"The Chiefs of Grant" (1883) by Sir William Fraser
Volume I, Chapter 12

JOHN GRANT, FIFTH OF FREUCHIE. LADY LILIAS MURRAY (OF TULLIBARDINE), HIS WIFE. 1585-1622

[159] DURING the long tenure of the Grant estates by this Laird - part of them having been held by him for forty years, and another portion of them for thirty-seven years - he was often engaged in public transactions of importance. The friendship which had existed between the Earls of Huntly and the Lairds of Freuchie was not maintained between this Laird and the first Marquis of Huntly, whose rebellions, as will he seen, brought the Laird into frequent antagonism with the Gordons.

As already stated, John Grant was the grandson of his predecessor, the fourth Laird, and the son of Duncan Grant, younger of Freuchie, the subject of the preceding memoir. He appears to have been born about the year 1568. In a precept by King James the Sixth for infefting John Grant as son and heir of his father, Duncan Grant, apparent of Freuchie, in the lands of Corriemony, dated 27th February 1582, he is described as of lawful age, Vol. iii of this work, p. 156. But he could have been so only under a dispensation to enable his feudal title to be completed, as he was at that time, and up to September 1588 under the charge of curators Ibid. pp. 158, 169. Upon that precept infeftment was given in the following May Instrument, dated 17th May 1583, at Castle Grant. John Grant, fifth of Freuchie, succeeded to his grandfather on the death of the latter on 2d June 1585. On the 14th of the same month the ward and non-entry of the young Laird of Freuchie were bestowed by King James the Sixth upon his favourite, James Stewart, Earl of Arran, then Chancellor. Six weeks later, on 30th July, King James was compelled, in obedience to the demands of the English ambassador, to commit the Earl to ward in St. Andrews for his, alleged share in the death, really accidental, of an English nobleman, Lord Russell, at a warden meeting on the Borders; and though the prisoner was liberated on the [160] 6th August, he never regained his influence in Scotland. He was also deprived of his title of Earl of Arran, as three days after his release the king ratified the gift which he had made of the ward of Freuchie, and regranted the same to Stewart, not as Earl of Arran, but "to our traist cousing, James, Lord Stewart, lait chancellar of our realme." The gift comprised the ward, non-entries, and other feudal casualties of all lands belonging to the deceased John Grant of Freuchie or the late Duncan Grant his son Original Letters of Gift at Castle Grant. A year later Lord Stewart assigned, on payment of a sum of money, his whole interest in these subjects to Patrick Grant of Rothiemurchus, one of the young Laird's curators Original Assignation, dated 2d September 1586,

John Grant, fifth Laird of Freuchie, was, in 1586, infeft in the Crown lands of Urquhart in terms of a royal precept Sasine, dated 19th May 1586, ibid. He was also in the following year infeft in the lands of Glencarnie and Ballindalloch as heir of his great-grandfather, James Grant, the third of Freuchie; but he was not retoured heir to his grandfather in the lands of Freuchie until 7th October 1589. The retour embraced the barony of Freuchie, the lands of Kessoryne, Strome, and Strome Castle, with the church lands of Laggan and others in Strathspey Extract Retour at Castle Grant. The young Laird also, in 1586, completed his title to the lands of Tullochgorm, Clurie, and others in Badenoch, held of the Earl of Huntly, Instrument, dated 20th April 1586, ibid., and on the 31st of July in that year he received from the Earl a formal bond of maintenance similar to that granted to his grandfather and great grandfather in 1546 save that no mention is made of any bailiery or other fixed service on the part of the Laird of Freuchie Vol. iii of this work, pp. 97, 165. The latter, however, gave a bond of manrent to the Earl in the usual form Miscellany of Spalding Club, vol. iv p. 236. It bears date in 1586, the month and day being left blank, but as both bonds are dated at Elgin, they may have been granted on the same day.

The Laird of Freuchie was also infeft in the lands of the two Auchnarrows, Downan, and Port, in terms of a precept in a charter by James Grant of Auchernack, the then proprietor of these lands. As previously narrated, these lands in 1473 were the property of Marjory Lude, "Lady of half the barony of Freuchie," who sold them to her son Patrick Grant, [161] called also Patrick Reoch. He died in 1513 and the lands were in non-entry for the long term of sixty-seven years, up to 1580, when they were apprised to James Grant of Auchernack. In 1585 they were finally confirmed in favour of the latter by a Crown Charter from King James the Sixth Original Charter at Castle Grant. Auchernack sold them to John Grant of Freuchie in 1589, and thus the two halves of the original barony of Freuchie became united in the possession of the Laird of Freuchie.

The young Laird of Freuchie was early drawn into the current of public events. Shortly after his succession to his grandfather, and before lie reached his majority, the struggle began between the Earls of Sutherland and Caithness, which kept the Northern Highlands in a state of com motion, and lasted for five years from 1587 to 1591 Sir Robert Gordon's History of the Earldom of Sutherland, p. 192. One of those who took part with the Earl of Sutherland was the Laird of Mackintosh, who was probably enabled to do so the more readily by having entered into an important contract with the young Laird of Freuchie, at Inverness, on 14th June 1586. In this contract, the question as to the ownership of Rothiemurchus, which had been the source of dispeace and bloodshed betwixt the Mackintoshes and Grants, was finally settled in terms of a decreet-arbitral obtained thereupon, by the Laird of Mackintosh resigning all rights he had or might have to the lands and barony of Rothiemurchus. Mackintosh also bound himself to preserve and guard the lands of Urquhart, Glenmoriston, and all others belonging to the Grants, against the inroads of the Clan Cameron, Clan Ranald, or others. In return for these benefits, the Laird of Freuchie and his curators obliged themselves to infeft the Laird of Mackintosh in certain lands in Lochalsh and Kessoryne, and also in Strome Castle, with the office of Constable, all as formerly held by Cameron of Lochiel but which had come into the hands of James Grant, third Laird of Freuchie, in the manner narrated in his memoir. The Laird of Freuchie also promised to uphold the Laird of Mackintosh in peaceable possession of Lochaber against the Clan Cameron and all others, except the King and the Earl of Huntly Vol. iii of this work, p. 158.

[162] The transfer of the lands of Lochalsh, Strome Castle, and others, to Mackintosh, apparently partook of the nature of a sale, as the first clause of the contract is an acknowledgment by the Laird of Freuchie for the payment of 20,000 merks. Provision is afterwards made for the refunding of that sum should the young Laird, on reaching majority, refuse to grant a formal charter of the lands. Probably, however, the 20,000 merks were never wholly paid, or for some other reason John Grant of Freuchie resumed the lands, as, on 10th July 1589, he bestowed them on his brother, Patrick Grant, the gift being afterwards confirmed by a Crown charter Original Crown Charter, dated 13th July 1593,at Castle Grant. By a minute of agreement four years later, Mackintosh renounced all writs made to him of Kessoryne, etc., and the Laird of Freuchie paid to Mackintosh 5000 merks Minute of Agreement dated 25th January 1593-4 vol. iii of this work, p. 176, note.

This alliance between Grant and Mackintosh had in the end important consequences. It is somewhat difficult to follow the true sequence of events, but on 27th March 1588, their bond of mutual assistance against the Clan Cameron was supplemented by a Royal Commission, directed to the Earl of Huntly, Lachlan Mackintosh, and John Giant of Freuchie. They were empowered to proceed against Allan McConil Dhu, the captain of Clan Cameron, who, with a large following, had during various months of the year 1584 made a descent upon Lochaber, and committed depredations there Ibid. p. 166. This raid was no doubt the cause of the mutual bond betwixt the Lairds of Freuchie and Mackintosh.

Notwithstanding that the Earl of Huntly, and the Lairds of Mackintosh and Freuchie, were thus conjoined against the leader of Clan Cameron, the current of public and political events soon forced them asunder, and a year two later found the lesser barons in battle array against the more powerful Earl. Perhaps, however, the two Lairds made some use of their commission in the meantime, though no record remains of the Fact. But the next document among the Grant muniments relating to the Clan Cameron is of a friendly nature. It is a bond betwixt the Laird of Freuchie and Allan Cameron of Lochiel, dated at Grant's residence of Ballachastell, 30th June 1589, in which they mutually oblige themselves to [163] assist and maintain each other, especially against the Macdonalds of Glencoe, Vol. iii of this work, p. 170, but also against all other persons save the King and the Earl of Huntly. Such bonds as this were frequent, but their effect was wholly temporary, and the obligations were too often disclaimed the moment they conflicted with the self-interest of the granters. So it apparently was in this case, as a year later the Laird of Freuchie and Cameron of Lochiel were ranged in opposite factions, the one espousing the cause of the Earl of Huntly, and the other that of the Earl of Murray.

The proceedings of the Earl of Huntly at this period have been recorded elsewhere, but a brief reference to them here is necessary, in order to under stand the part taken by the Laird of Freuchie. The Earl was a Roman Catholic, and was for some time busily engaged in intrigues with Spain, along with the Earl of Errol and other Roman Catholic noblemen and gentlemen in Scotland. The discovery of Huntly's Spanish correspondence led to a temporary imprisonment (from February 27th to March 6th, 1589) in Edinburgh Castle, and a few days after his release he and the Earl of Errol proceeded to the north, where, with the Earl of Crawford, they appeared in arms at the head of 3000 men about the beginning of April, Register of the Privy Council, vol. iv. pp. 360-375

When it became known that the king had mustered an army, though inferior in numbers, and was marching in person at the head of it, Huntly's force rapidly dwindled away, and the rebellion collapsed, though Huntly and the other leaders still remained at large. In his progress northward, the king received the submissions of many of the barons who had followed Huntly, and reached Aberdeen on the 20th April 1589. Between the 20th and the 30th of April, Slains Castle, the seat of the Earl of Errol, was taken, and the Earl of Huntly made prisoner. On the latter date, before the king's departure from Aberdeen, the Privy Council issued an order that bonds should be drawn up and subscribed by faithful subjects in defence of the true religion and of the king's government against the Roman Catholic conspiracy, and the Earls of Huntly and Errol in particular, in terms of this ordinance a bond was drawn lip and subscribed by the king in person, John, Master of Forbes, [164] George (Abernethy), seventh Lord Saltoun, Ogilvie of Findlater, and other northern barons Register of the Privy Council, vol. iv. pp. 375.

Among those who signed this bond were John Grant of Freuchie and his neighbour, Lachlan Mackintosh of Dunachton. In regard to them and some others a recent Scottish historian, writing of Huntly's rebellion, the king's exploits, arid the capture of Slains Castle, makes the following statements "The Lairds of Frendraught, Grant, and Mackintosh, the powerful clans of the Drummonds and the Forbeses, with many others, who had been seduced from their allegiance by the Catholic faction, submitted themselves." Tytler's History of Scotland, vol. vii. p. 147. This assertion is somewhat too sweeping, and is not borne out by evidence. The Laird of Frendraught and the Drummonds, indeed, seem to have been implicated in the rebellion, as the former, though he signed the bond, was bound over in a large penalty, and the latter refused to submit. But the Lairds of Freuchie and Mackintosh appear to have signed the bond along with the king without any restrictions or security for their good behaviour. Moreover, the relations between these two Lairds and the Earl of Huntly were the reverse of friendly, issuing a few months later in open rupture.

The Laird of Freuchie was a member of the Protestant party, and therefore opposed in religious matters to the Earl of Huntly. This is proved from the minutes of a so-called Convention of Estates (apparently pro re nata), held on 27th July 1588 Register of Privy Council, vol. iv. pp. 298.302. The meeting was called by the king on receipt of news as to the sailing of the Spanish Armada, which indeed, ere the tidings reached Scotland, had already arrived in the English Channel and been attacked by the English fleet. The chief act of the Convention was to appoint Commissioners with justiciary powers, and very extensive authority, to apprehend and try Jesuits, rebels, and similar offenders. These Commissioners were to use their "exact diligence," under the penalty of £1000 each for negligence. Among those specially named to act for the landward parts of Scotland was John Grant of Freuchie, as one of three appointed for Elgin and Forres. The Laird of Freuchie's position as a Commissioner would naturally lead [165] him to take part with the royal forces against the Roman Catholic rebels, and that he did so may be surmised from the fact that he was re-appointed to the same office by a later Act, of date 6th March 1590 Register of Privy Council, vol. iv. pp. 463-465.

Shortly afterwards, the Laird was also ordered to find surety, within fifteen days after being charged to do so, that he would assist and concur with Sir Duncan Campbell of Glenorchy in executing the latter's commission against the unfortunate Clan Gregor, and that he would raise his whole force in pursuit of them, should they come within his bounds, under pain of being held as art and part with them, and answerable for their spulzies Ibid. pp. 510, 528. Previous to this date, the Laird of Freuchie had become specially obnoxious to the Government on account of his alleged " present misreule," with which an act of the Privy Council declares the king had resolved to take order, Ibid. p. 548, and his territory had been noted as one of those in which "broken men" were harboured. In accordance with the Acts of Council on the subject, he was, on 16th December 1590, required to find security to the amount of £10,000 that lie would keep good rule in his district, for which sum James, Earl of Murray, became cautioner Ibid pp. 782, 803, 813.

This charge of "misreule" partly arose out of a quarrel, trivial in its origin, but which was peculiarly tragic in its consequences. Patrick Grant of Ballindalloch, a kinsman of the Laird's, died in Sept ember 1586, leaving a widow, named Margaret Gordon. John Grant, tutor of Ballindalloch, in administering the estate, gave some offence to the widow in money matters. She called in the assistance of her friends, the Gordons, to maintain her rights, and, by their advice, married as her third husband John Gordon, brother of Sir Thomas Gordon of Cluny. Upon this, according to the historian of the House of Sutherland, the tutor of Ballindalloch, " "grudgeing that any of the surname of Gordoun should duell amongst them," at the instigation of "the Laird of Grant," quarrelled with John Gordon and killed one of his servants. In revenge, John Gordon pressed matters so far that the tutor and his adherents were denounced rebels, and the Earl of Huntly was stirred up to pursue them at law, he being Sheriff of the shire. The Earl therefore obtained a commission, in virtue of which he besieged [166] the house of Ballindalloch and took it by force, on the 2d day of November 1590, the tutor, however, making his escape History the Earldom of Sutherland, p. 215.

The Laird of Freuchie was highly incensed at the violent proceedings of the Earl of Huntly, as the death of insignificant clansmen was commonly atoned for by an assythement or compensation in cattle or money, or if any reprisal were made in such cases, it was usually confined to the immediate friends of the slaver or the slain. There were, however, other causes of dissension at work, for which this affair of Ballindalloch was at first only a cover. If the Laird of Freuchie really instigated Ballindalloch, he was merely an instrument, the prime mover of the disturbance being no less a personage than John Maitland, Lord Thirlstane, Chancellor of Scotland. This is boldly affirmed by Sir Robert Gordon, writing not long after the event, who states that Sir John Campbell of Calder was employed by the Chancellor, "from whom he had receaved instructions to ingender differences and warrs between Huntley and Morray," which charge, Sir Robert adds, he accomplished "verie learnedlie" by means of the Laird of Grant.

If this he so, an insignificant brawl was, by a political intrigue, made the cause of much turmoil. The immediate effect was, as stated, the attack by the Earl of Huntly on the house of Ballindalloch, which was resented by the Grants. Their chief summoned his friends, who assembled at Ballachastell, and there, on 5th November 1590, four days after the siege of Ballindalloch, they entered into a mutual bond for offence and defence. This bond was subscribed by the Earls of Athole and Moray, Simon Lord Lovat, the Laird of Freuchie, John Campbell of Calder (the moving spirit of the affair in the north), Thomas Stewart of Grandtully, Patrick Grant of Rothiemurchus, Sutherland of Duffus, and Archibald Grant of Ballintomb, Copy Bond in Monymusk Charter-chest, printed in Spalding Club Miscellany, vol. ii. p. 93. The purpose of the leaguers, though not plainly stated, was evidently one of hostility against the Earl of Huntly, for, whereas in former documents of a similar nature executed by the Lairds of Freuchie, the Earl of Huntly's jurisdiction is specially excepted, no such clause occurs in the present contract. The parties bind themselves that in case it shall happen any of them, "as weill the meanest as the greatest," to be pursued [167] or invaded in their "persones, guides, or geir, be any persone or persones quhatsumewer," they shall join in opposing such invasion to the utmost of their power, against all, the King only being excepted.

The next document in which the Laird of Freuchie figures is even more unmistakable in its terms. Lachlan Mackintosh of Dunachton had not joined the party at Ballachastell on the 5th November, but, a week later, he and the Laird of Freuchie entered into a solemn compact at Forres Vol. iii of this work, p 171. Certain clauses of this bond refer to a mutual transfer of lands betwixt the parties, but the article of most importance is a stipulation that the Laird and Mackintosh shall assist each other against "ony erie within this realme," who should " wrangouslie invade or trouble them. Each party is bound in the strictest manner to assist the other against "ony sic cries" upon forty-eight hours' warning, if necessary. Here there can be no doubt as to the purpose of the coalition, which must have been premeditated for sonic time, as Sir Robert Gordon asserts that Huntly had summoned the Grants and Mackintoshes as his vassals to appear before him, but that they, being supported by the Earls of Athole and Moray, refused to appear. Referring to this bond between Grant and Mackintosh, and also to subsequent transactions betwixt them, a recent writer on the history of the Clan Chattan describes the influence exercised by the Laird of Freuchie on the fortunes of the Lairds of Mackintosh as a baleful influence," as it resulted in a four years' quarrel with Huntly, and other embarrassments The Mackintoshes and Clan Chattan, by A. M. Shaw, p. 312. But whatever misfortunes to the chiefs of Mackintosh arose out of their connection with the Grants, the feud against Huntly cannot be laid wholly to the charge of the Laird of Freuchie. The Clan Chattan themselves had already had a dispute with the Earl in reference to his attempt to build or restore the castle of Ruthven in Badenoch, a project which the Mackintoshes stoutly opposed as prejudicial to their interests, and they had hindered the work so far as they could by refusing the feudal service required of them History of the Earldom of Sutherland, p. 214.

This is the testimony of a contemporary, and it can scarcely be [168] doubted that jealousy of the growing power of the Gordons was a reason quite sufficient for the chief of, Mackintosh joining heartily, and of his own accord, in a coalition against the Earl, without being led into it by the Laird of Freuchie. But, as already stated, other and more powerful agencies were at work. Sir John Campbell of Calder has been described as the chief instigator of the coalition in the north, and as lie was a witness to the bond between Grant and Mackintosh, the "baleful influence," if there was any such, may fairly be ascribed to him and not to the Laird of Freuchie, who was only a subordinate agent.

The bond betwixt the Lairds of Freuchie and Mackintosh was signed at Forres. At the same place, also, were met the Earls of Athole and Murray, who, it is said, were there in concert with the Grants, Mackintosh, and the Knight of Calder, to arrange their plans. Calder, Mackintosh, and Grant urged the Earls "to tak their tvme, and now or never afterward, to resist the house of Huntley, and to mak themselves strong in the north, haveing at this tyme so great a pairtie, and being so well freinded at Court." History of the Earldom of Sutherland, p. 215. The Dunbars, allies of the Earl of Murray, advised the contrary, and alleged the difficulty of opposing Huntly. While thus disputing, the advice given by the Dunbars received a practical application by the sudden approach of the Earl of Huntly himself at the head of an armed force. This unexpected addition to the convention at Forres so dismayed those who had just been asserting the strength of their party and friendship at Court, that one and all made speedy escape to Darnaway Castle. Thither they were followed by Huntly, on whose approach the Earl of Athole and the Lairds of Calder, Freuchie, Mackintosh, and Dunbar again fled, while the Earl of Murray remained behind to defend his house. In a preliminary skirmish Huntly lost one of his principal followers, and finding that most of his opponents had escaped and that the castle of Darnaway was well furnished to resist a siege, he disbanded his forces on 24th November 1590 Ibid. pp. 215, 216.

Such is the account of Sir Robert Gordon, but that given by the Earl of Huntly himself in a "supplication" made by him to the Privy Council a month or two after the events took place, states the details in a some what different way, for though the affair ended at the time at the castle [169] of Darnaway, and no further appeal was made to arms, the belligerent parties fought out their quarrel in the Law Courts. In his supplication the Earl of Huntly stated that by virtue of his Majesty's commission he had gone to the place of Ballindalloch to apprehend the tutor of Ballindalloch and others, accused of slaughter, etc., but as the Laird of Freuchie, their chief, had promised to enter them within the Earls place of Strathbogie on a certain day, he had "left of all forder per sate of thame at that tyme." The Laird of Freuchie, however, did not keep his promise, hut, accompanied by the Earl of Murray and Sir John Campbell of Calder, had taken the field with an armed force, and, in con sequence, had been charged to deliver up the rebels, on pain of treason, a charge which he "contempnandlie disobeyit." To enforce his authority the petitioner had, on the 22d November (1590), marched to the town of Forres, where, he understood, the Lairds of Grant, Calder, and Mackintosh were convened, "with the haill brokin men of the cuntrey." They, however, before his coming, passed to the castle of Darnaway, where they were reset by the Earl of Murray. The petitioner then sent an officer of alms with twelve witnesses towards the castle to ask delivery of the malefactors, when there issued from the castle a number of men, followers of the Laird of Freuchie and the others, who pursued the officer and witnesses, "disebargeit pistollettis at thame, and than enterit agane within the said castell," from which they fired various pieces of artillery, " "nocht withstanding ony signis of peace and halding up of naipkynnis in taikin thairof," which resulted in the death of John Gordon, brother of Sir Thomas of Cluny. Register of Privy Council, vol. iv. pp. 569, 570.

Counter allegations to this representation were made at its first hearing on 14th December 1590 by the Earl of Murray, and the Lairds of Grant and Calder in particular declared themselves innocent of John Gordon's slaughter, as they were not within the castle of Darnaway at the time. The immediate result of the second hearing of Huntly's case on 23d .January 1590-91, was that the king accepted his services, and reserved the defences of the other side. They had already, however, obtained from the Lords of Council and Session a decree in their own favour, exempting them [170] from the execution of Huntly's commission Decree, dated 20th January 1591 vol. iii of this work, pp. 176-179. The plea for exemption put forward by the Laird of Freuchie and his allies is founded first on the illegality of private commissions of justiciary, and secondly on a series of charges of manslaughter against the Gordons, for which reasons, and because of the unreconciled feud betwixt the parties, they argued that the commission ought to be suspended, which was done, the Earl of Huntly making no appearance in reply.

The next step in the proceedings was a complaint, made on 26th May 1591, by the Laird of Freuchie on his own behalf against the Earl of Huntly in regard to the letters of treason above referred to. He alleges they had been wrongfully executed, as he had found surety for his good rule to the extent of £10,000. He states that Sir John Campbell of Calder was his security, and another document shows that the Earl of Murray was also cautioner for him to the same amount Ibid p. 179. The Laird there fore submits that the letters of treason should he suspended, which was done Register of the Privy Council, vol. iv. pp. 626, 627. Another complaint preferred by the Laird of Freuchie on 30th June, openly charged the Earl of Huntly with "maist awfullie" pursuing the Laird and his tenants, and committing depredations. The Laird repeated his statements about having found caution, and alleged that within these few days the Earl had obtained a commission against him, and had warned the country to pass against him. The Laird further asserted that the narrative of the Earl's commission was false, and petitioned that this commission should also be suspended, which was done. Ibid p. 646.

The next shot in this legal duel was fired by the Earl of Huntly, who, 4th August 1591, replied to all the Laird of Grant's statements, and procured from the Lords of Council an order for executing letters of indemnity against him notwithstanding the suspension Ibid. p. 663. These letters required that the Earl and his servants should be unmolested by the Laird. This last measure of the Council seems to have settled matters so far that overtures were made for reconciliation between the parties. It is not clear from which side the advances came, but a document signed on behalf of the Earl of [171] Huntly and the Gordons, and dated at Kinminitie on 22d October 1591, declares that John Grant of Freuchie and Lachlan Mackintosh of Dunachton shall be accepted and received again to the favour of the Earl as formerly, "swa lang as thai keip thair dewtie and faythfull seruice to his lordschip and his houss, but (without) defection." This document is signed by Patrick Gordon of Auchindoun and others, for the Earl of Huntly Vol. iii of this work, p. 180.

This arrangement between the Laird of Freuchie and the Earl of Huntly left the latter free to turn his attention towards his chief enemy the Earl of Murray, the story of whose tragical death at Donibristle, on 7th February 1592, has been often told. The popular indignation at the murder was very great, and in consequence the Earl of Huntly was warded in the castle of Blackness. His imprisonment, however, only lasted a few days, and he again returned to the north, where the Grants and Mackintoshes, especially the latter, were burning to avenge the death of the "Bonnie Earl," as he was popularly called. The Clan Chattan invaded Badenoch, and were opposed by the Clan Cameron, who were allies of Huntly, while the Clan Ranald were deputed by Huntly to ravage Strathspey, History of the Earldom of Sutherland, pp. 217, 218 and, according to Sir Robert Gordon, eighteen Grants were slain (another account says twenty-two), the Laird of Ballindalloch wounded, and his lands wasted. The Earl of Athole also, a kinsman of the murdered Earl of Murray, advanced towards Darnaway with an armed force. These warlike preparations and tribal contests, which, as a recent historian truly says, "spread like the moor-burning of their own savage districts from glen to glen and mountain to mountain, till half the land seemed in a blaze," Tytler's History of Scotland, vol. vii. p. 181, were checked for a time by the despatch northward of William, Earl of Angus, 'with powers as the King's Lieutenant in the north. His commission states that the lawless broken Highlandmen of the Clan Chattan, Clan Cameron, Clan Ranald, and others depending on the Earls of Huntly and Athole, "hes sa wrakit and schakin lowis sindre partis of the north cuntrie," that murders, houseburning, spuilzies, etc., go on "with far greitair rigour nor it war with forreyne enemyis." Original Commission, dated 9th November 1592, in Douglas Charter-chest.

[172] What the Grants, Frasers, and Mackintoshes doubtless conceived to be a proper warrant for their share of the slaughters committed is found in a commission of justiciary, dated 6th June 1592, and directed to the Lord Fraser of Lovat, Lachlan Mackintosh, the Laird of Freuchie, and three other Grants, the Lairds of Ballindalloch, Rothiemurchus, and Glenmoriston, authorising them to proceed with fire and sword against various parties in Lochaber accused of murder, etc. Vol. iii. of this work, pp. 180-183. At this juncture the Laird of Freuchie entered into a mutual bond of manrent and assistance with a member of the proscribed Clan Gregor Bond, dated 20th June 1592 ibid. p. 183 This bond curiously enough excepts the Earl of Huntly from the effects of the alliance; but this was a mere form, as the Clan Cameron and Clan Ranald, against whom it was directed, were in his service. Moreover, the Clan Gregor had been much attached to the deceased Earl of Murray.

Armed with these letters of fire and sword, and having the McGregors as allies, the Laird of Freuchie and his party probably contributed their quota in raising this disturbance in the north, but the Earl of Angus's commission was only directed against the Clan Chattan, Clan Cameron, and Clan Ranald. Angus carried north with him full instructions how to proceed against the contending parties, and also several missive letters, including one to time Laird of Freuchie, of date 10th November 1592 Vol. ii of this work, pp. 3, 4. This missive attributes all the disturbances in the north to the Earls of Huntly and Athole, and, treating the Laird as a loyal subject, desires him to aid the Earl of Angus with all his power to put down disorder. The Earl of Angus advanced to the north certainly as far as Monymusk, and judging from the tenor of King James time Sixth's letters to him, Original Letters, dated 28th and 30th November 1592 in Douglas Charter-chest. he so far succeeded in settling affairs that in the beginning of December mutual assurances passed betwixt the Earls of Athole and Huntly, and Mackintosh of Dunachton Original Obligations, dated 4th and 8th December 1592, ibid.

Shortly after this the Earls of Angus, Huntly, and Errol, fell into disgrace because of their adherence to the Spanish conspiracy, and the king himself led an army against the traitors. They were forced to fly, and [173] their estates were confiscated, but the measures taken against them were not at that time enforced. Caution was exacted for good behaviour, as appears from a royal letter, dated 13th March 1592-3, forbidding the Laird of Freuchie to be outlawed for acting as one of the cautioners to the Earl of Huntly, Vol. ii of this work, p. 4, and in May following the king remitted to the Laird the sum of 5000 merks, his share of the whole amount of the security given for the Earl of Huntly Vol. iii of this work, p. 184. The temporising character of King James the Sixth's policy, notwithstanding the pressure brought to bear on him by Queen Elizabeth and the Scottish clergy, enabled the Catholic Earls to make considerable advance in influence and strength, but on the 30th of May 1594 the estates of the three Earls, Angus, Huntly, and Errol, were forfeited, and themselves proclaimed traitors. Thereupon Huntly and Errol drew together in arms, and gathered a considerable band of followers, one of their chief adherents being Francis Stewart, Earl of Bothwell, the most restless and turbulent spirit of his time. A systematic plan of rebellion was concerted with Bothwell, but it was never executed, owing to the course of events in the north.

King James the Sixth had openly declared his intention of marching in person against the Catholic Earls, but a commission was also given to Archibald, the seventh Earl of Argyll, the father of the Marquis, to take the field against Huntly. This office was readily accepted by Argyll, who, though a young man, was eager to revenge the death of his relative the Earl of Murray, and great preparations were made for the expedition. Argyll began his march with a considerable army. Men gathered to his standard from all quarters under various leaders, and as it reached the neighbourhood of Badenoch and Strathspey it was joined by the Laird of Mackintosh and the Laird of Freuchie. Argyll's army is said to have ultimately increased to the number of 12,000 men, though this may be an exaggeration. His first military operation was to besiege the Castle of Ruthven in Badenoch, but it was so stoutly defended for the Earl of Huntly by the Macphersons that. the attempt to reduce it was abandoned. Drummin Castle, on the Avon, was reached on 2d October l594, History of the Earldom of Sutherland, p. 226, after [174] which the march was directed eastward toward Strathbogie, but near Glenlivet the large and somewhat motley army of Argyll was met by a small but well-trained force of about 2000 men under the leadership of Huntly;

The Earl of Argyll held a council of war, at which his most experienced officers advised delay, but this advice was overruled, and he resolved to light. He disposed part of his forces on the declivity of a hill between Glenlivet and Glenrinnes, the right wing consisting of the Macleans and Mackintoshes, the left wing of the Grants, Macneils, and Macgregors, the centre being composed of Campbells. This vanguard, it is said, numbered 4000 men, and Argyll commanded the rest of the army in the rear. The smaller body commanded by Huntly was composed chiefly of horsemen, well mounted and armed, and the Earl had also with him six pieces of artillery. These were dragged forward unperceived by Argyll's troops, and the battle may be said to have begun with a shot from one of the cannon, which killed Campbell of Lochnell, a chief officer among the Highlanders, who were thrown into great confusion by the discharge History of the Earldom of Sutherland, pp. 227, 228; Shaw's Moray, pp. 267. 268. Taking advantage of this, Huntly encouraged his men to the attack, and the result of the battle was that after an obstinate contest Argyll was obliged to retreat, and Huntly and Errol remained masters of the field.

It does not appear whether the Laird of Freuchie was present at this engagement or not. His clan, or at least a portion of his men, formed part of the left wing of Argyll's army, and are said to have been commanded by John Grant of Gartenbeg. The defeat sustained by Argyll's party has been ascribed to this John Grant, who, it is alleged, had entered with Campbell of Lochnell, who had a private quarrel with his chief, into a compact with Huntly that as soon as the battle began the detachments commanded by them should give way. On the death of Campbell his men fled, and John Grant of Gartenbeg, it is asserted, proved a source of weakness in the wing where he was stationed. Be this as it may, the Catholic Earls certainly gained the advantage, though their triumph was of short duration, as the king in person took the field against them, demolished their castles, and in the end forced Huntly and Errol to take refuge abroad.

[175] The historical events above narrated, from the siege of Ballindalloch in 1590 to the battle of Glenrinnes in 1594, including the tragical end of the Earl of Murray, have been recounted briefly and only where bearing the history of the Laird of Freuchie, who, though lie does not figure very prominently on the stage of passing events, was yet, as before stated, the instrument, no doubt unconsciously, by which the leaders in a wide spread conspiracy strove to gain at least one of their aims. It appears from documents afterwards discovered, that Maitland the Chancellor, the Earl of Huntly, with Campbell of Glenorchy, Campbell of Lochnell, and others, were all banded together to achieve the murder of the Earl of Murray, the Earl of Argyll, Colin Campbell of Lundy, his brother, and Sir John Campbell of Calder, though the last named was at first made a tool to stir up matters in the north. The object of this conspiracy was to secure the earldom of Argyll for Campbell of Lochnell, who promised to reward his associates suitably. The plot succeeded so far that the Earl of Murray and Campbell of Calder were slain, but the death of Lochnell, and the confession of another conspirator, revealed the details of the plot to Argyll, who flew to arms and waged a war of extermination against Huntly, until the king interfered and shut up the chief contending parties in separate strong holds; Gregory's Highlands and Isles, pp. 245-253; Tytler's History of Scotland vol. vii. pp. 282-285. Such was the eventful history in which the Laird of Freuchie played a part for the time, and it was wound up by the solemn farce of the reconciliation of the three Catholic Earls to the Kirk in June 1597, and their restoration to their titles and estates. Two years later, on 17th April 1599, the Earl of Huntly was created a Marquis, at which mark of the royal favour the Clan Chattan, the Grants, the Forbeses, and other neighbouring clans submitted themselves to his jurisdiction.

After the battle of Glenrinnes the Laird of Freuchie seems to have remained at home, strengthening his friendly relations with his own clansmen and with neighbouring chiefs. By an Act of Parliament in 1587, stringent regulations had been made for the rule of the Borders and Highlands, and landlords and chiefs of clans were rendered responsible for their tenants and dependants, and also for pursuing criminals and bringing them to justice. This was followed by a "General Band" of [176] landlords and others, obliging themselves to fulfil the provisions of the Act Register of Privy Council, vol. iv. pp. 787 - 789. Whether the Laird of Freuchie concurred in this general bond or not is not known. As formerly stated, in 1590 he was put under heavy caution for "misreule," but after the battle of Glenrinnes lie directed his attention to the disorderly state of his neighbourhood, and took stronger measures to insure the preservation of peace within his bounds. This is evidenced by the fact that on 17th March 1595, Patrick Grant of Rothiemurchus, Patrick Grant of Ballindalloch, John Grant of Glenmoriston, and several other prominent members of the Clan Grant met at the kirk of Cromdale and joined in a bond to their chief, the Laird of Freuchie, that they, their servants, tenants, and others, should observe the king's peace, quietness, and good rule in the country. To prove their sincerity they became bound, "in cais thai satisfie nocht the actis and statutis of his Hienes parliament and general band," to pay to the Laird various sums of money, Grant of Ballindalloch and Grant of Rothiemurchus being bound to pay each 6000 merks, and the others proportionate sums. The Laird promised his assistance to his clansmen in keeping good order, they granting this bond because he was bound as surety for them to the Government Vol. iii of this work, p. 185.

Besides this agreement with his own clan, the Laird sought and obtained similar bonds from his neighbours. On 3d June 1596, at Aberdeen, Sir Thomas Gordon of Cluny came under a special obligation to deliver up to the "Lard of Grant" two brothers of the name of MacInnes, for whom Sir Thomas was responsible, should they trouble or molest the Laird or his servants Vol. iii of this work, p. 186. He also entered into a mutual bond of manrent with Donald McAngus Macdonald of Glengarry in which, after the usual pledges to keep the peace towards each other, and give mutual assistance in case of invasion, the question of the ownership of the lands of Kessoryne, Strome, and others is discussed Bond dated 28th April 1597, ibid. pp 189-192. These lands, as narrated in a former memoir, had been apprised to James Grant of Freuchie in 1548, in compensation for the raid by Lochiel and Glengarry on the lands of Urquhart, etc., but they had proved a [177] source of considerable trouble to him and his heirs. In 1582, the castle of Strome had been a subject of debate before the Privy Council betwixt Donald of Glengarry and the Mackenzies of Kintail, and was then adjudged to be handed over to the Laird of Freuchie. In this agreement of 1597 both Grant and Macdonald lay claim to the lands, but it was arranged that the ownership should be decided by arbitration, Macdonald binding himself, of the Laird of Freuchie's title were preferred, to pay three rnerks of rent for every merk land in the territory. The matter was finally disposed of by John Grant of Freuchie, on 19th April 1600, conveying the disputed lands to Macdonald of Glengarry in feu-farm, and they solemnly renewed their
Alliance Vol. III of this work, p. 196. One obvious reason why Macdonald of Glengarry so anxiously desired to regain the castle of Strome, was that it afforded not only a basis of operations against the Mackenzies of Kintail, with whom he was at feud, but also a place of refuge for his own clansmen. Macdonald, however, did not possess the castle long after he finally obtained it from the Laird of Freuchie. Mackenzie of Kintail in the year 1602 besieged the castle, which soon surrendered, and he caused it to be demolished Gregory's Highlands and Isles, p. 302.

In connection with these transactions of the Laird with Glengarry, and the feuds betwixt the Macdonalds and the Mackenzies, a story is told very characteristic of the familiar relations betwixt a Highland chief and his clansmen, but in this case the familiarity tended to spoil a bargain for the Laird of Freuchie. The constant retaliations and bloodshed taking place between the Macdonalds of Glengarry and the Mackenzies, seem to have prompted Kenneth Mackenzie of Kintail to seek some course by which he might obtain a legal hold over his adversaries. He, therefore, attended by a body of his kinsmen, paid a visit to Ballachastell, to his uncle the Laird, John Grant, fifth of Freuchie, in whose time this incident is said to have happened, was cousin and not "uncle" to Kenneth Mackenzie of Kintail, with a view to purchase the claim of the latter against Glengarry, in virtue of the apprising already referred to. The Laird was at first unwilling to sell, but at last fixed the price of his claim at 30,000 merks. Mackenzie's kinsmen meanwhile were lodged in a great kiln in the neighbourhood, and were making merry with friends, some Grants among [178] the number, who were bearing them company, and thither their chief sent to inform them of his negotiations, and to ask if he should give the sum asked for Grant's claim against Glengarry. The messenger, after telling his tale, was ordered to return and tell Grant and Mackenzie that had they (Mackenzie's kinsmen) not hoped that the uncle would give that paper as a gift to his nephew after all his trouble, the latter would not have been allowed to cross the ferry of Ardersier. They would like to know where he could find such a large sum, unless he harried them and his other friends, who had already suffered sufficiently. Then, taking their arms, they bade the messenger tell Mackenzie to leave the paper where it was, but if he desired to have it, they would sooner fight for it than give a sum, the raising of which would be more difficult than dislodging Glengarry by force. The Mackenzies afterwards left the kiln and sent one of their own number for their chief, who, on his arrival, was soundly rated for entertaining such an extravagant proposal, and requested to leave the place at once. This Mackenzie agreed to do, and informed the Laird of Freuchie that his friends would not hear of his giving so large a sum, and that he would rather dispense with the claim against Glengarry altogether than lose the goodwill of his clansmen. Meanwhile, one of Freuchie's retainers, who had been in the kiln, related to his chief what had been said by the Mackenzies when the price was named to them, which so impressed the Laird and his friends, that Mackenzie, who was starting homewards, was prevailed upon to remain another night. He did so, and before morning obtained the desired "paper" for 10,000 merks, one-third of the sum originally asked History of the Mackenzies, 1879, pp. 163, 164.

This story is so far corroborated by the fact that, about the time the incident is said to have happened, the young chief of Kintail granted a receipt to the Laird of Freuchie for the charter of comprising, granted on
4th May 1548 to James Grant of Freuchie, which, with relative papers was now handed over to Mackenzie, in terms of a disposition by the Laird to him of lands in Kessoryne, Lochalsh, Lochcarron, etc. Original Discharge, dated 1st May 1606, at Castle Grant. This receipt however, is dated at Inverness, and not at Ballachastell, and is executed [179] on the same day with a bond of manrent betwixt the parties, obliging them to refer any disputes to the decision of various Grants and Mackenzies, mutual friends of the parties Vol. iii of this work, p. 201.

The Laird of Freuchie, pursuing his pacific policy, continued to make friendly bonds with neighbouring chiefs. On 3d September 1597, he received from John Stewart, Earl of Athole, as the Earl's "guid friend," a bond of maintenance, in token of the "dewtie, amitie, and freindschip" formerly existing between the families, and at the same time obtained from the Earl a lease of the lands of Clawalge (Clava), in Nairnshire, and of Kinnermony, in Banffshire, for five years, in continuation of his present occupancy Ibid. pp. 192-194. Two years later Lord Lovat and the Laird entered into a mutual submission of all questions and controversies betwixt them or their tenants, arising from mutual oppression Bond, dated 13th September 1599, ibid p. 19. A similar measure procured a formal discharge from John Lord Forbes, exonerating the Laird, his uncle, from all action for spuilzies committed by the Clan Grant Discharge, dated 11th June 1601, ibid. p. 197. Other mutual bonds of manrent and friendship with neighbouring proprietors were entered into at later periods of the Laird's lifetime. Of these the principal were:

A bond between the Laird and Alexander Dunbar of Westfield, on 18th September 1602; Vol. iii of this work, p. 199, the bond of manrent, already referred to, with Kenneth Mackenzie of Kintail, on 1st May 1606; a similar document, in which John Leslie of Kinninvie obliges himself to serve John Grant of Freuchie, dated 6th May 1607; Ibid. p. 204, and two bonds by clansmen to their chief, one by Patrick Grant of Carron, dated 8th September 1611 77. Ibid. p. 209, and another in the following year by Patrick Grant of Ballindalloch Original bond, dated 22d November 1612, at Castle Grant. As all those bonds are similar in tenor, the mere mention of them is sufficient. There can be little doubt they tended to render the Laird's occupation of his lands more peaceful, and to strengthen his influence in his neighbourhood. Indeed, the prudence and economy with which this Laird managed his affairs, and the large acquisitions of land he was thus enabled to make, earned for him, specially of all the Lairds of Grant, the title of "John of Fruchy." So [180] says Lachlan Shaw, who adds that, even in his day, more than one hundred years later, that applied par excellence to the subject of the present memoir Shaw's Moray, p. 31.

In 1602, the Laird of Freuchie was one of the first persons invested with powers to put down witchcraft in the Highlands. As is well known, King James the Sixth prided himself on his skill in dealing with those who pretended to be, or were accounted, conversant in the black art. An epidemic of superstition on the subject of witchcraft seems to have prevailed during his reign, and many fell victims to their imposture. Lachlan Shaw, in his History of Moray, says that charms, casting nativities, curing diseases by enchantments, and fortune-telling, were commonly practised, and firmly believed. Particular families, he also states, were believed to be haunted by certain demons, the good or bad geniuses of these families; such as on Speyside, the family of Rothiemurchus by Bodach an Don, i.e. the Ghost of the Dune; the Baron of Kinchardine's family, by Red Hand, or a Ghost, one of whose hands was blood red; and other families were believed to have similar attendants ibid. pp. 344, 345. Judging from the terms of a com mission to the Laird, the king desired to extend his spiritual care for his people to that part of the Highlands. The commission was directed to the Laird, Patrick Grant of Rothiernurchus, Patrick Grant of "Baldarroch" (Ballindalloch?), Mr. James Grant of Ardneidlie, and Mr. Patrick Grant, minister (of Cromdale or Advie), and is levelled against those accused "of witchcraft, sorcerie, inchautments," etc., within the territories of the Laird. It is stated that there are a great number of such persons within the bounds indicated, and that they had behaved with the greater boldness because no one had been authorised to proceed against them Vol. iii of this work, p. 198. It cannot be readily ascertained if this commission was acted upon. The chief chronicle of trials for witchcraft is contained in the session records of the various parishes, and these have not always been preserved. No evidence exists among the Grant muniments to show how it was carried out.

The influence acquired by the Laird of Freuchie led his neighbours and clansmen to apply to him as arbiter in their disputes, and peacemaker in their feuds. At Balmacaan, the residence of the Laird in Urquhart, [181] on 23d July 1606, Allan Cameron of Lochiel entered into a bond of mutual assistance and defence with Ranuil McAllan of Lundie and Allan McRanuil, his son, chiefs of the Clan Ranald of Glengarry, by which they were to assist and serve Lochiel at the advice and consent of the Laird of Freuchie Vol. iii of this work, p. 203. This document differs in no respect from other bonds of a similar nature, but one of the parties was Allan Dubh McRanuil, the leader of the Macdonalds of Glengarry in that raid against the Mackenzies, in the year 1603, known as the Raid of Gilliechriost. Tradition has, with its usual exaggeration, narrated this exploit with details of unwonted ferocity; but the true history of it, as told by one of the sufferers, resolves it into an ordinary Highland foray, in which cattle were driven off, a few men were slain, number of dwelling-houses burned, and greatest loss of all to the complainer, the Archdean of Ross, his library was destroyed. The particulars of the affair, however, fall to be told in the next memoir, that of Sir John Grant, who, in 1622, received a gift of the escheat of the principal offender.

The Laird also acted as arbiter in a submission between Patrick Grant of Tullochgorm and Patrick Grant of Carron, as to the amount of compensation for an attack upon a certain John Grant in Auchloney, at the church of Kirkmichael, and decided that £80 Scots should be paid by the offenders. 22. Submission dated 28th October 1608; vol. iii of this work, p. 207.

King James the Sixth appointed this Laird, conjointly with Sir Walter Ogilvie of Findlater, a commissioner to the Synod of Moray, to be held on the 4th August 1607 Vol. ii of this work, pp. 4, 5. This was an important charge, as the commissioners were to support the recently appointed Bishop of Moray in his introduction as head of the clergy in his diocese. The year 1606 had witnessed the restoration of tile order of Bishops, by Act of Parliament, to "their ancient and accustomed honours," etc., in accordance with the king's plans for the reconstruction of Episcopacy. The royal head of the newly established hierarchy was anxious that the men whom he had named as Bishops should be well received in their respective sees, and that they might gain possession of the temporalities as far as possible. The letter now addressed to the Laird shows the mode to be adopted. The Bishop was not to be thrust upon the Synod as Bishop, but as a "constant moderatour," and the [182] commissioners were to strengthen their position by the exhibition of an Act of Assembly authorising "constant moderatours in presbyteries and synods," and to urge obedience to that act. if the Synod refused obedience, or if the Bishop, being admitted, refused to act, the refusers were to be charged in the king's name to obey, and if still refractory they were to be denounced rebels, and the Synod dissolved. The commissioners were to declare the king's desire for the peace of the Church, and especially for a peaceable General Assembly, by which "some good shal be done and effected in the Church." To this end the commissioners were to cause the election by the Synod of Moray "of two of the most godlye, wise, and peaceably disposed" ministers, who might meet and confer with other similarly disposed clergymen from other Synods at a meeting appointed for the 27th August at Holyrood. This conference was to prepare a "peace able General Assembly," but if this plan failed through unwillingness or obstinacy on the part of the Synods, then the king threatened to put his "owne hande to that worke," and to redress matters "by authoritie."

The Bishop of Moray, in whose behalf the Laird of Freuchie was thus to bestir himself, was Alexander Douglas. He had, in 1606, been appointed constant moderator of the presbytery of Elgin, who, in January 1607, were ordered by the Privy Council to receive him as such under pain of rebellion. The Laird of Freuchie and his fellow-commissioner were to establish him as constant moderator of the Synod, and they no doubt succeeded in doing so, as he attended the General Assembly of 1610, which was the first that allowed the office of a bishop, and so was " peaceable" in the king's eyes.

As stated in the Introduction, the Laird of Freuchie, in the year 1609, added largely to his already extensive possessions by the acquisition of the lands of Abernethy from the Earl of Murray. He also acquired the lands of Cromdale from Thomas Nairn, commonly called Baron of Cromdale, and shortly afterwards obtained from the Crown an erection of these lands, along with those of Inverallan and others, into the Barony of Cromdale.

But while the Laird was thus successfully adding to his territorial possessions, he had still to arrange several disputes with his neighbours. Letters under the King's signet were directed against him as responsible for certain of his tenants in Kirichirdie and elsewhere, who had been guilty [183] of highway robbery Original Letters, dated 14th march 1611, at Castle Grant. In the following year the Laird himself was the complainer against another species of robbery committed against him and his tenants by John Forbes of Pitsligo. The latter was charged with pasturing his cattle upon lands belonging to the Grants, and also inciting the complainer's servants to quarrel. The Laird therefore procured letters of law-burrow against Forbes, which were duly executed Original Letters, dated 27th August 1612, ibid. About this time also the Laird brought to a conclusion another litigation between himself and Alexander Gordon of Strathown or Strathavon, which had dragged on in various forms from before the year 1595, and which, as it involved removal from lands, was of a vexatious character. The affair originated in an action of spoliation raised by the Laird of Strathavon, charging the Laird of Freuchie, as heir of his grandfather, with the offence of spoliation of trees, etc., in the complainer's lands of Drummin, Fodderletter, Inverouries, and others, and the forest of Glenavon. This spoliation, it was alleged, began so early as 1575. These lands or part of them, had been attached to the bailiary of Drummin Castle, when that was held by the Grants, although they formed the subject of disputes so early as 1495. The history of the lands, or the action regarding them, need not be recorded here; as by a contract betwixt the parties, dated at Edinburgh on 24th March 1612, the Laird of Freuchie gave up any claim he had to them.

But though this matter was so far amicably settled, the vexatious of the litigation, and the petty annoyance of the dispute with Forbes of Pitsligo who, as well as Gordon, was a vassal of the Marquis of Huntly, evidently tended to aggravate the estrangement between that nobleman and the Laird of Freuchie, and so to increase the troubles which followed. This animosity was further augmented by an agreement between the Earl of Argyll and Cameron of Lochiel, by which the Earl gained a footing in Lochaber as Lochiel's superior, The Mackintoshes and Clan Chattan, p. 293, as the agreement in question was drawn up, partly, at least, by the advice of the Laird of Freuchie. This may be surmised from two documents dated in the early part of the year 1612, and signed by Cameron of Lochiel.

[184] The first of these is a letter addressed to the Laird, in which Lochiel shows that he had reposed confidence in the Laird as to friendly dealings with Mackintosh, and that he attached much importance to the Laird's advice, in accordance with which he desired to act in all weighty affairs Vol. ii of this work, p. 40. This letter is dated 12th March 1612, and doubtless expresses the spirit with which Cameron executed the second document referred to, which must have been signed in the early part of 1612 Original Submission, dated in 1612, month and day blank, at Castle Grant. In this paper, which is a submission, John Grant of Freuchie is named as one of the arbiters on Cameron's side to arrange matters between him and the Earl of Argyll who had purchased a claim over the estate Lochiel. The claim was settled on 22d August 1612 by Cameron accepting a charter from Argyll as superior, and agreeing to hold his estate of the Earl instead of the Crown, for £100 yearly feu-duty Memoirs of Locheill, Maitland Club, p. 55.

The vassalage thus constituted greatly offended Huntly, who looked upon Argyll as his greatest rival in the Highlands, and was very the Earl's obtaining a footing in Lochaber, though the estates of Lochiel had held of the Crown and not of the Marquis. Huntly demanded that Lochiel should break his agreement, which the latter refused to do. The Marquis then resorted to measures of retaliation to punish his former ally for contumacy, but these ended at first in a triumph for Lochiel, and Huntly was so enraged, that he procured from the Privy Council a commission of fire and sword against the Camerons. Huntly intrusted the execution of this commission to his eldest son, the Earl of Enzie, who endeavoured to enlist the Laird of Mackintosh against the Camerons but that chief refused, and by so doing brought down upon himself the vengeance of the Gordons.

A claim made by Huntly in the year 1618, as to the tithes of Culloden belonging to Mackintosh, was opposed by the latter, who, in so doing, was supported by the Laird of Freuchie and Mackenzie of Kintail. At the time of tithing Huntly sent messengers to distrain the corn on the Culloden estate, but they were driven away by Mackintosh and his friends, who were by the Earl of Enzie pursued before the Privy Council [185] and denounced rebels. "Therupon," says Sir Robert Gordon, "the Earl of Enzie assembles a number of his most speciall freinds to goe strain and cast down the cornes of Culloden, and to leid them to Invernes. The Clan Chattan, the Grants, the Clan Cheinzie, doe still brag to hinder and stay him; Mackintoshie fortifies the house of Culloden with munition and shott, which wes by him committed to the custodie of his tuo uncles, Duncan and Laghlan; they draw all the comes within shott of the castell." At this point Sir Robert Gordon was called in, who, acting as peacemaker, advised Mackintosh not to provoke Bluntly further against himself, as he would be ruined if he did not submit in time. Sir Robert besought him not to act by the advice of the Laird of Grant or of Mackenzie, who desired only to further "their owne ends, trying if, by his fall, they might harm the house of Huntlie." Mackintosh, however, would not listen to Sir Robert, but followed the advice of the Laird of Freuchie, who was his father-in-law. The Earl of Enzie mustered a force of 1100 well-armed horsemen, and with these and 600 Highlanders on foot, he marched towards Culloden, with the intention of asserting his rights, but in the end, by the mediation of Sir Robert Gordon, Lord Lovat, and others, bloodshed was averted, and matters settled for the time betwixt the contending parties History of the Earldom of Sutherland, pp. 337-359.

In the above narrative the unfriendly feeling cherished by the Laird of Freuchie against the Marquis of Bluntly and the Gordons is very evident, and it may therefore readily be believed that he was not unwilling to advance the Earl of Argyll's influence in Lochaber as a rival to Huntly. Sir Robert Gordon states that about the year 1619 the Laird submitted himself to the Earl of Enzie, but that "jarrs and controversies" still continued until the deaths of the Laird of Freuchie and Sir Lachlan Mackintosh, who both died in 1622. Ibid. p. 360.

The Laird of Freuchie, as feuar of the Crown baronies of Urquhart, Glenmoriston, and Glencarnie, was required, by letters under the Signet, to pay his share of the £240,000 Scots voted to the King by the Parliament of Scotland, to defray the expenses of the marriage of the Princess Elizabeth and the Palatine of the Rhine. The proportion of that sum to be paid by the barons and freeholders was £80,000 Scots, and the Lairds [186] share was at the rate of eighteen shillings for every pound land of old extent Original Letters, dated October 1612, at Castle Grant. Part of the Laird's proportion was paid in 1612, and the whole amount for all his lands was paid on or before 15th December 1615 Discharges, dated October 1612, etc., ibid. pp. 130-132.

In the year 1612, the Laird received from the Privy Council an invitation to come to Edinburgh in his capacity as Convener of the Justices of Peace within his county. He was to attend on the 24th November with his records, and give an account to the Exchequer of the fines, etc., arising from his office, that the king's satisfaction in the establishment of justices might be increased by finding that in the preserving of the peace of his realm, there arose some gain to his "cofferis." Vol. ii of this work, p. 11.

If the Laird of Freuchie journeyed to Edinburgh in obedience to this summons, he no doubt, among other items of news in the capital, found a frequent subject of conversation to be the measures taken by the powerful Earl of Argyll against the proscribed Clan Gregor. From the date of the conflict betwixt that clan and the Colquhouns of Luss, at Glen Fruin on 7th February 1603, in which the Colquhouns were defeated, the Clan Gregor had been the subjects of constant prosecution. The acts of the Privy Counci1 against them had been very severe, and had been carried out by the Earl of Argyll and his adherents with great rigour. In 1606 the survivors of the clan had been ordered to lay aside the name of Macgregor, and assume other surnames, Collectanea de Rebus Albanicis, Iona Club, and now, in the end of 1612, further enactments against them were proposed. One of their most famous leaders, Robert Abroch Macgregor, was then engaging public attention, not only by the fame of his deeds, but by the interest made to King James the Sixth on his behalf, which, notwithstanding powerful opposition, had a favourable result Ibid. pp. 133-135.

The Laird of Freuchie had at this time fallen under the suspicion of the Government, or, at least, of Argyll's party, by sympathy shown to the expatriated Macgregors, some of whom had found a place of refuge on the Laird's territories. In the year 1606 a few of the Clan Gregor, when compelled to change their names, had taken the surname of Grant, and in a document to be afterwards referred to, it was made a charge against [187] the Laird that he had harboured the proscribed clan since the year 1610 Extract Submission and Decreet Arbitral, 25th February 1615, at Castle Grant. This led him into communication with those in authority on the subject of the Clan Gregor, and a letter addressed to the Laird by the Earl of Argyll, dated 18th March 1613, Vol. ii of this work, p. 12. refers to promises made to the King by Lord Scone in name of the Laird. The Earl desired that the Laird of Freuchie would act in the matter "as ye wald have his Maiestie to thinke well of your doeinges, otherwise you may be assur'd of his Majesties indignation," with a further hope that the Laird would "have a special care to do his Maiestie good service." Vol. ii of this work, p. 12

The immediate occasion of the Earl of Argyll's letter was a royal missive of some days' earlier date (11th March 1613), directed from the Court to the Laird of Freuchie, intimating that the only outlaws now remaining of the Clan Gregor were such as were harboured on the Laird's estates, namely, Allester - McAllester Vreik and Duncan McVcEandowie, with their followers. His Majesty writes that Lord Scone would have persuaded him that the Laird neither allowed nor was privy to the favour shown to the outlaws; "yet," he adds, "we will rest in suspens till suche tyme as by your future actionis yow give proofs of your bigane cariage in this errand." The king then refers to Lord Scone's promise on the Laird's behalf, that the latter would do service against "these lymmers," and states that betwixt Lord Scone and the Earl of Argyll certain conditions were agreed on concerning the Laird, adding significantly, "whiche we wil haue cair to see performit according as your future service shall merite." Ibid. p. 6.

The Laird of Freuchie being thus urged, both by the king and the powerful Argyll, bestirred himself to remove their suspicion of his good faith. He succeeded in apprehending one of "the speciallis" of the Clan Gregor, the above-named Allester McAllester McGregor, who is described as a "notorious and rebellious Hieland man." This fact is recorded in a remission granted to the Laird in the year 1613 Vol. iii of this work, p. 214, month and day blank. In the early part of that year (17th April) the Laird received a special commission, in which Lord Scone and James Campbell of Lawers, acting for the Earl of Argyll [188] empower the Laird of Grant, as having testified his willingness to do good service against the Clan Gregor, to meet and intercommune with any of that clan, although rebels Vol. iii of this work, p. 213. By this it is evidently meant that the Laird and the small company of ten persons who were authorised to attend him should, within a specified time, hold a parley with the outlaws within his bounds, and endeavour to induce them to submit to his Majesty. But as intercommuning with the Macgregors was then a crime to which heavy penalties were attached, Lord Scone and his co-lieutenant bound themselves to secure the Laird and his servants from these penalties until the 20th of June following, when this commission for parley was to expire. After that date it was probably understood that the Laird should adopt severe measures to bring the Macgregors to justice, if they did not yield to pacific dealings. The remission referred to was made to the Laird of Freuchie, Patrick Grant of Ballindalloch, and other Grants, their kinsmen, and frees them from all fines and penalties incurred by neglect of the laws in resetting outlaws and not bringing them to justice, in terms of the Acts of Parliament of 1587 and general bond already referred to. It imports that the Laird and his dependants had been specially active, and had taken "extraordiner panes and travellis" (trouble) in suppressing the Clan Gregor, and arresting the outlaw named.

It has already been narrated in this memoir that the Laird of Freuchie was, in 1590, bound to assist Sir Duncan Campbell of Glenorchy, with his whole force if necessary, against the Clan Gregor, who had shortly before excited popular indignation by the horrible murder of Drummond of Drummondernoch. Previous to the mild remonstrance of the king and Argyll, the Laird's proceedings against the Macgregors had never been very active, and, as already stated, partly for his own purposes and partly on the pretext of a royal commission, he had in 1592 entered into a league, offensive and defensive, with one of the chiefs of that clan. This offence against the letter of the laws, though overlooked at the time, owing to the excitement attendant on the murder of the Earl of Murray, was probably looked upon now as an aggravation of the Laird's offences against the Government, and especially against the Earl of Argyll, the king's lieutenant, [189] who held a special commission to extirpate the Clan Gregor. At all events the Government do not appear to have been satisfied with the management of the Laird of Freuchie in this affair, for though in the royal remission of 1613, just quoted, the Laird and his clan were acquitted of the fines and penalties to which they had become liable, yet, at a later date, a large sum was exacted from them. The reasons given for the infliction of this fine are narrated in a submission entered into betwixt the Earl of Argyll, the exacting party, and the Laird of Freuchie, and repeated in a decreet arbitral pronounced by David Murray, Lord Scone, and Archibald Primrose, writer, the arbiters named in the submission Extract Submission and Decreet, dated 27th August 1614 and 3d February 1615, at Castle Grant.

These arbiters were chosen to decide regarding "the tryall of Johnne Grant of Freuchie his resett of John Dow Roy, sane to vmquhile Duncan McDuchan McGregour, since the tyme that he associat himself with the rebellis of the Clangregour;" the trial of the "Laird of Grant, his unlauchfull and wilfull resett of any of the Clangregour since thay war declarit rebellis and fugitiwes," viz., since 1610, and other similar charges. Also regarding the sum to be paid by the Laird, he "being fund guyltie and culpable," to the Earl of Argyll, first for his own part and secondly for his clan; and regarding all other claims by the Earl against the Laird for reset of or intercourse with the Clan Gregor. The arbiters unanimously found that the Laird of Freuchie, for himself and the various members of his clan named, should pay the sum of 16,000 merks as a composition of all the sums in which they were mulcted by decree of the Lords of Privy Council. This fine was promptly paid, the whole sum being discharged by the Crown receivers within a few days after the decreet arbitral was pronounced Extract Acquittance for 16,000 merks, dated 25th February 1615, ibid.

In connection with the same business, the Laird had also to meet claims made against his clansmen. A discharge is extant, granted by Archibald Primrose and another to Sir John Grant of Freuchie, which acknowledges payment of 2000 merks, a fine imposed upon Grant of Rothiemurchus by the Privy Council, in July 1613, for intercourse with the Clan Gregor, the Laird being cautioner Original Discharge, dated 7th May 1624, ibid. For these or other expenses, the Laird seems to have [190] taken means of recouping himself, in a way not agreeable to the ecclesiastical authorities. So much, at least, may be gathered from a letter addressed by John Spottiswood, Archbishop of St. Andrews, to the Laird of Grant, on 16th June 1616, a year after the fine was inflicted and paid, that the Laird was "abstractinge the rentis of the kirk from the right use," and applying them to his own purposes Vol. ii of this work, p. 41. The epistle in question is somewhat mutilated, but its terms are intelligible enough, and the picture which the Archbishop draws of the state of the kirks in Strathspey is a melancholy one, while he boldly denounces the Laird as the cause of the "desolatioun." The writer states that the Laird's conduct, as reported on, is "planly vnsufferable," and hopes that the Laird will not be so "irreligiouse" as to despise all warnings. The Archbishop concludes by desiring the Laird to provide the churches with competent stipends, and threatens "a more strict and rigorous dealinge" if compliance be refused. No further information on this point has been obtained, but if the Laird declined to listen to the Archbishop's warning, the impoverished churchmen were doubtless righted by the Act of Parliament of the following year, in which stipends were assigned out of the teinds.

In the beginning of the year 1615, the Laird of Freuchie again journeyed from the north to Edinburgh. His residence in that city during the months of January and February of that year is proved by an account of expenditure made on his behalf. The arrangement with the Earl of Argyll, and the payment of the fine of 16,000 merks above referred to, engaged his attention, as also did the obtaining of letters of legitimation for his natural son, Duncan Grant of Clurie Original Account of Expenses at Castle Grant. The time of the Laird's sojourn in the Metropolis was also, however, occupied with matters other than those personal to himself. He was one of those summoned to sit as an assize on the trial of Patrick Stewart, second Earl of Orkney, for oppression and treasonable practices within his earldom of Orkney Pitcairn's Criminal Trials, vol iii pp. 308-318.

The Earl had been imprisoned in 1611, but was now brought to trial because he had instigated an attempt, made in 1614, to seize and hold his castle and rents, which had been confiscated to the Crown. A historian of that period states that if he had not confessed his share in the insurrection, [191] he would not have been convicted. Many of the noblemen and barons who were summoned on the jury refused to appear on various pretexts, the inclemency of the season among others. The Laird of Grant's presence in Edinburgh, however, prevented his thus withdrawing from the assize, as it is said "the wiser and elder sort of the nobilitie" did, and he was therefore one of those who, on 1st February 1615, found the Earl of Orkney guilty of treasonable rebellion, for which crime, five days after wards, that nobleman was beheaded Pitcairn's Criminal Trials, vol. iii p. 318.

When King James the Sixth visited his ancient kingdom of Scot land in the year 1617, the Privy Council made great efforts to welcome his Majesty, and, among others, the Laird of Freuchie was called upon to contribute his quota to the general entertainment, in the shape of caper eailzies and ptarmigan. The Council in their letter earnestly request that "resounable prouisioun and stoir of eache kynd of thir foullis" may be sent "freshe and callour" by the 25th April 1317, in time to be forwarded to New castle to greet his Majesty, who seems to have been anxious to have them Vol. ii of this work, p. 12. The Council gave permission, the better to forward his Majesty's wishes, to the Laird and his servants "for shoiting and slaying of thir foullis with gwnis."

About this period the Laird of Freuchie had a dispute with Alexander Seton, Earl of Dunfermline, then Chancellor of Scotland, about the non-entries of the lands of Muldaries, and others held of the Earl of Rothes, who was then apparently a ward of the Chancellor. The Lords of Council, on 31st March 1618, gave decree against the Laird of Freuchie for the rent of the lands from 1612, Horning at Castle Grant, but the matter was finally arranged by a disposition and discharge granted to the Laird by the Earl of Rothes, with the Chancellor's consent, Disposition, dated 9th January 1619, at Castle Grant. At this time, also, there is evidence of the "jarrs and controversies" between the Laird of Freuchie and the Gordons in a charge of lawburrow made by the Marquis of Huntly against the Laird and his son, Sir John Grant of Mulben. The two Grants are charged with causing depredations by themselves or their tenants on the complainer's lands of Strathavon, and are ordered to find security for good behaviour Copy Letters of Lawburrow, ibid.

[192] The remaining incidents of this Laird of Freuchie's active career, so far as can be gathered from the family muniments, are few. In 1620 he and his son, Sir John Grant, were appointed depute Commissioners to carry out the various Acts of the Privy Council directed against the Gipsies, who were then known as "idill and wagabund peopill," and gave considerable trouble, from their numbers as well as their lawless character, Vol. iii of this work, p. 216. The last public document in which the Laird is named is a royal letter, in which he is directed to co-operate with Sir Lachlan Mackintosh in carrying fire and sword into the territories of the Clan Cameron Copy Letters, of date 18th June 1622, at Castle Grant. Sir Lachlan Mackintosh, whose resentment against the Laird of Lochiel had prompted him to represent matters at Court in such wise as to procure the royal missive and the more formal commission which followed, died on 22d June 1622, while on his way north to execute it The Mackintoshes and Clan Chattan, p. 308.

His death occurred at Gartinbeg, in Strathspey, from which it would appear he was hastening to secure the Laird of Freuchie's assistance. The latter, however, is said to have been friendly to Cameron, though, whatever his sentiments, he had little opportunity of giving effect to them, as he only survived his son-in-law Sir Lachlan Mackintosh for three months, dying on Friday, 20th September 1622 Vol. iii of this work p. 221. No evidence exists as to where this Laird died, but it was probably at Ballachastell, and his remains were interred in the family burial-place at the church of Duthil, where, twenty-one years afterwards, his widow desired to be laid beside him Ibid. p. 236.

The Laird was survived by his wife, Lady Lilias Murray, second daughter of Sir John Murray of Tullibardine, knight, who in 1606 was created Earl of Tullibardine, and his wife, Catherine Drummond, daughter of David Lord Drummond. The marriage-contract of Lilias Murray and the Laird of Freuchie is dated at Gask, on 15th April 1591, Original Contract at Castle Grant, and Lachlan Shaw records that King James the Sixth and his Queen honoured the marriage with their presence. Shaw's Moray, p. 32: There is a tradition in the family that the King desired, in the year 1610, to raise this Laird to the dignity of the peerage. The offer was not accepted. The significant interrogatory, " Wha'll be Laird o' Grant?" which is well known, and often quoted, is said to have been made on that occasion, although it has also been attributed to a later Laird of Grant. Lady Lilias Murray survived her husband [193] for twenty-one years, dying in the end of 1643 or the beginning of the following year. Her testament and latter will is dated on 30th December 1643 Vol. iii. of this work, p. 236.

She also survived her son, Sir John Grant, who died in 1637. From the evidence of the Grant muniments, she seems to have been a lady of much vigour of character. She took an active interest in the affairs of the Grant family, and was greatly respected by her family and neighbours. Taylor the Water-Poet, who visited Lady Lilias and her husband at Ballachastell in 1618, as stated in the Introduction, was much pleased with her, and he records that she was, both inwardly and outwardly, plentifully endowed with the gifts of grace and nature. That Lady Lilias Murray was a reader, and had, for these days, a good if not very varied collection of books, is proved by a list of her own library given under her own hand Vol. ii of this work, p. 54. In this list, St. Augustine, and the "Imitation of Christ" occupy a place. In corroboration of the Water-Poet's eulogium Lady Lilias, the following two poems in her own handwriting are here given. If they be original, they bear out his statement; if they be merely copies, they yet show that the lady's tastes were congenial to the poet's own. The first poem is as follows:


Dovn in yong bank,
Qvhair leves groves rank,
And flovris do frechlie spreng,
I hard ane may
Bothe galland and gey,
Chengand her nott to sing
Scho sparet nott to schewe her thocht
Vill vod and all kovld ring,
I dar veil! say be my gvd fay
Sho vos ane lviffer yeing.

Sho sicht and said my ivif is laid
On on that hes my hart,
Qvhilk cavsses me so blytthe to be
In to my hart invartt;
God geve that he vor bvnd to me
And never to depairtt,
That he and I micht leive and dey
In land or onie artt.

[194] He is my confort nicht and day
My joy and my delyt;
He is the cavsser of my kair
The aisser of my smartt;
He is my joy and my veilifair
In perrades perffytt
In all thes warlid I bad no m(a)ir
Bott hes fair bodie qvhyt.

Thocht he cvm sindell in my sicht
I se hem bothe let and aer,
Veil! prenttet in my breist so bricht
Hes pektor vithovt compair.
He lyes vith me bothe day and nicht,
The ttrewttlie I yov deklair,
In to my hartt so deirlie dicht
He hes ane chaflnier ther.


The second lay is in a somewhat more melancholy strain, and may be intended as the swain's reply to the foregoing:

The grisileig golif of grepein gref
Filid vp vith vallttreng stremes of vu,
The masket mvmchanc of mescheif
Vitli mariades of thocht and mo,
And fanssies fleittein to and fro
My martret mynd, do so molest,
(Ewin better bell dothe brek in tvo)
The bovellis of my bolleng breist.

The corraseives of cankrein kair
Dothe still consom my katteif cors,
I se and cannot slep the snair
Bott yeilld my nek to yok perfors;
And ay sen absens did devors
Me from her sicht in qvhom I glore,
To seik remed findis no remors
To martter me may do no mor.

Cvpeitt, qvhom svld 1 vyt bot the
For all the dollovr I svstein,
Long micht I leivet at leiberttie
Cvlld I achewett yovr arroves kein;
[195] Thy dovbell delleng that day vos sein,
Thov schot me smylleng or I visst
And of my hart bereft me clein,
Thov tvik me, ttratovr, onder tryst.

Thov did reteir the schaft of trie
And left the hed vithin my hart
O vinget god! it mervellis me
Qvhov thov prevellis in evre pairtt;
To hell thy hvrtt avelles no airtt,
Thy dartt so pvssionet is of kynd,
The mor I seik to ais my smartt
The mor molest that is my mynd.

For me I thocht the perrellis past
Of all the hewked arrovris fyve,
Tho forttovn brocht me in at last
To yew the virdiest on lyve;
Bot sen I micht no longer stryue,
Her rar perfeksiovnes med me thrall
And svddandly did me depryve
Off former leiberttie and all.


By Lady Lilias Murray, John Grant, fifth Laird of Freuchie, had issue one son and four daughters, who all survived their father Vol. iii of this work, p. 221 The son was:
John Grant, born on 17th August 1596. He was knighted by King James the Sixth, and was, during his father's lifetime, known as Sir John Grant of Mulben. He is the subject of the next memoir.
The daughters were : Ibid
1. Annas or Agnes, born about Michaelmas 1594. She married Lachlan, afterwards Sir Lachlan, Mackintosh of Dunachton, then minor. The marriage-contract is dated at Ballachastell, 16th August 1611, Ibid. p. 410. the amount of the dowry to be paid by the Laird of Freuchie being 10,000 merks. Lady Mackintosh had issue by her husband, whom she survived. She probably died in 1624, as her will is dated at the Isle of Moy on 9th October in that year. [196] She married a second time, as William McIntosh is named by her in her will as "my husband," but who he was does not appear Vol. iii of this work, p. 337.
2. Jean or Janet, born about Michaelmas 1597. On 19th September 1612, she was contracted in marriage to William Sutherland, younger of Duffus, the tocher being 9500 merks. Ibid p. 411. They had issue.
3. Lilias, born in 1599. She married, before 1624, Sir Walter Times of Balveny, and had issue.
4. Katherine, born in 1604. She married Alexander Ogilvie of Kempcairn, and had issue.

This Laird had also a natural son, Duncan Grant, designed of Clurie, who was legitimated in the year 1615. He married, contract dated 4th July 1615, Ibid. p. 418, Muriel Ross, relict of Duncan Grant of Rothiemurchus, and was the ancestor of the Grants of Clurie.

Volume 1 Chapter 12