XI. A.D. 1624-1636
BRITISH SOVEREIGNS:--
James VI., 1603-1625. Charles I., 1625-1649.
Insurrection of the clan Chattan against the Earl of Murray --Dispute between the laird of Duffus and Gordon, younger of Embo--Sir Donald Mackay’s machinations--Feud among the Grants --Dispute between the lairds of Frendraught and Rothiemay--Quarrel between Frendraught and the laird of Pitcaple--Calamitous and fatal fire at Frendraught House--Inquiry as to the cause of the fire--Escape of James Grant--Apprehension of Grant of Ballindalloch --And of Thomas Grant--Dispute between the Earl of Sutherland and Lord Lorn--Depredations committed upon Frendraught--Marquis of Huntly accused therewith--The Marquis and Letterfourie committed --Liberated--Death and character of the Marquis.
The troubles in Sutherland and Caithness had been scarcely allayed, when a formidable insurrection broke out on the part of the clan Chattan against the Earl of Murray, which occasioned considerable uproar and confusion in the Highlands. The clan Chattan had for a very long period been the faithful friends and followers of the Earls of Murray, who, on that account, had allotted them many valuable lands in recompense for their services in Pettie and Strathearn. The clan had, in particular, been very active in revenging upon the Marquis of Huntly the death of James, Earl of Murray, who was killed at Donnibristle; but his son and successor being reconciled to the family of Huntly, and needing no longer, as he thought, the aid of the clan, dispossessed them of the lands which his predecessors had bestowed upon them. This harsh proceeding occasioned great irritation, and, upon the death of Sir Lauchlan their chief, who died a short time before Whitsunday, 1624, they resolved either to recover the possessions of which they had been deprived, or to lay them waste. While Sir Lauchlan lived, the clan were awed by his authority and prevented from such an attempt, but no such impediment now standing in their way, and as their chief, who was a mere child, could run no risk by the enterprise, they considered the present a favourable opportunity for carrying their plan into execution.
Accordingly, a gathering of the clan, to the number of about 200 gentlemen and 300 servants, took place about Whitsunday, 1624. This party was commanded by three uncles of the late chief.[211] “They keeped the feilds,” says Spalding, “in their Highland weid upon foot with swords, bowes, arrowes, targets, hagbuttis, pistollis, and other Highland armour; and first began to rob and spoulzie the earle’s tennents, who laboured their possessions, of their haill goods, geir, insight, plenishing, horse, nolt, sheep, corns, and cattell, and left them nothing that they could gett within their bounds; syne fell in sorning throw out Murray, Strathawick, Urquhart, Ross, Sutherland, Brae of Marr, and diverse other parts, takeing their meat and food per force wher they could not gett it willingly, frae freinds alseweill as frae their faes; yet still keeped themselves from shedeing of innocent blood. Thus they lived as outlawes, oppressing the countrie, (besydes the casting of the earle’s lands waist), and openly avowed they had tane this course to gett thir own possessions again, or then hold the country walking.”
When this rising took place, the Earl of Murray obtained from Monteith and Balquhidder about 300 armed men, and placing himself at their head he marched through Moray to Inverness. The earl took up his residence in the castle with the Earl of Enzie, his brother-in-law, eldest son of the Marquis of Huntly, and after the party had passed one night at Inverness, he despatched them in quest of the clan Chattan, but whether from fear of meeting them, or because they could not find them, certain it is that the Monteith and Balquhidder men returned without effecting anything, after putting the earl to great expense. The earl, therefore, sent them back to their respective countries, and went himself to Elgin, where he raised another body of men to suppress the clan Chattan, who were equally unsuccessful in finding the latter out.
These ineffectual attempts against the clan served to make them more bold and daring in their outrages; and as the earl now saw that no force which he could himself bring into the field was sufficient to overawe these marauders, King James, at his earnest solicitation, granted him a commission, appointing him his lieutenant in the Highlands, and giving him authority to proceed capitally against the offenders. On his return the earl proclaimed the commission he had obtained from his majesty, and issued letters of intercommuning against the clan Chattan, prohibiting all persons from harbouring, supplying, or entertaining them, in any manner of way, under certain severe pains and penalties. Although the Marquis of Huntly was the earl’s father-in-law, he felt somewhat indignant at the appointment, as he conceived that he or his son had the best title to be appointed to the lieutenancy of the north; but he concealed his displeasure.
After the Earl of Murray had issued the notices, prohibiting all persons from communicating with, or assisting the clan Chattan, their kindred and friends, who had privately promised them aid, before they broke out, began to grow cold, and declined to assist them, as they were apprehensive of losing their estates, many of them being wealthy. The earl perceiving this, opened a communication with some of the principal persons of the clan, to induce them to submit to his authority, who, seeing no hopes of making any longer an effectual resistance, readily acquiesced, and, by the intercession of friends, made their peace with the earl, on condition that they should inform him of the names of such persons as had given them protection, after the publication of his letters of interdiction. Having thus quelled this formidable insurrection without bloodshed, the earl, by virtue of his commission, held justice courts at Elgin, where “some slight louns, followers of the clan Chattan,” were tried and executed, but all the principals concerned were pardoned.
As the account which Spalding gives of the appearance of the accused, and of the base conduct of the principal men of the clan Chattan, in informing against their friends and benefactors, is both curious and graphic, it is here inserted: “Then presently was brought in befor the barr; and in the honest men’s faces, the clan Chattan who had gotten supply, verified what they had gotten, and the honest men confounded and dasht, knew not what to answer, was forced to come in the earle’s will, whilk was not for their weill: others compeared and willingly confessed, trusting to gett more favour at the earle’s hands, but they came little speid: and lastly, some stood out and denyed all, who was reserved to the triall of an assyse. The principall malefactors stood up in judgment, and declared what they had gotten, whether meat, money, cloathing, gun, ball, powder, lead, sword, dirk, and the like commodities, and alse instructed the assyse in ilk particular, what they had gotten frae the persons pannalled; an uncouth form of probation, wher the principall malefactor proves against the receiptor for his own pardon, and honest men, perhaps neither of the clan Chattan’s kyne nor blood, punished for their good will, ignorant of the laws, and rather receipting them more for their evil nor their good. Nevertheless thir innocent men, under collour of justice, part and part as they came in, were soundly fyned in great soumes as their estates might bear, and some above their estate was fyned, and every one warded within the tolbuith of Elgine, while the least myte was payed of such as was persued in anno 1624.”[212]
Some idea of the unequal administration of the laws at this time may be formed, when it is considered that the enormous fines imposed in the present instance, went into the pockets of the chief judge, the Earl of Murray himself, as similar mulcts had previously gone into those of the Earl of Argyle, in his crusade against the unfortunate clan Gregor! This legal robbery, however, does not appear to have enriched the houses of Argyle and Murray, for Sir Robert Gordon observes, that “these fynes did not much advantage either of these two earles.” The Earl of Murray, no doubt, thinking such a mode of raising money an easy and profitable speculation, afterwards obtained an enlargement of his commission from Charles I., not only against the clan Chattan, but also against all other offenders within several adjacent shires; but the commission was afterwards annulled by his majesty, not so much on account of the abuses and injustice which might have been perpetrated under it, but because, as Sir Robert Gordon observes, “it grieved divers of his majesty’s best affected subjects, and chieflie the Marquis of Huntlie, unto whose predicessors onlie the office of livetennendrie in the north of Scotland had bein granted by former kings, for these many ages.”
There seems reason, however, for supposing that the recall of the commission was hastened by complaints to the king, on the part of the oppressed; for the earl had no sooner obtained its renewal, than he held a court against the burgh of Inverness, John Grant of Glenmoriston, and others who had refused to acknowledge their connexion with the clan Chattan, or to pay him the heavy fines which he had imposed upon them. The town of Inverness endeavoured to get quit of the earl’s extortions, on the ground that the inhabitants were innocent of the crimes laid to their charge; but the earl frustrated their application to the Privy Council. The provost, Duncan Forbes,[213] was then sent to the king, and Grant of Glenmoriston took a journey to London, at the same time, on his own account; but their endeavours proved ineffectual, and they had no alternative but to submit to the earl’s exactions.[214]
The quarrel between the laird of Duffus and John Gordon, younger of Embo, which had lain dormant for some time, burst forth again, in the year 1625, and proved nearly fatal to both parties. Gordon had long watched an opportunity to revenge the wrong which he conceived had been done him by the laird of Duffus and his brother, James, but he could never fall in with either of them, as they remained in Moray, and, when they appeared in Sutherland, they were always accompanied by some friends, so that Gordon was prevented from attacking them. Frequent disappointments in this way only whetted his appetite for revenge; and meeting, when on horseback, one day, between Sidderay and Skibo, with John Sutherland of Clyne, third brother of the laird of Duffus, who was also on horseback, he determined to make the laird of Clyne suffer for the delinquencies of his elder brother. Raising, therefore, a cudgel which he held in his hand, he inflicted several blows upon John Sutherland, who, as soon as he recovered himself from the surprise and confusion into which such an unexpected attack had thrown him, drew his sword. Gordon, in his turn, unsheathed his, and a warm combat ensued, between the parties and two friends who accompanied them. After they had fought a while, Gordon wounded Sutherland in the head and in one of his hands, and otherwise injured him, but he spared his life, although completely in his power.
Duffus immediately cited John Gordon to appear before the Privy Council, to answer for this breach of the peace, and, at the same time, summoned before the council some of the Earl of Sutherland’s friends and dependants, for an alleged conspiracy against himself and his friends. Duffus, with his two brothers and Gordon, came to Edinburgh on the day appointed, and, the parties being heard, Gordon was declared guilty of a riot, and was thereupon committed to prison. This result gave great satisfaction to Duffus and his brothers, who now calculated on nothing less than the utter ruin of Gordon; as they had, by means of Sir Donald Mackay, obtained a Strathnaver man, named William Mack-Allen (one of the Siol-Thomais), who had been a servant of Gordon’s, to become a witness against him, and to prove every thing that Duffus was pleased to allege against Gordon.
In this state of matters, Sir Robert Gordon returned from London to Edinburgh, where he found Duffus in high spirits, exulting at his success, and young Embo in prison. Sir Robert applied to Duffus, hoping to bring about a reconciliation by the intervention of friends, but Duffus refused to hear of any arrangement; and the more reasonable the conditions were, which Sir Robert proposed, the more unreasonable and obstinate did he become; his object being to get the lords to award him great sums of money at the expense of Gordon, in satisfaction for the wrong done his brother. Sir Robert, however, finally succeeded, by the assistance of the Earl of Enzie, who was then at Edinburgh, in getting the prosecution against the Earl of Sutherland’s friends quashed, in obtaining the liberation of John Gordon, and in getting his fine mitigated to one hundred pounds Scots, payable to the king only; reserving, however, civil action to John Sutherland of Clyne against Gordon, before the Lords of Session.[215]
Sir Donald Mackay, always restless, and desirous of gratifying his enmity at the house of Sutherland, endeavoured to embroil it with the laird of Duffus in the following way. Having formed a resolution to leave the kingdom, Sir Donald applied for, and obtained, a license from the king to raise a regiment in the north, to assist Count Mansfield in his campaign in Germany. He, accordingly, collected, in a few months, about 3,000 men from different parts of Scotland, the greater part of whom he embarked at Cromarty in the month of October 1626; but, on account of bad health, he was obliged to delay his own departure till the following year, when he joined the king of Sweden with his regiment, in consequence of a peace having been concluded between the King of Denmark and the Emperor of Germany.[216] Among others whom Mackay had engaged to accompany him to Germany, was a person named Angus Roy Gun, against whom, a short time previous to his enlistment, Mackay and his brother, John Mackay of Dirlet, had obtained a commission from the lords of the Privy Council for the purpose of apprehending him and bringing him before the council for some supposed crimes. Mackay could have easily apprehended Angus Roy Gun on different occasions, but having become one of his regiment, he allowed the commission, as far as he was concerned, to remain a dead letter.
Sometime after his enlistment, Angus Roy Gun made a journey into Sutherland, a circumstance which afforded Mackay an opportunity of putting into execution the scheme he had formed, and which showed that he was no mean adept in the arts of cunning and dissimulation. His plan was this:--He wrote, in the first place, private letters to the laird of Duffus, and to his brother, John Sutherland of Clyne, to apprehend Angus Roy Gun under the commission he had obtained; and at the same time, sent the commission itself to the laird of Duffus as his authority for so doing. He next wrote a letter to Alexander Gordon, the Earl of Sutherland’s uncle, who, in the absence of his brother, Sir Robert, governed Sutherland, entreating him, as Angus Roy Gun was then in Sutherland, to send him to him to Cromarty, as he was his hired soldier. Ignorant of Mackay’s design, and desirous of serving him, Sir Alexander sent two of his men to bring Gun to Sir Alexander; but on their return they were met by John Sutherland of Clyne and a party of sixteen men, who seized Gun; and to prevent a rescue, the laird of Duffus sent his brother, James Sutherland, Alexander Murray, heir-apparent of Aberscors, and William Neill-son, chief of the Sliochd-Iain-Abaraich, with 300 men to protect his brother John. At the same time, as he anticipated an attack from Sir Alexander Gordon, he sent messengers to his supporters in Ross, Strathnaver, Caithness, and other places for assistance.
When Sir Alexander Gordon heard of the assembling of such a body of the Earl of Sutherland’s vassals without his knowledge, he made inquiry to ascertain the cause; and being informed of Gun’s capture, he collected 18 men who were near at hand, and hastened with them from Dunrobin towards Clyne. On arriving at the bridge of Broray, he found James Sutherland, with his brother John, and their whole party drawn up in battle array at the east end of the bridge. He, thereupon, sent a person to the Sutherlands to know the cause of such an assemblage, and the reason why they had taken Gun from his servants. As the Sutherlands refused to exhibit their authority, Sir Alexander made demonstrations for passing the bridge, but he was met by a shower of shot and arrows which wounded two of his men. After exchanging shots for some time, Sir Alexander was joined by a considerable body of his countrymen, by whose aid, notwithstanding the resistance he met with, he was enabled to cross the bridge. The Sutherlands were forced to retreat, and as they saw no chance of opposing, with success, the power of the house of Sutherland, they, after some hours’ consultation, delivered up Angus Roy Gun to Sir Alexander Sutherland, who sent him immediately to Mackay, then at Cromarty.
As such an example of insubordination among the Earl of Sutherland’s vassals might, if overlooked, lead others to follow a similar course, Sir Alexander caused the laird of Duffus and his brother of Clyne, with their accomplices, to be cited to appear at Edinburgh on the 16th of November following, to answer before the Privy Council for their misdemeanours. The laird of Duffus, however, died in the month of October, but the laird of Clyne appeared at Edinburgh at the time appointed, and produced before the Privy Council the letter he had received from Mackay, as his authority for acting as he had done. Sir Alexander Gordon also produced the letter sent to him by Sir Donald, who was thereby convicted of having been the intentional originator of the difference; but as the lords of council thought that the laird of Clyne had exceeded the bounds of his commission, he was imprisoned in the jail of Edinburgh, wherein he was ordered to remain until he should give satisfaction to the other party, and present some of his men who had failed to appear though summoned. By the mediation, however, of James Sutherland, tutor of Duffus, a reconciliation was effected between Sir Robert and Sir Alexander Gordon, and the laird of Clyne, who was, in consequence, soon thereafter liberated from prison.[217]
The year 1628 was marked by the breaking out of an old and deadly feud among the Grants, which had been transmitted from father to son for several generations, in consequence of the murder of John Grant of Ballindalloch, about the middle of the sixteenth century, by John Roy Grant of Carron, the natural son of John Grant of Glenmoriston, at the instigation of the laird of Grant, the chief of the tribe, who had conceived a grudge against his kinsman. Some years before the period first mentioned, James Grant, one of the Carron family, happening to be at a fair in the town of Elgin, observed one of the Grants of the Ballindalloch family eagerly pursuing his (James’s) brother, Thomas Grant, whom he knocked down in the street and wounded openly before his eyes. The assailant was in his turn attacked by James Grant, who killed him upon the spot and immediately decamped. Ballindalloch then cited James Grant to stand trial for the slaughter of his kinsman, but, as he did not appear on the day appointed, he was outlawed. The laird of Grant made many attempts to reconcile the parties, but in vain, as Ballindalloch was obstinate and would listen to no proposals. Nothing less than the blood of James Grant would satisfy Ballindalloch.
This resolution on the part of Ballindalloch almost drove James Grant to despair, and seeing his life every moment in jeopardy, and deprived of any hope of effecting a compromise, he put himself at the head of a party of brigands, whom he collected from all parts of the Highlands. These freebooters made no distinction between friends and foes, but attacked all persons of whatever description, and wasted and despoiled their property. James Grant of Dalnebo, one of the family of Ballindalloch, fell a victim to their fury, and many of the kinsmen of that family suffered greatly from the depredations committed by Grant and his associates. The Earl of Murray, under the renewed and extended commission which he had obtained from King Charles, made various attempts to put an end to these lawless proceedings, but to no purpose; the failure of these attempts serving only to harden James Grant and his party, who continued their depredations. As John Grant of Carron, nephew of James Grant, was supposed to maintain and assist his uncle secretly, a suspicion for which there seems to have been no foundation, John Grant of Ballindalloch sought for an opportunity of revenging himself upon Carron, who was a promising young man. Carron having one day left his house, along with one Alexander Grant and seven or eight other persons, to cut down some timber in the woods of Abernethy, Ballindalloch thought the occasion favourable for putting his design into execution. Having collected and armed sixteen of his friends, he went to the forest where Carron was, and under the pretence of searching for James Grant and some of his associates, against whom he had a commission, attacked Carron, who fought manfully in defence of his life, but being overpowered, was killed by Ballindalloch. Before Carron fell, however, he and Alexander Grant had slain several of Ballindalloch’s friends, among whom were Thomas Grant of Davey, and Lauchlan Macintosh of Rockinoyr. Alexander Grant afterwards annoyed Ballindalloch, killing several of his men, and assisted James Grant to lay waste Ballindalloch’s lands. “Give me leave heir,” says Sir R. Gordon, “to remark the providence and secrait judgement of the Almightie God, who now hath mett Carron with the same measure that his forefather, John Roy Grant of Carron, did serve the ancestor of Ballendallogh; for upon the same day of the moneth that John Roy Grant did kill the great-grandfather of Ballendallogh (being the eleventh day of September), the verie same day of this month wes Carron slain by this John Grant of Ballendallogh many yeirs thereafter. And, besides, as that John Roy Grant of Carron was left-handed, so is this John Grant of Ballendallogh left-handed also; and moreover, it is to be observed that Ballendallogh, at the killing of this Carron, had upon him the same coat-of-armour, or maillie-coat, which John Roy Grant had upon him at the slaughter of the great-grandfather of this Ballendallogh, which maillie-coat Ballendallogh had, a little before this tyme, taken from James Grant, in a skirmish, that passed betwixt them. Thus wee doe sie that the judgements of God are inscrutable, and that, in his own tyme, he punisheth blood by blood.”[218]
The Earl of Murray, when he heard of this occurrence, instead of taking measures against Ballindalloch for his outrage against the laws, which he was fully entitled to do by virtue of the commission he held, took part with Ballindalloch against the friends of Carron. He not only represented Ballindalloch’s case favourably at court, but also obtained an indemnity for him for some years, that he might not be molested. The countenance thus given by his majesty’s lieutenant to the murderer of their kinsmen, exasperated James and Alexander Grant in the highest degree against Ballindalloch and his supporters, whom they continually annoyed with their incursions, laying waste their lands and possessions, and cutting off their people. To such an extent was this system of lawless warfare carried, that Ballindalloch was forced to flee from the north of Scotland, and live for the most part in Edinburgh, to avoid the dangers with which he was surrounded. But James Grant’s desperate career was checked by a party of the clan Chattan, who unexpectedly attacked him at Auchnachyle, in Strathdoun, under cloud of night, in the latter end of December, 1630, when he was taken prisoner after receiving eleven wounds, and after four of his party were killed. He was sent by his captors to Edinburgh for trial before the lords of the council, and was imprisoned in the castle of Edinburgh, from which he escaped in the manner to be afterwards noticed.
About the time that James Grant was desolating the district of the Highlands, to which his operations were confined, another part of the country was convulsed by a dispute, ending tragically, which occurred between James Crichton of Frendret, or Frendraught, and William Gordon of Rothiemay, whose lands lay adjacent to each other. Part of Gordon’s lands which marched with those of Crichton were purchased by the latter; but a dispute having occurred about the right to the salmon fishings belonging to these lands, an irreconcilable difference arose between them, which no mediation of friends could reconcile, although the matter in dispute was of little moment. The parties having had recourse to the law to settle their respective claims, Crichton prevailed, and succeeded in getting Gordon denounced rebel. He had previously treated Rothiemay very harshly, who, stung by the severity of his opponent, and by the victory he had obtained over him, would listen to no proposals of peace, nor follow the advice of his best friends. Determined to set the law at defiance, he collected a number of loose and disorderly characters, and annoyed Frendraught, who, in consequence, applied for and obtained a commission from the Privy Council for apprehending Rothiemay and his associates. In the execution of this task he was assisted by Sir George Ogilvy of Banff, George Gordon, brother-german of Sir James Gordon of Lesmoir, and the uncle of Frendraught, James Leslie, second son of Leslie of Pitcaple, John Meldrum of Reidhill, and others. Accompanied by these gentlemen, Crichton left his house of Frendraught on the 1st of January, 1630, for the house of Rothiemay, with a resolution either to apprehend Gordon, his antagonist, or to set him at defiance by affronting him. He was incited the more to follow this course, as young Rothiemay, at the head of a party, had come a short time before to the very doors of Frendraught, and had braved him to his face. When Rothiemay heard of the advance of Frendraught, he left his house, accompanied by his eldest son, John Gordon, and about eight men on horseback armed with guns and lances, and a party of men on foot with muskets, and crossing the river Deveron, went forward to meet Frendraught and his party. A sharp conflict immediately took place, in which Rothiemay’s horse was killed under him; but he fought manfully for some time on foot, until the whole of his party, with the exception of his son, were forced to retire. The son, notwithstanding, continued to support his father against fearful odds, but was at last obliged to save himself by flight, leaving his father lying on the field covered with wounds, and supposed to be dead. He, however, was found still alive after the conflict was over, and being carried home to his house, died within three days thereafter. George Gordon, brother of Gordon of Lesmoir, received a shot in the thigh, and died in consequence ten days after the skirmish. These were the only deaths which occurred, although several of the combatants on both sides were wounded. John Meldrum, who fought on Frendraught’s side, was the only person severely wounded.
The Marquis of Huntly was highly displeased at Frendraught for having, in such a trifling matter, proceeded to extremities against his kinsman, a chief baron of his surname, whose life had been thus sacrificed in a petty quarrel. The displeasure of the marquis was still farther heightened, when he was informed that Frendraught had joined the Earl of Murray, and had claimed his protection and assistance; but the marquis was obliged to repress his indignation. John Gordon of Rothiemay, eldest son of the deceased laird, resolved to avenge the death of his father, and having collected a party of men, he associated himself with James Grant and other freebooters, for the purpose of laying waste Frendraught’s lands, and oppressing him in every possible way. Frendraught, who was in the south of Scotland when this combination against him was formed, no sooner heard of it than he posted to England, and, having laid a statement of the case before the king, his majesty remitted the matter to the Privy Council of Scotland, desiring them to use their best endeavours for settling the peace of the northern parts of the kingdom. A commission was thereupon granted by the lords of the council to Frendraught and others, for the purpose of apprehending John Gordon and his associates; but, as the commissioners were not able to execute the task imposed upon them, the lords of the council sent Sir Robert Gordon, tutor of Sutherland, who had just returned from England, and Sir William Seaton of Killesmuir, to the north, with a new commission against the rebels. As it seemed to be entirely out of the power of the Earl of Murray to quell the disturbances in the north, the two commissioners received particular instructions to attempt, with the aid of the Marquis of Huntly, to get matters settled amicably, and the opposing parties reconciled. The lords of the council, at the same time, wrote a letter to the Marquis of Huntly to the same effect. Sir Robert Gordon and Sir William Seaton accordingly left Edinburgh, on their way north, in the beginning of May, 1630. The latter stopped at Aberdeen for the purpose of consulting with some gentlemen of that county, as to the best mode of proceeding against the rebels; and the former went to Strathbogie to advise with the Marquis of Huntly.
On Sir Robert’s arrival at Strathbogie, he found that the marquis had gone to Aberdeen to attend the funeral of the laird of Drum. By a singular coincidence, James Grant and Alexander Grant descended the very day of Sir Robert’s arrival from the mountains, at the head of a party of 200 Highlanders, well armed, with a resolution to burn and lay waste Frendraught’s lands. As soon as Sir Robert became aware of this circumstance, he went in great haste to Rothiemay house, where he found John Gordon and his associates in arms, ready to set out to join the Grants. By persuasion and entreaties Sir Robert, assisted by his nephew the Earl of Sutherland, and his brother, Sir Alexander Gordon, who were then at Frendraught on a visit to the lady of that place, who was a sister of the earl, prevailed not only upon John Gordon and his friends to desist, but also upon James Grant and his companions-in-arms, to disperse.
On the return of the Marquis of Huntly to Strathbogie, Rothiemay and Frendraught were both induced to meet them in presence of the marquis, Sir Robert Gordon, and Sir William Seaton, who, after much entreaty, prevailed upon them to reconcile their differences, and submit all matters in dispute to their arbitrament. A decree-arbitral was accordingly pronounced, by which the arbiters adjudged that the laird of Rothiemay and the children of George Gordon should mutually remit their father’s slaughter, and, in satisfaction thereof, they decerned that the laird of Frendraught should pay a certain sum of money to the laird of Rothiemay, for relief of the debts which he had contracted during the disturbances between the two families,[219] and that he should pay some money to the children of George Gordon. Frendraught fulfilled these conditions most willingly, and the parties shook hands together in the orchard of Strathbogie, in token of a hearty and sincere reconciliation.[220]
The laird of Frendraught had scarcely been reconciled to Rothiemay, when he got into another dispute with the laird of Pitcaple, the occasion of which was as follows:--John Meldrum of Reidhill had assisted Frendraught in his quarrel with old Rothiemay, and had received a wound in the skirmish in which the latter lost his life, for which injury Frendraught had allowed him some compensation; but, conceiving that his services had not been fairly requited, he began to abuse Frendraught, and threatened to compel him to give him a greater recompense than he had yet received. As Frendraught refused to comply with his demands, Meldrum entered the park of Frendraught privately in the night-time, and carried away two horses belonging to his pretended debtor. Frendraught thereupon prosecuted Meldrum for theft, but he declined to appear in court, and was consequently declared rebel. Frendraught then obtained a commission from the Privy Council to apprehend Meldrum, who took refuge with John Leslie of Pitcaple, whose sister he had married. Under the commission which he had procured, Frendraught went in quest of Meldrum, on the 27th of September, 1630. He proceeded to Pitcaple’s lands, on which he knew Meldrum then lived, where he met James Leslie, second son of the laird of Pitcaple, who had been with him at the skirmish of Rothiemay. Leslie then began to expostulate with him in behalf of Meldrum, his brother-in-law, who, on account of the aid he had given him in his dispute with Rothiemay, took Leslie’s remonstrances in good part; but Robert Crichton of Conland,[221] a kinsman of Frendraught, grew so warm at Leslie’s freedom that from high words they proceeded to blows. Conland, then, drawing a pistol from his belt, wounded Leslie in the arm, who was thereupon carried home, apparently in a dying state.
This affair was the signal for a confederacy among the Leslies, the greater part of whom took up arms against Frendraught, who, a few days after the occurrence, viz., on the 5th of October, first went to the Marquis of Huntly, and afterwards to the Earl of Murray, to express the regret he felt at what had taken place, and to beg their kindly interference to bring matters to an amicable accommodation. The Earl of Murray, for some reason or other, declined to interfere; but the marquis undertook to mediate between the parties. Accordingly, he sent for the laird of Pitcaple to come to the Bog of Gight to confer with him; but, before setting out, he mounted and equipped about 30 horsemen, in consequence of information he had received that Frendraught was at the Bog. At the meeting with the marquis, Pitcaple complained heavily of the injury his son had sustained, and avowed, rather rashly, that he would revenge himself before he returned home, and that, at all events, he would listen to no proposals for a reconciliation till it should be ascertained whether his son would survive the wound he had received. The marquis insisted that Frendraught had done him no wrong, and endeavoured to dissuade him from putting his threat into execution; but Pitcaple was so displeased at the marquis for thus expressing himself, that he suddenly mounted his horse and set off, leaving Frendraught behind him. The marquis, afraid of the consequences, detained Frendraught two days with him in the Bog of Gight, and, hearing that the Leslies had assembled, and lay in wait for Frendraught watching his return home, the marquis sent his son, John, Viscount of Aboyne, and the laird of Rothiemay along with him, to protect and defend him if necessary. They arrived at Frendraught without interruption, and being solicited to remain all night, they yielded, and, after partaking of a hearty supper, went to bed in the apartments provided for them.
The sleeping apartment of the viscount was in the old tower of Frendraught, leading off from the hall. Immediately below this apartment was a vault, in the bottom of which was a round hole of considerable depth. Robert Gordon, a servant of the viscount, and his page, English Will, as he was called, also slept in the same chamber. The laird of Rothiemay, with some servants, were put into an upper chamber immediately above that in which the viscount slept; and in another apartment, directly over the latter, were laid George Chalmer of Noth, Captain Rollock, one of Frendraught’s party, and George Gordon, another of the viscount’s servants. About midnight the whole of the tower almost instantaneously took fire, and so suddenly and furiously did the flames consume the edifice, that the viscount, the laird of Rothiemay, English Will, Colonel Ivat, one of Aboyne’s friends, and two other persons, perished in the flames. Robert Gordon, called Sutherland Gordon, from having been born in that county, who lay in the viscount’s chamber, escaped from the flames, as did George Chalmer and Captain Rollock, who were in the third floor; and it is said that Lord Aboyne might have saved himself also, had he not, instead of going out of doors, which he refused to do, run suddenly up stairs to Rothiemay’s chamber for the purpose of awakening him. While so engaged, the stair-case and ceiling of Rothiemay’s apartment hastily took fire, and, being prevented from descending by the flames, which filled the stair-case, they ran from window to window of the apartment piteously and unavailingly exclaiming for help.
The news of this calamitous event spread speedily throughout the kingdom, and the fate of the unfortunate sufferers was deeply deplored. Many conjectures were formed as to the cause of the conflagration. Some persons laid the blame on Frendraught without the least reason; for, besides the improbability of the thing, Frendraught himself was a considerable loser, having lost not only a large quantity of silver plate and coin, but also the title deeds of his property and other necessary papers, which were all consumed. The greater number, however, suspected the Leslies and their adherents, who were then so enraged at Frendraught that they threatened to burn the house of Frendraught, and had even entered into a negotiation to that effect with James Grant the rebel, who was Pitcaple’s cousin-german, for his assistance.[222]
The Marquis of Huntly, who suspected Frendraught to be the author of the fire, afterwards went to Edinburgh and laid a statement of the case before the Privy Council, who, thereupon, issued a commission to the bishops of Aberdeen and Moray, Lord Ogilvie, Lord Carnegie, and Colonel Bruce, to investigate the circumstances which led to the catastrophe. The commissioners accordingly went to Frendraught on April 13th, 1631, where they were met by Lords Gordon, Ogilvie, and Deskford, and several barons and gentlemen, along with whom they examined the burnt tower and vaults below, with the adjoining premises, to ascertain, if possible, how the fire had originated. After a minute inspection, they came to the deliberate opinion, which they communicated in writing to the council, that the fire could not have been accidental, and that it must have been occasioned either by some means from without, or raised intentionally within the vaults or chambers of the tower.[223]
The matter, however, was not allowed to rest here, but underwent thorough investigation by the Privy Council in Edinburgh, the result being that John Meldrum, above mentioned, was brought to trial and condemned to death by the Justiciary Court, in August, 1633, as having been the perpetrator of the fiendish deed. We give below an extract from the “dittay” or indictment against Meldrum, showing the manner in which it was thought he accomplished his devilish task.[224] The catastrophe roused such intense and wide-spread excitement among all classes of people at the time, that the grief and horror which was felt found an outlet in verse.[225]
During James Grant’s confinement within the castle of Edinburgh, the north was comparatively quiet. On the night of the 15th October, 1632, he, however, effected his escape from the castle by descending on the west side by means of ropes furnished to him by his wife or son, and fled to Ireland. Proclamations were immediately posted throughout the whole kingdom, offering large sums for his apprehension, either dead or alive, but to no purpose. His wife was taken into custody by order of the Marquis of Huntly, but after undergoing an examination, in which she admitted nothing which could in the least degree criminate her, she was set at liberty.[226]
James Grant did not remain long in Ireland, but returned again to the north, where he concealed himself for some time, only occasionally skulking here and there in such a private manner, that his enemies were not aware of his presence. By degrees he grew bolder, and at last appeared openly in Strathdoun and on Speyside. His wife, who was far advanced in pregnancy, had taken a small house in Carron, belonging to the heirs of her husband’s nephew, in which she meant to reside till her accouchement, and in which she was occasionally visited by her husband. Ballindalloch hearing of this, hired a person named Patrick Macgregor, an outlaw, to apprehend James Grant. This employment was considered by Macgregor and his party a piece of acceptable service, as they expected, in the event of Grant’s apprehension, to obtain pardon for their offences from the lords of the council. Macgregor, therefore, at the head of a party of men, lay in wait for James Grant near Carron, and, on observing him enter his wife’s house at night, along with his bastard son and another man, they immediately surrounded the house and attempted to force an entry. Grant perceiving his danger, acted with great coolness and determination. Having fastened the door as firmly as he could, he and his two companions went to two windows, from which they discharged a volley of arrows upon their assailants, who all shrunk back, and none would venture near the door except Macgregor himself, who came boldly forward and endeavoured to force it; but he paid dearly for his rashness, for Grant, immediately laying hold of a musket, shot him through both his thighs, when he instantly fell to the ground, and soon after expired. In the confusion which this occurrence occasioned among Macgregor’s party, Grant and his two associates escaped.
Shortly after this event, on the night of Sunday, December 7th, 1634, James Grant apprehended his cousin, John Grant of Ballindalloch, by stratagem. After remaining a few days at Culquholy, Ballindalloch was blindfolded and taken to Thomas Grant’s house at Dandeis, about three miles from Elgin, on the high road between that town and the Spey. James Grant ordered him to be watched strictly, whether sleeping or waking, by two strong men on each side of him. Ballindalloch complained of foul play, but James Grant excused himself for acting as he had done for two reasons; 1st, Because Ballindalloch had failed to perform a promise he had made to obtain a remission for him before the preceding Lammas; and, 2dly, That he had entered into a treaty with the clan Gregor to deprive him of his life.
Ballindalloch was kept in durance vile for twenty days in a kiln near Thomas Grant’s house, suffering the greatest privations, without fire, light, or bed-clothes, in the dead of winter, and without knowing where he was. He was closely watched night and day by Leonard Leslie, son-in-law of Robert Grant, brother of James Grant, and a strong athletic man, named M’Grimmon, who would not allow him to leave the kiln for a moment even to perform the necessities of nature. On Christmas, James Grant and his party having gone on some excursion, leaving Leslie and M’Grimmon behind them, Ballindalloch, worn out by fatigue, and almost perishing from cold and hunger, addressed Leslie in a low tone of voice, lamenting his miserable situation, and imploring him to aid him in effecting his escape, and promising, in the event of success, to reward him handsomely. Leslie, tempted by the offer, acceded to Ballindalloch’s request, and made him acquainted with the place of his confinement. It was then arranged that Ballindalloch, under the pretence of stretching his arms, should disengage the arm which Leslie held, and that, having so disentangled that arm, he should, by another attempt, get his other arm out of M’Grimmon’s grasp. The morning of Sunday, the 28th of December, was fixed upon for putting the stratagem into execution. The plan succeeded, and as soon as Ballindalloch found his arms at liberty, he suddenly sprung to his feet and made for the door of the kiln. Leslie immediately followed him, pretending to catch him, and as M’Grimmon was hard upon his heels, Leslie purposely stumbled in his way and brought M’Grimmon down to the ground. This stratagem enabled Ballindalloch to get a-head of his pursuers, and although M’Grimmon sounded the alarm, and the pursuit was continued by Robert Grant and a party of James Grant’s followers, Ballindalloch succeeded in reaching the village of Urquhart in safety, accompanied by Leonard Leslie.
Sometime after his escape, Ballindalloch applied for and obtained a warrant for the apprehension of Thomas Grant, and others, for harbouring James Grant. Thomas Grant, and some of his accomplices, were accordingly seized and sent to Edinburgh, where they were tried and convicted. Grant was hanged, and others were banished from Scotland for life.
After Ballindalloch’s escape, James Grant kept remarkably quiet, as many persons lay in wait for him; but hearing that Thomas Grant, brother of Patrick Grant of Colquhoche, and a friend of Ballindalloch, had received a sum of money from the Earl of Moray, as an encouragement to seek out and slay James Grant, the latter resolved to murder Thomas Grant, and thus relieve himself of one enemy at least. He therefore went to Thomas’s house, but not finding him at home, he killed sixteen of his cattle; and afterwards learning that Thomas Grant was sleeping at the house of a friend hard by, he entered that house and found Thomas Grant and a bastard brother of his, both in bed. Having forced them out of bed, he took them outside of the house and put them immediately to death. A few days after the commission of this crime, Grant and four of his associates went to the lands of Strathbogie, and entered the house of the common executioner, craving some food, without being aware of the profession of the host whose hospitality they solicited. The executioner, disliking the appearance of Grant and his companions, went to James Gordon, the bailie of Strathbogie, and informed him that there were some suspicious looking persons in his house. Judging that these could be none other but Grant and his comrades, Gordon immediately collected some well-armed horsemen and foot, and surrounded the house in which Grant was; but he successfully resisted all their attempts to enter the house, and killed two servants of the Marquis of Huntly. After keeping them at bay for a considerable time, Grant and his brother, Robert, effected their escape from the house, but a bastard son of James Grant, John Forbes, an intimate associate, and another person, were taken prisoners, and carried to Edinburgh, where they were executed, along with a notorious thief, named Gille-Roy-Mac-Gregor. This occurrence took place in the year 1636. The laird of Grant had, during the previous year, been ordered by the council to apprehend James Grant, or to make him leave the kingdom; and they had obliged him to find caution and surety, in terms of the general bond[227] appointed by law to be taken from all the heads of clans, and from all governors of provinces in the kingdom, but chiefly in the west and north of Scotland; but the laird could neither perform the one nor the other.[228]
By the judicious management of the affairs of the house of Sutherland by Sir Robert Gordon, his nephew, the earl, on reaching his majority in 1630 and entering upon the management of his own affairs, found the hostility of the enemy of his family either neutralised or rendered no longer dangerous; but, in the year 1633 he found himself involved in a quarrel with Lord Lorn, eldest son of the Earl of Argyle, who had managed the affairs of his family during his father’s banishment from Scotland. This dispute arose out of the following circumstances.
In consequence of a quarrel between Lord Berridale, who now acted as sole administrator of his father’s estates, and William Mac-Iver, chieftain of the Siol-Mhic-Imheair, in Caithness, the former removed the latter from the lands and possessions he held of him in Caithness. Mac-Iver thereupon retired into Argyle, and assuming the surname of Campbell, as being originally an Argyle man, sought the favour and protection of Lord Lorn. The latter endeavoured, by writing to the Earl of Sutherland, Berridale himself, and others, to bring about a reconciliation between Mac-Iver and Berridale, but to no purpose. Seeing no hopes of an accommodation, Mac-Iver collected a party of rebels and outlaws, to the number of about 20, and made an incursion into Caithness, where, during the space of four or five years, he did great injury, carrying off considerable spoil, which he conveyed through the heights of Strathnaver and Sutherland.
To put an end to Mac-Iver’s depredations, Lord Berridale at first brought a legal prosecution against him, and having got him denounced rebel, sent out parties of his countrymen to ensnare him; but he escaped for a long time, and always retired in safety with his booty, either into the isles or into Argyle. Lord Lorn, however, publicly disowned Mac-Iver’s proceedings. In his incursions, Mac-Iver was powerfully assisted by an islander of the name of Gille-Calum-Mac-Shomhairle, who had married his daughter, and who was well acquainted with all the passes leading into Caithness.
At last Mac-Iver and his son were apprehended by Lord Berridale, and hanged, and the race of the Siol-Mhic-Imheair was almost extinguished; but Gille-Calum-Mac-Shomhairle having associated with himself several of the men of the Isles and Argyle, and some outlaws of the clan Mhic-Iain-Dhuinn, who were dependants of Lord Lorn, continued his incursions into Caithness. Having divided his company into two parties, one of which, headed by Gille-Calum himself, went to the higher parts of Ross and Sutherland, there to remain till joined by their companions. The other party went through the lowlands of Ross, under the pretence of going to the Lammas fair, then held at Tain, and thence proceeded to Sutherland to meet the rest of their associates, under the pretence of visiting certain kinsmen they said they had in Strathully and Strathnaver. This last-mentioned body consisted of 16 or 20 persons, most of whom were of the clan Mhic-Iain-Dhuinn. They were under the command of one Ewen Aird; and as they passed the town of Tain, on their way to Sutherland, they stole some horses, which they sold in Sutherland, without being in the least suspected of the theft.
The owners of the stolen horses soon came into Sutherland in quest of them, and claimed them from the persons to whom they had been sold. The Earl of Sutherland, on proof being given of the property, restored the horses to the true owners, and sent some men in quest of Ewen Aird, who was still in Strathully. Ewen was apprehended and brought to Dunrobin. The Earl of Sutherland ordained him to repay the monies which Ewen and his companions had received for the horses, the only punishment he said he would inflict on them, because they were strangers. Ewen assented to the earl’s request, and remained as a hostage at Dunrobin until his companions should send money to relieve him; but as soon as his associates heard of his detention, they, instead of sending money for his release, fled to Gille-Calum-Mac-Shomhairle and his party, leaving their captain a prisoner at Dunrobin. In their retreat they destroyed some houses in the high parts of Sutherland, and on entering Ross they laid waste some lands belonging to Hutcheon Ross of Auchincloigh. These outrages occasioned an immediate assemblage of the inhabitants of that part of the country, who pursued the marauders and took them prisoners. On the prisoners being sent to the Earl of Sutherland, he assembled the principal gentlemen of Ross and Sutherland at Dornoch, where Ewen Aird and his accomplices were tried before a jury, convicted, and executed at Dornoch, with the exception of two young boys, who were dismissed.
The Privy Council not only approved of what the Earl of Sutherland had done, but also sent a commission to him, the Earl of Seaforth, Hutcheon Ross, and some other gentlemen in Ross and Sutherland, against the clan Mhic-Iain-Dhuinn, in case they should again make any incursion into Ross and Sutherland.
Lord Lorn being at this time justiciary of the Isles, had obtained an act of the Privy Council in his favour, by which it was decreed that any malefactor, being an islander, upon being apprehended in any part of the kingdom, should be sent to Lord Lorn, or to his deputies, to be judged; and that to this effect he should have deputies in every part of the kingdom. As soon as his lordship heard of the trial and execution of the men at Dornoch, who were of the clan Mhic-Iain-Dhuinn, his dependants and followers, he took the matter highly amiss, and repaired to Edinburgh, where he made a complaint to the lords of the council against the Earl of Sutherland, for having, as he maintained, apprehended the king’s free subjects without a commission, and for causing them to be executed, although they had not been apprehended within his own jurisdiction. The lords of the council having heard this complaint, Lord Lorn obtained letters to charge the Earl of Sutherland and Hutcheon Ross to answer to the complaint at Edinburgh before the lords of the Privy Council, and, moreover, obtained a suspension of the earl’s commission against the clan Mhic-Iain-Dhuinn, on becoming bound, in the meantime, as surety for their obedience to the laws.
Sir Robert Gordon happening to arrive at Edinburgh from England, shortly after Lord Lorn’s visit to Edinburgh, in the year 1634, learned the object of his mission, and the success which had attended it. He, therefore, being an eye-witness of every thing which had taken place at Dornoch respecting the trial, condemnation, and execution of Lord Lorn’s dependents, informed the lords of the council of all the proceedings, which proceeding on his part had the effect of preventing Lord Lorn from going on with his prosecution against the Earl of Sutherland. He, however, proceeded to summon Hutcheon Ross; but the earl, Sir Robert Gordon, Lord Reay, and all the gentlemen who were present at the trial at Dornoch, signed and sent a letter to the lords of the council, giving a detail of the whole circumstances of the case, and along with this letter he sent a copy of the proceedings, attested by the sheriff clerk of Sutherland, to be laid before the council on the day appointed for Ross’s appearance. After the matter had been fully debated in council, the conduct of the Earl of Sutherland and Hutcheon Ross was approved of, and the commission to the earl of Sutherland again renewed, and Lord Lorn was taken bound, that, in time coming, the counties of Sutherland and Ross should be kept harmless from the clan Mhic-Iain-Dhuinn. The council, moreover, decided, that, as the Earl of Sutherland had the rights of regality and sheriffship within himself, and as he was appointed to administer justice within his own bounds, therefore he was not obliged to send criminals, though islanders, to Lord Lorn or to his deputies. This decision had the effect of relieving Sutherland and Ross from farther incursions on the part of Lord Lorn’s followers.[229]
The disaster at Frendraught had made an impression upon the mind of the Marquis of Huntly, which nothing could efface, and he could never be persuaded that the fire had not originated with the proprietor of the mansion himself. He made many unsuccessful attempts to discover the incendiaries, and on the arrival of King Charles at Edinburgh, in the year 1633, the marquis made preparations for paying a personal visit to the king, for the purpose of imploring him to order an investigation into all the circumstances attending the fire, so as to lead to a discovery of the criminals. Falling sick, however, on his journey, and unable to proceed to Edinburgh, he sent forward his marchioness, who was accompanied by Lady Aboyne and other females of rank, all clothed in deep mourning, to lay a statement of the case before his majesty, and to solicit the royal interference. The king received the marchioness and her attendants most graciously, comforted them as far as words could, and promised to see justice done.
After the king’s departure from Scotland, the marchioness and Lady Aboyne, both of whom still remained in Edinburgh, determining to see his majesty’s promise implemented, prevailed upon the Privy Council to bring John Meldrum of Reidhill to trial, the result being as recorded above. A domestic servant of Frendraught named Tosh, who was suspected of having been concerned in the fire, was afterwards put to the torture, for the purpose of extorting a confession of guilt from him; but he confessed nothing, and was therefore liberated from prison.
The condemnation and execution of Meldrum, in place of abating, appear to have increased the odium of Frendraught’s enemies. The Highlanders of his neighbourhood, as well as the Gordons, considering his property to be fair game, made frequent incursions upon his lands, and carried off cattle and goods. In 1633 and 1634 Adam Gordon of Strathdoun, with a few of his friends and some outlaws, made incursions upon Frendraught’s lands, wasted them, and endeavoured to carry off a quantity of goods and cattle. Frendraught, however, heading some of his tenants, pursued them, secured the booty, and captured some of the party, whom he hanged.
On another occasion, about 600 Highlanders, belonging to the clan Gregor, clan Cameron, and other tribes, appeared near Frendraught, and openly declared that they had come to join Adam Gordon of Park, John Gordon of Invermarkie, and the other friends of the late Gordon of Rothiemay, for the purpose of revenging his death. When Frendraught heard of the irruption of this body, he immediately collected about 200 foot, and 140 horsemen, and went in quest of these intruders; but being scattered through the country, they could make no resistance, and every man provided for his own safety by flight.
To put an end to these annoyances, Frendraught got these marauders declared outlaws, and the lords of the Privy Council wrote to the Marquis of Huntly, desiring him to repress the disorders of those of his surname, and failing his doing so, that they would consider him the author of them. The marquis returned an answer to this communication, stating, that as the aggressors were neither his tenants nor servants, he could in no shape be answerable for them,--that he had neither countenanced nor incited them, and that he had no warrant to pursue or prosecute them.
The refusal of the marquis to obey the orders of the Privy Council, emboldened the denounced party to renew their acts of spoliation and robbery. They no longer confined their depredations to Frendraught and his tenants, but extended them to the property of the ministers who lived upon Frendraught’s lands. In this course of life, they were joined by some of the young men of the principal families of the Gordons in Strathbogie, to the number of 40 horsemen, and 60 foot, and to encourage them in their designs against Frendraught, the lady of Rothiemay gave them the castle of Rothiemay, which they fortified, and from which they made daily sallies upon Frendraught’s possessions; burned his corn, laid waste his lands, and killed some of his people. Frendraught opposed them for some time; but being satisfied that such proceedings taking place almost under the very eyes of the Marquis of Huntly, must necessarily be done with his concurrence he went to Edinburgh, and entered a complaint against the marquis to the Privy Council. During Frendraught’s absence, his tenants were expelled by the Gordons from their possessions, without opposition.[230]
When the king heard of these lawless proceedings, and of the refusal of the marquis to interfere, he ordered the lords of the Privy Council to adopt measures for suppressing them; preparatory to which they cited the marquis, in the beginning of the following year, to appear before them to answer for these oppressions. He accordingly went to Edinburgh in the month of February, 1635, where he was commanded to remain till the matter should be investigated. The heads of the families whose sons had joined the outlaws also appeared, and, after examination, Letterfourie, Park, Tilliangus, Terrisoule, Invermarkie, Tulloch, Ardlogy, and several other persons of the surname of Gordon, were committed to prison, until their sons, who had engaged in the combination against Frendraught, should be presented before the council. The prisoners, who denied being accessory thereto, then petitioned to be set at liberty, a request which was complied with on condition that they should either produce the rebels, as the pillagers were called, or make them leave the kingdom. The marquis, although nothing could be proved against him, was obliged to find caution that all persons of the surname of Gordon within his bounds should keep the peace; and that he should be answerable in all time coming for any damage which should befall the laird of Frendraught, or his lands, by whatever violent means; and also that he should present the rebels at Edinburgh, that justice might be satisfied, or make them leave the kingdom.
The Marquis of Huntly, thereupon, returned to the north, and the rebels hearing of the obligation he had come under, immediately dispersed themselves. The greater part of them fled into Flanders, and about twelve of them were apprehended by the marquis, and sent by him to Edinburgh. John Gordon, who lived at Woodhead of Rothiemay, and another, were executed. Of the remaining two, James Gordon, son of George Gordon in Auchterless, and William Ross, son of John Ross of Ballivet, the former was acquitted by the jury, and the latter was imprisoned in the jail of Edinburgh for future trial, having been a ringleader of the party. In apprehending these twelve persons, James Gordon, son of Adam Gordon of Strathdoun, was killed, and to show the Privy Council how diligent the marquis had been in fulfilling his obligation, his head was sent to Edinburgh along with the prisoners.
The activity with which the marquis pursued the oppressors of Frendraught, brought him afterwards into some trouble. Adam Gordon, one of the principal ringleaders of the confederacy, and second son of Sir Adam Gordon of the Park, thinking it “hard to be baneishit out of his native country, resoluit to cum home” and throw himself on the king’s mercy. For this purpose he made a private communication to the Archbishop of St. Andrews, then chancellor of Scotland, in which he offered to submit himself to the king’s pleasure, promising, that if his majesty would grant him a pardon, he would reveal the author of the rebellion. The archbishop, eager, it would appear, to fulfil the ends of justice, readily entered into Gordon’s views, and sent a special messenger to London to the king, who at once granted Adam a pardon. On receiving the pardon, Gordon accused the Marquis of Huntly as the author of the conspiracy against Frendraught, and with having instigated him and his associates to commit all the depredations which had taken place. The king, thereupon, sent a commission to Scotland, appointing a select number of the lords of the Privy Council to examine into the affair.
As Adam Gordon had charged James Gordon of Letterfourie, with having employed him and his associates, in name of the marquis, against the laird of Frendraught, Letterfourie was cited to appear at Edinburgh for trial. On being confronted with Adam Gordon, he denied everything laid to his charge, but, notwithstanding this denial, he was committed a prisoner to the jail of Edinburgh. The marquis himself, who had also appeared at Edinburgh on the appointed day, January 15th, 1636, was likewise confronted with Adam Gordon before the committee of the Privy Council; but although he denied Adam’s accusation, and “cleared himself with great dexteritie, beyond admiration,” as Gordon of Sallagh observes, he was, “upon presumption,” committed a close prisoner to the castle of Edinburgh.
When his majesty was made acquainted with these circumstances by the commissioners, and that there was no proof to establish the charge against the marquis, both the marquis and Gordon of Letterfourie were released by his command, on giving security for indemnifying the laird of Frendraught for any damage he might sustain in time coming, from the Gordons and their accomplices. Having so far succeeded in annoying the marquis, Adam Gordon, after collecting a body of men, by leave of the Privy Council, went along with them to Germany, where he became a captain in the regiment of Colonel George Leslie. To terminate the unhappy differences between the marquis and Frendraught, the king enjoined Sir Robert Gordon, who was related to both,--the marquis being his cousin-german, and chief of that family, and Frendraught the husband of his niece,--to endeavour to bring about a reconciliation between them. Sir Robert, accordingly, on his return to Scotland, prevailed upon the parties to enter into a submission, by which they agreed to refer all questions and differences between them to the arbitrament of friends; but before the submission was brought to a final conclusion, the marquis expired at Dundee on the 13th June, (15th according to Gordon), 1636, at the age of seventy-four, while returning to the north from Edinburgh. He was interred in the family vault at Elgin, on the thirtieth day of August following, “having,” says Spalding, “above his chist a rich mort-cloath of black velvet, wherein was wrought two whyte crosses. He had torchlights in great number carried be freinds and gentlemen; the marques’ son, called Adam, was at his head, the earle of Murray on the right spaik, the earle of Seaforth on the left spaik, the earle of Sutherland on the third spaik, and Sir Robert Gordon on the fourth spaik. Besyds thir nobles, many barrons and gentlemen was there, haveing above three hundred lighted torches at the lifting. He is carried to the east port, doun the wynd to the south kirk stile of the colledge kirk, in at the south kirk door, and buried in his own isle with much murning and lamentation. The like forme of burriall, with torch light, was not sein heir thir many dayes befor.”[231]
The marquis was a remarkable man for the age in which he lived, and there are no characters in that eventful period of Scottish history so well entitled to veneration and esteem. A lover of justice, he never attempted to aggrandize his vast possessions at the expense of his less powerful neighbours; a kind and humane superior and landlord, he exercised a lenient sway over his numerous vassals and tenants, who repaid his kindness by sincere attachment to his person and family. Endowed with great strength of mind, invincible courage, and consummate prudence, he surmounted the numerous difficulties with which he was surrounded, and lived to see the many factions which had conspired against him discomfited and dissolved. While his constant and undeviating attachment to the religion of his forefathers, raised up many enemies against him among the professors of the reformed doctrines, by whose cabals he was at one time obliged to leave the kingdom, his great power and influence were assailed by another formidable class of opponents among the turbulent nobility, who were grieved to see a man who had not imitated their venality and rapacity, not only retain his predominance in the north, but also receive especial marks of his sovereign’s regard. But skilful and intriguing as they were in all the dark and sinister ways of an age distinguished for its base and wicked practices, their machinations were frustrated by the discernment and honesty of George Gordon, the first Marquis of Huntly.
FOOTNOTES:
[211] Spalding says that the party were commanded by Lauchlan Macintosh, alias Lauchlan Og, uncle of the young chief, and Lauchlan Macintosh or Lauchlan Angus-son, eldest son of Angus Macintosh, alias Angus William, son of Auld Tirlie.--Memorialls of the Trubles in Scotland and in England, A.D. 1624-1645.
[212] Memorials, vol. i. p. 8.
[213] Founder of the house of Culloden, and great-grandfather of the celebrated Lord President Forbes.
[214] Vide the petition of Provost Forbes to the king, “in the name of the inhabitants” of Inverness; printed among the Culloden Papers, No. 5, p. 4.
[215] Sir R. Gordon, p. 397, et seq.
[216] A considerable number of gentlemen, chiefly from Ross, Sutherland, and Caithness, joined Mackay, some of whom rose to high rank in the army of Gustavus Adolphus. Among these were Robert Monroe of Foulis, and his brother, Hector; Thomas Mackenzie, brother of the Earl of Seaforth; John Monroe of Obisdell, and his brother Robert; John Monroe of Assynt, and others of that surname; Hugh Ross of Priesthill; David Ross and Nicolas Ross, sons of Alexander Ross of Invercharron; Hugh Gordon, son of Adam Gordon of Culkour; John Gordon, son of John Gordon of Garty; Adam Gordon and John Gordon, sons of Adam Gordon George-son; Ive Mackay, William, son of Donald Mackay of Scourie; William Gun, son of John Gun Rob-son; John Sinclair, bastard son of the earl of Caithness; Francis Sinclair, son of James Sinclair of Murkle; John Innes, son of William Innes of Sanset; John Gun, son of William Gun in Golspie-Kirktown; and George Gun, son of Alexander Gun Rob-son.
[217] Sir R. Gordon, p. 401, et seq.
[218] History, p. 416.
[219] Spalding says that Frendraught was “ordained to pay to the lady, relict of Rothiemay, and the bairns, fiftie thousand merks, in composition of the slaughter.”
[220] Sir R. Gordon, p. 416, et seq. Spalding, p. 14.
[221] Sir R. Gordon (p. 419) spells this Couland and Coudland.
[222] Sir R. Gordon, p. 241.--Spalding, p. 13, et seq.
[223] Spalding, p. 24.
[224] “Johne Meldrum haifing convocat to himselff certane brokin men, all fugitiues and rebellis, his complices and associattis, upone the aucht day of October, the yeir of God jai vic and threttie yeiris under silence and clud of nicht, betwix twelff hours at nycht and twa eftir mydnycht, come to the place of Frendraucht, and supponeing and certanely persuading himselff that the said James Creichtoun of Frendraucht wes lying within the tour of Frendraucht, quhilk was the only strenth and strongest pairt of the said place, the said Johne Meldrum, with his saidis complices, in maist tresonabill and feirfull maner, haifing brocht with thame ane hudge quantitie of powder, pik, brumstone, flax, and uther combustabill matter provydit be thame for the purpois, pat and convoyit the samyn in and throw the slittis and stones of the volt of the said grit tour of Frendraucht, weill knawin and foirseine be the said Johne Meldrum, quha with his complices at that instant tyme fyret the samyn pik, powder, brumstone, flax, and uther combustable matter above writtin, at dyuerse places of the said volt; quhilk being sua fyret and kindlet, did violentlie flie to ane hoill in the heid of the said volt and tak vent thairat, the whilk hoill of the said volt and vent thairof being perfytlie knawin to the said John Meldrum, be reasone he had remained in houshald with the said laird of Frendraucht, as his douiefull servand, within the said hous and place of Frendraucht for ane lang tyme of befoir, and knew and was previe to all the secreitis of the said house. And the said volt being sua fyret, the haill tour and houssis quhairof immediately thaireftir, being foure hous hight, in les space than ane hour tuik fyre in the deid hour of the night, and was in maist tresonabill, horrible, and lamentable maner brunt, blawin up, and consumet.”--Spalding’s Memorialls, Appendix, vol. i. p. 390.
[225] A ballad is still sung in the district around Frendraught, which, says Motherwell, “has a high degree of poetic merit, and probably was written at the time by an eye-witness of the event which it records.” We give a few verses from the version in Motherwell’s Minstrelsy, as quoted in the Appendix to Spalding, vol. i. p. 409.
“The eighteenth of October, A dismal tale to hear, How good Lord John and Rothiemay Was both burnt in the fire.
They had not long cast off their cloaths, And were but now asleep-- When the weary smoke began to rise, Likewise the scorching heat.
‘O waken, waken, Rothiemay, O waken, brother dear, And turn you to our Saviour, There is strong treason here.’
He did him to the wire-window As fast as he could gang-- Says--‘Wae to the hands put in the stancheons, For out we’ll never win.’
Cried--‘Mercy, mercy, Lady Frendraught, Will ye not sink with sin? For first your husband killed my father, And now you burn his son.’
O then out spoke her, Lady Frendraught, And loudly did she cry-- ‘It were great pity for good Lord John, But none for Rothiemay. But the keys are casten in the deep draw well, Ye cannot get away.’
While he stood in this dreadful plight, Most piteous to be seen, There called out his servant Gordon, As he had frantic been.
‘O loup, O loup, my dear master, O loup and come to me; I’ll catch you in my arms two, One foot I will not flee.’
‘But I cannot loup, I cannot come, I cannot win to thee; My head’s fast in the wire-window, My feet burning from me.
‘Take here the rings from my white fingers, That are so long and small, And give them to my Lady fair, Where she sits in her hall.
‘So I cannot loup, I cannot come, I cannot loup to thee-- My earthly part is all consumed, My spirit but speaks to thee.’
Wringing her hands, tearing her hair, His Lady she was seen, And thus addressed his servant Gordon, Where he stood on the green.
‘O wae be to you, George Gordon, An ill death may you die, So safe and sound as you stand there, And my Lord bereaved from me.’
‘I bade him loup, I bade him come, I bade him loup to me, I’d catch him in my arms two, A foot I should not flee.’
And aft she cried, ‘Ohon! alas, alas, A sair heart’s ill to win; I wan a sair heart when I married him, And the day it’s well return’d again.’”
[226] Spalding, vol. i. p. 29.
[227] The “Common Band” or “General Band,” was the name given in popular speech to an Act of the Scottish Parliament of the year 1587, which was passed with the view of maintaining good order, both on the Borders and in the Highlands and Isles. The plan on which this Act chiefly proceeded was, “To make it imperative on all landlords, bailies, and chiefs of clans, to find sureties to a large amount, proportioned to their wealth and the number of their vassals or clansmen, for the peaceable and orderly behaviour of those under them. It was provided, that, if a superior, after having found the required sureties, should fail to make immediate reparation of any injuries committed by persons for whom he was bound to answer, the injured party might proceed at law against the sureties for the amount of the damage sustained. Besides being compelled, in such cases, to reimburse his sureties, the superior was to incur a heavy fine to the Crown. This important statute likewise contained many useful provisions for facilitating the administration of justice in these rude districts.”--Spalding’s Memorialls, vol. i. p. 3, (note). Gregory’s Western Highlands, p. 237.
[228] Continuation of the History of the Earls of Sutherland, by Gilbert Gordon of Sallagh, annexed to Sir R. Gordon’s work, p. 460. Spalding, p. 63.
[229] Gordon of Sallagh’s Continuation, p. 464, et seq.
[230] Gordon’s Continuation, p. 475. Spalding, vol. i. p. 47, et seq.
[231] Spalding, vol. i. p. 50, et seq. Gordon’s Continuation, p. 476, et seq.
XII. A.D. 1636--(SEPTEMBER) 1644
BRITISH SOVEREIGN:--Charles I., 1625-1649.
Charles I. attempts to introduce Episcopacy into Scotland--Meets with opposition--Preparations for war--Doings in the North--Earl of Montrose--Montrose at Aberdeen--Arrests the Marquis of Huntly--Covenanters of the North meet at Turriff--The “Trott of Turray”--Movements of the Gordons--Viscount Aboyne lands at Aberdeen--“Raid of Stonehaven”--Battle at the Bridge of Dee--Pacification of Berwick--War again--Earl of Argyle endeavours to secure the West Highlands--Harsh proceedings against the Earl of Airly--Montrose goes over to the king--Marquis of Huntly rises in the North--Montrose enters Scotland in disguise--Landing of Irish forces in the West Highlands--Meeting of Montrose and Alexander Macdonald--Athole-men join Montrose--Montrose advances into Strathearn--Battle of Tippermuir.
Hitherto the history of the Highlands has been confined chiefly to the feuds and conflicts of the clans, the details of which, though interesting to their descendants, cannot be supposed to afford the same gratification to readers at large. We now enter upon a more important era, when the Highlanders begin to play a much more prominent part in the theatre of our national history, and to give a foretaste of that military prowess for which they afterwards became so highly distinguished.
In entering upon the details of the military achievements of the Highlanders during the period of the civil wars, it is quite unnecessary and foreign to our purpose to trouble the reader with a history of the rash, unconstitutional, and ill-fated attempt of Charles I. to introduce Episcopacy into Scotland; nor, for the same reason, is it requisite to detail minutely the proceedings of the authors of the Covenant. Suffice it to say, that in consequence of the inflexible determination of Charles to force English Episcopacy upon the people of Scotland, the great majority of the nation declared their determination “by the great name of the Lord their God,” to defend their religion against what they considered to be errors and corruptions. Notwithstanding, however, the most positive demonstrations on the part of the people to resist, Charles, acting by the advice of a privy council of Scotsmen established in England, exclusively devoted to the affairs of Scotland, and instigated by Archbishop Laud, resolved to suppress the Covenant by open force. In order to gain time for the necessary preparations, he sent the Marquis of Hamilton, as his commissioner, to Scotland, who was instructed to promise “that the practice of the liturgy and the canons should never be pressed in any other than a fair and legal way, and that the high commission should be so rectified as never to impugn the laws, or to be a just grievance to loyal subjects,” and that the king would pardon those who had lately taken an illegal covenant, on their immediately renouncing it, and giving up the bond to the commissioners.
When the Covenanters heard of Hamilton’s approach, they appointed a national fast to be held, to beg the blessing of God upon the kirk, and on the 10th of June, 1638, the marquis was received at Leith, and proceeded to the capital through an assemblage of about 60,000 Covenanters, and 500 ministers. The spirit and temper of such a vast assemblage overawed the marquis, and he therefore concealed his instructions. After making two successive journeys to London to communicate the alarming state of affairs, and to receive fresh instructions, he, on his second return, issued a proclamation, discharging “the service book, the book of canons, and the high commission court, dispensing with the five articles of Perth, dispensing the entrants into the ministry from taking the oath of supremacy and of canonical obedience, commanding all persons to lay aside the new Covenant, and take that which had been published by the king’s father in 1589, and summoning a free assembly of the kirk to meet in the month of November, and a parliament in the month of May, the following year.” Matters had, however, proceeded too far for submission to the conditions of the proclamation, and the covenanting leaders answered it by a formal protest, in which they gave sixteen reasons, showing that to comply with the demands of the king would be to betray the cause of God, and to act against the dictates of conscience.
In consequence of the opposition made to the proclamation, it was generally expected that the king would have recalled the order for the meeting of the assembly at Glasgow; but no prohibition having been issued, that assembly, which consisted, besides the clergy, of one lay-elder and four lay-assessors from every presbytery, met at the time appointed, viz., in the month of November, 1638. After the assembly had spent a week in violent debates, the commissioner, in terms of his instructions, declared it dissolved; but, encouraged by the accession of the Earl of Argyle, who placed himself at the head of the Covenanters, the members declined to disperse at the mere mandate of the sovereign, and passed a resolution that, in spiritual matters, the kirk was independent of the civil power, and that the dissolution by the commissioner was illegal and void. After spending three weeks in revising the ecclesiastical regulations introduced into Scotland since the accession of James to the crown of England, the assembly condemned the liturgy, ordinal, book of canons, and court of high commission, and, assuming all the powers of legislation, abolished episcopacy, and excommunicated the bishops themselves, and the ministers who supported them. Charles declared their proceedings null; but the people received them with great joy, and testified their approbation by a national thanksgiving.
Both parties had for some time been preparing for war, and they now hastened on their plans. In consequence of an order from the supreme committee of the Covenanters in Edinburgh, every man capable of bearing arms was called out and trained. Experienced Scottish officers, who had spent the greater part of their lives in military service in Sweden and Germany, returned to Scotland to place themselves at the head of their countrymen, and the Scottish merchants in Holland supplied them with arms and ammunition. The king advanced as far as York with an army, the Scottish bishops making him believe that the news of his approach would induce the Covenanters to submit themselves to his pleasure; but he was disappointed,--for instead of submitting themselves, they were the first to commence hostilities. About the 19th of March, 1639, General Leslie, the covenanting general, with a few men, surprised, and without difficulty, occupied the castle of Edinburgh, and about the same time the Earl of Traquair surrendered Dalkeith house. Dumbarton castle, like that of Edinburgh, was taken by stratagem, the governor, named Stewart, being intercepted on a Sunday as he returned from church, and made to change clothes with another gentleman and give the pass-word, by which means the Covenanters easily obtained possession. The king, on arriving at Durham, despatched the Marquis of Hamilton with a fleet of forty ships, having on board 6,000 troops, to the Frith of Forth; but as both sides of the Frith were well fortified at different points, and covered with troops, he was unable to effect a landing.[232]
In the meantime, the Marquis of Huntly raised the royal standard in the north, and as the Earl of Sutherland, accompanied by Lord Reay, John, Master of Berridale and others, had been very busy in Inverness and Elgin, persuading the inhabitants to subscribe the Covenant, the marquis wrote him confidentially, blaming him for his past conduct, and advising him to declare for the king; but the earl informed him in reply, that it was against the bishops and their innovations, and not against the king, that he had so acted. The earl then, in his turn, advised the marquis to join the Covenanters, by doing which he said he would not only confer honour on himself, but much good on his native country; that in any private question in which Huntly was personally interested he would assist, but that in the present affair he would not aid him. The earl thereupon joined the Earl of Seaforth, the Master of Berridale, Lord Lovat, Lord Reay, the laird of Balnagown, the Rosses, the Monroes, the laird of Grant, Macintosh, the laird of Innes, the sheriff of Moray, the baron of Kilravock, the laird of Altire, the tutor of Duffus, and the other Covenanters on the north of the river Spey.
The Marquis of Huntly assembled his forces first at Turriff, and afterwards at Kintore, whence he marched upon Aberdeen, which he took possession of in name of the king. The marquis being informed shortly after his arrival in Aberdeen, that a meeting of Covenanters, who resided within his district, was to be held at Turriff on the 14th of February, resolved to disperse them. He therefore wrote letters to his chief dependents, requiring them to meet him at Turriff the same day, and bring with them no arms but swords and “schottis” or pistols. One of these letters fell into the hands of the Earl of Montrose, one of the chief covenanting lords, who determined at all hazards to protect the meeting of his friends, the Covenanters. In pursuance of this resolution, he collected, with great alacrity, some of his best friends in Angus, and with his own and their dependents, to the number of about 800 men, he crossed the range of hills called the Grangebean, between Angus and Aberdeenshire, and took possession of Turriff on the morning of the 14th of February. When Huntly’s party arrived during the course of the day, they were surprised at seeing the little churchyard of the village filled with armed men; and they were still more surprised to observe them levelling their hagbuts at them across the walls of the churchyard. Not knowing how to act in the absence of the marquis, they retired to a place called the Broad Ford of Towie, about two miles south from the village, when they were soon joined by Huntly and his suite. After some consultation, the marquis, after parading his men in order of battle along the north-west side of the village, in sight of Montrose, dispersed his party, which amounted to 2,000 men, without offering to attack Montrose, on the pretence that his commission of lieutenancy only authorised him to act on the defensive.[233]
James Graham, Earl, and afterwards first Marquis of Montrose, who played so prominent a part in the history of the troublous times on which we are entering, was descended from a family which can be traced back to the beginning of the 12th century. His ancestor, the Earl of Montrose, fell at Flodden, and his grandfather became viceroy of Scotland after James VI. ascended the throne of England. He himself was born in 1612, his mother being Lady Margaret Ruthven, eldest daughter of William, first Earl of Gowrie. He succeeded to the estates and title in 1626, on the death of his father, and three years after, married Magdalene Carnegie, daughter of Lord Carnegie of Kinnaird. He pursued his studies at St. Andrews University and Kinnaird Castle till he was about twenty years of age, when he went to the Continent and studied at the academies of France and Italy, returning an accomplished gentleman and a soldier. On his return he was, for some reason, coldly received by Charles I., and it is supposed by some that it was mainly out of chagrin on this account that he joined the Covenanters. Whatever may have been his motive for joining them, he was certainly an important and powerful accession to their ranks, although, as will be seen, his adherence to them was but of short duration.
Montrose is thus portrayed by his contemporary, Patrick Gordon of Ruthven, author of Britane’s Distemper. “It cannot be denied but he was ane accomplished gentleman of many excellent partes; a bodie not tall, but comely and well compossed in all his liniamentes; his complexion meerly whitee, with flaxin haire; of a stayed, graue, and solide looke, and yet his eyes sparkling and full of lyfe; of speach slowe, but wittie and full of sence; a presence graitfull, courtly, and so winneing vpon the beholder, as it seemed to claime reuerence without seweing for it; for he was so affable, so courteous, so benign, as seemed verely to scorne ostentation and the keeping of state, and therefor he quicklie made a conquesse of the heartes of all his followers, so as whan he list he could haue lead them in a chaine to haue followed him with chearefullnes in all his interpryses; and I am certanely perswaded, that this his gratious, humane, and courteous fredome of behauiour, being certanely acceptable befor God as well as men, was it that wanne him so much renovne, and inabled him cheifly, in the loue of his followers, to goe through so great interprysses, wheirin his equall had failled, altho they exceeded him farre in power, nor can any other reason be giuen for it, but only this that followeth. He did not seeme to affect state, nor to claime reuerence, nor to keepe a distance with gentlemen that ware not his domestickes; but rather in a noble yet courteouse way he seemed to slight those vanisheing smockes of greatnes, affecting rather the reall possession of mens heartes then the frothie and outward showe of reuerence; and therefor was all reuerence thrust vpon him, because all did loue him, therfor all did honour him and reuerence him, yea, haueing once acquired there heartes, they ware readie not only to honour him, but to quarrell with any that would not honour him, and would not spare there fortounes, nor there derrest blood about there heartes, to the end he might be honoured, because they saue that he tooke the right course to obtaine honour. He had fund furth the right way to be reuerenced, and thereby was approued that propheticke maxime which hath never failed, nor neuer shall faille, being pronounced by the Fontaine of treuth (He that exalteth himselfe shall be humbled); for his winneing behauiour and courteous caryage got him more respect then those to whom they ware bound both by the law of nature and by good reason to hawe giuen it to. Nor could any other reason be giuen for it, but only there to much keepeing of distance, and caryeing themselfes in a more statlye and reserued way, without putteing a difference betuixt a free borne gentleman and a seruille or base mynded slaue.
“This much I thought good by the way to signifie; for the best and most waliant generall that euer lead ane armie if he mistake the disposition of the nation whom he commandes, and will not descend a litle till he meete with the genious of his shouldiours, on whose followeing his grandour and the success of his interpryses chiefely dependeth, stryueing through a high soireing and ower winneing ambition to drawe them to his byas with awe and not with lowe, that leader, I say, shall neuer prewaill against his enemies with ane armie of the Scotes nation.”
Montrose had, about this time, received a commission from the Tables--as the boards of representatives, chosen respectively by the nobility, county gentry, clergy, and inhabitants of the burghs, were called--to raise a body of troops for the service of the Covenanters, and he now proceeded to embody them with extraordinary promptitude. Within one month, he collected a force of about 3,000 horse and foot, from the counties of Fife, Forfar, and Perth, and put them into a complete state of military discipline. Being joined by the forces under General Leslie, he marched upon Aberdeen, which he entered, without opposition, on the 30th of March, the Marquis of Huntly having abandoned the town on his approach. Some idea of the well-appointed state of this army may be formed from the curious description of Spalding, who says, that “upon the morne, being Saturday, they came in order of battell, weill armed, both on horse and foot, ilk horseman having five shot at the least, with ane carabine in his hand, two pistols by his sydes, and other two at his saddell toir; the pikemen in their ranks, with pike and sword; the musketiers in their ranks, with musket, musket-staffe, bandelier, sword, powder, ball, and match; ilk company, both on horse and foot, had their captains, lieutenants, ensignes, serjeants, and other officers and commanders, all for the most part in buff coats, and in goodly order. They had five colours or ensignes, whereof the Earl of Montrose had one, haveing this motto: ‘FOR RELIGION, THE COVENANT, AND THE COUNTRIE;’ the Earle of Marischall had one, the Earle of Kinghorne had one, and the town of Dundie had two. They had trumpeters to ilk company of horsemen, and drummers to ilk company of footmen; they had their meat, drink, and other provision, bag and baggage, carryed with them, all done be advyse of his excellence Felt Marschall Leslie, whose councell Generall Montrose followed in this busieness. Now, in seemly order and good array, this army came forward, and entered the burgh of Aberdein, about ten hours in the morning, at the Over Kirkgate Port, syne came doun throw the Broadgate, throw the Castlegate, out at the Justice Port to the Queen’s Links directly. Here it is to be notted that few or none of this hail army wanted ane blew ribbin hung about his craig, doun under his left arme, which they called the Covenanters’ Ribbin. But the Lord Gordon, and some other of the marquess’ bairnes and familie, had ane ribbin when he was dwelling in the toun, of ane reid flesh cullor, which they wore in their hatts, and called it The Royall Ribbin, as a signe of their love and loyalltie to the king. In despyte and derision thereof this blew ribbin was worne, and called the Covenanters’ Ribbin, be the hail souldiers of the army, and would not hear of the royall ribbin; such was their pryde and malice.”[234]
At Aberdeen Montrose was joined the same day by Lord Fraser, the Master of Forbes, the laird of Dalgettie, the tutor of Pitsligo, the Earl Marshal’s men in Buchan, with several other gentlemen and their tenants, dependants, and servants, to the number of 2,000, an addition which augmented Montrose’s army to 9,000 men. Leaving the Earl of Kinghorn with 1,500 men to keep possession of Aberdeen, Montrose marched the same day towards Kintore, where he encamped that night. Halting all Sunday, he proceeded on the Monday to Inverury, where he again pitched his camp. The Marquis of Huntly grew alarmed at this sudden and unexpected movement, and thought it now time to treat with such a formidable foe for his personal safety. He, therefore, despatched Robert Gordon of Straloch and Doctor Gordon, an Aberdeen physician, to Montrose’s camp, to request an interview. The marquis proposed to meet him on a moor near Blackhall, about two miles from the camp, with 11 attendants each, with no arms but a single sword at their side. After consulting with Field Marshal Leslie and the other officers, Montrose agreed to meet the marquis, on Thursday the 4th of April, at the place mentioned. The parties accordingly met. Among the eleven who attended the marquis were his son James, Lord Aboyne, and the Lord Oliphant. Lords Elcho and Cowper were of the party who attended Montrose. After the usual salutation they both alighted and entered into conversation; but, coming to no understanding, they adjourned the conference till the following morning, when the marquis signed a paper obliging himself to maintain the king’s authority, “the liberty of church and state, religion and laws.” He promised at the same time to do his best to make his friends, tenants, and servants subscribe the Covenant.[235] The marquis, after this arrangement, went to Strathbogie, and Montrose returned with his army to Aberdeen, the following day.
The marquis had not been many days at Strathbogie, when he received a notice from Montrose to repair to Aberdeen with his two sons, Lord Gordon and Viscount Aboyne, for the ostensible purpose of assisting the committee in their deliberations as to the settlement of the disturbances in the north.[236] On Huntly receiving an assurance from Montrose and the other covenanting leaders that no attempt should be made to detain himself and his sons as prisoners, he complied with Montrose’s invitation, and repairing to Aberdeen, he took up his quarters in the laird of Pitfoddel’s house.
The arrest of the marquis, which followed, has been attributed, not without reason, to the intrigues of the Frasers and the Forbeses, who bore a mortal antipathy to the house of Huntly, and who were desirous to see the “Cock of the North,” as the powerful head of that house was popularly called, humbled.[237] But, be these conjectures as they may, on the morning after the marquis’s arrival at Aberdeen, viz., on the 11th April, a council of the principal officers of Montrose’s army was held, at which it was determined to arrest the marquis and Lord Gordon, his eldest son, and carry them to Edinburgh. It was not, however, judged advisable to act upon this resolution immediately, and to do away with any appearance of treachery, Montrose and his friends invited the marquis and his two sons to supper the following evening. During the entertainment the most friendly civilities were passed on both sides, and, after the party had become somewhat merry, Montrose and his friends hinted to the marquis the expediency, in the present posture of affairs, of resigning his commission of lieutenancy. They also proposed that he should write a letter to the king along with the resignation of his commission, in favour of the Covenanters, as good and loyal subjects; and that he should despatch the laird of Cluny, the following morning, with the letter and resignation. The marquis, seeing that his commission was altogether unavailable, immediately wrote out, in presence of the meeting, a resignation of it, and a letter of recommendation as proposed, and, in their presence, delivered the same to the laird of Cluny, who was to set off the following morning with them to the king. It would appear that Montrose was not sincere in making this demand upon the marquis, and that his object was, by calculating on a refusal, to make that the ground for arresting him; for the marquis had scarcely returned to his lodgings to pass the night, when an armed guard was placed round the house, to prevent him from returning home, as he intended to do, the following morning.
When the marquis rose, next morning, he was surprised at receiving a message from the covenanting general, desiring his attendance at the house of the Earl Marshal; and he was still farther surprised, when, on going out, along with his two sons, to the appointed place of meeting, he found his lodging beset with sentinels. The marquis was received by Montrose with the usual morning salutation, after which, he proceeded to demand from him a contribution for liquidating a loan of 200,000 merks, which the Covenanters had borrowed from Sir William Dick, a rich merchant of Edinburgh. To this unexpected demand the marquis replied, that he was not obliged to pay any part thereof, not having been concerned in the borrowing, and of course, declined to comply. Montrose then requested him to take steps to apprehend James Grant and John Dugar, and their accomplices, who had given considerable annoyance to the Covenanters in the Highlands. Huntly objected, that, having now no commission, he could not act, and that, although he had, James Grant had already obtained a remission from the king; and as for John Dugar, he would concur, if required, with the other neighbouring proprietors in an attempt to apprehend him. The earl, finally, as the Covenant, he said, admitted of no standing hatred or feud, required the marquis to reconcile himself to Crichton, the laird of Frendraught, but this the marquis positively refused to do. Finding, as he no doubt expected, the marquis quite resolute in his determination to resist these demands, the earl suddenly changed his tone, and thus addressed the marquis, apparently in the most friendly terms, “My lord, seeing we are all now friends, will you go south to Edinburgh with us?” Huntly answered that he would not--that he was not prepared for such a journey, and that he was just going to set off for Strathbogie. “Your lordship,” rejoined Montrose, “will do well to go with us.” The marquis now perceiving Montrose’s design, accosted him thus, “My lord, I came here to this town upon assurance that I should come and go at my own pleasure, without molestation or inquietude; and now I see why my lodging was guarded, and that ye mean to take me to Edinburgh, whether I will or not. This conduct, on your part, seems to me to be neither fair nor honourable.” He added, “My lord, give me back the bond which I gave you at Inverury, and you shall have an answer.” Montrose thereupon delivered the bond to the marquis. Huntly then inquired at the earl, “Whether he would take him to the south as a captive, or willingly of his own mind?” “Make your choice,” said Montrose. “Then,” observed the marquis, “I will not go as a captive, but as a volunteer.” The marquis thereupon immediately returned to his lodging, and despatched a messenger after the laird of Cluny, to stop him on his journey.[238]
It was the intention of Montrose to take both the marquis and his sons to Edinburgh, but Viscount Aboyne, at the desire of some of his friends, was released, and allowed to return to Strathbogie. On arriving at Edinburgh, the marquis and his son, Lord Gordon, were committed close prisoners to the castle of Edinburgh, and the Tables “appointed five guardians to attend upon him and his son night and day, upon his own expenses, that none should come in nor out but by their sight.”[239] On being solicited to sign the Covenant, Huntly issued a manifesto characterized by magnanimity and the most steadfast loyalty, concluding with the following words:--“For my oune part, I am in your power; and resolved not to leave that foul title of traitor as ane inheritance upon my posteritye. Yow may tacke my heade from my shoulders, but not my heart from my soveraigne.”[240]
Some time after the departure of Montrose’s army to the south, the Covenanters of the north appointed a committee meeting to be held at Turriff, upon Wednesday, 24th April, consisting of the Earls Marshal and Seaforth, Lord Fraser, the Master of Forbes, and some of their kindred and friends. All persons within the diocese, who had not subscribed the Covenant, were required to attend this meeting for the purpose of signing it, and failing compliance, their property was to be given up to indiscriminate plunder. As neither Lord Aboyne, the laird of Banff, nor any of their friends and kinsmen, had subscribed the Covenant, nor meant to do so, they resolved to protect themselves from the threatened attack. A preliminary meeting of the heads of the northern Covenanters was held on the 22d of April, at Monymusk, where they learned of the rising of Lord Aboyne and his friends. This intelligence induced them to postpone the meeting at Turriff till the 26th of April, by which day they expected to be joined by several gentlemen from Caithness, Sutherland, Ross, Moray, and other quarters. At another meeting, however, on the 24th of April, they postponed the proposed meeting at Turriff, sine die, and adjourned to Aberdeen; but as no notice had been sent of the postponement to the different covenanting districts in the north, about 1,500 men assembled at the place of meeting on the 26th of April, and were quite astonished to find that the chiefs were absent. Upon an explanation taking place, the meeting was adjourned till the 20th of May.
Lord Aboyne had not been idle during this interval, having collected about 2,000 horse and foot from the Highlands and Lowlands, with which force he had narrowly watched the movements of the Covenanters. Hearing, however, of the adjournment of the Turriff meeting, his lordship, at the entreaty of his friends, broke up his army, and went by sea to England to meet the king, to inform him of the precarious state of affairs in the north. Many of his followers, such as the lairds of Gight, Haddo, Udney, Newton, Pitmedden, Foveran, Tippertie, Harthill, and others, who had subscribed the Covenant, regretted his departure; but as they had gone too far to recede, they resolved to continue their forces in the field, and held a meeting on the 7th of May at Auchterless, to concert a plan of operations.
A body of the Covenanters, to the number of about 2,000, having assembled at Turriff as early as the 13th of May, the Gordons resolved instantly to attack them, before they should be joined by other forces, which were expected to arrive before the 20th. Taking along with them four brass field-pieces from Strathbogie, the Gordons, to the number of about 800 horse and foot, commenced their march on the 13th of May, at ten o’clock at night, and reached Turriff next morning by day-break, by a road unknown to the sentinels of the covenanting army. As soon as they approached the town, the commander of the Gordons ordered the trumpets to be sounded and the drums to be beat, the noise of which was the first indication the Covenanters had of their arrival. Being thus surprised, the latter had no time to make any preparations for defending themselves. They made, indeed, a short resistance, but were soon dispersed by the fire from the field-pieces, leaving behind them the lairds of Echt and Skene, and a few others, who were taken prisoners. The loss on either side, in killed and wounded, was very trifling. This skirmish is called by the writers of the period, “the Trott of Turray.”[241]
The successful issue of this trifling affair had a powerful effect on the minds of the victors, who forthwith marched on Aberdeen, which they entered on the 15th of May. They expelled the Covenanters from the town, and were there joined by a body of men from the Braes of Mar under the command of Donald Farquharson of Tulliegarmouth, and the laird of Abergeldie, and by another party headed by James Grant, so long an outlaw, to the number of about 500 men. These men quartered themselves very freely upon the inhabitants, particularly on those who had declared for the Covenant, and they plundered many gentlemen’s houses in the neighbourhood. The house of Durris, belonging to John Forbes of Leslie, a great Covenanter, received a visit from them. “There was,” says Spalding, “little plenishing left unconveyed away before their comeing. They gott good bear and ale, broke up girnells, and buke bannocks at good fyres, and drank merrily upon the laird’s best drink: syne carried away with them alse meikle victual as they could beir, which they could not gett eaten and destroyed; and syne removed from that to Echt, Skene, Monymusk, and other houses pertaining to the name of Forbes, all great Covenanters.”[242]
Two days after their arrival at Aberdeen, the Gordons sent to Dunnottar, for the purpose of ascertaining the sentiments of the Earl Marshal, in relation to their proceedings, and whether they might reckon on his friendship. The earl, however, intimated that he could say nothing in relation to the affair, and that he would require eight days to advise with his friends. This answer was considered quite unsatisfactory, and the chiefs of the army were at a loss how to act. Robert Gordon of Straloch, and James Burnet of Craigmylle, a brother of the laird of Leys, proposed to enter into a negotiation with the Earl Marshal, but Sir George Ogilvie of Banff would not listen to such a proceeding, and, addressing Straloch, he said, “Go, if you will go; but pr’ythee, let it be as quarter-master, to inform the earl that we are coming.” Straloch, however, went not in the character of a quarter-master, but as a mediator in behalf of his chief. The earl said he had no intention to take up arms, without an order from the Tables; that, if the Gordons would disperse, he would give them early notice to re-assemble, if necessary, for their own defence, but that if they should attack him, he would certainly defend himself.
The army was accordingly disbanded on the 21st of May, and the barons went to Aberdeen, there to spend a few days. The depredations of the Highlanders, who had come down to the lowlands in quest of plunder, upon the properties of the Covenanters, were thereafter carried on to such an extent, that the latter complained to the Earl Marshal, who immediately assembled a body of men out of Angus and the Mearns, with which he entered Aberdeen on the 23d of May, causing the barons to make a precipitate retreat. Two days thereafter the earl was joined by Montrose, at the head of 4,000 men, an addition which, with other accessions, made the whole force assembled at Aberdeen exceed 6,000.
Meanwhile a large body of northern Covenanters, under the command of the Earl of Seaforth, was approaching from the districts beyond the Spey; but the Gordons having crossed the Spey for the purpose of opposing their advance, an agreement was entered into between both parties that, on the Gordons retiring across the Spey, Seaforth and his men should also retire homewards.
After spending five days in Aberdeen, Montrose marched his army to Udney, thence to Kellie, the seat of the laird of Haddo, and afterwards to Gight, the residence of Sir Robert Gordon, to which he laid siege. But intelligence of the arrival of Viscount Aboyne in the bay of Aberdeen, deranged his plans. Being quite uncertain of Aboyne’s strength, and fearing that his retreat might be cut off, Montrose quickly raised the siege and returned to Aberdeen. Although Lord Aboyne still remained on board his vessel, and could easily have been prevented from landing, Montrose most unaccountably abandoned the town, and retired into the Mearns.
Viscount Aboyne had been most graciously received by the king, and had ingratiated himself so much with the monarch, as to obtain the commission of lieutenancy which his father held. The king appears to have entertained good hopes from his endeavours to support the royal cause in the north of Scotland, and before taking leave he gave the viscount a letter addressed to the Marquis of Hamilton, requesting him to afford his lordship all the assistance in his power. From whatever cause, all the aid afforded by the Marquis was limited to a few officers and four field-pieces: “The king,” says Gordon of Sallagh, “coming to Berwick, and business growing to a height, the armies of England and Scotland lying near one another, his majesty sent the Viscount of Aboyne and Colonel Gun (who was then returned out of Germany) to the Marquis of Hamilton, to receive some forces from him, and with these forces to go to Aberdeen, to possess and recover that town. The Marquis of Hamilton, lying at anchor in Forth, gave them no supply of men, but sent them five ships to Aberdeen, and the marquis himself retired with his fleet and men to the Holy Island, hard by Berwick, to reinforce the king’s army there against the Scots at Dunslaw.”[243] On his voyage to Aberdeen, Aboyne’s ships fell in with two vessels, one of which contained the lairds of Banff, Foveran, Newton, Crummie, and others, who had fled on the approach of Montrose to Gight; and the other had on board some citizens of Aberdeen, and several ministers who had refused to sign the Covenant, all of whom the viscount persuaded to return home along with him.
On the 6th of June, Lord Aboyne, accompanied by the Earls of Glencairn and Tullibardine, the lairds of Drum, Banff, Fedderet, Foveran, and Newton, and their followers, with Colonel Gun and several English officers, landed in Aberdeen without opposition. Immediately on coming ashore, Aboyne issued a proclamation which was read at the cross of Aberdeen, prohibiting all his majesty’s loyal subjects from paying any rents, duties, or other debts to the Covenanters, and requiring them to pay one-half of such sums to the king, and to retain the other for themselves. Those persons who had been forced to subscribe the Covenant against their will, were, on repentance, to be forgiven, and every person was required to take an oath of allegiance to his majesty.
This bold step inspired the royalists with confidence, and in a short space of time a considerable force rallied round the royal standard. Lewis Gordon, third son of the Marquis of Huntly, a youth of extraordinary courage, on hearing of his brother’s arrival, collected his father’s friends and tenants, to the number of about 1,000 horse and foot, and with these he entered Aberdeen on the 7th of June. These were succeeded by 100 horse, sent in by the laird of Drum, and by considerable forces led by James Grant and Donald Farquharson. Many of the Covenanters also joined the viscount, so that his force ultimately amounted to several thousand men. Spalding[244] gives a sad, though somewhat ludicrous account of the way in which Farquharson’s “hieland men” conducted themselves while in Aberdeen. He says, “Thir saulless lounis plunderit meit, drink, and scheip quhair ever they cam. Thay oppressit the Oldtoun, and brocht in out of the countrie honest menis scheip, and sold at the cross of Old Abirdein to sic as wold by, ane scheip upone foot for ane groat. The poor men that aucht thame follouit in and coft bak thair awin scheip agane, sic as wes left unslayne for thair meit.”
On the 10th of June the viscount left Aberdeen, and advanced upon Kintore with an army of about 2,000 horse and foot, to which he received daily accessions. The inhabitants of the latter place were compelled by him to subscribe the oath of allegiance, and notwithstanding their compliance, “the troops,” says Spalding, “plundered meat and drink, and made good fires: and, where they wanted peats, broke down beds and boards in honest men’s houses to be fires, and fed their horses with corn and straw that day and night.”[245] Next morning the army made a raid upon Hall Forrest, a seat of the Earl Marshal, and the house of Muchells, belonging to Lord Fraser; but Aboyne, hearing of a rising in the south, returned to Aberdeen.
As delay would be dangerous to his cause in the present conjuncture, he crossed the Dee on the 14th of June, his army amounting altogether probably to about 3,000 horse and foot,[246] with the intention of occupying Stonehaven, and of issuing afresh the king’s proclamation at the market cross of that burgh. He proceeded as far as Muchollis, or Muchalls, the seat of Sir Thomas Burnet of Leyes, a Covenanter, where he encamped that night. On hearing of his approach, the Earl Marshal and Montrose posted themselves, with 1,200 men, and some pieces of ordnance which they had drawn from Dunnottar castle, on the direct road which Aboyne had to pass, and waited his approach.
Although Aboyne was quite aware of the position of the Earl Marshal, instead of endeavouring to outflank him by making a detour to the right, he, by Colonel Gun’s advice, crossed the Meagre hill next morning, directly in the face of his opponent, who lay with his forces at the bottom of the hill. As Aboyne descended the hill, the Earl Marshal opened a heavy fire upon him, which threw his men into complete disorder. The Highlanders, unaccustomed to the fire of cannon, were the first to retreat, and in a short time the whole army gave way. Aboyne thereupon returned to Aberdeen with some horsemen, leaving the rest of the army to follow; but the Highlanders took a homeward course, carrying along with them a large quantity of booty, which they gathered on their retreat. The disastrous issue of “the Raid of Stonehaven,” as this affair has been called, has been attributed, with considerable plausibility, to treachery on the part of Colonel Gun, to whom, on account of his great experience, Aboyne had intrusted the command of the army.[247]
On his arrival at Aberdeen, Aboyne held a council of war, at which it was determined to send some persons into the Mearns to collect the scattered remains of his army, for, with the exception of about 180 horsemen and a few foot soldiers, the whole of the fine army which he had led from Aberdeen had disappeared; but although the army again mustered at Leggetsden to the number of 4,000, they were prevented from recrossing the Dee and joining his lordship by the Marshal and Montrose, who advanced towards the bridge of Dee with all their forces. Aboyne, hearing of their approach, resolved to dispute with them the passage of the Dee, and, as a precautionary measure, blocked up the entrance to the bridge of Dee from the south by a thick wall of turf, beside which he placed 100 musketeers upon the bridge, under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Johnstone, to annoy the assailants from the small turrets on its sides. The viscount was warmly seconded in his views by the citizens of Aberdeen, whose dread of another hostile visit from the Covenanters induced them to afford him every assistance in their power, and it is recorded that the women and children even occupied themselves in carrying provisions to the army during the contest.
The army of Montrose consisted of about 2,000 foot and 300 horse, and a large train of artillery. The forces which Lord Aboyne had collected on the spur of the occasion were not numerous, but he was superior in cavalry. His ordnance consisted only of four pieces of brass cannon. Montrose arrived at the bridge of Dee on the 18th of June, and, without a moment’s delay, commenced a furious cannonade upon the works which had been thrown up at the south end, and which he kept up during the whole day without producing any material effect. Lieutenant-colonel Johnstone defended the bridge with determined bravery, and his musketeers kept up a galling and well-directed fire upon their assailants. Both parties reposed during the short twilight, and as soon as morning dawned Montrose renewed his attack upon the bridge, with an ardour which seemed to have received a fresh impulse from the unavailing efforts of the preceding day; but all his attempts were vain. Seeing no hopes of carrying the bridge in the teeth of the force opposed to him, he had recourse to a stratagem, by which he succeeded in withdrawing a part of Aboyne’s forces from the defence of the bridge. That force had, indeed, been considerably impaired before the renewal of the attack, in consequence of a party of 50 musketeers having gone to Aberdeen to escort thither the body of a citizen named John Forbes, who had been killed the preceding day; to which circumstance Spalding attributes the loss of the bridge; but whether the absence of this party had such an effect upon the fortune of the day is by no means clear. The covenanting general, after battering unsuccessfully the defences of the bridge, ordered a party of horsemen to proceed up the river some distance, and to make a demonstration as if they intended to cross. Aboyne was completely deceived by this manœuvre, and sent the whole of his horsemen from the bridge to dispute the passage of the river with those of Montrose, leaving Lieutenant-colonel Johnstone and his 50 musketeers alone to protect the bridge. Montrose having thus drawn his opponent into the snare set for him, immediately sent back the greater part of his horse, under the command of Captain Middleton, with instructions to renew the attack upon the bridge with redoubled energy. This officer lost no time in obeying these orders, and Lieutenant-colonel Johnstone having been wounded in the outset by a stone torn from the bridge by a shot, was forced to abandon its defence, and he and his party retired precipitately to Aberdeen.
When Aboyne saw the colours of the Covenanters flying on the bridge of Dee, he fled with great haste towards Strathbogie, after releasing the lairds of Purie Ogilvy and Purie Fodderinghame, whom he had taken prisoners, and carried with him from Aberdeen. The loss on either side during the conflict on the bridge was trifling. The only person of note who fell on Aboyne’s side was Seaton of Pitmedden, a brave cavalier, who was killed by a cannon shot while riding along the river side with Lord Aboyne. On that of the Covenanters was slain another valiant gentleman, a brother of Ramsay of Balmain. About 14 persons of inferior note were killed on each side, including some burgesses of Aberdeen, and several were wounded.
Montrose, reaching the north bank of the Dee, proceeded immediately to Aberdeen, which he entered without opposition. So exasperated were Montrose’s followers at the repeated instances of devotedness shown by the inhabitants to the royal cause, that they proposed to raze the town and set it on fire; but they were hindered from carrying their design into execution by the firmness of Montrose. The Covenanters, however, treated the inhabitants very harshly, and imprisoned many who were suspected of having been concerned in opposing their passage across the Dee; but an end was put to these proceedings in consequence of intelligence being brought on the following day (June 20th) of the treaty of pacification which had been entered into between the king and his subjects at Berwick, upon the 18th of that month. On receipt of this news, Montrose sent a despatch to the Earl of Seaforth, who was stationed with his army on the Spey, intimating the pacification, and desiring him to disband his army, with which order he instantly complied.
The articles of pacification were preceded by a declaration on the part of the king, in which he stated, that although he could not condescend to ratify and approve of the acts of the Glasgow General Assembly, yet, notwithstanding the many disorders which had of late been committed, he not only confirmed and made good whatsoever his commissioner had granted and promised, but he also declared that all matters ecclesiastical should be determined by the assemblies of the kirk, and matters civil by the parliament and other inferior judicatories established by law. To settle, therefore, “the general distractions” of the kingdom, his majesty ordered that a free general assembly should be held at Edinburgh on the 6th August following, at which he declared his intention, “God willing, to be personally present;” and he moreover ordered a parliament to meet at Edinburgh on the 20th of the same month, for ratifying the proceedings of the general assembly, and settling such other matters as might conduce to the peace and good of the kingdom of Scotland. By the articles of pacification, it was, inter alia, provided that the forces in Scotland should be disbanded within forty-eight hours after the publication of the declaration, and that all the royal castles, forts, and warlike stores of every description, should be delivered up to his majesty after the said publication, as soon as he should send to receive them. Under the seventh and last article of the treaty, the Marquis of Huntly and his son, Lord Gordon, and some others who had been detained prisoners in the castle of Edinburgh by the Covenanters, were set at liberty.
It has been generally supposed that neither party had any sincere intention to observe the conditions of the treaty. Certain it is, that the ink with which it was written was scarcely dry before its violation was contemplated. On the one hand, the king, before removing his army from the neighbourhood of Berwick, required the heads of the Covenanters to attend him there, obviously with the object of gaining them over to his side; but, with the exception of three commoners and three lords, Montrose, Loudon, and Lothian, they refused to obey. It was at this conference that Charles, who apparently had great persuasive powers, made a convert of Montrose, who from that time determined to desert his associates in arms, and to place himself under the royal standard. The immediate strengthening of the forts of Berwick and Carlisle, and the provisioning of the castle of Edinburgh, were probably the suggestions of Montrose, who would, of course, be intrusted with the secret of his majesty’s designs. The Covenanters, on the other hand, although making a show of disbanding their army at Dunse, in reality kept a considerable force on foot, which they quartered in different parts of the country, to be in readiness for the field on a short notice. The suspicious conduct of the king certainly justified this precaution.
The general assembly met on the day fixed upon, but, instead of attending in person as he proposed, Charles appointed the Earl of Traquair to act as his commissioner. After abolishing the articles of Perth, the book of canons, the liturgy, the high commission and episcopacy, and ratifying the late Covenant, the assembly was dissolved on the 30th of August, and another general assembly was appointed to be held at Aberdeen on the 28th of July of the following year, 1640. The parliament met next day, viz., on the last day of August, and as there were no bishops to represent the third estate, fourteen minor barons were elected in their stead. His majesty’s commissioner protested against the vote and against farther proceedings till the king’s mind should be known, and the commissioner immediately sent off a letter apprising him of the occurrence. Without waiting for the king’s answer, the parliament was proceeding with a variety of bills for securing the liberty of the subject and restraining the royal prerogative, when it was unexpectedly and suddenly prorogued, by an order from the king, till the 2d of June in the following year.
If Charles had not already made up his mind for war with his Scottish subjects, the conduct of the parliament which he had just prorogued determined him again to have recourse to arms in vindication of his prerogative. He endeavoured, at first, to enlist the sympathies of the bulk of the English nation in his cause, but without effect; and his repeated appeals to his English people, setting forth the rectitude of his intentions and the justice of his cause, being answered by men who questioned the one and denied the other, rather injured than served him. The people of England were not then in a mood to embark in a crusade against the civil and religious liberties of the north; and they had too much experience of the arbitrary spirit of the king to imagine that their own liberties would be better secured by extinguishing the flame which burned in the breasts of the sturdy and enthusiastic Covenanters.
But notwithstanding the many discouraging circumstances which surrounded him, Charles displayed a firmness of resolution to coerce the rebellious Scots by every means within his reach. The spring and part of the summer of 1640 were spent by both parties in military preparations. Field-Marshal Sir Alexander Leslie of Balgony, an old and experienced officer who had been in foreign service, was appointed generalissimo of the Scots army by the war committee. When mustered by the general at Choicelee, it amounted to about 22,000 foot and 2,500 horse. A council of war was held at Dunse at which it was determined to invade England. Montrose, to whose command a division of the army, consisting of 2,000 foot and 500 horse, was intrusted, was absent when this meeting was held; but, although his sentiments had, by this time, undergone a complete change, seeing on his return no chance of preventing the resolution of the council, he dissembled his feelings and openly approved of the plan. There seems to be no doubt that in following this course he intended, on the first favourable opportunity, to declare for the king, and carry off such part of the army as should be inclined to follow him, which he reckoned at a third of the whole.[248]
The Earl of Argyle was commissioned by the Committee of Estates to secure the west and central Highlands. This, the eighth Earl and first Marquis of Argyle, had succeeded to the title only in 1638, although he had enjoyed the estates for many years before that, as his father had been living in Spain, an outlaw. He was born in 1598, and strictly educated in the protestant faith as established in Scotland at the Reformation. In 1626 he was made a privy councillor, and in 1634 appointed one of the extraordinary lords of session. In 1638, at the General Assembly of Glasgow, he openly went over to the side of the Covenanters, and from that time was recognised as their political head. Argyle, in executing the task intrusted to him by the committee, appears to have been actuated more by feelings of private revenge than by an honest desire to carry out the spirit of his commission. The ostensible reason for his undertaking this charge was his thorough acquaintance with the Highlands and the Highlanders, and his ability to command the services of a large following of his own. “But the cheefe cause,” according to Gordon of Rothiemay,[249] “though least mentioned, was Argylle, his spleene that he carryed upon the accompt of former disobleedgments betwixt his family and some of the Highland clans: therefore he was glade now to gett so faire a colour of revenge upon the publicke score, which he did not lett slippe. Another reasone he had besyde; it was his designe to swallow upp Badzenoch and Lochaber, and some landes belonging to the Mackdonalds, a numerous trybe, but haters of, and aeqwally hated by Argylle.” He had some hold on these two districts, as, in 1639, he had become security for some of Huntly’s debts to the latter’s creditors. Argyle managed to seduce from their allegiance to Huntly the clan Cameron in Lochaber, who bore a strong resentment against their proper chief on account of some supposed injury done to the clan by the former marquis. Although they had little relish for the Covenant, still to gratify their revenge, they joined themselves to Argyle. A tribe of the Macdonalds who inhabited Lochaber, the Macranalds of Keppoch, who remained faithful to Huntly, met with very different treatment at the hands of Argyle, who devastated their district and burnt down their chief’s dwelling at Keppoch.
During this same summer (July 1640), Argyle, who had raised an army of about 5,000 men, made a devastating raid into the district of Forfarshire belonging to the Earl of Airly. He made first for Airly castle, about five miles north of Meigle, which, in the absence of the earl in England, was held by his son Lord Ogilvie, who had recently maintained it against Montrose. When Argyle came up, Ogilvie saw that resistance was hopeless, and abandoned the castle to the tender mercy of the enemy. Argyle without scruple razed the place to the ground, and is said to have shown himself so “extremely earnest” in the work of demolition “that he was seen taking a hammer in his hande and knocking down the hewed work of the doors and windows till he did sweat for heat at his work.”[250] Argyle’s men carried off all they could from the house and the surrounding district, and rendered useless what they were compelled to leave behind.
From Airly, Argyle proceeded to a seat belonging to Lord Ogilvie, Forthar in Glenisla, the “bonnie house o’ Airly,” of the well-known song. Here he behaved in a manner for which it would be difficult for his warmest supporters to find the shadow of an excuse, even taking into consideration the roughness of the times. The place is said by Gordon to have been “no strength,” so that there is still less excuse for his conduct. He treated Forthar in the same way that he did Airly, and although Lady Ogilvie, who at the time was close on her confinement, asked Argyle to stay proceedings until she gave birth to her infant, he without scruple expelled her from the house, and proceeded with his work of destruction. Not only so, however, but “the Lady Drum, Dame Marian Douglas, who lived at that time in Kelly, hearing tell what extremity her grandchild, the Lady Ogilvy, was reduced to, did send a commission to Argyle, to whom the said Lady Drum was a kinswoman, requesting that, with his license, she might admit into her own house, her grandchild, the Lady Ogilvy, who at that time was near her delivery; but Argyle would give no license. This occasioned the Lady Drum for to fetch the Lady Ogilvie to her house of Kelly, and for to keep her there upon all hazard that might follow.”
At the same time Argyle “was not forgetful to remember old quarrels to Sir John Ogilvie of Craigie.” He sent a sergeant to Ogilvie’s house to warn him to leave it, but the sergeant thought Argyle must have made some mistake, as he found it no more than a simple unfortified country house, occupied only by a sick gentlewoman and some servants. The sergeant returned and told this to Argyle, who waxed wroth and told him it was his duty simply to obey orders, commanding him at the same time to return and “deface and spoil the house.” After the sergeant had received his orders, Argyle was observed to turn round and repeat to himself the Latin political maxim Abscindantur qui nos perturbant, “a maxime which many thought that he practised accurately, which he did upon the account of the proverb consequential thereunto, and which is the reason of the former, which Argyle was remarked likewise to have often in his mouth as a choice aphorism, and well observed by statesmen, Quod mortui non mordent.”
Argyle next proceeded against the Earl of Athole, who, with about 1,200 followers, was lying in Breadalbane, ready to meet him. Argyle, whose army was about five times the size of Athole’s, instead of giving fight, managed by stratagem to capture Athole and some of his friends, whom he sent to the Committee of Estates at Edinburgh.
Argyle, after having thus gratified his private revenge and made a show of quieting the Highlands, returned to the lowlands.[251]
On the 20th of August General Leslie crossed the Tweed with his army, the van of which was led by Montrose on foot. This task, though performed with readiness and with every appearance of good will, was not voluntarily undertaken, but had been devolved upon Montrose by lot; none of the principal officers daring to take the lead of their own accord in such a dangerous enterprise. There can be no doubt that Montrose was insincere in his professions, and that those who suspected him were right in thinking that in his heart he was turned Royalist,[252] a supposition which his correspondence with the king and his subsequent conduct fully justify.
Although the proper time had not arrived for throwing off the mask, Montrose immediately on his return to Scotland, after the close of this campaign, began to concert measures for counteracting the designs of the Covenanters; but his plans were embarrassed by some of his associates disclosing to the Covenanters the existence of an association which Montrose had formed at Cumbernauld for supporting the royal authority. A great outcry was raised against Montrose in consequence, but his influence was so great that the heads of the Covenanters were afraid to show any severity towards him. On subsequently discovering, however, that the king had written him letters which were intercepted and forcibly taken from the messenger, a servant of the Earl of Traquair, they apprehended him, along with Lord Napier of Merchiston, and Sir George Stirling of Keith, his relatives and intimate friends, and imprisoned them in the castle of Edinburgh. On the meeting of the parliament at Edinburgh in July, 1641, which was attended by the king in person, Montrose demanded to be tried before them, but his application was rejected by the Covenanters, who obtained an order from the parliament prohibiting him from going into the king’s presence. After the king had returned to England, Montrose and his fellow-prisoners were liberated, and he, thereupon, went to his own castle, where he remained for some time, ruminating on the course he should pursue for the relief of the king. The king, while in Scotland at this time, conferred honours upon several of the covenanting leaders, apparently for the purpose of conciliation, Argyle being raised to the dignity of a marquis.
Although Charles complied with the demands of his Scottish subjects, and heaped many favours and distinctions upon the heads of the leading Covenanters, they were by no means satisfied, and entered fully into the hostile views of their brethren in the south, with whom they made common cause. Having resolved to send an army into England to join the forces of the parliament, which had come to an open rupture with the sovereign, they attempted to gain over Montrose to their side by offering him the post of lieutenant-general of their army, and promising to accede to any demands he might make; but he rejected all their offers; and, as an important crisis was at hand, he hastened to England in the early part of the year 1643, in company with Lord Ogilvie, to lay the state of affairs before the king, and to offer him his advice and service in such an emergency. Charles, however, either from a want of confidence in the judgment of Montrose, who, to the rashness and impetuosity of youth, added, as he was led to believe, a desire of gratifying his personal feelings and vanity, or overcome by the calculating but fatal policy of the Marquis of Hamilton, who deprecated a fresh war between the king and his Scottish subjects, declined to follow the advice of Montrose, who had offered to raise an army immediately in Scotland to support him.
A convention of estates called by the Covenanters, without any authority from the king, met at Edinburgh on the 22d of June, 1643, and he soon perceived from the character and proceedings of this assembly, the great majority of which were Covenanters, the mistake he had committed in rejecting the advice of Montrose, and he now resolved, thenceforth, to be guided in his plans for subduing Scotland by the opinion of that nobleman. Accordingly, at a meeting held at Oxford, between the king and Montrose, in the month of December, 1643, when the Scots army was about entering England, it was agreed that the Earl of Antrim, an Irish nobleman of great power and influence, who then lived at Oxford, should be sent to Ireland to raise auxiliaries with whom he should make a descent on the west parts of Scotland in the month of April following;--that the Marquis of Newcastle, who commanded the royal forces in the north of England, should furnish Montrose with a party of horse, with which he should enter the south of Scotland,--that an application should be made to the King of Denmark for some troops of German horse; and that a quantity of arms should be transported into Scotland from abroad.[253]
Instructions having been given to the Earl of Antrim to raise the Irish levy, and Sir James Cochran having been despatched to the continent as ambassador for the king, to procure foreign aid, Montrose left Oxford on his way to Scotland, taking York and Durham in his route. Near the latter city he had an interview with the Marquis of Newcastle for the purpose of obtaining a sufficient party of horse to escort him into Scotland, but all he could procure was about 100 horse, badly appointed, with two small brass field pieces.[254] The Marquis sent orders to the king’s officers, and to the captains of the militia in Cumberland and Westmoreland, to afford Montrose such assistance as they could, and he was in consequence joined on his way to Carlisle by 800 foot and three troops of horse, of Cumberland and Northumberland militia. With this small force, and about 200 horse, consisting of noblemen and gentlemen who had served as officers in Germany, France, or England, Montrose entered Scotland on the 13th of April, 1644. He had not, however, proceeded far, when a revolt broke out among the English soldiers, who immediately returned to England. In spite of this discouragement, Montrose proceeded on with his small party of horse towards Dumfries, which surrendered to him without opposition. After waiting there a few days, in expectation of hearing some tidings respecting the Earl of Antrim’s movements, without receiving any, he retired to Carlisle, to avoid being surprised by the Covenanters, large bodies of whom were hovering about in all directions.
To aid the views of Montrose, the king had appointed the Marquis of Huntly, on whose fidelity he could rely, his lieutenant-general in the north of Scotland. He, on hearing of the capture of Dumfries by Montrose, immediately collected a considerable body of horse and foot, consisting of Highlanders and lowlanders, at Kincardine-O’Neil, with the intention of crossing the Cairn-a-Mount; but being disappointed in not being joined by some forces from Perthshire, Angus, and the Mearns, which he expected, he altered his steps, and proceeded towards Aberdeen, which he took. Thence he despatched parties of his troops through the counties of Aberdeen and Banff, which brought in quantities of horses and arms for the use of his army. One party, consisting of 120 horse and 300 foot, commanded by the young laird of Drum and his brother, young Gicht, Colonel Nathaniel Gordon and Colonel Donald Farquharson and others, proceeded to the town of Montrose, which they took, killed one of the bailies, made the provost prisoner, and threw some cannon into the sea as they could not carry them away. But, on hearing that the Earl of Kinghorn was advancing upon them with the forces of Angus, they made a speedy retreat, leaving thirty of their foot behind them prisoners. To protect themselves against the army of the Marquis of Huntly, the inhabitants of Moray, on the north of the Spey, raised a regiment of foot and three companies of horse, which were quartered in the town of Elgin.
When the convention heard of Huntly’s movements, they appointed the Marquis of Argyle to raise an army to quell this insurrection. He, accordingly, assembled at Perth a force of 5,000 foot and 800 horse out of Fife, Angus, Mearns, Argyle, and Perthshire, with which he advanced on Aberdeen. Huntly, hearing of his approach, fled from Aberdeen and retired to the town of Banff, where, on the day of his arrival, he disbanded his army. The marquis himself thereafter retired to Strathnaver, and took up his residence with the master of Reay. Argyle, after taking possession of Aberdeen, proceeded northward and took the castles of Gicht and Kellie, made the lairds of Gicht and Haddo prisoners and sent them to Edinburgh, the latter being, along with one Captain Logan, afterwards beheaded.[255]
We now return to Montrose, who, after an ineffectual attempt to obtain an accession of force from the army of Prince Rupert, Count Palatine of the Rhine, determined on again entering Scotland with his little band. But being desirous to learn the exact situation of affairs there, before putting this resolution into effect, he sent Lord Ogilvie and Sir William Rollock into Scotland, in disguise, for that purpose. They returned in about fourteen days, and brought a spiritless and melancholy account of the state of matters in the north, where they found all the passes, towns, and forts, in possession of the Covenanters, and where no man dared to speak in favour of the king. This intelligence was received with dismay by Montrose’s followers, who now began to think of the best means of securing their own safety. In this unpleasant conjuncture of affairs, Montrose called them together to consult on the line of conduct they should pursue. Some advised him to return to Oxford and inform his majesty of the hopeless state of his affairs in Scotland, while others gave an opinion that he should resign his commission, and go abroad till a more favourable opportunity occurred of serving the king; but the chivalrous and undaunted spirit of Montrose disdained to follow either of these courses, and he resolved upon the desperate expedient of venturing into the very heart of Scotland, with only one or two companions, in the hope of being able to rally round his person a force sufficient to support the declining interests of his sovereign.
Having communicated this intention privately to Lord Ogilvie, he put under his charge the few gentlemen who had remained faithful to him, that he might conduct them to the king; and having accompanied them to a distance, he withdrew from them clandestinely, leaving his servants, horses, and baggage behind him, and returned to Carlisle. Having prepared himself for his journey, he selected Sir William Rollock, a gentleman of tried honour, and one Sibbald, to accompany him. Disguised as a groom, and riding upon a lean, worn-out horse, and leading another in his hand, Montrose passed for Sibbald’s servant, in which condition and capacity he proceeded to the borders. The party had not proceeded far when an occurrence took place, which considerably disconcerted them. Meeting with a Scottish soldier, who had served under the Marquis of Newcastle in England, he, after passing Rollock and Sibbald, went up to the marquis, and accosted him by his name. Montrose told him that he was quite mistaken; but the soldier being positive, and judging that the marquis was concerned in some important affair, replied, with a countenance which betokened a kind heart, “Do not I know my lord Marquis of Montrose well enough? But go your way, and God be with you.”[256] When Montrose saw that he could not preserve an incognito from the penetrating eye of the soldier, he gave him some money and dismissed him.
This occurrence excited alarm in the mind of Montrose, and made him accelerate his journey. Within four days he arrived at the house of Tullibelton, among the hills near the Tay, which belonged to Patrick Graham of Inchbrakie, his cousin, and a royalist. No situation was better fitted for concocting his plans, and for communicating with those clans and the gentry of the adjoining lowlands who stood well affected to the king. It formed, in fact, a centre, or point d’appui to the royalists of the Highlands and the adjoining lowlands, from which a pretty regular communication could be kept up, without any of those dangers which would have arisen in the lowlands.
For some days Montrose did not venture to appear among the people in the neighbourhood, nor did he consider himself safe even in Tullibelton house, but passed the night in an obscure cottage, and in the day-time wandered alone among the neighbouring mountains, ruminating over the strange peculiarity of his situation, and waiting the return of his fellow-travellers, whom he had despatched to collect intelligence on the state of the kingdom. These messengers came back to him after some days’ absence, bringing with them the most cheerless accounts of the situation of the country, and of the persecutions which the royalists suffered at the hands of the Covenanters. Among other distressing pieces of intelligence, they communicated to Montrose the premature and unsuccessful attempt of the Marquis of Huntly in favour of the royal cause, and of his retreat to Strathnaver to avoid the fury of his enemies. These accounts greatly affected Montrose, who was grieved to find that the Gordons, who were stern royalists, should be exposed, by the abandonment of their chief, to the revenge of their enemies; but he consoled himself with the reflection, that as soon as he should be enabled to unfurl the royal standard, the tide of fortune would turn.
While cogitating on the course he should pursue in this conjuncture, a report reached him from some shepherds on the hills that a body of Irish troops had landed in the West, and was advancing through the Highlands. Montrose at once concluded that these were the auxiliaries whom the Earl of Antrim had undertaken to send him four months before, and such they proved to be. This force, which amounted to 1,500 men, was under the command of Alexander Macdonald, son of Coll Mac-Gillespic Macdonald of Iona, who had been greatly persecuted by the family of Argyle. Macdonald had arrived early in July, 1644, among the Hebrides, and had landed and taken the castles of Meigray and Kinloch Alan. He had then disembarked his forces in Knoydart, where he expected to be joined by the Marquis of Huntly and the Earl of Seaforth. As he advanced into the interior, he despatched the fiery cross for the purpose of summoning the clans to his standard; but, although the cross was carried through a large extent of country, even to Aberdeen, he was joined at first only by the clan Donald, under the captain of clan Ranald, and the laird of Glengary. The Marquis of Argyle collected an army to oppose the progress of Macdonald, and, to cut off his retreat to Ireland, he sent some ships of war to Loch Eishord, where Macdonald’s fleet lay, which captured or destroyed them. This loss, while it frustrated an intention Macdonald entertained of returning to Ireland, in consequence of the disappointment he had met with in not being joined by the clans, stimulated him to farther exertions in continuing his march, in the hope of meeting Montrose.
As Macdonald was perfectly ignorant of Montrose’s movements, and thought it likely that he might be still at Carlisle, waiting till he should hear of Macdonald’s arrival, he sent letters to him by the hands of a confidential friend, who resided in the neighbourhood of Inchbrakie’s house. This gentleman, who knew nothing of Montrose’s return to Scotland, having luckily communicated to Mr. Graham the secret of being intrusted with letters to his kinsman, Montrose, Graham offered to see them safely delivered to Montrose, though he should ride to Carlisle himself. The gentleman in question then delivered the letters to Graham, and Montrose having received them, wrote an answer as if from Carlisle, in which he requested Macdonald to keep up his spirits, that he would soon be joined by a seasonable reinforcement and a general at their head, and he ordered him with all expedition to march down into Athole. In fixing on Athole as the place of his rendezvous, Montrose is said to have been actuated by an implicit reliance on the fidelity and loyalty of the Athole-men, and by a high opinion of their courage. They lay, besides, under many obligations to himself, and he calculated that he had only to appear among them to command their services in the cause of their sovereign.
When Macdonald received these instructions, he marched towards Athole; but in passing through Badenoch he was threatened with an attack by the Earls of Sutherland and Seaforth, at the head of some of their people, and by the Frasers, Grants, Rosses, and Monroes, and other inhabitants of Moray, who had assembled at the top of Strathspey; but Macdonald very cautiously avoided them, and hastened into Athole. On arriving in Athole, Macdonald was coldly received by the people of that as well as the surrounding country, who doubted whether he had any authority from the king; and besides, they hesitated to place themselves under the command of a person of neither noble nor ancient lineage, and whom they considered an upstart. This indecision might have proved fatal to Macdonald, who was closely pressed in his rear by the army of Argyle, had not these untoward deliberations been instantly put an end to by the arrival of Montrose at Blair, where Macdonald had fixed his head-quarters. Montrose had travelled seventy miles on foot, in a Highland dress, accompanied by Patrick Graham, his cousin, as his guide.[257] His appearance was hailed by his countrymen with every demonstration of joy, and they immediately made him a spontaneous offer of their services.
Accordingly, on the following day, the Athole-men, to the number of about 800, consisting chiefly of the Stewarts and Robertsons, put themselves under arms and flocked to the standard of Montrose. Thus, in little more than twenty-four hours, Montrose saw himself at the head of a force of upwards of 2,000 men, animated by an enthusiastic attachment to his person and to the cause which he had espoused. The extraordinary contrast between his present commanding position, and the situation in which he was placed a few days before, as a forlorn wanderer among the mountains, produced a powerful effect upon the daring and chivalrous spirit of Montrose, who looked forward to the success of his enterprise with the eagerness of a man who considered the destinies of his sovereign as altogether depending upon his individual exertions. Impressed with the necessity of acting with promptitude, he did not hesitate long as to the course he should pursue. He might have immediately gone in quest of Argyle, who had followed the army of Macdonald, with slow and cautious steps, and by one of those sudden movements which no man knew better how to execute with advantage, surprised and defeated his adversary; but such a plan did not accord with the designs of Montrose, who resolved to open the campaign at once in the lowlands, and thus give confidence to the friends and supporters of the king.
The general opinion which the Lowlanders of this period entertained regarding their upland neighbours was not very respectful. A covenanting wit, in a poem which he wrote against the bishops only a few years before, says of one whose extraction was from the other side of the Grampians,
“A bishop and a Highlandman, how can’st thou honest be?”
as if these two qualifications were of themselves sufficient, without any known vice, to put a man completely beyond the pale of virtue. It seems, indeed, to have been a general belief at the time that this primitive and sequestered people, as they were avowedly out of the saving circle of the Covenant, were also out of the limits of both law and religion, and therefore hopelessly and utterly given up to all sorts of wickedness. Not only were murder and robbery among the list of offences which they were accused of daily committing, but there even seems to have been a popular idea that sorcery was a prevailing crime amongst them. They were also charged with a general inclination to popery, an offence which, from the alarms and superstitions of the time, had now come, in general phraseology, to signify a condensation of all others. Along with this horrible notion of the mountaineers, there was not associated the slightest idea of their ardent and chivalrous character; nor was there any general sensation of terror for the power which they undoubtedly possessed of annoying the peaceful inhabitants, and thwarting the policy of the Low country, no considerable body of Highlanders having been there seen in arms for several generations.
In pursuance of his determination, Montrose put his small army in motion the same day towards Strathearn, in passing through which he expected to be joined by some of the inhabitants of that and the adjoining country. At the same time he sent forward a messenger with a friendly notice to the Menzieses of his intention to pass through their country, but instead of taking this in good part they maltreated the messenger and harassed the rear of his army. This unprovoked attack so exasperated Montrose, that he ordered his men, when passing by Weem castle, which belonged to the clan Menzies, to plunder and lay waste their lands, and to burn their houses, an order which was literally obeyed. He expected that this example of summary vengeance would serve as a useful lesson to deter others, who might be disposed to imitate the conduct of the Menzieses, from following a similar course. Notwithstanding the time spent in making these reprisals, Montrose passed the Tay with a part of his forces the same evening, and the remainder followed very early the next morning. He had, at the special request of the Athole-men themselves, placed them under the command of his kinsman, Patrick Graham of Inchbrakie, and he now sent him forward with a select party to reconnoitre. Inchbrakie soon returned with information that he had observed a party of armed men stationed upon the hill of Buchanty. On inquiry, Montrose ascertained that this body was commanded by Lord Kilpont, eldest son of the Earl of Menteith, and by Sir John Drummond, son of the Earl of Perth, both of whom were his relations. The force in question, which consisted of about 500 men, was on its way to Perth to join the other covenanting troops who were stationed there. Montrose immediately marched up to this body, with the intention, if he could not prevail on them to join him, of attacking them, but before he had approached sufficiently near, Lord Kilpont, who had ascertained that Montrose commanded, sent some of his principal officers to him to ascertain what his object was in thus advancing. Montrose having explained his views and stated that he acted by the king’s authority, and having entreated them to return to their allegiance, they and the whole of their party immediately joined him. This new accession augmented Montrose’s army to about 3,000 men.
Montrose now learned from his new allies that the Covenanters had assembled their forces in great numbers at Perth, and that they lay there waiting for his approach. The covenanting army, in fact, was more than double that of Montrose, amounting to about 6,000 foot and 700 horse, to which were attached four pieces of artillery. Montrose, on the other hand, had not a single horseman, and but three horses, two of which were for his own use, and the other for that of Sir William Rollock, and besides he had no artillery. Yet with such a decided disparity, Montrose resolved to march directly to Perth and attack the enemy. He appears to have been influenced in this resolution by the consideration of the proximity of Argyle with his army, and the danger in which he would be placed by being hemmed in by two hostile armies: he could expect to avoid such an embarrassment only by risking an immediate engagement.
As the day was too far advanced to proceed to Perth, Montrose ordered his men to bivouac during the night about three miles from Buchanty, and began his march by dawn of day. As soon as Lord Elcho, the commander of the covenanting army, heard of Montrose’s approach, he left Perth and drew up his army on Tippermuir, a plain of some extent between four and five miles west from the town. Reserving to himself the command of the right wing, he committed the charge of the left to Sir James Scott, an able and skilful officer, who had served with great honour in the Venetian army; and to the Earl of Tullibardine he intrusted the command of the centre. The horse were divided and placed on each wing with the view of surrounding the army of Montrose, should he venture to attack them in their position. As soon as Montrose perceived the enemy thus drawn up in battle array, he made the necessary dispositions for attacking them. To counteract as much as possible the danger arising to such a small body of men, unprotected by cavalry, from the extended line of the Covenanters, Montrose endeavoured to make his line as extensive as possible with safety, by limiting his files to three men deep. As the Irish had neither swords nor pikes to oppose the cavalry, they were stationed in the centre of the line, and the Highlanders, who were provided with swords and Lochaber axes, were placed on the wings, as better fitted to resist the attacks of the cavalry. Some of the Highlanders were, however, quite destitute of arms of every description, and it is related on the authority of an eye-witness that Montrose, seeing their helpless condition, thus quaintly addressed them:--“It is true you have no arms; your enemies, however, have plenty. My advice, therefore, is, that as there happens to be a great abundance of stones upon this moor, every man should provide himself, in the first place, with as stout a stone as he can well manage, rush up to the first Covenanter he meets, beat out his brains, take his sword, and then, I believe, he will be at no loss how to proceed.”[258] This advice, as will be seen, was really acted upon. As Montrose was almost destitute of powder, he ordered the Irish forces to husband their fire till they should come close to the enemy, and after a simultaneous discharge from the three ranks, (the front rank kneeling,) to assail the enemy thereafter as they best could. To oppose the left wing of the Covenanters, commanded by Sir James Scott, Montrose took upon himself the command of his own right, placing Lord Kilpont at the head of the left, and Macdonald, his major-general, over the centre.
During the progress of these arrangements, Montrose despatched an accomplished young nobleman, named Drummond, eldest son of Lord Maderty, with a message to the chiefs of the Covenanters’ army, entreating them to lay down their arms and return to their duty and obedience to their sovereign. Instead, however, of returning any answer to this message, they seized the messenger, and sent him to Perth under an escort, with an intimation that, on obtaining a victory over his master, they would execute him. Indeed, the probability of a defeat seems never for a moment to have entered into the imaginations of the Covenanters, and they had been assured by Frederick Carmichael, a minister who had preached to them the same day, being Sunday, 1st September, “that if ever God spoke truth out of his mouth, he promised them, in the name of God, a certain victory that day.”[259]
There being no hopes, therefore, of an accommodation, both armies, after advancing towards each other, remained motionless for a short time, as if unwilling to begin the attack; but this state of matters was speedily put an end to by the advance of a select skirmishing party under the command of Lord Drummond, sent out from the main body of the covenanting army, for the double purpose of distracting the attention of Montrose, and inducing his troops to leave their ranks, and thus create confusion among them; but Montrose kept his men in check, and contented himself with sending out a few of his men to oppose them. Lord Drummond, whom Baillie appears to have suspected of treachery, and his party were routed at the first onset, and fled back upon the main body in great disorder. This trivial affair decided the fate of the day, for the Covenanters, many of whom were undisciplined, seeing the unexpected defeat of Lord Drummond’s party, became quite dispirited, and began to show symptoms which indicated a disposition for immediate flight. The confusion into which the main body had been thrown by the retreat of the advanced party, and the indecision which seemed now to prevail in the Covenanters’ army in consequence of that reverse, were observed by the watchful eye of Montrose, who saw that the favourable moment for striking a decisive blow had arrived. He therefore gave orders to his men to advance, who, immediately setting up a loud shout, rushed forward at a quick pace towards the enemy. They were met by a random discharge from some cannon which the Covenanters had placed in front of their army, but which did little or no execution. When sufficiently near, Montrose’s musketeers halted, and, as ordered, poured a volley into the main rank of the Covenanters, which immediately gave way. The cavalry of the Covenanters, thereupon, issued from their stations and attacked the royalists, who, in their turn, defended themselves with singular intrepidity. While the armed Highlanders made ample use of their Lochaber axes and swords, the Irish steadily opposed the attacks of the horse with the butt ends of their muskets; but the most effective annoyance which the cavalry met with appears to have proceeded from the unarmed Highlanders, who having supplied themselves with a quantity of stones, as suggested by Montrose, discharged them with well-directed aim at the horses and their riders. The result was, that after a short struggle, the cavalry were obliged to make a precipitate retreat. While this contest was going on, another part of Montrose’s army was engaged with the right wing of the covenanting army, under Sir James Scott, but although this body made a longer and more determined resistance, and galled the party opposed to them by an incessant fire of musketry, they were at last overpowered by the Athole-men, who rushed upon them with their broad-swords, and cut down and wounded a considerable number. The rout of the Covenanters now became general. The horsemen saved themselves by the fleetness of their horses; but during the pursuit, which was kept up to a distance of six or seven miles, many hundreds of foot were killed, and a considerable number made prisoners,[260] some of whom afterwards served in Montrose’s army. The loss on the side of Montrose appears to have been very trifling. By this victory, and the subsequent capture of Perth, which he entered the same day, Montrose was enabled to equip his army with all those warlike necessaries of which it had been so remarkably destitute in the morning, and of which the Covenanters left him an abundant supply.[261]
FOOTNOTES:
[232] Gordon’s Scots Affairs, vol. ii. p. 209.
[233] Spalding, vol. i. p. 137.
[234] Troubles, vol. i. pp. 107, 108.
[235] Spalding, vol. i. pp. 157, 160.
[236] Gordon of Rothiemay, vol. ii. p. 235.
[237] Id., vol. ii. p. 235.
[238] Spalding, vol. i. p. 168.
[239] Ibid. p. 177.
[240] Gordon of Rothiemay, ii. 240. Spalding, i. 179.
[241] Turray is the old name of Turriff.--Gordon of Rothiemay, vol. ii. p. 254. Gordon of Sallagh, p. 401.
[242] Spalding, vol. i. p. 188.
[243] Continuation, p. 402.
[244] Spalding, vol. i. p. 205.
[245] Troubles, vol. i. p. 206.
[246] Spalding, vol. i. p. 207.--Gordon of Rothiemay, vol. ii. p. 268.--Gordon of Ruthven, in his abridgment of Britane’s Distemper (Spald. Club ed.), p. 206, makes the number 5,000.
[247] Spalding, vol. i. p. 208. Gordon of Rothiemay, vol. ii. p. 272. Britane’s Distemper, p. 24.
[248] Wishart’s Memoirs, Edin. 1819, p. 24.
[249] Scots Affairs, iii. 163.
[250] Gordon of Rothiemay, iii. 165.
[251] See Gordon of Rothiemay, iii. 163 et seq. Spalding, i. 290.
[252] Guthrie’s Memoirs, p. 70.
[253] Wishart.
[254] The Duchess of Newcastle says, in the memoirs of her husband, that the number was 200.
[255] Gordon of Sallagh, p. 519.
[256] Wishart, p. 64.
[257] Wishart, p. 69.
[258] Gentleman’s Mag., vol. xvi. p. 153.
[259] Wishart, p. 77.
[260] There is a great discrepancy between contemporary writers as to the number killed. Wishart states it at 2,000; Spalding, at 1,300, and 800 prisoners; though he says that some reckoned the number at 1,500 killed. Gordon of Sallagh mentions only 300. Gordon of Ruthven, in Britane’s Distemper, gives the number at 2,000 killed and 1,000 prisoners. Baillie says (vol. ii. p. 233, ed. 1841) that no quarter was given, and not a prisoner was taken.
[261] Britane’s Distemper, p. 73.
XIII. A.D. 1644 (SEPTEMBER)-1645 (FEBRUARY)
BRITISH SOVEREIGN:--Charles I., 1625-1649.
Montrose crosses the Tay to Collace--Marches through Angus and Mearns--Battle of Aberdeen--Supineness of the Gordons--Movements of Argyle--Montrose retreats through Badenoch--Second march of Montrose to the north--Battle of Fyvie--Montrose retreats to Strathbogie--Secession from his camp--Montrose enters and wastes Breadalbane and Argyle--Marches to Lochness--Argyle enters Lochaber--Battle of Inverlochy.
Montrose now entertained confident expectations that many of the royalists of the surrounding country who had hitherto kept aloof would join him; but after remaining three days at Perth, to give them an opportunity of rallying round his standard, he had the mortification to find that, with the exception of Lords Dupplin and Spynie, and a few gentlemen from the Carse of Gowrie, who came to him, his anticipations were not to be realized. The spirits of the royalists had been too much subdued by the severities of the Covenanters for them all at once to risk their lives and fortunes on the issue of what they had long considered a hopeless cause; and although Montrose had succeeded in dispersing one army with a greatly inferior force, yet it was well known that that army was composed of raw and undisciplined men, and that the Covenanters had still large bodies of well-trained troops in the field.
Thus disappointed in his hopes, and understanding that the Marquis of Argyle was fast approaching with a large army, Montrose crossed the Tay on the 4th of September, directing his course towards Coupar-Angus, and encamped at night in the open fields near Collace. His object in proceeding northward was to endeavour to raise some of the loyal clans, and thus to put himself in a sufficiently strong condition to meet Argyle. Montrose had given orders to the army to march early next morning, but by break of day, and before the drums had beat, he was alarmed by an uproar in the camp. Perceiving his men running to their arms in a state of fury and rage, Montrose, apprehensive that the Highlanders and Irish had quarrelled, immediately rushed in among the thickest of the crowd to pacify them, but to his great grief and dismay, he ascertained that the confusion had arisen from the assassination of his valued friend Lord Kilpont. He had fallen a victim to the blind fury of James Stewart of Ardvoirlich, with whom he had slept the same night, and who had long enjoyed his confidence and friendship. According to Wishart, wishing to ingratiate himself with the Covenanters, he formed a design to assassinate Montrose or his major-general, Macdonald; and endeavoured to entice Kilpont to concur in his wicked project. He, therefore, on the night in question, slept with his lordship, and having prevailed upon him to rise and take a walk in the fields before daylight, on the pretence of refreshing themselves, he there disclosed his horrid purpose, and entreated his lordship to concur therein. Lord Kilpont rejected the base proposal with horror and indignation, which so alarmed Stewart that, afraid lest his lordship might discover the matter, he suddenly drew his dirk and mortally wounded Kilpont. Stewart, thereupon, fled, and thereafter joined the Marquis of Argyle, who gave him a commission in his army.[262]
Montrose now marched upon Dundee, which refused to surrender. Not wishing to waste his time upon the hazardous issue of a siege with a hostile army in his rear, Montrose proceeded through Angus and the Mearns, and in the course of his route was joined by the Earl of Airly, his two sons, Sir Thomas and Sir David Ogilvie, and a considerable number of their friends and vassals, and some gentlemen from the Mearns and Aberdeenshire. This was a seasonable addition to Montrose’s force, which had been greatly weakened by the absence of some of the Highlanders who had gone home to deposit their spoils, and by the departure of Lord Kilpont’s retainers, who had gone to Monteith with his corpse.
After the battle of Tippermuir, Lord Elcho had retired, with his regiment and some fugitives, to Aberdeen, where he found Lord Burleigh and other commissioners from the convention of estates. As soon as they heard of the approach of Montrose, Burleigh, who acted as chief commissioner, immediately assembled the Forbeses, the Frasers, and the other friends of the covenanting interest, and did everything in his power to gain over to his side as many persons as he could from those districts where Montrose expected assistance. In this way Burleigh increased his force to 2,500 foot and 500 horse, but some of these, consisting of Gordons, and others who were obliged to take up arms, could not be relied upon.
When Montrose heard of these preparations, he resolved, notwithstanding the disparity of force, his own army now amounting only to 1,500 foot and 44 horse, to hasten his march and attack them before Argyle should come up. On arriving near the bridge of Dee, he found it strongly fortified and guarded by a considerable force. He did not attempt to force a passage, but, directing his course to the west, along the river, crossed it at a ford at the Mills of Drum, and encamped at Crathas that night (Wednesday, 11th September). The Covenanters, the same day, drew up their army at the Two Mile Cross, a short distance from Aberdeen, where they remained till Thursday night, when they retired into the town. On the same night, Montrose marched down Dee-side, and took possession of the ground which the Covenanters had just left.[263]
On the following morning, viz., Friday, 13th September, about eleven o’clock, the Covenanters marched out of Aberdeen to meet Montrose, who, on their approach, despatched a drummer to beat a parley, and sent a commissioner along with him bearing a letter to the provost and bailies of Aberdeen, commanding and charging them to surrender the town, promising that no more harm should be done to it; “otherwise, if they would disobey, that then he desired them to remove old aged men, women, and children out of the way, and to stand to their own peril.” Immediately on receipt of this letter, the provost called a meeting of the council, which was attended by Lord Burleigh, and, after a short consultation, an answer was sent along with the commissioner declining to surrender the town. On their return the drummer was killed by the Covenanters, at a place called Justice Mills; which violation of the law of nations so exasperated Montrose, that he gave orders to his men not to spare any of the enemy who might fall into their hands. His anger at this occurrence is strongly depicted by Spalding, who says, that “he grew mad, and became furious and impatient.”
As soon as Montrose received notice of the refusal of the magistrates to surrender the town, he made the necessary dispositions for attacking the enemy. From his paucity of cavalry, he was obliged to extend his line, as he had done at Tippermuir, to prevent the enemy from surrounding or outflanking him with their horse, and on each of his wings he posted his small body of horsemen along with select parties of musketeers and archers. To James Hay and Sir Nathaniel Gordon he gave the command of the right wing, committing the charge of the left to Sir William Rollock, all men of tried bravery and experience.
The Covenanters began the battle by a cannonade from their field-pieces, and, from their commanding position, gave considerable annoyance to the royal forces, who were very deficient in artillery. After the firing had been kept up for some time, Lord Lewis Gordon, third son of the Marquis of Huntly, a young man of a very ardent disposition, and of a violent and changeable temper, who commanded the left wing of the Covenanters, having obtained possession of some level ground where his horse could act, made a demonstration to attack Montrose’s right wing; which being observed by Montrose, he immediately ordered Sir William Rollock, with his party of horse, from the left wing to the assistance of the right. These united wings, which consisted of only 44 horse, not only repulsed the attack of a body of 300, but threw them into complete disorder, and forced them to retreat upon the main body, leaving many dead and wounded on the field. Montrose restrained these brave cavaliers from pursuing the body they had routed, anticipating that their services might be soon required at the other wing; and he was not mistaken, for no sooner did the covenanting general perceive the retreat of Lord Lewis Gordon than he ordered an attack to be made upon the left wing of Montrose’s army; but Montrose, with a celerity almost unexampled, moved his whole cavalry from the right to the left wing, which, falling upon the flank of their assailants sword in hand, forced them to fly, with great slaughter. In this affair Montrose’s horse took Forbes of Craigievar and Forbes of Boyndlie prisoners.
The unsuccessful attacks on the wings of Montrose’s army had in no shape affected the future fortune of the day, as both armies kept their ground, and were equally animated with hopes of ultimate success. Vexed, but by no means intimidated by their second defeat, the gentlemen who composed Burleigh’s horse consulted together as to the best mode of renewing the attack; and, being of opinion that the success of Montrose’s cavalry was owing chiefly to the expert musketeers, with whom they were interlined, they resolved to imitate the same plan, by mixing among them a select body of foot, and renewing the charge a third time, with redoubled energy. But this scheme, which might have proved fatal to Montrose, if tried, was frustrated by a resolution he came to, of making an instant and simultaneous attack upon the enemy. Perceiving their horse still in great confusion, and a considerable way apart from their main body, he determined upon attacking them with his foot before they should get time to rally; and galloping up to his men, who had been greatly galled by the enemies’ cannon, he told them that there was no good to be expected by the two armies keeping at such a distance--that in this way there was no means of distinguishing the strong from the weak, nor the coward from the brave man, but that if they would once make a home charge upon these timorous and effeminate striplings, as he called Burleigh’s horse, they would never stand their attack. “Come on, then,” said he, “my brave fellow-soldiers, fall down upon them with your swords and muskets, drive them before you, and make them suffer the punishment due to their perfidy and rebellion.”[264] These words were no sooner uttered, than Montrose’s men rushed forward at a quick pace and fell upon the enemy, sword in hand. The Covenanters were paralyzed by the suddenness and impetuosity of the attack, and, turning their backs, fled in the utmost trepidation and confusion, towards Aberdeen. The slaughter was tremendous, as the victors spared no man. The road leading from the field of battle to Aberdeen was strewed with the dead and the dying; the streets of Aberdeen were covered with the bodies, and stained with the blood of its inhabitants. “The lieutenant followed the chase into Aberdeen, his men hewing and cutting down all manner of men they could overtake, within the town, upon the streets, or in the houses, and round about the town, as our men were fleeing, with broad swords, but (i.e. without) mercy or remeid. Their cruel Irish, seeing a man well clad, would first tyr (strip) him, and save his clothes unspoiled, syne kill the man.”[265] In fine, according to this writer, who was an eye-witness, the town of Aberdeen, which, but a few years before, had suffered for its loyalty, was now, by the same general who had then oppressed it, delivered up by him to be indiscriminately plundered by his Irish forces, for having espoused the same cause which he himself had supported. For four days did these men indulge in the most dreadful excesses, “and nothing,” continues Spalding, was “heard but pitiful howling, crying, weeping, mourning, through all the streets.” Yet Guthry says that Montrose “shewed great mercy, both pardoning the people and protecting their goods.”[266]
It is singular, that although the battle continued for four hours without any determinate result, Montrose lost very few men, a circumstance the more extraordinary as the cannon of the Covenanters were placed upon advantageous ground, whilst those of Montrose were rendered quite ineffective by being situated in a position from which they could not be brought to bear upon the enemy. An anecdote, characteristic of the bravery of the Irish, and of their coolness in enduring the privations of war, has been preserved. During the cannonade on the side of the Covenanters, an Irishman had his leg shot away by a cannon ball, but which kept still attached to the stump by means of a small bit of skin, or flesh. His comrades-in-arms being affected with his disaster, this brave man, without betraying any symptoms of pain, thus cheerfully addressed them:--“This, my companions, is the fate of war, and what none of us ought to grudge: go on, and behave as becomes you; and, as for me, I am certain my lord, the marquis, will make me a trooper, as I am now disabled for the foot service.” Then, taking a knife from his pocket, he deliberately opened it, and cut asunder the skin which retained the leg, without betraying the least emotion, and delivered it to one of his companions for interment. As soon as this courageous man was able to mount a horse, his wish to become a trooper was complied with, in which capacity he afterwards distinguished himself.[267]
Hoping that the news of the victory he had obtained would create a strong feeling in his favour among the Gordons, some of whom had actually fought against him, under the command of Lord Lewis Gordon, Montrose sent a part of his army towards Kintore and Inverury, the following day, to encourage the people of the surrounding country to declare for him; but he was sadly disappointed in his expectations. The fact is, that ever since the appointment of Montrose as lieutenant-general of the kingdom,--an appointment which trenched upon the authority of the Marquis of Huntly as lieutenant of the north,--the latter had become quite lukewarm in the cause of his sovereign; and, although he was aware of the intentions of his son, Lord Lewis, to join the Covenanters, he quietly allowed him to do so without remonstrance. But, besides being thus, in some measure, superseded by Montrose, the marquis was actuated by personal hostility to him on account of the treatment he had formerly received from him; and it appears to have been partly to gratify his spleen that he remained a passive observer of a struggle which involved the very existence of the monarchy itself. Whatever may have been Huntly’s reasons for not supporting Montrose, his apathy and indifference had a deadening influence upon his numerous retainers, who had no idea of taking the field but at the command of their chief.
As Montrose saw no possibility of opposing the powerful and well-appointed army of Argyle, which was advancing upon him with slow and cautious steps, disappointed as he had been of the aid which he had calculated upon, he resolved to march into the Highlands, and there collect such of the clans as were favourably disposed to the royal cause. Leaving Aberdeen, therefore, on the 16th of September, with the remainder of his forces, he joined the camp at Kintore, whence he despatched Sir William Rollock to Oxford to inform the king of the events of the campaign, and of his present situation, and to solicit him to send supplies.
We must now advert to the progress of Argyle’s army, the slow movements of which form an unfavourable contrast with the rapid marches of Montrose’s army. On the 4th of September, four days after the battle of Tippermuir, Argyle, who had been pursuing the Irish forces under Macdonald, had arrived with his Highlanders at Stirling, where, on the following day, he was joined by the Earl of Lothian and his regiment, which had shortly before been brought over from Ireland. After raising some men in Stirlingshire, he marched to Perth upon the 10th, where he was joined by some Fife men, and Lord Bargenny’s and Sir Frederick Hamilton’s regiments of horse, which had been recalled from Newcastle for that purpose. With this increased force, which now consisted of about 3,000 foot and two regular cavalry regiments, besides ten troops of horse, Argyle left Perth on the 14th of September for the north, and in his route was joined by the Earl Marshal, Lords Gordon, Fraser, and Crichton, and other Covenanters. He arrived at Aberdeen upon the 19th of September, where he issued a proclamation, declaring the Marquis of Montrose and his followers traitors to religion and to their king and country, and offering a reward of 20,000 pounds Scots, to any person who should bring in Montrose dead or alive.[268] Spalding laments with great pathos and feeling the severe hardships to which the citizens of Aberdeen had been subjected by these frequent visitations of hostile armies, and alluding to the present occupancy of the town by Argyle, he observes that “this multitude of people lived upon free quarters, a new grief to both towns, whereof there was quartered on poor old Aberdeen Argyle’s own three regiments. The soldiers had their baggage carried, and craved nothing but house-room and fire. But ilk captain, with twelve gentlemen, had free quarters, (so long as the town had meat and drink,) for two ordinaries, but the third ordinary they furnished themselves out of their own baggage and provisions, having store of meal, molt and sheep, carried with them. But, the first night, they drank out all the stale ale in Aberdeen, and lived upon wort thereafter.”[269]
Argyle was now within half a day’s march of Montrose, but, strange to tell, he made no preparations to follow him, and spent two or three days in Aberdeen doing absolutely nothing. After spending this time in inglorious supineness, Argyle put his army in motion in the direction of Kintore. Montrose, on hearing of his approach, concealed his cannon in a bog, and leaving behind him some of his heavy baggage, made towards the Spey with the intention of crossing it. On arriving at the river, he encamped near the old castle of Rothiemurchus; but finding that the boats used in passing the river had been removed to the north side of the river, and that a large armed force from the country on the north of the Spey had assembled on the opposite bank to oppose his passage, Montrose marched his army into the forest of Abernethy. Argyle only proceeded at first as far as Strathbogie; but instead of pursuing Montrose, he allowed his troops to waste their time in plundering the properties and laying waste the lands of the Gordons in Strathbogie and the Enzie, under the very eyes of Lord Gordon and Lord Lewis Gordon, neither of whom appears to have endeavoured to avert such a calamity. Spalding says that it was “a wonderful unnaturalitie in the Lord Gordon to suffer his father’s lands and friends in his own sight to be thus wreckt and destroyed in his father’s absence;” but Lord Gordon likely had it not in his power to stay these proceedings, which, if not done at the instigation, may have received the approbation of his violent and headstrong younger brother, who had joined the Covenanters’ standard. On the 27th of September, Argyle mustered his forces at the Bog of Gicht, when they were found to amount to about 4,000 men; but although the army of Montrose did not amount to much more than a third of that number, and was within twenty miles’ distance, he did not venture to attack him. After remaining a few days in Abernethy forest, Montrose passed through the forest of Rothiemurchus, and following the course of the Spey, marched through Badenoch to Athole, which he reached on 1st October.
When Argyle heard of the departure of Montrose from the forest of Abernethy, he made a feint of following him. He accordingly set his army in motion along Spey-side, and crossing the river himself with a few horse, marched up some distance along the north bank, and recrossed, when he ordered his troops to halt. He then proceeded to Forres to attend a committee meeting of Covenanters to concert a plan of operations in the north, at which the Earl of Sutherland, Lord Lovat, the sheriff of Moray, the lairds of Balnagown, Innes and Pluscardine, and many others were present. From Forres Argyle went to Inverness, and after giving some instructions to Sir Mungo Campbell of Lawers, and the laird of Buchanan, the commanders of the regiments stationed there, he returned to his army, which he marched through Badenoch in pursuit of Montrose. From Athole Montrose sent Macdonald with a party of 500 men to the Western Highlands, to invite the laird of Maclean, the captain of clan Ranald, and others to join him. Marching down to Dunkeld, Montrose himself proceeded rapidly through Angus towards Brechin and Montrose.[270]
Although some delay had been occasioned in Montrose’s movements by his illness for a few days in Badenoch, this was fully compensated for by the tardy motions of Argyle, who, on entering Badenoch, found that his vigilant antagonist was several days’ march a-head of him. This intelligence, however, did not induce him in the least to accelerate his march. Hearing, when passing through Badenoch, that Montrose had been joined by some of the inhabitants of that country, Argyle, according to Spalding, “left nothing of that country undestroyed, no not one four footed beast;” and Athole shared a similar fate.
At the time Montrose entered Angus, a committee of the estates, consisting of the Earl Marshal and other barons, was sitting in Aberdeen, who, on hearing of his approach, issued on the 10th of October a printed order, to which the Earl Marshal’s name was attached, ordaining, under pain of being severely fined, all persons, of whatever age, sex, or condition, having horses of the value of forty pounds Scots or upwards, to send them to the bridge of Dee, which was appointed as the place of rendezvous, on the 14th of October, by ten o’clock, A.M., with riders fully equipped and armed. With the exception of Lord Gordon, who brought three troops of horse, and Captain Alexander Keith, brother of the Earl Marshal, who appeared with one troop at the appointed place, no attention was paid to the order of the committee by the people, who had not yet recovered from their fears, and their recent sufferings were still too fresh in their minds to induce them again to expose themselves to the vengeance of Montrose and his Irish troops.
After refreshing his army for a few days in Angus, Montrose prepared to cross the Grampians, and march to Strathbogie to make another attempt to raise the Gordons; but, before setting out on his march, he released Forbes of Craigievar and Forbes of Boyndlie, on their parole, upon condition that Craigievar should procure the liberation of the young laird of Drum and his brother from the jail of Edinburgh, failing which, Craigievar and Boyndlie were both to deliver themselves up to him as prisoners before the 1st of November. This act of generosity on the part of Montrose was greatly admired, more particularly as Craigievar was one of the heads of the Covenanters, and had great influence among them. In pursuance of his design, Montrose marched through the Mearns, and upon Thursday, the 17th of October, crossed the Dee at the Mills of Drum, with his whole army. In his progress north, contrary to his former forbearing policy, he laid waste the lands of some of the leading Covenanters, burnt their houses, and plundered their effects. He arrived at Strathbogie on the 19th of October, where he remained till the 27th, without being able to induce any considerable number of the Gordons to join him. It was not from want of inclination that they refused to do so, but they were unwilling to incur the displeasure of their chief, who they knew was personally opposed to Montrose, and who felt indignant at seeing a man who had formerly espoused the cause of the Covenanters preferred before him. Had Montrose been accompanied by any of the Marquis of Huntly’s sons, they might have had influence enough to have induced some of the Gordons to declare for him; but the situation of the marquis’s three sons was at this time very peculiar. The eldest son, Lord Gordon, a young man “of singular worth and accomplishments,” was with Argyle, his uncle by the mother’s side; the Earl of Aboyne, the second son, was shut up in the castle of Carlisle, then in a state of siege; and Lord Lewis Gordon, the third son, had, as we have seen, joined the Covenanters, and fought in their ranks.
In this situation of matters, Montrose left Strathbogie on the day last mentioned, and took up a position in the forest of Fyvie, where he despatched some of his troops, who took possession of the castles of Fyvie and Tollie Barclay, in which he found a good supply of provisions, which was of great service to his army. During his stay at Strathbogie, Montrose kept a strict outlook for the enemy, and scarcely passed a night without scouring the neighbouring country to the distance of several miles with parties of light foot, who attacked straggling parties of the Covenanters, and brought in prisoners from time to time, without sustaining any loss. These petty enterprises, while they alarmed their enemies, gave an extraordinary degree of confidence to Montrose’s men, who were ready to undertake any service, however difficult or dangerous, if he only commanded them to perform it.
When Montrose crossed the Dee, Argyle was several days’ march behind him. The latter, however, reached Aberdeen on the 24th of October, and proceeded the following morning towards Kintore, which he reached the same night. Next morning he marched forward to Inverury, where he halted at night. Here he was joined by the Earl of Lothian’s regiment, which increased his force to about 2,500 foot, and 1,200 horse. In his progress through the counties of Angus, Kincardine, Aberdeen, and Banff, he received no accession of strength, from the dread which the name and actions of Montrose had infused into the minds of the inhabitants of these counties.
The sudden movements of Argyle from Aberdeen to Kintore, and from Kintore to Inverury, form a remarkable contrast with the slowness of his former motions. He had followed Montrose through a long and circuitous route, the greater part of which still bore recent traces of his footsteps, and instead of showing any disposition to overtake his flying foe, seemed rather inclined to keep that respectful distance from him so congenial to the mind of one who, “willing to wound,” is “yet still afraid to strike.” But although this questionable policy of Argyle was by no means calculated to raise his military fame, it had the effect of throwing Montrose, in the present case, off his guard, and had well-nigh proved fatal to him. The rapid march of Argyle on Kintore and Inverury, in fact, was effected without Montrose’s knowledge, for the spies he had employed concealed the matter from him, and while he imagined that Argyle was still on the other side of the Grampians, he suddenly appeared within a very few miles of Montrose’s camp, on the 28th of October.
The unexpected arrival of Argyle’s army did not disconcert Montrose. His foot, which amounted to 1,500 men, were little more than the half of those under Argyle, while he had only about 50 horse to oppose 1,200. Yet, with this immense disparity, he resolved to await the attack of the enemy, judging it inexpedient, from the want of cavalry, to become the assailant by descending into the plain where Argyle’s army was encamped. On a rugged eminence behind the castle of Fyvie, on the uneven sides of which several ditches had been cut and dikes built to serve as farm fences, Montrose drew up his little but intrepid host; but before he had marked out the positions to be occupied by his divisions, he had the misfortune to witness the desertion of a small body of the Gordons, who had joined him at Strathbogie. They, however, did not join Argyle, but contented themselves with withdrawing altogether from the scene of the ensuing action. It is probable that they came to the determination of retiring, not from cowardice, but from disinclination to appear in the field against Lord Lewis Gordon, who held a high command in Argyle’s army. The secession of the Gordons, though in reality a circumstance of trifling importance in itself, (for had they remained, they would have fought unwillingly, and consequently might not have had sufficient resolution to maintain the position which would have been assigned them,) had a disheartening influence upon the spirits of Montrose’s men, and accordingly they found themselves unable to resist the first shock of Argyle’s numerous forces, who, charging them with great impetuosity, drove them up the eminence, of a considerable part of which Argyle’s army got possession. In this critical conjuncture, when terror and despair seemed about to obtain the mastery over hearts to which fear had hitherto been a stranger, Montrose displayed a coolness and presence of mind equal to the dangers which surrounded him. Animating them by his presence, and by the example which he showed in risking his person in the hottest of the fight, he roused their courage by putting them further in mind of the victories they had achieved, and how greatly superior they were in bravery to the enemy opposed to them. After this emphatic appeal to their feelings, Montrose turned to Colonel O’Kean, a young Irish gentleman, highly respected by the former for his bravery, and desired him, with an air of the most perfect sang froid, to go down with such men as were readiest, and to drive these fellows (meaning Argyle’s men), out of the ditches, that they might be no more troubled with them. O’Kean quickly obeyed the mandate, and though the party in the ditches was greatly superior to the body he led, and was, moreover, supported by some horse, he drove them away, and captured several bags of powder which they left behind them in their hurry to escape. This was a valuable acquisition, as Montrose’s men had spent already almost the whole of their ammunition.
While O’Kean was executing this brilliant affair, Montrose observed five troops of horse, under the Earl of Lothian, preparing to attack his 50 horse, who were posted a little way up the eminence, with a small wood in their rear. He, therefore, without a moment’s delay, ordered a party of musketeers to their aid, who, having interlined themselves with the 50 horse, kept up such a galling fire upon Lothian’s troopers, that before they had advanced half way across a field which lay between them and Montrose’s horse, they were obliged to wheel about and gallop off.
Montrose’s men became so elated with their success that they could scarcely be restrained from leaving their ground and making a general attack upon the whole of Argyle’s army; but although Montrose did not approve of this design, he disguised his opinion, and seemed rather to concur in the views of his men, telling them, however, to be so far mindful of their duty as to wait till he should see the fit moment for ordering the attack. Argyle remained till the evening without attempting anything farther, and then retired to a distance of about three miles across the Spey; his men passed the night under arms. The only person of note killed in these skirmishes was Captain Keith, brother of the Earl Marshal.
Next day Argyle resolved to attack Montrose, with the view of driving him from his position. He was induced to come to this determination from a report, too well founded, which had reached him, that Montrose’s army was almost destitute of ammunition;--indeed, he had compelled the inhabitants of all the surrounding districts to deliver up every article of pewter in their possession for the purpose of being converted into ammunition; but this precarious supply appears soon to have been exhausted.[271] On arriving at the bottom of the hill, he changed his resolution, not judging it safe, from the experience of the preceding day, to hazard an attack. Montrose, on the other hand, agreeably to his original plan, kept his ground, as he did not deem it advisable to expose his men to the enemy’s cavalry by descending from the eminence. With the exception of some trifling skirmishes between the advanced posts, the main body of both armies remained quiescent during the whole day. Argyle again retired in the evening to the ground he had occupied the preceding night, whence he returned the following day, part of which was spent in the same manner as the former; but long before the day had expired he led off his army, “upon fair day light,” says Spalding, “to a considerable distance, leaving Montrose to effect his escape unmolested.”
Montrose, thus left to follow any course he pleased, marched off after nightfall towards Strathbogie, plundering Turriff and Rothiemay house in his route. He selected Strathbogie as the place of his retreat on account of the ruggedness of the country and of the numerous dikes with which it was intersected, which would prevent the operations of Argyle’s cavalry, and where he intended to remain till joined by Macdonald, whom he daily expected from the Highlands with a reinforcement. When Argyle heard of Montrose’s departure on the following morning, being the last day of October, he forthwith proceeded after him with his army, thinking to bring him to action in the open country, and encamped at Tullochbeg on the 2d of November, where he drew out his army in battle array. He endeavoured to bring Montrose to a general engagement, and, in order to draw him from a favourable position he was preparing to occupy, Argyle sent out a skirmishing party of his Highlanders; but they were soon repulsed, and Montrose took possession of the ground he had selected.
Baffled in all his attempts to overcome Montrose by force of arms, Argyle, whose talents were more fitted for the intrigues of the cabinet than the tactics of the field, had now recourse to negotiation, with the view of effecting the ruin of his antagonist. For this purpose he proposed a cessation of arms, and that he and Montrose should hold a conference, previous to which arrangements should be entered into for their mutual security. Montrose knew Argyle too well to place any reliance upon his word, and as he had no doubt that Argyle would take advantage, during the proposed cessation, to tamper with his men and endeavour to withdraw them from their allegiance, he called a council of war, and proposed to retire without delay to the Highlands. The council at once approved of this suggestion, whereupon Montrose resolved to march next night as far as Badenoch; and that his army might be able to accomplish such a long journey within the time fixed, he immediately sent off all his heavy baggage under a guard, and ordered his men to keep themselves prepared as if to fight a battle the next day.[272] Scarcely, however, had the carriages and heavy baggage been despatched, when an event took place which greatly disconcerted Montrose. This was nothing less than the desertion of his friend Colonel Sibbald and some of his officers, who went over to the enemy. They were accompanied by Sir William Forbes of Craigievar, who, having been unable to fulfil the condition on which he was to obtain his ultimate liberation, had returned two or three days before to Montrose’s camp. This distressing occurrence induced Montrose to postpone his march for a time, as he was quite certain that the deserters would communicate his plans to Argyle. Ordering, therefore, back the baggage he had sent off, he resumed his former position, in which he remained four days, as if he there intended to take up his winter quarters.
In the meantime Montrose had the mortification to witness the defection of almost the whole of his officers, who were very numerous, for, with the exception of the Irish and Highlanders, they outnumbered the privates from the Lowlands. The bad example which had been set by Sibbald, the intimate friend of Montrose, and the insidious promises of preferment held out to them by Argyle, induced some, whose loyalty was questionable, to adopt this course; but the idea of the privations to which they would be exposed in traversing, during winter, among frost and snow, the dreary and dangerous regions of the Highlands, shook the constancy of others, who, in different circumstances, would have willingly exposed their lives for their sovereign. Bad health, inability to undergo the fatigue of long and constant marches--these and other excuses were made to Montrose as the reasons for craving a discharge from a service which had now become more hazardous than ever. Montrose made no remonstrance, but with looks of high disdain which betrayed the inward workings of a proud and unsubdued mind, indignant at being thus abandoned at such a dangerous crisis, readily complied with the request of every man who asked permission to retire. The Earl of Airly, now sixty years of age and in precarious health, and his two sons, Sir Thomas and Sir David Ogilvie, out of all the Lowlanders, alone remained faithful to Montrose, and could, on no account, be prevailed upon to abandon him. Among others who left Montrose on this occasion, was Sir Nathaniel Gordon, who, it is said, went over to Argyle’s camp in consequence of a concerted plan between him and Montrose, for the purpose of detaching Lewis Gordon from the cause of the Covenanters, a conjecture which seems to have originated in the subsequent conduct of Sir Nathaniel and Lord Lewis, who joined Montrose the following year.
Montrose, now abandoned by all his Lowland friends, prepared for his march, preparatory to which he sent off his baggage as formerly; and after lighting some fires for the purpose of deceiving the enemy, took his departure on the evening of the 6th of November, and arrived about break of day at Balveny. After remaining a few days there to refresh his men, he proceeded through Badenoch, and descended by rapid marches into Athole, where he was joined by Macdonald and John Muidartach, the captain of the Clanranald, the latter of whom brought 500 of his men along with him. He was also reinforced by some small parties from the neighbouring Highlands, whom Macdonald had induced to follow him.
In the meantime Argyle, after giving orders to his Highlanders to return home, went himself to Edinburgh, where he “got but small thanks for his service against Montrose.”[273] Although the Committee of Estates, out of deference, approved of his conduct, which some of his flatterers considered deserving of praise because he “had shed no blood;”[274] yet the majority had formed a very different estimate of his character, during a campaign which had been fruitful neither of glory nor victory. Confident of success, the heads of the Covenanters looked upon the first efforts of Montrose in the light of a desperate and forlorn attempt, rashly and inconsiderately undertaken, and which they expected would be speedily put down; but the results of the battles of Tippermuir, Aberdeen, and Fyvie, gave a new direction to their thoughts, and the royalists, hitherto contemned, began now to be dreaded and respected. In allusion to the present “posture of affairs,” it is observed by Guthry, that “many who had formerly been violent, began to talk moderately of business, and what was most taken notice of, was the lukewarmness of many amongst the ministry, who now in their preaching had begun to abate much of their former zeal.”[275] The early success of Montrose had indeed caused some misgivings in the minds of the Covenanters; but as they all hoped that Argyle would change the tide of war, they showed no disposition to relax in their severities towards those who were suspected of favouring the cause of the king. The signal failure, however, of Argyle’s expedition, and his return to the capital, quite changed, as we have seen, the aspect of affairs, and many of those who had been most sanguine in their calculations regarding the result of the struggle, began now to waver and to doubt.
While Argyle was passing his time in Edinburgh, Montrose was meditating a terrible blow at Argyle himself to revenge the cruelties he had exercised upon the royalists, and to give confidence to the clans in Argyle’s neighbourhood. These had been hitherto prevented from joining Montrose’s standard from a dread of Argyle, who having always a body of 5,000 or 6,000 Highlanders at command, had kept them in such complete subjection that they dared not, without the risk of absolute ruin, espouse the cause of their sovereign. The idea of curbing the power of a haughty and domineering chief whose word was a law to the inhabitants of an extensive district, ready to obey his cruel mandates at all times, and the spirit of revenge, the predominating characteristic of the clans, smoothed the difficulties which presented themselves in invading a country made almost inaccessible by nature, and rendered still more unapproachable by the severities of winter. The determination of Montrose having thus met with a willing response in the breasts of his men, he lost no time in putting them in motion. Dividing his army into two parts, he himself marched with the main body, consisting of the Irish and the Athole-men, to Loch Tay, whence he proceeded through Breadalbane. The other body, composed of the clan Donald and other Highlanders, he despatched by a different route, with instructions to meet him at an assigned spot on the borders of Argyle. The country through which both divisions passed, being chiefly in possession of Argyle’s kinsmen or dependants, was laid waste, particularly the lands of Campbell of Glenorchy.
When Argyle heard of the ravages committed by Montrose’s army on the lands of his kinsmen, he hastened home from Edinburgh to his castle at Inverary, and gave orders for the assembling of his clan, either to repel any attack that might be made on his own country, or to protect his friends from future aggression. It is by no means certain that he anticipated an invasion from Montrose, particularly at such a season of the year, and he seemed to imagine himself so secure from attack, owing to the intricacy of the passes leading into Argyle, that although a mere handful of men could have effectually opposed an army much larger than that of Montrose, he took no precautions to guard them. So important indeed did he himself consider these passes to be, that he had frequently declared that he would rather forfeit a hundred thousand crowns, than that an enemy should know the passes by which an armed force could penetrate into Argyle.[276]
While thus reposing in fancied security in his impregnable stronghold, and issuing his mandates for levying his forces, some shepherds arrived in great terror from the hills, and brought him the alarming intelligence that the enemy, whom he had imagined were about a hundred miles distant, were within two miles of his own dwelling. Terrified at the unexpected appearance of Montrose, whose vengeance he justly dreaded, he had barely self-possession left to concert measures for his own personal safety, by taking refuge on board a fishing boat in Loch Fyne, in which he sought his way to the Lowlands, leaving his people and country exposed to the merciless will of an enemy thirsting for revenge. The inhabitants of Argyle being thus abandoned by their chief, made no attempt to oppose Montrose, who, the more effectually to carry his plan for pillaging and ravaging the country into execution, divided his army into three parties, under the respective orders of the captain of clan Ranald, Macdonald, and himself. For upwards of six weeks, viz., from the 13th of December, 1644, till nearly the end of January following, these different bodies traversed the whole country without molestation, burning, wasting, and destroying every thing which came within their reach. Nor were the people themselves spared, for although it is mentioned by one writer that Montrose “shed no blood in regard that all the people (following their lord’s laudable example) delivered themselves by flight also,”[277] it is evident from several contemporary authors that the slaughter must have been immense.[278] In fact, before the end of January, the face of a single male inhabitant was not to be seen throughout the whole extent of Argyle and Lorn, the whole population having been either driven out of these districts, or taken refuge in dens and caves known only to themselves.
Having thus retaliated upon Argyle and his people in a tenfold degree the miseries which he had occasioned in Lochaber and the adjoining countries, Montrose left Argyle and Lorn, passing through Glencoe and Lochaber on his way to Lochness. On his march eastwards he was joined by the laird of Abergeldie, the Farquharsons of the Braes of Mar, and by a party of the Gordons. The object of Montrose, by this movement, was to seize Inverness, which was then protected by only two regiments, in the expectation that its capture would operate as a stimulus to the northern clans, who had not yet declared themselves. This resolution was by no means altered on reaching the head of Lochness, where he learned that the Earl of Seaforth was advancing to meet him with an army of 5,000 horse and foot, which he resolved to encounter, it being composed, with the exception of two regular regiments, of raw and undisciplined levies.
While proceeding, however, through Abertarf, a person arrived in great haste at Kilcummin, the present fort Augustus, who brought him the surprising intelligence that Argyle had entered Lochaber with an army of 3,000 men; that he was burning and laying waste the country, and that his head-quarters were at the old castle of Inverlochy. After Argyle had effected his escape from Inverary, he had gone to Dumbarton, where he remained till Montrose’s departure from his territory. While there, a body of covenanting troops who had served in England, arrived under the command of Major-general Baillie, for the purpose of assisting Argyle in expelling Montrose from his bounds; but on learning that Montrose had left Argyle, and was marching through Glencoe and Lochaber, General Baillie determined to lead his army in an easterly direction through the Lowlands, with the intention of intercepting Montrose, should he attempt a descent. At the same time it was arranged between Baillie and Argyle that the latter, who had now recovered from his panic in consequence of Montrose’s departure, should return to Argyle and collect his men from their hiding-places and retreats. As it was not improbable, however, that Montrose might renew his visit, the Committee of Estates allowed Baillie to place 1,100 of his soldiers at the disposal of Argyle, who, as soon as he was able to muster his men, was to follow Montrose’s rear, yet so as to avoid an engagement, till Baillie, who, on hearing of Argyle’s advance into Lochaber, was to march suddenly across the Grampians, should attack Montrose in front. To assist him in levying and organizing his clan, Argyle called over Campbell of Auchinbreck, his kinsman, from Ireland, who had considerable reputation as a military commander. In terms of his instructions, therefore, Argyle had entered Lochaber, and had advanced as far as Inverlochy, when, as we have seen, the news of his arrival was brought to Montrose.
Montrose was at first almost disinclined, from the well-known reputation of Argyle, to credit this intelligence, but being fully assured of its correctness from the apparent sincerity of his informer, he lost not a moment in making up his mind as to the course he should pursue. He might have instantly marched back upon Argyle by the route he had just followed; but as the latter would thus get due notice of his approach, and prepare himself for the threatened danger, Montrose resolved upon a different plan. The design he conceived could only have originated in the mind of such a bold and enterprising commander as Montrose, before whose daring genius difficulties hitherto deemed insurmountable at once disappeared. The idea of carrying an army over dangerous and precipitous mountains, whose wild and frowning aspect seemed to forbid the approach of human footsteps, and in the middle of winter, too, when the formidable perils of the journey were greatly increased by the snow, however chimerical it might have seemed to other men, appeared quite practicable to Montrose, whose sanguine anticipations of the advantages to be derived from such an extraordinary exploit, more than counterbalanced, in his mind, the risks to be encountered.
The distance between the place where Montrose received the news of Argyle’s arrival and Inverlochy is about thirty miles; but this distance was considerably increased by the devious track which Montrose followed. Marching along the small river Tarf in a southerly direction, he crossed the hills of Lairie Thierard, passed through Glenroy, and after traversing the range of mountains between the Glen and Ben Nevis, he arrived in Glennevis before Argyle had the least notice of his approach. Before setting out on his march, Montrose had taken the wise precaution of placing guards upon the common road leading to Inverlochy, to prevent intelligence of his movements being carried to Argyle, and he had killed such of Argyle’s scouts as he had fallen in with in the course of his march. This fatiguing and unexampled journey had been performed in little more than a night and a day, and when, in the course of the evening, Montrose’s men arrived in Glennevis, they found themselves so weary and exhausted that they could not venture to attack the enemy. They therefore lay under arms all night, and refreshed themselves as they best could till next morning. As the night was uncommonly clear, it being moonlight, the advanced posts of both armies kept up a small fire of musketry, which led to no result.
In the meantime Argyle, after committing his army to the charge of his cousin, Campbell of Auchinbreck, with his customary prudence, went, during the night, on board a boat in the loch, excusing himself for this apparent pusillanimous act by alleging his incapacity to enter the field of battle in consequence of some contusions he had received by a fall two or three weeks before; but his enemies averred that cowardice was the real motive which induced him to take refuge in his galley, from which he witnessed the defeat and destruction of his army. This somewhat suspicious action of Argyle--and it was not the only time he provided for his personal safety in a similar manner--is accounted for in the following (? ironical) way by the author of Britane’s Distemper (p. 100):--
“In this confusion, the commanders of there armie lightes wpon this resolution, not to hazart the marquisse owne persone; for it seems not possible that Ardgylle himselfe, being a nobleman of such eminent qualitie, a man of so deepe and profund judgement, one that knew so weell what belongeth to the office of a generall, that any basse motion of feare, I say, could make him so wnsensible of the poynt of honour as is generally reported. Nether will I, for my owne pairt, belieue it; but I am confident that those barrones of his kinred, wha ware captanes and commanderes of the armie, feareing the euent of this battelle, for diuers reasones; and one was, that Allan M’Collduie, ane old fox, and who was thought to be a seer, had told them that there should be a battell lost there by them that came first to seike battell; this was one cause of there importunitie with him that he should not come to battell that day; for they sawe that of necessitie they most feght, and would not hazart there cheife persone, urgeing him by force to reteire to his galay, which lay hard by, and committe the tryall of the day to them; he, it is to be thought, with great difficultie yeelding to there request, leaues his cusine, the laird of Auchinbreike, a most walorous and braue gentleman, to the generall commande of the armie, and takes with himselfe only sir James Rollocke, his brother in lawe, sir Jhone Wachope of Nithrie, Mr. Mungo Law, a preacher. It is reported those two last was send from Edinburgh with him to beare witnesse of the expulsion of those rebelles, for so they ware still pleased to terme the Royalistes.”
It would appear that it was not until the morning of the battle that Argyle’s men were aware that it was the army of Montrose that was so near them, as they considered it quite impossible that he should have been able to bring his forces across the mountains; they imagined that the body before them consisted of some of the inhabitants of the country, who had collected to defend their properties. But they were undeceived when, in the dawn of the morning, the warlike sound of Montrose’s trumpets, resounding through the glen where they lay, and reverberating from the adjoining hills, broke upon their ears. This served as the signal to both armies to prepare for battle. Montrose drew out his army in an extended line. The right wing consisted of a regiment of Irish, under the command of Macdonald, his major-general; the centre was composed of the Athole-men, the Stuarts of Appin, the Macdonalds of Glencoe, and other Highlanders, severally under the command of Clanranald, M’Lean, and Glengary; and the left wing consisted of some Irish, at the head of whom was the brave Colonel O’Kean. A body of Irish was placed behind the main body as a reserve, under the command of Colonel James M’Donald, alias O’Neill. The general of Argyle’s army formed it in a similar manner. The Lowland forces were equally divided, and formed the wings, between which the Highlanders were placed. Upon a rising ground, behind this line, General Campbell drew up a reserve of Highlanders, and placed a field-piece. Within the house of Inverlochy, which was only about a pistol-shot from the place where the army was formed, he planted a body of 40 or 50 men to protect the place, and to annoy Montrose’s men with discharges of musketry.[279] The account given by Gordon of Sallagh, that Argyle had transported the half of his army over the water at Inverlochy, under the command of Auchinbreck, and that Montrose defeated this division, while Argyle was prevented from relieving it with the other division, from the intervening of “an arm of the sea, that was interjected betwixt them and him,”[280] is probably erroneous, for the circumstance is not mentioned by any other writer of the period, and it is well known, that Argyle abandoned his army, and witnessed its destruction from his galley,--circumstances which Gordon altogether overlooks.
It was at sunrise, on Sunday, the 2d of February, 1645, that Montrose, after having formed his army in battle array, gave orders to his men to advance upon the enemy. The left wing of Montrose’s army, under the command of O’Kean, was the first to commence the attack, by charging the enemy’s right. This was immediately followed by a furious assault upon the centre and left wing of Argyle’s army, by Montrose’s right wing and centre. Argyle’s right wing not being able to resist the attack of Montrose’s left, turned about and fled, which circumstance had such a discouraging effect on the remainder of Argyle’s troops, that after discharging their muskets, the whole of them, including the reserve, took to their heels. The rout now became general. An attempt was made by a body of about 200 of the fugitives, to throw themselves into the castle of Inverlochy, but a party of Montrose’s horse prevented them. Some of the flying enemy directed their course along the side of Loch-Eil, but all these were either killed or drowned in the pursuit. The greater part, however, fled towards the hills in the direction of Argyle, and were pursued by Montrose’s men, to the distance of about eight miles. As no resistance was made by the defeated party in their flight, the carnage was very great, being reckoned at 1,500 men. Many more would have been cut off had it not been for the humanity of Montrose, who did every thing in his power to save the unresisting enemy from the fury of his men, who were not disposed to give quarter to the unfortunate Campbells. Having taken the castle, Montrose not only treated the officers, who were from the Lowlands, with kindness, but gave them their liberty on parole.
Among the principal persons who fell on Argyle’s side, were the commander, Campbell of Auchinbreck, Campbell of Lochnell, the eldest son of Lochnell, and his brother, Colin; M’Dougall of Rara and his eldest son; Major Menzies, brother to the laird, (or Prior as he was called) of Achattens Parbreck; and the provost of the church of Kilmun. The loss on the side of Montrose was extremely trifling. The number of wounded is indeed not stated, but he had only three privates killed. He sustained, however, a severe loss in Sir Thomas Ogilvie, son of the Earl of Airly, who died a few days after the battle, of a wound he received in the thigh. Montrose regretted the death of this steadfast friend and worthy man, with feelings of real sorrow, and caused his body to be interred in Athole with due solemnity.[281] Montrose immediately after the battle sent a messenger to the king with a letter, giving an account of it, at the conclusion of which he exultingly says to Charles, “Give me leave, after I have reduced this country, and conquered from Dan to Beersheba, to say to your Majesty, as David’s general to his master, Come thou thyself, lest this country be called by my name.” When the king received this letter, the royal and parliamentary commissioners were sitting at Uxbridge negotiating the terms of a peace; but Charles, induced by the letter, imprudently broke off the negotiation, a circumstance which led to his ruin.
FOOTNOTES:
[262] Wishart, p. 84.--Stewart’s descendant, the late Robert Stewart of Ardvoirlich, gives an account of the above incident, founded on a “constant tradition in the family,” tending to show that his ancestor was not so much a man of base and treacherous character, as of “violent passions and singular temper.” James Stewart, it is said, was so irritated at the Irish, for committing some excesses on lands belonging to him, that he challenged their commander, Macdonald, to single combat. By advice of Kilpont, Montrose arrested both, and brought about a seeming conciliation. When encamped at Collace, Montrose gave an entertainment to his officers, on returning from which Ardvoirlich, “heated with drink, began to blame Kilpont for the part he had taken in preventing his obtaining redress, and reflecting against Montrose for not allowing him what he considered proper reparation. Kilpont, of course, defended the conduct of himself and his relative, Montrose, till their argument came to high words, and finally, from the state they were both in, by an easy transition, to blows, when Ardvoirlich, with his dirk, struck Kilpont dead on the spot.” He fled, leaving his eldest son, Henry, mortally wounded at Tippermuir, on his death-bed.--Introd. to Legend of Montrose.
[263] Spalding, vol. ii. p. 405.
[264] Wishart, p. 89.
[265] Spalding, vol. ii. 407.
[266] Memoirs, p. 131.
[267] Wishart, p. 91.
[268] Spalding, vol. ii. p. 414.
[269] Idem.
[270] Guthry, p. 231.
[271] Wishart, p. 100.
[272] Wishart, p. 102.
[273] Spalding, vol. ii. p. 287.
[274] Guthry, p. 134.
[275] Memoirs, pp. 134-5.
[276] Wishart, p. 107.
[277] Guthry, p. 136.
[278] Spalding, vol. ii. p. 442; Wishart, p. 108--Red Book of Clanranald.
[279] Spalding, vol. ii. p. 444.
[280] Continuation, p. 522.
[281] Spalding, vol. ii. p. 445.--Wishart, p. 111, et seq.--Guthry, p. 140.