from Ireland. The proportion of Celtic blood, beyond doubt, is far the largest in the veins of the clan generally.”

About the beginning of the 15th century, the Macneills were a considerable clan in Knapdale, Argyleshire. As this district was not then included in the sheriffdom of Argyle, it is probable that their ancestor had consented to hold his lands of the crown.

The first of the family on record is Nigellus Og, who obtained from Robert Bruce a charter of Barra and some lands in Kintyre. His great-grandson, Gilleonan Roderick Muchard Macneill, in 1427, received from Alexander, Lord of the Isles, a charter of that island. In the same charter were included the lands of Boisdale in South Uist, which lies about eight miles distant from Barra. With John Garve Maclean he disputed the possession of that island, and was killed by him in Coll. His grandson, Gilleonan, took part with John, the old Lord of the Isles, against his turbulent son, Angus, and fought on his side at the battle of Bloody Bay. He was chief of this sept or division of the Macneills in 1493, at the forfeiture of the lordship of the Isles.

The Gigha Macneills are supposed to have sprung from Torquil Macneill, designated in his charter, “filius Nigelli,” who, in the early part of the 15th century, received from the Lord of the Isles a charter of the lands of Gigha and Taynish, with the constabulary of Castle Sweyn, in Knapdale. He had two sons, Neill his heir, and Hector, ancestor of the family of Taynish. Malcolm Macneill of Gigha, the son of Neill, who is first mentioned in 1478, was chief of this sept of the Macneills in 1493. After that period the Gigha branch followed the banner of Macdonald of Isla and Kintyre, while the Barra Macneills ranged themselves under that of Maclean of Dowart.

In 1545 Gilliganan Macneill of Barra was one of the barons and council of the Isles who accompanied Donald Dubh, styling himself Lord of the Isles and Earl of Ross, to Ireland, to swear allegiance to the king of England. His elder son, Roderick or Ruari Macneill, was killed at the battle of Glenlivet, by a shot from a fieldpiece, on 3d Oct. 1594. He left three sons--Roderick, his heir, called Ruari the turbulent, John, and Murdo. During the memorable and most disastrous feud which happened between the Macleans and the Macdonalds at this period, the Barra Macneills and the Gigha branch of the same clan fought on different sides.

The Macneills of Barra were expert seamen, and did not scruple to act as pirates upon occasion. An English ship having been seized off the island of Barra by Ruari the turbulent, Queen Elizabeth complained of this act of piracy. The laird of Barra was in consequence summoned to appear at Edinburgh, to answer for his conduct, but he treated the summons with contempt. All the attempts made to apprehend him proving unsuccessful, Mackenzie, tutor of Kintail, undertook to effect his capture by a stratagem frequently put in practice against the island chiefs when suspecting no hostile design. Under the pretence of a friendly visit, he arrived at Macneill’s castle of Chisamul (pronounced Kisimul), the ruins of which stand on an insulated rock in Castlebay, on the south-east end of Barra, and invited him and all his attendants on board his vessel. There they were well plied with liquor, until they were all overpowered with it. The chief’s followers were then sent on shore, while he himself was carried a prisoner to Edinburgh. Being put upon his trial, he confessed his seizure of the English ship, but pleaded in excuse that he thought himself bound by his loyalty to avenge, by every means in his power, the fate of his majesty’s mother, so cruelly put to death by the queen of England. This politic answer procured his pardon, but his estate was forfeited, and given to the tutor of Kintail. The latter restored it to its owner, on condition of his holding it of him, and paying him sixty merks Scots, as a yearly feu duty. It had previously been held of the crown. Some time thereafter Sir James Macdonald of Sleat married a daughter of the tutor of Kintail, who made over the superiority to his son-in-law, and it is now possessed by Lord Macdonald, the representative of the house of Sleat.

The old chief of Barra, Ruari the turbulent, had several sons by a lady of the family of Maclean, with whom, according to an ancient practice in the Highlands, he had handfasted, instead of marrying her. He afterwards married a sister of the captain of the Clanranald, and by her also he had sons. To exclude the senior family from the succession, the captain of the Clanranald took the part of his nephews, whom he declared to be the only legitimate sons of the Barra chief. Having apprehended the eldest son of the first family for having been concerned in the piratical seizure of a ship of Bourdeaux, he conveyed him to Edinburgh for trial, but he died there soon after. His brothers-german, in revenge, assisted by Maclean of Dowart, seized Neill Macneill, the eldest son of the second family, and sent him to Edinburgh, to be tried as an actor in the piracy of the same Bourdeaux ship; and, thinking that their father was too partial to their half brothers, they also seized the old chief, and placed him in irons. Neill Macneill, called Weyislache, was found innocent, and liberated through the influence of his uncle. Barra’s elder sons, on being charged to exhibit their father before the privy council, refused, on which they were proclaimed rebels, and commission was given to the captain of the Clanranald against them. In consequence of these proceedings, which occurred about 1613, Clanranald was enabled to secure the peaceable succession of his nephew to the estate of Barra, on the death of his father, which happened soon after.[166]

The island of Barra and the adjacent isles are still possessed by the descendant and representative of the family of Macneill. Their feudal castle of Chisamul has been already mentioned. It is a building of hexagonal form, strongly built, with a wall above thirty feet high, and anchorage for small vessels on every side of it. Martin, who visited Barra in 1703, in his Description of the Western Islands, says that the Highland Chroniclers or sennachies alleged that the then chief of Barra was the 34th lineal descendant from the first Macneill who had held it. He relates that the inhabitants of this and the other islands belonging to Macneill were in the custom of applying to him for wives and husbands, when he named the persons most suitable for them, and gave them a bottle of strong waters for the marriage feast.

The chief of the Macneills of Gigha, in the first half of the 16th century, was Neill Macneill, who was killed, with many gentlemen of his tribe, in 1530, in a feud with Allan Maclean of Torlusk, called Ailen nan Sop, brother of Maclean of Dowart. His only daughter, Annabella, made over the lands of Gigha to her natural brother, Neill. He sold Gigha to James Macdonald of Isla in 1554, and died without legitimate issue in the latter part of the reign of Queen Mary.

On the extinction of the direct male line, Neill Macneill vic Eachan, who had obtained the lands of Taynish, became heir male of the family. His descendant, Hector Macneill of Taynish, purchased in 1590 the island of Gigha from John Campbell of Calder, who had acquired it from Macdonald of Isla, so that it again became the property of a Macneill. The estates of Gigha and Taynish were possessed by his descendants till 1780, when the former was sold to Macneill of Colonsay, a cadet of the family.

The representative of the male line of the Macneills of Taynish and Gigha, Roger Hamilton Macneill of Taynish, married Elizabeth, daughter and heiress of Hamilton Price, Esq. of Raploch, Lanarkshire, with whom he got that estate, and assumed, in consequence, the name of Hamilton. His descendants are now designated of Raploch.

The principal cadets of the Gigha Macneills, besides the Taynish family, were those of Gallochallie, Carskeay, and Tirfergus. Torquil, a younger son of Lachlan Macneill Buy of Tirfergus, acquired the estate of Ugadale in Argyleshire, by marriage with the heiress of the Mackays in the end of the 17th century. The present proprietor spells his name Macneal. From Malcolm Beg Macneill, celebrated in Highland tradition for his extraordinary prowess and great strength, son of John Oig Macneill of Gallochallie, in the reign of James VI., sprung the Macneills of Arichonan. Malcolm’s only son, Neill Oig, had two sons, John, who succeeded him, and Donald Macneill of Crerar, ancestor of the Macneills of Colonsay, now the possessors of Gigha. Many cadets of the Macneills of Gigha settled in the north of Ireland.

Both branches of the clan Neill laid claim to the chiefship. According to tradition, it has belonged, since the middle of the 16th century, to the house of Barra. Under the date of 1550, a letter appears in the register of the privy council, addressed to “Torkill Macneill, chief and principal of the clan and surname of Macnelis.” Mr Skene conjectures this Torkill to have been the hereditary keeper of Castle Sweyn, and connected with neither branch of the Macneills. He is said, however, to have been the brother of Neill Macneill of Gigha, killed in 1530, as above mentioned, and to have, on his brother’s death, obtained a grant of the non-entries of Gigha as representative of the family. If this be correct, according to the above designation, the chiefship was in the Gigha line. Torquil appears to have died without leaving any direct succession.

The first of the family of Colonsay, Donald Macneill of Crerar, in South Knapdale, exchanged that estate in 1700, with the Duke of Argyll, for the islands of Colonsay and Oronsay. The old possessors of these two islands, which are only separated by a narrow sound, dry at low water, were the Macduffies or Macphies. Donald’s great-grandson, Archibald Macneill of Colonsay, sold that island to his cousin, John Macneill, who married Hester, daughter of Duncan Macneill of Dunmore, and had six sons. His eldest son, Alexander, younger of Colonsay, became the purchaser of Gigha. Two of his other sons, Duncan, Lord Colonsay, and Sir John Macneill, have distinguished themselves, the one as a lawyer and judge, and the other as a diplomatist.

MACLACHLAN.

Maclachlan, or Maclauchlan, is the name of another clan classified by Skene as belonging to the great race of the Siol Conn, and in the MS., so much valued by this writer, of 1450, the Maclachlans are traced to Gilchrist, a grandson of that Anradan or Henry, from whom all the clans of the Siol Gillevray are said to be descended. They possessed the barony of Strathlachlan in Cowal, and other extensive possessions in the parishes of Glassrie and Kilmartin, and on Loch Awe side, which were separated from the main seat of the family by Loch Fyne.

They were one of those Gaelic tribes who adopted the oared galley for their special device, as indicative of their connection, either by residence or descent, with the Isles. An ancestor of the family, Lachlan Mor, who lived in the 13th century, is described in the Gaelic MS. of 1450, as “son of Patrick, son of Gilchrist, son of De dalan, called the clumsy, son of Anradan, from whom are descended also the clan Neill.”

By tradition the Maclachlans are said to have come from Ireland, their original stock being the O’Loughlins of Meath.

According to the Irish genealogies, the clan Lachlan, the Lamonds, and the MacEwens of Otter, were kindred tribes, being descended from brothers who were sons of De dalan above referred to, and tradition relates that they took possession of the greater part of the district of Cowal, from Toward Point to Strachur at the same time; the Lamonds being separated from the MacEwens by the river of Kilfinan, and the MacEwens from the Maclachlans by the stream which separates the parishes of Kilfinan and Strath Lachlan. De dalan, the common ancestor of these families, is stated in ancient Irish genealogies to have been the grandson of Hugh Atlaman, the head of the great family of O’Neils, kings of Ireland.

About 1230, Gilchrist Maclachlan, who is mentioned in the manuscript of 1450 as chief of the family of Maclachlan at the time, is a witness to a charter of Kilfinan granted by Laumanus, ancestor of the Lamonds.

In 1292, Gilleskel Maclachlan got a charter of his lands in Ergadia from Baliol.

In a document preserved in the treasury of Her Majesty’s Exchequer, entitled “Les petitions de terre demandees en Escoce,” there is the following entry,--“Item Gillescop Macloghlan ad demandi la Baronie de Molbryde juvene, apelle Strath, que fu pris contre le foi de Roi.” From this it appears that Gillespie Maclachlan was in possession of the lands still retained by the family, during the occupation of Scotland by Edward I. in 1296.[167]

In 1314, Archibald Maclachlan in Ergadia, granted to the Preaching Friars of Glasgow forty shillings to be paid yearly out of his lands of Kilbride, “juxta castrum meum quod dicitur Castellachlan.” He died before 1322, and was succeeded by his brother Patrick. The latter married a daughter of James, Steward of Scotland, and had a son, Lachlan, who succeeded him. Lachlan’s son, Donald, confirmed in 1456, the grant by his predecessor Archibald, to the Preaching Friars of Glasgow of forty shillings yearly out of the lands of Kilbride, with an additional annuity of six shillings and eightpence “from his lands of Kilbryde near Castellachlan.”[168]

Lachlan, the 15th chief, dating from the time that written evidence can be adduced, was served heir to his father, 23d September 1719. He married a daughter of Stewart of Appin, and was killed at Culloden, fighting on the side of Prince Charles. The 18th chief, his great-grandson, Robert Maclachlan of Maclachlan, convener and one of the deputy-lieutenants of Argyleshire, married in 1823, Helen, daughter of William A. Carruthers of Dormont, Dumfries-shire, without issue. His brother, the next heir, George Maclachlan, Esq., has three sons and a daughter. The family seat, Castle Lachlan, built about 1790, near the old and ruinous tower, formerly the residence of the chiefs, is situated in the centre of the family estate, which is eleven miles in length, and, on an average, a mile and a half in breadth, and stretches in one continued line along the eastern side of Loch Fyne. The effective force of the clan previous to the rebellion of 1745, was estimated at 300 men. Their original seat, according to Mr Skene, appears to have been in Lochaber, where a very old branch of the family has from the earliest period been settled as native men of the Camerons.

In Argyleshire also are the families of Maclachlan of Craiginterve, Inchconnell, &c., and in Stirlingshire, of Auchintroig. The Maclachlans of Drumblane in Monteith were of the Lochaber branch.

MACEWENS.

Upon a rocky promontory situated on the coast of Lochfyne, may still be discerned the vestige of a building, called in Gaelic Chaistel Mhic Eobhuin, or the castle of MacEwen. In the Old Statistical Account of the parish of Kilfinnan, quoted by Skene, this MacEwen is described as the chief of a clan, and proprietor of the northern division of the parish called Otter; and in the manuscript of 1450, which contains the genealogy of the Clan Eoghan na Hoitreic, or Clan Ewen of Otter, they are derived from Anradan, the common ancestor of the Maclauchlans and the Macneills. This family soon became extinct, and their property gave title to a branch of the Campbells, by whom it appears to have been subsequently acquired, though in what manner we have no means of ascertaining.

SIOL EACHERN.

Under the name of Siol Eachern are included by Mr Skene the Macdougall Campbells of Craignish, and the Lamonds of Lamond, both very old clans in Argyleshire, and supposed to have been originally of the same race.

MACDOUGALL CAMPBELLS OF CRAIGNISH.

“The policy of the Argyll family,” says Mr Skene, “led them to employ every means for the acquisition of property, and the extension of the clan. One of the arts which they used for the latter purpose was to compel those clans which had become dependant upon them to adopt the name of Campbell; and this, when successful, was generally followed at an after period, by the assertion that that clan was descended from the house of Argyll. In general, the clans thus adopted into the race of Campbell, are sufficiently marked out by their being promoted only to the honour of their being an illegitimate branch; but the tradition of the country invariably distinguishes between the real Campbells, and those who were compelled to adopt their name.” Of the policy in question, the Campbells of Craignish are said to have afforded a remarkable instance. According to the Argyll system, as here described, they are represented as the descendants of Dugall, an illegitimate son of a Campbell, who lived in the twelfth century. But the common belief amongst the people is, that their ancient name was MacEachern, and that they were of the same race with the Macdonalds; nor are there wanting circumstances which seem to give countenance to this tradition. Their arms are charged with the galley of the Isles, from the mast of which depends a shield exhibiting some of the distinctive bearings of the Campbells; and, what is even more to the purpose, the manuscript of 1450 contains a genealogy of the MacEacherns, in which they are derived from a certain Nicol MacMurdoch, who lived in the twelfth century. Besides, when the MacGillevrays and MacIans of Morvern and Ardgour were broken up and dispersed, many of their septs, although not resident on the property of the Craignish family, acknowledged its head as their chief. But as the MacGillevrays and the MacIans were two branches of the same clan, which had separated as early as the twelfth century; and as the MacEacherns appear to have been of the same race, Murdoch, the first of the clan, being contemporary with Murdoch the father of Gillebride, the ancestor of the Siol Gillevray; it may be concluded that the Siol Eachern and the MacIans were of the same clan; and this is further confirmed by the circumstance, that there was an old family of MacEacherns which occupied Kingerloch, bordering on Ardgour, the ancient property of the MacIans. That branch of the Siol Eachern which settled at Craignish, were called Clan Dugall Craignish, and obtained, it is said, the property known by this name from the brother of Campbell of Lochow, in the reign of David II.[169] The lands of Colin Campbell of Lochow having been forfeited in that reign, his brother, Gillespie Campbell, appears to have obtained a grant of them from the crown; and it is not improbable that the clan Dugall Craignish acquired from the latter their right to the property of Craignish. After the restoration of the Lochow family, by the removal of the forfeiture, that of Craignish were obliged to hold their lands, not of the crown, but of the house of Argyll. Nevertheless, they continued for some time a considerable family, maintaining a sort of independence, until at length, yielding to the influence of that policy which has already been described, they merged, like most of the neighbouring clans, in that powerful race by whom they were surrounded.[170]

LAMOND.

It is an old and accredited tradition in the Highlands, that the Lamonds or Lamonts were the most ancient proprietors of Cowal, and that the Stewarts, Maclauchlans, and Campbells obtained possession of their property in that district by marriage with daughters of the family. At an early period a very small part only of Cowal was included in the sheriffdom of Upper Argyle, the remainder being comprehended in that of Perth. It may, therefore, be presumed that, on the conquest of Argyle by Alexander II., the lord of Lower Cowal had submitted to the king, and obtained a crown charter. But, in little more than half a century after that event, we find the High Steward in possession of Lower Cowal, and the Maclauchlans in possession of Strathlachlan. It appears, indeed, that, in 1242, Alexander the High Steward of Scotland, married Jean, the daughter of James, son of Angus MacRory, who is styled Lord of Bute; and, from the manuscript of 1450, we learn that, about the same period, Gilchrist Maclauchlan married the daughter of Lachlan MacRory; from which it is probable that this Roderic or Rory was the third individual who obtained a crown charter for Lower Cowal, and that by these intermarriages the property passed from his family into the hands of the Stewarts and the Machlauchlans. The coincidence of these facts, with the tradition above-mentioned, would seem also to indicate that Angus MacRory was the ancestor of the Lamonds.

After the marriage of the Steward with the heiress of Lamond, the next of that race of whom any mention is made is Duncan MacFercher, and “Laumanus,” son of Malcolm, and grandson of the same Duncan, who appear to have granted to the monks of Paisley a charter of the lands of Kilmore, near Lochgilp, and also of the lands “which they and their predecessors held at Kilmun” (quas nos et antecessores nostri apud Kilmun habuerunt). In the same year, “Laumanus,” the son of Malcolm, also granted a charter of the lands of Kilfinnan, which, in 1295, is confirmed by Malcolm, the son and heir of the late “Laumanus” (domini quondam Laumanis). But in an instrument, or deed, dated in 1466, between the monastery of Paisley and John Lamond of Lamond, regarding the lands of Kilfinan, it is expressly stated, that these lands had belonged to the ancestors of John Lamond; and hence, it is evident, that the “Laumanus,” mentioned in the previous deed, must have been one of the number, if not indeed the chief and founder of the family. “From Laumanus,” says Mr Skene, “the clan appear to have taken the name of Maclaman or Lamond, having previously to this time borne the name of Macerachar, and Clan Mhic Earachar.”

The connection of this clan with that of Dugall Craignish, is indicated by the same circumstances which point out the connection of other branches of the tribe; for whilst the Craignish family preserved its power it was followed by a great portion of the Clan Mhic Earachar, although it possessed no feudal right to their services. “There is one peculiarity connected with the Lamonds,” says Mr Skene, “that although by no means a powerful clan, their genealogy can be proved by charters, at a time when most other Highland families are obliged to have recourse to tradition, and the genealogies of their ancient sennachies; but their antiquity could not protect the Lamonds from the encroachments of the Campbells, by whom they were soon reduced to as small a portion of their original possessions in Lower Cowal, as the other Argyleshire clans had been of theirs.”[171] The Lamonds were a clan of the same description as the Maclauchlans, and, like the latter, they have, notwithstanding “the encroachments of the Campbells,” still retained a portion of their ancient possessions. The chief of this family is Lamond of Lamond.

According to Nisbet, the clan Lamond were originally from Ireland, but whether they sprung from the Dalriadic colony, or from a still earlier race in Cowal, it is certain that they possessed, at a very early period, the superiority of the district. Their name continued to be the prevailing one till the middle of the 17th century. In June 1646, certain chiefs of the clan Campbell in the vicinity of Dunoon castle, determined upon obtaining the ascendency, took advantage of the feuds and disorders of the period, to wage a war of extermination against the Lamonds. The massacre of the latter by the Campbells, that year, formed one of the charges against the Marquis of Argyll in 1661, although he does not seem to have been any party to it.

An interesting tradition is recorded of one of the lairds of Lamond, who had unfortunately killed, in a sudden quarrel, the son of MacGregor of Glenstrae, taking refuge in the house of the latter, and claiming his protection, which was readily granted, he being ignorant that he was the slayer of his son. On being informed, MacGregor escorted him in safety to his own people. When the MacGregors were proscribed, and the aged chief of Glenstrae had become a wanderer, Lamond hastened to protect him and his family, and received them into his house.

FOOTNOTES:

[162] Clans, 44, 45.

[163] Mr Smibert (Clans, p. 46) thus describes this interesting relic:--“That ornament, as observed, is silver, and consists of a circular plate, about four inches in diameter, having a tongue like that of a common buckle on the under side. The upper side is magnificently ornamented. First, from the margin rises a neatly-formed rim, with hollows cut in the edge at certain distances, like the embrasures in an embattled wall. From a circle within this rim rise eight round tapering obelisks, about an inch and a quarter high, finely cut, and each studded at top with a river pearl. Within this circle of obelisks there is a second rim, also ornamented with carved work, and within which rises a neat circular case, occupying the whole centre of the brooch, and slightly overtopping the obelisks. The exterior of this case, instead of forming a plain circle, projects into eight semi-cylinders, which relieve it from all appearance of heaviness. The upper part is likewise carved very elegantly, and in the centre there is a large gem. This case may be taken off, and within there is a hollow, which might have contained any small articles upon which a particular value was set.”

[164] In referring to this incident in the first part of this work (p. 63), the name “Stewart” (which had crept into the old edition) was allowed to remain instead of that of “Macdougall.” The Stewarts did not possess Lorn till some years after.

[165] Clans, p. 84.

[166] Gregory’s Highlands and Isles, p. 346.

[167] See Sir Francis Palgrave’s Scottish Documents, vol. i. p. 319.

[168] Munimenta Fratrum Predicatorum de Glasgu. Maitland Club.

[169] “Nisbet, that acute heraldist,” says Smibert, “discovered an old seal of the family, on which the words are, as nearly as they can be made out, S(igillum) Dugalli de Craignish, showing that the Campbells of Craignish were simply of the Dhu-Gall race. The seal is very old, though noticed only by its use in 1500. It has the grand mark upon it of the bearings of all the Gael of the Western Coasts, namely, the Oared Galley.”

[170] Skene’s Highlanders.

[171] Skene’s Highlanders, vol. ii. part ii. chap. 4.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us