"The Chiefs of Grant" (1883) by Sir William Fraser
Volume I, Chapter 16(i)

BRIGADIER GENERAL ALEXANDER GRANT OF GRANT, ELIZABETH STEWART (OF MURRAY), HIS FIRST WIFE, 1699, ANNE SMITH, HIS SECOND WIFE, 1709. 1716-1719.

[331] ALEXANDER GRANT was the second born but eldest surviving son of I4udovick Grant of Grant, and his first wife, Janet Brodie of Lethen. His first appearance in public life was as a commissioner of supply for the shires of Inverness and Elgin in 1698 Acts of Parliaments of Scotland, vol. x. p. 132. He was also one of the Commissioners of Justiciary for the northern counties, and travelled on circuit to Keith and Kincardine in January and March 1702, and signed warrants for the incarceration of various Highland depredators, Original Warrants at Ballindalloch. He was also, on 24th February 1703, appointed by Queen Anne Sheriff-principal of the shire of Inverness, Original Commission at Castle Grant. He sat in the Scotch Parliaments of 1703, 1704, 1705, and 1706, Acts of Parliaments of Scotland, vol. xi. pp. 30, 114, 207, 301. The date of his Commission as Member for Invernessshire is 6th October 1702, as member for the shire of Inverness, in the first three years or sessions, jointly with his father, and in the fourth and last session of the Parliament 1706-1707, as sole member for that shire. He took part in the debates on the Act of Security, and, with his father, supported Robert Dundas of Arniston in a protest by the latter that no clause to be inserted in that Act should prejudice the Lawful rights of the shires or their representatives Acts of Parliaments of Scotland vol. xi. p. 73. On 5th August 1704, young Grant protested in favour of a petition by his father and the Earl of Sutherland regarding certain claims they had against the Government. He was, in that year, again appointed a commissioner of supply.

The young Laird of Grant was one of the commissioners appointed on behalf of Scotland to treat for a union with England. The Commission appointing him and the other Scotch commissioners was dated on 27th February 1706, Ibid. App. p. 162; The original Commission is in HM. General Register House. Edinburgh; and the Lords commissioners of both kingdoms met for the first time on 16th April following. Mr. Grant was not present at the [332] earlier meetings, his name appearing in the proceedings for the first time on the 9th of May, Acts of Parliaments of Scotland, vol xi App. p. 168, but from that date he constantly attended the sittings of Commission, and signed his name with the others to the Articles of Union on 22d July 1706 Ibid. p. 204.

Of the memorable Scottish Parliament which followed, and which began its Session on 3d October 1706, Mr. Grant was a member, taking part in all but a few unimportant divisions on the subject of the Union, and always voting on the side of the Government Ibid. vol. xi pp. 312-422, passim. In the last recorded division of the Parliament, which took place upon the question whether the quota of the "Equivalent" to be paid to the Darien Company in terms of the treaty, should be paid to the directors or to the individual stock holders, Mr. Grant voted that it should be paid to the stockholders, which was done. Mr. Grant was one of the thirty representatives of counties appointed by the Scots Parliament to sit in the first British Parliament.

Although Mr. Grant's entrance into public life was as a legislator, he did not confine himself to that calling, but entered the army, in which he rose to high command. On 4th March 1706, he received a commission from Queen Anne appointing him colonel and captain of a regiment of foot in Scotland, formerly commanded by John Earl of Mar, and which is said to have been raised in 1702, Commission and Draft Memorial at Castle Grant. It is not improbable that he was appointed to this high rank as a recognition of his father's services to the Government, but the chronicler who treats of his father's life ascribes the young Laird's advancement also to political reasons. Referring to the transfer by the Laird to his son of the leadership of the clan, as narrated in the previous memoir, the writer says: "The young Laird, a few weeks after this, wrote letters to all the chieftains of clans in the Highlands. What their contents were is not published, but the report of them reaching the Ministry, they thought it prudent, as there was an invasion always threatening from France in favour of the Pretender, not to lose such a powerful friend as the Laird of Grant." They therefore judged it advisable as they believed him disobliged by the difficulties [333] made as to the indemnity, that the Earl of Mar, then appointed Secretary of State, The Earl of Mar was Secretary in 1706, and Lord Leven, Commander-in-Chief of the forces in Scotland, should write the young Laird in a friendly manner, and urge his coming to Court with all despatch. He obeyed, and was offered the Earl of Mar's regiment, then vacant, with power to fill up blank commissions for such friends as he thought proper. The offer, it is said, gratified the young man's ambition, and he accepted the regiment, MS. Anecdotes at Castle Grant.

The large sums of money expended by Ludovick Grant, and the losses incurred by his family and tenants, amounted, in the year 1695, as has been shown, to the large sum of £12,000 sterling. Although the Scottish Parliament passed a special Act recommending the payment of this sum, no part of it had been received from the Government. In March 1707, Colonel Grant, on behalf of his father, again petitioned the Scottish Parliament to consider the losses sustained by the family, and the petition was duly recommended to Queen Anne, but as the Parliament of Scotland dissolved on 28th April following, never to meet again, no progress was made in the matter.

After the Treaty of Union was completed, and the terms of it became publicly known in Scotland, much indignation was at first expressed at a measure which, it was asserted, would deprive the nation of its independence. This feeling prompted many to look to the Court of St. Germains for aid in this crisis, and many combinations were formed on behalf of the exiled royal family. They, on the other hand, were aware of the national feeling arising in Scotland, and with the consent of the French King sent over agents to obtain intelligence and form schemes for a restoration. The most prominent of these emissaries was Colonel Hooke, an English refugee residing in France, but his conduct was injudicious, and in the end contributed nothing to the success of his mission. He overlooked a party of men who, upon very slight inducement, would at that time have mustered strongly for the Stewart cause, without making such stringent conditions as did the more timid Lowlanders. These were the chiefs of the Highland clans, who at this time do not seem to have been appealed to in any effectual manner. But that it was contemplated to influence them may [334] he inferred from a letter in which David, third Earl of Leven, then Commander-in-chief of the forces in Scotland, instructed Colonel Grant to take measures against two persons suspected of designs against the Government. The Earl writes, on 9th September 1707, "1 am certainly informed that John and Robert Murrays, brother-germans to the Laird of Abbercairny, are returned from France to land, and that upon treason able designes against the Government. I am informed that they have been in the north, and it is more than probable that they will be much in your countrey dureing thair ahoad in this pairt of the kingdome. The Earle Marshell, Earl of Arroll (Errol), and Duke of Gordoune, their famillies and interests, I presume are the places where they are lickliest to haunt when in the Low Country, and when they goe to the Highlands you can make a better judgement then I what will be their haunts." The Earl remarks upon the importance of securing these two gentlemen and their papers, and also that it was more especially a duty for the military. He expresses his great confidence in the colonel's ability to manage the affair, and adds, "I doe therefore earnestly desyre that you use your outmost diligence to informe yourselfe off and to secure those persones with their papers if possible." The utmost secrecy, however, was to be observed. The Earl also desires to be informed regarding a reported "Highland hunting" to be held 'by the Duke of Gordon, Vol. ii of this work, p. 28.

At least one of the persons named in the above letter was associated with the celebrated Simon Fraser of Beaufort, better known as Lord Lovat, when the latter, in 1702 or 1703, was sent on a special mission to the Highland Chiefs, who, however, distrusted him and rejected his overtures, The Reign of Queen Anne, by J. Hill Burton, vol. i p. 330. Lord Leven's anxiety about the Duke of Gordon's reported hunting-match arose from the fact that Lovat had proposed under such a guise to draw the Highland clans together and raise the standard of insurrection. But though a person who had been thus associated was naturally an object of suspicion to the Government, it does not appear whether the report of Murray's mission was correct, and there is no evidence regarding any further procedure by Colonel Grant.

[335] In the following year, 1708, the first elections in Scotland of members of the first British Parliament took place. Colonel Grant was elected as member for the shire of Inverness, Original Commission at Castle Grant, dated 21st June 1708. Besides attending to his own election by his old constituency, the Colonel naturally interested him self in the elections in the neighbourhood of his own property, and was present in Elgin shortly after the first nomination (on 26th May 1708) Of a member for the district of burghs of which Elgin was one. While in the town he was made the subject of popular displeasure, apparently on account of the support given by him to the Union. On 4th June following lie writes to an agent in Edinburgh, "Major Clephan will give you a full account of the insulencie happned me and some officers at Elgine upon the 2d inst. . . . he was to waite upon the Earle of Leven and receave his directions, and then will tell you what method to follow, and order money for doeing it. . . . I can make no particular libell (accusation) in the matter, since, except the magistrats, there was not four people in town but were concerned in it, so it must run against the whole. I expect your care in this, for I never met with such a piece of impudence done me, tho at the samen (time) it was the samen thing to them if they could but maul any body that either served the Queen or was well affected to the Government." Original Letter at Castle Grant.

In view probably of the threatened French invasion, which proved so futile, Queen Anne on 18th March 1708, issued a warrant, authorising Colonel Grant to increase the number of men in his regiment by receiving recruits or volunteers. The regiment tinder his command consisted of nine companies. Three other companies were to be added, and the whole was to consist of twelve companies, with fifty-nine rank and file in each, and a corresponding number of commissioned and non-commissioned officers. On 3d April two other regiments in Scotland, commanded respectively by William Lord Strathnaver and Major-General Maitland, were put upon the footing, while the regiment of Foot Guards commanded by the Marquis of Lothian, was augmented from thirty-six privates in each of the sixteen companies to severity men, and officers in proportion, with two companies of grenadiers, Copies of Warrants, ibid.

[336] The increased force under Colonel Grant's command was not, however, to be used in Scotland. Colonel Grant received from the Earl of Leven, Commander-in-Chief for Scotland, a sudden order to repair to Stirling, where his regiment lay, and to call in all the officers absent on recruiting duty or on leave, Original Order, dated 2d August 1708, at Castle Grant. Two days afterwards Lord Leven, in a private note, explains the cause of this sudden summons. He says, "I have reason to believe that your regiment will be ordered abroad. I have ordered all officers to their posts, but they know nothing of the reason, and its absulutly nesisar that this be keep'd a secret, for if officers know it, the souldiers soon will, and then desertion will follow." Original Letter, dated 4th August 1708, ibid. Shortly after this the regiment received their route and began the march, passing through Musselburgh, Prestonpans, and Tranent about the 12th of October 1708, Order for quarters, ibid. They followed the east coast road to Cockburnspath, where they were to have been inspected by the Earl of Leven, but he was prevented from meeting them, Vol. ii of this work, p. 29. From Cockburnspath they were to march to Newcastle, thence to embark for London. About the beginning of November they sailed from Newcastle to the Nore, and towards the end of the same month they were quartered at Canterbury and other towns in the neighbourhood, there to remain till further orders, Ibid. pp. 30, 31.

It would appear that the regiment was ordered to Flanders to join the Duke of Marlborough, then in the zenith of his military fame, who, towards the end of the year 1708, was besieging Lille in Flanders. Though there is no clear evidence on the point, yet the fact stated by Colonel Grant in a memorial dated in 1711, that his regiment had then been nearly three years abroad, warrants the supposition that Colonel Grant and his men joined the allied army about this time; and in the private note referred to, Lord Leven indicated that the Colonel would receive orders either from Court or from the Duke of Marlborough. The latter also, in a letter to an officer at Antwerp, speaks of the projected arrival of two regiments from Scotland, and implies that they were to reach Flanders before the 20th November 1708, Marlborough's Despatches: Sir George Murray, 1845, vol. iv p. 313. Colonel Grant, however, [337] either did not accompany his regiment abroad, or received leave of absence, as on 7th April 1709 he signed at London a contract of marriage between himself and his second wife, Anne Smith, daughter of John Smith, Esquire, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and formerly Speaker of the House of Commons.

The exact date of the marriage ceremony does not appear, but it was celebrated previous to 31st May 1709; for in a letter to his brother-in-law, Hugh Rose of Kilravock, bearing that date, and written from London, the Colonel speaks of his having altered his condition by marriage. From this letter the fact is gleaned that his father had declined to subscribe his marriage contract, apparently until he received an account of how certain "particular sunis" of money had been applied. This proved no small disappointment to Colonel Grant, who protests with some warmth of feeling his ability to satisfy his father when he had his papers before him, and his willingness to pay what he could not account for. He adds with reference to his marriage, "Now I thank God it is done, for I am very hapily married, and the longer I try it I find it the better, both as to my wife and her relations, for I can swear my own father and mother, were they both alive, could not be fonder of me nor kinder to me than they are."

The Colonel's journey to Flanders was further postponed on account of impaired health. In the letter just quoted he refers to this, and also states his intention of setting out to rejoin his regiment on 7th June. lie says, "I have been these three weeks past upon a very fair lay for a journey to the other world, haveing been ill of a reurnatism, accompanied with ane ague and fever. The ague was to that degree, that for ten days I was obliged to shift my linnen four and five tyms a night, I swat so excessively. I am now, I thank God, better, and goe Friday next for Flanders and I fancy you '1 be so charitable as to believe nothing but indisposition of body could have kept me so long from thence." He adds at the close of the letter, "I am much weakened by my sickness, and fallen away so much, that I was forc't the other day to take in my scarlet suite, mounted with black, three full inches; but I hope exercise will recover me. If we have a cessation of arms, I dessign to goe to Aix La Chappell." Original Letter at Castle Grant.

[338] Colonel Grant's regiment seems to have been quartered at Ghent, Antwerp, Tournai, and other places round the seat of war; and an order from the States-General of the Netherlands was issued on 15th April 1709, for marching it with expedition, and fully equipped, from Antwerp to Ryssel, Original Order at Castle Grant. The Colonel commanded his regiment in person in September 1709, when he took part in the siege of Mons. In a letter from the camp before that place to his brother-in-law, Colonel William Grant, Colonel Grant writes: "Upon Weddinsday last we broke ground before this place in two places, with very litle loss. One Thursday, Coll. Hill lost betwixt 70 and 80 men, killed and wounded. Among the latter was his Luet.-Coll.; and yesternight his Major was killed. I mounted the breaches with my regiment one Saturday, and had but one man killed, and three wounded very slightly." He adds: "I dare not venture to tell you my opinion of this siedge, further then if the weather does continue so rainy as it has been these four days past, its very hard to know when we shall have the toune; but if the weather had proved good, we should certainly have taken it in three weeks after breaking of ground. However, if our Generall does not spare the toune, by not bombarding of it, as it should be, for a reason you may guess at, we shall be masters of it in a short tyme. This day we have two batteries of 48 pieces of great cannon mounted. They play very hard, but don't as yet fire at the toune." Original Letter, 21st September 1709, ibid.

The following summer the Colonel was on garrison duty at Tournai, as he writes from that place to his sister, Anne, afterwards wife of Lieutenant Colonel William Grant of Ballindalloch, giving her directions as to the building of certain stables at Castle Grant. In that letter the Colonel refers to the capitulation of the town of Douai, but states that he was not present. He also mentions that his regiment is to take the field in the following week, which he prefers to being on garrison duty, Vol. ii of this work, p. 92.

The second regiment referred to in the despatch by the Duke of Marlborough, quoted above, was most probably that of Lieut.-General Maitland. This may be inferred from a letter by the Duke of Marlborough [339] to General Maitland, dated at Tournai, 20th April 1710, intimating that the former was favourable to the carrying out of Colonel Grant's wishes, who desired to purchase the command of General Maitland's regiment. On the same date the Duke writes to Lord Islay, stating in answer that he had no desire whatever to inflict any hardship on General Maitland, but that the Duke had seen no reason to refuse Colonel Grant's proposal, as he was not aware of Lord Islay's opposition in the matter. The Duke adds, how ever, that Lieut. -General Maitland has declined to dispose of his command. He also writes, apparently in reply to some special objection made by Lord Islay to Colonel Grant's purchase, "As to what you mention of the notion that it might not be safe to have the command in the Highlands entrusted with one that has an interest there, I am quite of a different opinion, and shall always think the Queen's interest and service very secure wherever your Lordship is concerned." The Marlborough Despatches: Sir George Murray, vol. iv pp. 722, 723.

An order was issued by the Duke of Marlborough from the camp at Vilen Brulin for a general court-martial, to consist of Colonel Grant as president, and twelve other field officers or captains of foot, for the trial of various crimes and disorders committed among the foot of Her Majesty's forces in the Low Countries, of which the Duke had been informed. The Court was authorised to summon witnesses to hear and examine by affidavit and otherwise all such matters and informations as should be brought before them, and after full trial and examination to give judgment, and report the same to the Duke, Order, dated 26th August 1710, at Castle Grant.

Colonel Grant did not take part in this court-martial, as on the 30th of August he obtained four months' leave to return home to England, Original Furlough, ibid. He must, however, have anticipated his official pass, for on the 24th of that month, he and some other officers were crossing the channel from Ostend to Dover, when their vessel was captured by a French privateer, and the were carried prisoners to France, Draft Memorial, ibid. But they were not detained long, being allowed to proceed to Scotland on their private affairs only, under obligation to return at the close of two months, if they were not exchanged by that time. The official pass, signed by the French [340] King, is dated 7th September 1710, and among the officers included in it is one Captain Louis Grant, who was probably the brother of Colonel Grant, and the same who was Captain and Adjutant in his regiment. The exchange proposed might have been easily arranged, but the French Government made it a condition of their release that two sons of the Earl of Middleton, who had been made prisoners of war by the English, should be returned to France. With a view to procure the liberation of Colonel Grant and those taken with him, a correspondence took place between the Duke of Marlborough and M. de Villars, the French General. On 15th September, writing from the camp of St. Andre, the English General says that he is "obliged to M. de Villars for forwarding a letter on behalf of Colonel Grant, who, with his lieutenant-colonel and three subalterns of other regiments, had the misfortune to be taken to Calais. Upon the representations which these gentlemen made to me that their private affairs demanded their presence, I gave them a pass, and as they may suffer from their absence, you will do me much pleasure, sir, if you will grant them passports while waiting their exchange, of which I am ready to treat with you in that manner you think convenient. Or if that depends on the Marine, I beg you will intercede on their behalf with the King or his minister, as a particular favour which I have the honour to request." The matter was referred to the French monarch, as on 20th September Marlborough writes again to M. de Villars, "I hope that you have presently received some favourable answer from the Court relative to Colonel Grant and the other prisoners with him at Calais." Original Letters printed in Marlborough's Despatches: Sir George Murray, 1845, vol. v. pp. 142, 146.

The Duke of Marlborough wrote also, on the 1st October following, to M. dallier, another French General, desiring him to take the trouble to ask from M. de Pitcherrill (the French Chancellor) a pass of six months' duration for Colonel Grant and the other officers who had the misfortune to be captured and taken to Calais, from which place they had gone with a passport for two months only to attend to their private affairs in the interior of Scotland. "The colonel is my friend," writes the Duke, "thus you will do me a special pleasure by interesting yourself for these gentle men, a1nd sending me a prolongation for as long a period as you can."

[341] M. Dallier did not reply to the above letter until 28th November, when, after apologising for the delay, and referring to certain proposals for the exchange of Colonel Grant, presently to be noticed, he says, "M. de Pitcherrill also begs me to tell you, my lord, that when he knew that you interested yourself in Colonel Grant and the other officers, passengers found in the Ostend packet-boat, he represented the matter to the King (Louis XIV.), and immediately His Majesty caused them to be dismissed on their parole." Original Letters in Marlborough's Despatches,

The giving of their word of honour, however, did not secure the liberty of the Colonel and his companions for more than a few months at most, and the arrangements for an exchange were delayed by the action of the French Government. Shortly after their capture, the circumstances of Colonel Grant and his fellow-officers attracted the attention of the authorities at home. So early as the 15th September, Mr. Aloe (afterwards Sir Robert), then Secretary-at-war, wrote about the affair to the Duke of Marlborough, who, on 6th October, replies, "You may be sure I shall omit no endeavours to procure him (Colonel Grant) his liberty, but you know the proposition they (the French Government) have made, and we are too sensible of their obstinacy in adhering to anything they are once set upon, therefore I have already written that the pass may be prolonged for six months, as likewise for the gentlemen taken with him. In the meantime you will do well to let the commissioners for the exchange of prisoners do their part with the commissioner at Calais. I hear he has an interest with M. Pontchartrain, and if the French are in our debt for seamen, he may be glad of the opportunity of these gentlemen to help to quit scores; were they deemed landmen, I should have exchanged them before now." Marlborough's Despatches, by Sir George Murray, by Sir George Murray, 1845, vol. v. p. 170; vol. v p. 1 6.

The last sentence is explained by a paragraph contained in a petition presented to Queen Anne about this time by Colonel Grant on behalf of himself and his comrades, which also states the proposals made by the French and opposed by the English Government. After referring to the facts of their capture, the petitioners say: "The Court of France insists to have the Earl of Middletoun's two sones and some other officers taken [342] aboard the Salisbury man-of-war, This was a vessel taken by Sir George Byng's fleet, when Fourbin made his futile descent upon the Scotch coast in 1708. Lord Griffen, the two sons of the second Earl of Middleton, secretary to King James ii, and other Jacobite officers, were captured on board, some of whom were sent to the Tower, who are esteemed here" (that is in France) "prisoners of State, in exchange for us. This we humbly conceive is a breach of the agreement made betwixt the commissioners for exchange of prisoners on both sides, whereby its settled that in cace there are not officers of the sarnen ranck to be exchang'd for each other, then conform to there severall degrees ther 's a certain number of seamen to be given for the officers." The petitioners earnestly beg Her Majesty to direct that to be done which may most readily effect their exchange, "it being," they add, "extreamly discourageing to us, that our circumstances render us uncapable of dischargeing our duty to your Majesty in the several! stations we have the honor to serve in." Draft Memorial, holograph of Colonel Grant, at Castle Grant (undated).

The petition thus shows that having been taken on board a vessel, Colonel Grant and his companions were accounted as seamen, and therefore to be exchanged for seamen, but that the demand of the French Government had raised difficulties. These difficulties were not arranged for some considerable time, as neither the correspondence of Marlborough with France, nor the petition of Colonel Grant to Queen Anne, met with immediate success. The Earl of Dartmouth, in a letter to Colonel Grant, dated 27th October 1710, writes, "I have received a letter from Monsr. Pontchartrain, wherein he writes that the two months of leave are expired within which yourself and the other officers taken on board the Ostend pacquet-boat gave your word to returne, in case you could not be exchanged for the Middletons, prisoners in England; and therefore desires notice may be given to you and those other officers to observe your promise: whereupon I am commanded to lett you know that the Queen does not think fitt to make the exchange desired, which I signify to you, hoping that, as you made your application to me in behalfe of yourself and the other officers, so you will take the trouble of letting them know the Queen's intentions, that they may regulate their affairs accordingly." Original at Castle Grant.

On the 14th of the following month the Earl again writes the [343] Colonel to the same effect. After referring to his former letter, he says, " "Her Majesty has since commanded me to write again to you on the same subject, and to let you know that the Court of France does call upon you and the other officers to make good your parole, which I must desire you will let them know, since I do not know how to direct a letter to them."

Colonel Grant, however, did not proceed to France. From a letter which he wrote at a later period to the Earl of Dartmouth, it appears that he received the Queen's orders to remain in England until some prisoners of war on parole in France should return. One of these was the Marquis D'Allegre, who was at this time offered a prolongation of his parole on condition that the same should be obtained for Colonel Grant. It is not unlikely that the Colonel was ordered to delay setting out to France until it was ascertained if this arrangement was to be effected. In a letter written from Ghent to Mr. Smith, probably the same who was Chancellor of the Exchequer and father-in-law of Colonel Giant, a reference to this proposal occurs. The writer says, "I hope my Lord Duke has taken effectual care for the prolongation of Colonel Grant's leave, and of the gentlemen taken with him. His Grace has writ twice to the Marquis D'Allegre, who is in the like circumstances, and sent him a prolongation for six months, conditionally that he procured the same for the (Colonel) and the other gentlemen. We are hourly expecting his answer, which I do not doubt will be to your satisfaction." Original Letter, dated 19th November 1710, at Castle Grant.

It is apparently this proposal concerning himself that is alluded to in the letter, already referred to, from M. D'Allegre to the Duke of Marlborough, of (late 28th November 1710. The Marquis writes, "M. de Pontchartrain tells me, my Lord, that he waits an answer from Lord Dartmouth as to the proposal which lie has made for the exchange of M. Grant and the officers who were taken at the same time, and he doubts not that what has been proposed will succeed. . . . M. de Pontchartrain must advertise me when he receives a reply from Lord Dartmouth, and I shall be careful to inform you, my Lord, in the event of his finding any difficulty as to the exchange proposed. I shall also beg M. de Pontchartrain to ask of the King a [344] prolongation of leave for these gentlemen, which I am persuaded His Majesty will grant, knowing that you desire it." Original Letter (in French) in Marlborough's Despatches: Sir George Murray, vol. v. p. 170.

A formal congé in favour of Colonel Grant was at length signed by the French King, It was to date from 31st December 1710, and to last for six months. The Earl of Dartmouth, on the 5th January following, announces this to Colonel Grant. The letter proceeds, "I have received a letter from Mr. Pontchartrain, wherein he tells me you are at liberty to continue in England for six months from the 31st of December last, at the expiration of which term that Court expects that yourself and the rest of the gentlemen taken on board the Ostend packet-boat, should return to France as prisoners of war." Original at Castle Grant.

Although the Government of Queen Anne was unwilling to accede to the terms of the French Court relative to an exchange of prisoners, they were not wanting in endeavours to obtain for Colonel Grant and his comrades all the liberty possible. The Earl of Dartmouth wrote Colonel Grant as follows: "Her Majesty having directed me to write to Mr. Pontchartrain concerning several prisoners of war, it is proper I should know whether you desire to have your congé prolonged, or whether it is your intention to go back when the time for which it is already granted expires." Original Letter, dated 24th April 1711, at Castle Grant. Colonel Grant's answer is evident from the terms of another letter from the Earl, dated exactly a month later. He says, "I send you inclosed a paragraph of a letter I received this morning from Monsieur Pontchartrain, with the agreeable news that your congé is prolonged. I desire you will be pleased to communicate it to the rest of the gentlemen concerned." Letter, dated 24th May 1711, ibid. In the paragraph referred to, six months' additional leave of absence is given to Messrs. Grant and Stewart, their exchange for Messrs. Middleton is again proposed, failing which they are required to return to France at the expiry of this congé. By this last pass freedom to remain in Scotland until the close of December 1711 was secured to Colonel Grant. But the French Government seem to have overlooked this fact, and to have considered that Colonel Grant was continuing in England beyond the period of his parole. This led them to [345] refuse leave of absence to a Mr. Duffus, then a prisoner of war in France, in a letter from Versailles, dated 30th September 1711, addressed to the Earl of Dartmouth, Monsieur Pontchartrain writes: "His Majesty would willingly have granted leave to the Sieur Duffus to go over to England on his parole, but the abuse the English officers make of these favours has prevented His Majesty. You will be yourself informed of it, if you will desire an account to be given you of the time that the Sieurs Grant, Steward, Louis Urquhart, Valentin Carte, and others, have been in England, although their licence is expired, without taking any care to procure their exchange; and therefore I desire you to order those officers to return to France in order to comply with their parole." Extract at Castle Grant. On 25th October the Earl of Dartmouth communicated this statement of the French Court to Colonel Grant, and requested to be informed what answer should be returned to it. Original Letter, ibid. The Colonel sent a spirited reply, narrating the terms of his parole, his readiness to return to France when it expired, unless the Government of the Queen should arrange otherwise, and claiming protection from the Earl. In it he says, "I raikon he (M. Pontchartrain) has forgot that the gentlemen and I who wer taken aboard the Ostend pacquet-boat had our congé twice prolong'd, and the last does not expire before the 20th of December next, yet he seems to insinuat to your Lordship that we are guilty of the breach of our parole. I shall be at London the end of next week, a and be in readiness to compear at Calais if your Lordship does not prevent it either by a further prolongation of our congé, or by obtaining Her Majestie's orders, as you did last year, that we should stay in England until all the subjects of France who are the Queen's prisoners, and now in France on their parole. do return to England. I beg your Lordship's favour and protection in this my misfortunat circumstance." Draft Letter, dated 29th November 1711, ibid. There is no distinct evidence as to how the matter ended, but it would appear that Colonel Grant did not return to France at the expiration of his parole in December 1711, and also that Lord Middleton's two sons were liberated and sent back to France. Original Letter (in French) in Marlborough's Despatches: Sir George Murray, vol. v. p. 613. Colonel Grant may therefore have regained his liberty by this exchange.

[346] Although precluded by his parole from active service in a military capacity, Colonel Grant was not thereby incapacitated for promotion. He was, under the new administration which had risen upon the fall of the Treasurer Godolphin, "for his loyalty, courage, and experience," raised to the rank of Brigadier-General; Commission, dated 12th February 1711, at Castle Grant, but though thus promoted, General Grant retained the colonelcy of his regiment, which, with several others, was now ordered home from Flanders. This act of the new ministry was intended to weaken the forces at Marlborough's disposal, and to restrain his movements, but it was also meant to signalise the new administration by seeking to win laurels in another field. This was an expedition fitted out for the avowed object of taking Quebec from France. It is not necessary here to detail the circumstances of this enter prise, which was unsuccessful in its results, as it is only interesting in this connection, that General Grant's regiment went to form part of it.

On the regiment landing at Portsmouth, about the middle of April 1711, under orders for Canada, it was decided that the whole regiment should not proceed abroad, but that it should be reduced, and a certain number of men incorporated with other regiments under the command of Brigadier-General Hill, Commander-in-chief of the expedition. Of these there were seven, representing a force of about 5000 men, but as some of the regiments wanted their full complement, it was directed, on or about 18th April, that one entire company from General Grant's regiment should be added to the regiment under Colonel Disney, and that a further number of men should be distributed among the other regiments ordered for service, according to the requirements of each, Order by Brigadier-General Hill, ibid.

This was done, and 233 men, with non-commissioned officers, were therefore drafted from General Grant's regiment and incorporated with those of General Hill, and Colonels Disney, Windress, and Clayton. Draft Memorial at Castle Grant. These, on the other hand, paid levy money as for new recruits, £932 was the amount payable as levy money. Draft Memorial at Castle Grant, to enable the officers of General Grant's regiment to raise new men, and also an allowance for such arms, clothes, and accoutrements as General Grant's men took with them.

[347] The expedition sailed on the 4th of May 1711, and on 25th April, orders were issued for recruiting General Grant's regiment to the number of fifty men in each company. On 1st May the regiment was directed to march to Morpeth, there to be joined by recruits, and thence to proceed to their former quarters at Stirling and Dundee, and await further instructions, Copy Order for march, at Castle Grant. These came in the month of August to the effect that the regiment was to be disbanded, and the officers attached to that of Colonel Crighton, then in Ireland.

Not long thereafter that regiment also was disbanded, and the officers ordered to be put on half-pay. This created some consternation, and Brigadier Grant, on behalf of himself and his brother officers, presented an urgent petition to the Queen, narrating their circumstances, and their fears "that there half-pay will be settled in Ireland, which would be a great detriment to them, the half-pay of that kingdom being much less than that of Brittain." They therefore beg Her Majesty to consider "there seniority, there services, and there haveing been raised in Brittain, where all of them are born and have their friends," and to allow the petitioners "their halfpay in Brittain preferable to younger regiments raised in Ireland and in foreign countreys, though happening to be disbanded on the British Establishment." Draft Petition (holograph of General Grant), ibid.
On 24th September 1713, Brigadier Grant was chosen Member of Parliament for the county of Elgin and Forres, Extract Minute of Election at Castle Grant. The Brigadier had resolved, on his regiment being disbanded, to reside in Scotland. He seems, however, to have anticipated his election to a seat in Parliament, and therefore delayed his departure from London. On the 13th June of this year he writes: "As for my living in Scotland, that, I ashure you, is my intention and full resolution, but it is not practicable this year, since it is not to be imagined that I would come up to Parliament in winter, and leave my wife in the North. This I will ashure you off, that if I live to March nixt, both of us shall be with you, and shall not be over heasty in thincking of returning hither." Original Letter, ibid. In his capacity as Member of Parliament he received an address, dated on the day of election, from certain gentlemen [348] in the county representing the agricultural interest, requesting that he would lay before Parliament "the great loss the kingdom in general, and this shire in particular, doe sustain by the importation of Ireish grain ever since the Union. You know (the writers say) that our Scots Parliament, when in being, did, by many repeated Acts and Statutes, for the profite and good of the kingdom, discharge the importation of such grain under severe penalties; and the rents of this shire and many others being payed in grain, were usewally consumed by transporting the samen to the southern and westren parts of the nation, which now, because of the importation of the said Ireish grain, is become altogether ineffectuall ever since the Union, and miles the wisedome of this insueing Parliament doe prevent such hurtfull practises in time coming, our rents, which you know is payed in grain, will suffer verie much." This document is signed by Sir Harry Innes, Sir Robert Gordon, Alexander Cumming of Altyre, and eleven other prominent landed proprietors in the shire of Elgin, Original Address at Castle Grant.

Brigadier Grant at this period also held the office of Sheriff of Inverness. As such he joined in a petition to King George the First, on behalf of Simon Fraser of Beaufort, who, after the failure of his mission on behalf of the Stewarts in 1704, had resided in France. The Clan Fraser, incited by the attempts made by Mackenzie of Fraserdale, who married the Honourable Amelia Fraser, daughter and heiress of Hugh, eleventh Lord Lovat, to change the name of the chief of the clan to Mackenzie instead of Fraser, and having learned that their true chief was alive, had sent to ascertain his intentions regarding the party to which adherence should be given at the critical period of King George's accession, Life of Simon Lord Lovat, by John Hill Burton, p. 108.

The messenger and his chief left France together on the 14th November 1714, and proceeded straight to London, Ibid. p. 113. But it would appear that Lovat had before that date established some communication with those in Scotland whom he deemed his friends. This is shown by a letter dated at Saumur on 29th September 1714, addressed, not improbably, to Brigadier Grant, vol. ii of this work, p. 282. In this epistle, and also in one of 24th September (place [349] not given), Lovat professes the utmost regard and devotion for the family of Argyll, believing, with his usual clear-sightedness in matters affecting himself, that if he secured the good offices of the Duke of Argyll, his services could be turned to good account.

It may be noted that in the letter of the 24th September, Lovat adopts an ambiguous style, and speaks as if he were a drover desiring to enter the company in which the Duke is interested, that he may better compete with rivals in the same trade. It would seem, however, that he thus veils a political combination. The stock which so conveniently "lyes to drive to either side or to hinder either side to drive," is his clan, which would rise either for Hanover or the Stewart succession as he pleased. Lovat, if the Duke put him in a "condition to trade," promises "to oversell the marchands who are against him," that is, the Jacobites; though he hints that it will be difficult, "for those marchants are very powerfull, and they ly so conveniently for trade," etc., to enhance the value of his offered services. He adds, "If you live you will see what I tell you come to passe; and if great precautions be not taken, you and your neighbours will suffer more than any," a remark very applicable to the Grants, vol. ii of this work, p. 282.

After his arrival in London, Lovat writes, taking credit to himself that he had been "barbarously treated as an Hanoverien by the Court of St. Germains thir twelve yeares bypast, without intermission," utterly ignoring his Jacobite relations a few years before. It is also characteristic of the man, and perhaps also of the political morality of the times he lived in, that while thus professing to be Hanoverian, he shows an intimate knowledge of the movements of the Jacobite party. He writes in the same letter, anticipating the address before referred to: "I am sure you may convince the Duke of Argyle . . . that the Rosses, Roses, Monroes, and all the Moray Lairds . . . will adresse the King for me, and be overjoy'd to have me to join them when the Pretender comes to that country, which they may depend upon, in spight of their security and precautions." Ibid. pp. 283, 284.. On 23d December 1714, he writes again to Brigadier Grant, then at Castle Grant, and distinctly assures the latter that the Pretender would be in Scotland in the spring Ibid. p. 285. In that letter and at a later period, [350] Lovat complains greatly as to the delay in signing his remission, though he was willing to venture everything for the Government, and for Grant.

Lovat went north in October 1715, arriving at Dumfries on the 11th of that month. After some adventures he arrived at Stirling, where, instead of the Duke of Argyll, whom he expected to meet him "with open arms," he was received by Brigadier Grant, with an apologetic though friendly message from his Grace, Life of Simon Lord Lovat, by John Hill Burton, p. 116. Lovat thereafter proceeded to the north, where he called off his clan from the insurgent army, and in company with eight hundred of the Clan Grant, and eleven hundred Munroes, he took part in the reduction of Inverness.

The address al ready referred to may have been signed about this time, A list of the signatures attached to it, preserved at Castle Grant, bears date 1714, but the tenor of the document implies a later date, as it implores the King for one of his subjects, "who, sometime banished and imprisoned; has lately, when the greatest dangers appeared to surround us, by the influence which he has over a numerous clan, sustained with us that cause which, for the defence of your Majesty's undoubted right to the Crown, we have supported with all our power. That unfortunate man of rank (qualité), my Lord Lovat, for whom with all submission we present this address, will not dare of himself to ask favour of your Majesty, but he trusts to those who are openly and steadfastly devoted to your Majesty's service,... praying them to attest the truth on this point: we cannot refuse either in justice or compassion to testify to your Majesty that by the aid and strength of the name and clan of the Frasers, who are under his order, we are confirmed in the defence and maintenance of the present happy constitution in Church and State." The memorialists conclude by pledging themselves to any amount that may be desired for Lovat's sincere intention to sustain the authority of the Government, Copy of the address (in French) at Castle Grant.

As has been said, this document was signed by Brigadier Grant, who, if he had not met Lovat in London, had certainly corresponded with him, and was, as has been shown, one of the first to meet him in Scotland. Besides Brigadier Grant, Lord Strathnaver, the Sheriffs of Ross, Moray, [351] and Nairn, several Members of Parliament, and a number of clergymen and local Lairds, append their signatures to the address.

Brigadier Grant at a later date gave a marked proof of his sentiments towards Lovat, by giving in marriage to the latter his youngest sister, Margaret Grant. The wedding took place apparently in December 1716, and great preparations were made for the event. The account for groceries and spices, including " "16 pound 12 unces wheat shugar at 12s. the pound," hops, raisins, cinnamon, "8 pound ryce, at 6d. per pound," etc., amounted to £69, 9s. 6d. Scots. Among other additional items, were a half hogshead of wine, at £7, 10s. sterling, 17 bolls and a half of malt, and eleven bolls, for "brewing aquavite," " 12 stones 3 pound butter, at £3, 6s. 8d. (Scots) the stone." The following entry in the account evidently refers to the bride's trousseau: "Cash sent to Aberdeen to buy necessary for Miss Margret at the time of her marriage, as per Miss Wilson's accompt - £385, I2s." (Scots), Account at Castle Grant. The tradition still in Strathspey is that the festivities on the celebration of this marriage were more than ordinarily characteristic of a great Highland wedding.

The secret history of this marriage is somewhat romantic, and Brigadier Grant bad strong influence brought to bear upon him in regard to it. Lovat, who, as will be seen from his letters at a later date, considered it greatly for his own interest that he should be connected with a family so powerful in the north, and so much respected as was the family of Grant, was extremely anxious to bring about this alliance. But there were difficulties in the way, and Lovat's manner of getting over them was characteristic. Writing from London to Mr. Duncan Forbes of Culloden, Lovat, after referring to some petition about the Jacobite Magistrates of Inverness, proceeds thus: "I spoke to the Duke and my Lord Ilay about my marriage, and told them that one of my greatest motifs to that design was to secure them the joint interest of the north. They are both fully for it, and the Duke is to speak of it and propose it to the King." Notwithstanding this, however, Lovat is afraid of consequences from his former attempt at matrimony (with the Dowager Lady Lovat). He him self is assured that there can be no cause for anxiety, but Lord Islay had [352] suggested some disagreeable contingencies, and Lovat entreats "a line on this head, to satisfy my Lord Islay's scruple." Letter, dated 28th June 1716, Culloden Papers, No lxxv. This matter was arranged, but the affair did not yet run smooth. Another suitor stood in the way, and as the lady was, it would appear, residing with her sister, Anne Grant, the Lady of Ballindalloch, and they rather favoured the first in the field (who was Mr. Duff of Drummuir), Vol. ii of this work, p. 291. John Duke of Argyll himself was invoked to enter the lists on behalf of Lovat, which he did by the following letter, addressed to Colonel Grant of Ballindalloch:
"London, Ju(ly) the 23.
"MY DEAR GRANT, I trouble you with this let you know that some time since I learn't that Lord Lovat had propos'd a match with Grant's (the Brigadier's) sister, which for many reasons I wish'd so well to, as to interest myself with Grant in favours of it. You know Lord Lovat is one for whom I have, with good reason, the greatest esteem and respect, and as I confide entirely both in him and the Brigadeer, I am most ernest that this match should take effett. I am inform'd that the young lady is at present with you, and that some other body makes court to her; I must therefore, as a faithfull friend to us all, intreat your interest to bring this matter about, which will, 1 think, unite all friends in the north, a union which will be very servisable to His Majesty and his Royall Famely, and no less so to all of us who have ventur'd our liv's and fortuns in deffence of it. Pray believe me, in what ever state I am, your faithfull humble servant, ARGYLL." Original Letter, holograph of the Duke, at Ballindalloch.

The same matrimonial project also formed the subject of a letter from Lord Islay (whose "scruple" must have been removed) to Colonel Grant, dated from London on 29th September 1716. Lord Islay speaks of the marriage as concerted between his brother, the Brigadier, and himself, "this being a measure setled for the better uniting our interest in the north." He desires the Colonel's assistance in it, which shall be taken as a "mark of your friendship." Original Letter, ibid. On the same date the Duke of Argyll writes again, from Sudbrook:

MY DEAR GRANT, I receiv'd yours, and return you many thanks for the assistance you give my friend Lovate. I doe, indeed, think that affair of great consequence to all of us, who I hope are determiri'd to remain ever in the strictest friendship, and for that reason am well satisfied that you will continue your best endeavours to bring it about. . . ." Original Letter, dated 29th September 1716, ibid.

[353] This correspondence had no small influence on the Grant family in favour of Lovat. Shortly after the date of Argyll's first letter, but perhaps before it had been received, the Brigadier wrote to his brother George on the subject, probably in answer to one by him in favour of the proposals of Mr. Duff. In this letter he says, "Before I had yours, the Duke of Argyll and Earl of Islay were both imployed by Lord Lovat to speak to me anent my sister Peggie, and to tell you in short, I did give my consent, provideing they pleased each other; he now has ane independant company as Governor of Inverness, which is £300 per annum, and the gift of Fraserdale's escheat is passing in his fa(vour, which,) with good manadgement and the (payment of the) debts he's already master of, will undoubtedly enable him to make the family esteat of Lovat his own. These were the reasons, joyn'd to that of so considerable allyance that moved me to consent. So that until they see other, I cannot in good manners give any answer to Drumuir's proposall, and I hope my sister will shew that civility to me as not to determine herself untill she sees Lord Lovat, and then lett her please her self, for I will not pretend to compell, tho', I must own, I rather she married Lovat." The Brigadier adds: "Drumuire has not writ to me about it, so its not proper I should to him, but you must give a civill answer to gett a litle delay; and had I not been thus far ingadged, von may asliure him that I should have readily consented to Drumuir's proposall, which I take very kindly, and shall always retain a thankfuli sence of it." Original Letter, dated 31st July 1716, at Castle Grant. He asks the Captain to communicate his sentiments on the subject to Colonel Grant and to his two sisters.

It will be seen from the foregoing letter that, Lord Lovat apart, Mr. Duff's suit would not have been unacceptable to the family of Grant. The Brigadier says he would have readily consented to it, and his sister Janet, Lady Mackenzie of Scatwell, subsequently exerted herself on Mr. Duff's behalf. But Lord Lovat's claims soon eclipsed those of his rival, and the Brigadier finally decided that he would reject Mr. Duff's proposals, and arrange without further delay for a marriage between his sister and Lovat in his absence in England, the Brigadier intrusted to Mrs. Grant of Ballindalloch the providing of a proper trousseau, and the making of all [354] necessary arrangements for having the marriage celebrated at Castle Grant. This he does in a letter from Bath, entering fully into the subject of the marriage. After referring in somewhat uncomplimentary terms to the elder Duff, the Brigadier continues: "I'm told sister Scatwell has been agenting. But she may ashure herself I'll have no more young lairds for brothers, since a scon of a bakeing may, I thinck, suffice. Lord Lovat is the bearer, so I will say the less, since shure, to anybody of sense, his conversation, manners, and behavior, laying aside his quality, is sufficient to make Mr. Duff be forgott at any tym; for, as Rose represents him, he is a meer young laird. You may easily guess how anxious I am to have this affair finished. . . . So I expect, as you tender my credit and reputation, you will doe every thing that may contribute towards it. . . . With Lord Lovat I am shure she will be happy in a good man and a better esteat by much then the other. . . . I must add that if it goes one, I desire you may send to Edinburgh for every thing that's necessary for my sister of cloaths and linning. Lett her want for nothing that may be proper for Lord Lovat's Lady, as I don't think you have it in your temper to be extravagant, so pray save nothing that's proper for her to put her in the handsomest manner of my hand; and call from my chamberlane for what money it coasts to pay for the things. I once thought to haue sent her things from London, but there comeing would be uncertain, besides it will be five weeks ere I'm there, and I hope in as much more tym you'l have them wedded." Original Letter, dated 15th October 1716, at Ballindalloch.

The following month, Ludovick Grant, the Brigadier's father, who had long been ill, died. This event, although it involved a slight modification of the arrangements for the marriage with Lovat now agreed upon, did not delay it. The Brigadier, writing to Mrs. Grant at Ballindalloch, says, with reference to the ceremony, "I would not haue it delayed one account of my father's death, only now it must be carried one in the most privat manner possible." Original Letter, dated 24th November 1716, ibid. Thus matters were finally arranged, and, as already stated, the marriage was celebrated with unusual rejoicings, and the union appears to have been a happy one. The excessive grief of Lovat on the [355] death of his lady shows how keenly he felt his bereavement. His correspondence also shows how miserable he was in his second marriage.

Brigadier Grant, on the accession of King George the First, was continued in his rank of Brigadier-General, by a commission dated 23d March 1715, Commission at Castle Grant. Previous to this, on 11th January, he had been appointed Governor of the important fortress of Sheerness, and also, on 20th January, keeper of the stores contained there, Commissions, ibid. This is referred to in a letter from Lovat, dated 5th February, congratulating the new Governor on his appointment, and expressing great expectations from their friendship, Vol. ii of this work, p. 289. The Brigadier was then, it would appear, at Castle Grant, but it is probable he soon travelled southward to fulfil the duties of his governorship in person.

His former regiment had been disbanded, hence, no doubt, his appointment to garrison duty, hut on 22d July 1715 he was appointed colonel of a regiment to he raised, Commission at Castle Grant, and on the following day he received authority from King George to raise a regiment of four hundred men, besides officers, to be under his command, Vol. ii of this work, p. 10. Glasgow was appointed the rendezvous of the regiment, and Brigadier Grant was requested to name the officers whom he proposed for the new regiment, and also to submit patterns of the clothing and accoutrements to be provided, Original Orders at Castle Grant.

On the 4th August following, 1715, he received orders to admit to the fort at Sheerness two companies of invalids, one from Tilbury Fort and the other drafted from the Chelsea pensioners, to do the garrison duty of that place, Ibid.

Immediately afterwards he was required to assist the Duke of Argyll in suppressing the Jacobite insurrection, which had broken out in Scotland tinder his old friend John Earl of Mar, who, on account of his unstable character, was commonly called Bobbing John. Mar left London for Scotland on the 2d of August, and though he did not formally raise the Jacobite standard until the 6th of September, yet his meetings with High land chiefs, under the pretext of hunting expeditions, and his other proceedings, were sufficient to rouse the suspicion of the Government.

[356] Commissions to Lords-Lieutenant of the Scotch counties were issued, and also, though at first probably only as a cautionary measure, instructions were given for calling out militia. On 19th August 1715, Brigadier Grant received a commission as Lord-Lieutenant of the counties of Banff and Inverness, Commission at Castle Grant, and on the 25th of the same month instructions respecting the appointment of deputies, who were only to be chosen from those well affected to King George's accession and the Protestant religion, and the calling out of such fencible men as could conveniently be assembled, making the same distinction. Each battalion of the latter was to consist of about four hundred private men, with necessary officers, and each troop of horse, if such were expedient, to consist of about forty private men, with officers. In the event of the militia of more than one shire being combined, the Lords-Lieutenant were to command by the day alternately, according to the place of the shire on the Rolls of Parliament. The last of the eleven instructions is: "You are upon all occasions to execute the trust reposed in you with as little expense to our subjects as possible." Copy Instructions, ibid.

On 9th September 1715, John, Duke of Argyll, having been appointed Commander-in-chief for Scotland, and received his final instructions, left the Court. He arrived in Edinburgh on the 14th September, and the same day went to the castle, inspected the garrison, fortifications, and magazines. He then appointed Brigadier Grant to be captain of the fortress, and to reinforce the garrison with two companies of his regiment, Vol. ii of this work, p. 32.

Nine days afterwards, Brigadier Grant received, and so far carried out, certain orders from the Duke of Argyll empowering him to seize all boats and vessels on the Firth of Forth, and to bring them to Leith, lest they should fall into the hands of the rebels, and be used against the Government, ibid. In terms of a warrant by Lord Islay, an exception was made of the passage from Fife to Edinburgh, which, by the Duke's order, had been wholly obstructed, and the Brigadier was to "allow two passage boats to sail from Leith each tide, the masters finding caution in Leith to return the same tide, or by the first conveniency with passengers, without touching ground on the Fife side." Order at castle Grant.

[357] An order from Whitehall, dated 1st October, required Brigadier Grant to prepare his newly raised regiment to take the field, provision being made for tents and other necessaries, Vol. ii of this work, p. 33. It is stated, however, that on 22d October the Duke of Argyll caused the Brigadier's regiment to garrison the Castle of Edinburgh, Charles's History of the Transactions in Scotland in the year 1715, etc., vol. i p. 319, and this latter instruction was probably carried out after Lovat's arrival at Stirling, already referred to, as the Brigadier was then in attendance on the Duke at that place. Though this garrison duty prevented the Brigadier and his regiment from taking any part in the battle of Sheriffmuir on the 13th November, it was no doubt dictated by sound policy. The regiment was a new one, and therefore less to relied on in the event of a battle, while, on the other hand, it was important that Edinburgh Castle should be held by an officer so devoted to the house of Hanover as Brigadier Grant. Under Lieutenant-Colonel Stewart, the previous deputy-governor, an attempt had been made by the Jacobite party to gain possession of the Castle, which, but for an accidental circumstance, had nearly succeeded. As it was considered that the chief danger of the attempt lay in the treachery or apathy which he had displayed, History of Scotland, 1689-1745, by John Hill Burton, vol. ii pp. 127, 128, the deputy-governor was superseded. It was consequently of great importance to the Duke of Argyll that, with Mar's army in front of him, he should have confidence that Edinburgh Castle would be faithfully held for the Government.

But though Brigadier Grant took no part in the battle of Sheriffmuir, he obtained a share in the military movements which followed, he was at Stirling on 18th October 1715, and from the camp there wrote to his brother, Captain George Grant, Original Letter at Ballindalloch, narrating the Duke of Argyll's directions for the reduction of Inverness. These provided that the work should be done by Colonel William Grant, Lord Lovat, Captain George Grant, and others. The Brigadier writes, " Not knowing what you have yett done, I must be silent as to that. My Lord Lovat is now gone north. There's no doubt but his clan, who had loyalty enough to withstand the threats of a bullying rebell, will most unanimusly, joyn [358] him in the support of his Majesty King George's person and Goverment. What we have projected here, with the advice and by the direction of the Duke of Argyll is, that my Lord Lovat, the two Lairds of Kilraick, Culloden, Collonel Grant, and you, with all their people and myn, doe joyn in the retakeing the toune and Castle of Inverness, and in extirpating the rebells and rebellion now raised by the Earle of Seaforth; that you doe attack them on the one side at the same tym as the Earl of Sutherland does the like we the other. By doeing so you cannot miss of doeing your countrey good service and what will be most acceptable to the King and Government. You must acquaint people that if any of the rebells are slain, the actors are by law indemnifyed for any such slaughter, mutilation, or what els may happen."

The Brigadier also urges his brother to signalise himself, and to obtain for the family higher honours than had yet accrued to them. "Now, dear brother," he writes, "as now you and my people have a glorious opportunity of signaliseing yourselves for the Protestant interest and succession, so you have it in your hands to raise the family by your zealous and brave behavior at this tym far beyond what ever it was in any of our predecessors tyms; and if any handsome thing is done, ther's no doubt but you'l be rewarded for it, and wee'll as have the glory of haveing done it. I wish with all my soull I could be with my friends and kinsmen one this occasion, for I doubt not but their behavior would give me great pleasure. . . . Lett them take example of the name Fraser, who future ages must praise for their loyalty to their prince as weell as love and friendship to their chieff"

Two months later, on 22d December, Original Letter at Ballindalloch, the Brigadier again wrote from Stirling to his brother, with instructions for defeating any movements of the rebels. These were to be communicated to the noblemen and gentlemen engaged on the side of the Government.

In both these letters the Brigadier displayed that public spirit which characterised the Grant family in their dealings with time Government, a spirit which, however, too often received but an ungrateful return, and led to time ruin of many a loyal family. In the first letter, that of 18th October, his liberality towards his dependants is conspicuously brought out in time provision he makes for these who should in time war be deprived [359] of their supporters and breadwinners. He says, "I desire that you will ashure all my people in my name, that if it shall so fall out that any of them should be killed in their king and countrey's service, the widdow of such person and each of them shall be entitled to a yearly pension of ten pounds, or twentie merks, to be modified by four gentlemen, viz., one out of each parish, conform to the condition of the husband who was and the circumstances of the relict and children, and that for life, to be payed by my chamberlane, or allowed to them in pairt payment of what lands they possess, optionall to them, and this I promise to make good to them by extending taks to that effect, upon my word and honor." Original Letter at Ballindalloch.

In the other letter of 22d December he writes, probably in reference to a sentence in a letter from Captain Grant, dated 6th December, that he had spent a good deal of the Brigadier's money, of which the latter was to expect no particular account, Ibid. "As for the expenses of this campaign, I hope you know me so weel that I never valued money when my honor was concerned, and far less when not only that, but our religion, liberties, and laws are all at stake; so that as far as my rent goes, pray bestow it, and if that falls short, I will certainly pledge the one half rather than risk the whole of my esteat. So I conjure you to lett my people want nothing that's necessary for them." The next sentence is written in the capacity of Lord-Lieutenant: "As to provisions for the castle of Inverness, or for the army, my deputy lieutenants, where theyr power extends, can order the rents and effects of the rebells, which now belong to the king, to be brought in, and no doubt but the Earl of Sutherland will, as legally he may, doe the samen within his jurisdiction: for so long as they have, you are not to want, and this is the method followed here." Vol. ii of this work, p. 95: From a copy of Captain Grant's account, now at Castle Grant, it appears that he expended in the pay of the men and support of a regiment varying from one thousand to two hundred men, the sum of no less than £1972, 13s. sterling. The original sum was £2240 12s., but by small payments by Forbes of Culloden and the Earl of Sutherland, it was reduced as above. In a pamphlet, entitled, "The Conduct of the Well affected in the North," with reference to the rebel lion of 1715, it is related of Brigadier Grant that "his men were orderly paid at the rate of sixpence a day, well armed and clothed, ordinarily in one livery of tartan, and furnished with all other necessaries to defend them from the rigour of the season." (Burton's History of Scotland, vol. viii. p. 529.

Brigadier Grant proceeds to name one or two gentlemen whose [360] goods might be thus confiscated, and then refers to some of his own men or tenants (from the Urquhart estate) who had joined the rebels. "I hope" (he writes) "whatever corns of others, you will with my other friends take care that these men of myn be secured; be shure you take no baile for them." He desires that they may, if unable to maintain themselves, have so much a day (a "penny worth of bread") at his expense, for he "will prosecute them, and endeavour to make exemples of them, that so future ages shall stand in aw of following there footsteps." Vol. ii of this work, p. 95

On the same day the Brigadier wrote to the same effect to his brother-in-law, Colonel William Grant of Ballindalloch. After referring him to the instructions contained in the foregoing letter, he adds, "You'l likeways see what directions I have given as to provideing your men and garrison out of the rents of the rebells est eats, and corn yards of such as have joyn'd in the rebellion. One thing I forgot, which is, that the deputy-lieutenants summon all the tennants of Fraserdals esteat to pay their rents to any they shall appoint, and you must name some one to receave the ferms and money rent. You are to doe the same to all the rebells, so far as you have safe access, and where you have not, you are to summon them at the marciat cross of Inverness, and if they pay any after that, they must pay it again."

In the same letter Brigadier Grant looks forward to his being soon in the field. He writes, "I hope we shall soon come to your relief, for all the troops we expect will be here by the 4th of January, so we shall try a stroack with the rebells for Perth, and if we once dispossess them of it, I know of no place benorth it that they dare pretend to keep." He concludes by commending the care of Balveny Castle to Colonel Grant, saying, "Surely you cannot want provisions so long as there are so many rebells who have dwellings in your neighbourhood." Original Letter at Ballindalloch

On 27th December 1715, Brigadier Grant, no doubt in common with other officers of the royal army, received instructions from Whitehall, reflecting on the discipline of the private soldiers. The officers were enjoined to pay a due regard to these matters, and also to inquire diligently as to suspicious persons in their respective companies, and dismiss all such, as it was said that owing to the haste of raising new levies and recruiting [361] old regiments, many disaffected men and Irish Papists had joined the service. As General Grant's regiment was a new levy, it is probable he had to deal with disorderly elements.

By the end of December the Duke of Argyll was joined by General Cadogan and a large body of Dutch troops, which, with the English, raised his army to about 10,000 men. The Commander-in-chief then resolved, notwithstanding the winter season, to take the field and conduct active operations against the insurgents who were quartered in Perth. Waiting for artillery from Berwick, it was towards the end of January 1 716 that Argyll made his first movements northward. A small party of dragoons was sent forward on the 21st January to report on the practicability of marching over the country, then buried in deep snow. History of Scotland, 1689-1745, by John Hill Burton, vol. ii p. 203, and note

The main body oft he royal army began its march on Wednesday, 25th January. Brigadier Grant accompanied his chief, and has left a memorandum of the route. "Upon Weddinsday, the 25th of January, the troops began to move over the river Forth to Doune and Dunblaine, and so continued for three successive days till all the army was cantouned there. One Sunday, the 29th, the train (of artillery) came up. The 30th, the line of the army was stretched as in time line of battle. This refers to a sketch of the position of the royal forces, in which General Grant's brigade appears on the right rear, and is composed of the regiments known as Morison's, Montague's, Shannon's, Grant's, and Wightman's. On this day, the 30th, the rebels retreated, and there was no fighting. That day the castle of Tullibardine was attackt; Captain Campbell and 50 men surrendred at mercy; the army quartered at Ardoch, etc.; Braco House abandoned. Teusday, the 1, we marcht in the former order, and that night incampt at Tullibardine, Pannols (Panholes), etc. February the 1, the Duke of Argyll and Generall Cadogan went into Perth, the rebells haveing abandoned it (on) the 31, at 10 in the forenoon. That night the army quartered in Perth, Huntingtoure, and other villages in the nighbour hood. February the 2d, the Duke march'd with 3 battalions, and detatchment of 1000 foott, and four squadrons to Erroll, and nixt day to Dundee. The rest of the army remain'd at Perth till the 3d, that they march'd to Erroll, and the 4th, being Saturday, they came to Dundee, [362] North Ferry and Monifieth. That night the Pretender, with Earl Mar, Lord Drummond, etc., took shipping to Monross (Montrose), and left the rest, who did not know of his desertion, some till they came to Stonehive (Stonehaven), and the clans did not till they were past Aberdeen. Sunday, the 5th, we marcht to Monross, Munday to Bervie, and Teusday, the 7th, to Aberdeen, where severall gentlemen surrendred themselves prisoners at discretion. The clans marcht by Strathbogie, and so up to the Highlands, with some lords, English and Irish officers. One Saturday, the 11th, Lieut.-Colonel Grant took possession of the house of Gordon Castle. The troops were upon this order'd into quarters of refreshment." Original Memorandum at Castle Grant.

Here the narrative breaks off suddenly, but while the Duke of Argyll remained at Aberdeen, Brigadier Grant proceeded northward, and in his double capacity of Lord-Lieutenant and military commander, acted against the rebels in Inverness and elsewhere. He received from the Duke of Argyll an order, dated 14th February, directed to him as Lord-Lieutenant, to search for rebels in hiding, and on 20th February he was instructed in his military character to disarm all disaffected persons or others who had been engaged in the rebellion. Pursuant to these orders, the Brigadier proceeded to receive surrenders of some of the principal rebels. Before 28th February he had placed a garrison in Brahan Castle, the seat of the Earl of Seaforth, as appears from a letter of General Cadogan's. The letter speaks of sending a detachment of regular troops to Brahan Castle, and other places taken in Lord Seaforth's country Original Letter, ibid. This seems to imply that Brigadier Grant had placed there a garrison from his own or other loyal clans. He also took possession of Erchless Castle and Borlum; the former the seat of the Chisholm, the latter that of Brigadier Mackintosh. Browne's History of the Highlands, vol. ii. p. 345

On March 6th, Brigadier Grant was at Strathbogie, on the 16th at Banff, and on the 20th at Stonehaven, thus making his progress southward, whither the Duke of Argyll had gone some time before. At each of these places the Brigadier received the surrender of several gentlemen from the insurgent party, notably John Gordon of Glenbucket, Sir James Abercromby of Birkenbog, George Gordon of Buckie, and others, List of names at Castle Grant.

[363] Brigadier Grant was expected to arrive at Edinburgh on or about the 20th March 1716, as Mr. Duncan Forbes of Culloden, writing on that date to the Lord Advocate (Sir David Dalrymple), says that he had "carried three addresses from our country, which missing of the Duke, for whom they were designed, I intended to keep until Brigadier Grant came hither (to Edinburgh), who I judged a proper person to present them." One of these addresses, however, he for special reasons sends to the Advocate, to be presented by the latter, Culloden Papers No. liv. Of these addresses more is heard on 5th May 1716, by which date Brigadier Grant was again in London on his way to his post at Sheerness. On that day John Forbes of Culloden writes from London to his brother Duncan: "At the Prince's desyre, Brigadier Grant gave him at my sight this day the two memorialls you wrote of what was done in the north. I believe the Prince desyres to compaire them with the accompt printed by Colonel Grant, which makes so great a noyse here that Earl Sutherland, as I am told, is making a reply to it." Ibid. No. lxix

Allusion is here made to the fact that the recovery of Inverness for the Government from the Highlanders on 12th November 1715, was ascribed by the London prints and others to the Earl of Sutherland, whereas he had nothing to do with the exploit, the true honour being due to Mr. Duncan Forbes, Lord Lovat, and Captain George Grant, the youngest brother of the Brigadier, with one or two other gentlemen who were really acting under him as Deputy-Lieutenants of Inverness. Lieutenant-Colonel William Grant of Ballindalloch wrote and printed a true account of the matter, under the title of "A true and impartial account of the conduct of the well affected in time north dureing the late rebellion." MS. at Ballindalloch. History of Scotland, 1689-l745, by John Hill Burton3 vol. ii p. 189, note: The letter already quoted as written to the Colonel by the Brigadier on 22d December 1715, gives ground for assuming that this narrative was written at the instigation of the latter, who, zealous for the honour of his clan, called for an "impartiall account," that justice might be done to his friends. He writes, I wonder that none of you sent me up ane exact account of the takeing and possessing the town and castle of Inverness. It's in all the prints that it was done by E. Sutherland, with the McKays, his own people, [364] the losses, and Monroes of Ross-shire, and, by what I can understand, there was none of these, no not the Earle that came over the Ferry for several days after you were in possession of both. So what I want is ane impartiall account of facts, with the people who were there, and those you had ready to sustain in case of opposition. Lett it be writ in a fair hand, and sign'd by the Deputy-Lieutenants, and I will transmitt it to Court, that other people may not run away with the glory of your actions. It may be done by way of letter to me; and send it as soon as possible. I ashure people at London are surprised this is so long neglected, especially when I tell them that had it not been for the appearance made in Inverness-shire by Lord Lovat and others, that the Earl of Sutherland nor any of the others would have ventured to cross the Mickle Ferrey." Original Letter at Ballindalloch

Brigadier Grant went from London to Sheerness to occupy his important office at the latter place. On the 5th of July 1716, he received advice from Whitehall " of some design of an attempt from sea, in concert with some on land, upon Sheerness," and he was instructed, without loss of time, and as little stir as possible, to take the necessary precautions for the security of the place. Original Order at Castle Grant.

Although Brigadier Grant was detained in the south by his duties, he maintained communications with his deputy-lieutenants in the north. In his capacity as Lord-Lieutenant, he was, on 3d July 1716, commanded to issue warrants by himself, or two of his deputies, to search for arms and all warlike stores kept or used contrary to the Act of Parliament for securing the peace of the Highlands. Proclamation of the terms of the A ct was to be made at market crosses and parish churches, and places appointed at which to receive the arms brought in. Those who were faithful during the rebellion were to receive a "satisfaction" for the arms given up. In terms of this order, Brigadier Grant forwarded the necessary instructions to his deputy-lieutenants in the north, Original Order and Draft Instructions at Castle Grant, who, it may be noted in passing, executed their duty with so much fidelity, that, in the rebellion of 1745, the loyal Grants, when desired to muster for the Government, found themselves miserably equipped with weapons.

[365] On 10th November 1716, he received from his deputies an account of their proceedings in regard to the Disarming Act. It may be interesting, as showing how it was carried out, to note that as each load of arms was brought to the place appointed, they were valued and then deposited in a place of safety. Gentlemen whose yearly rental amounted to £400 Scots were, by the Act of Parliament, allowed to carry arms, and such as had proved loyal during the rebellion, after proving their yearly income, had their names inserted in the minutes of the lieutenancy meetings, and received a warrant to hear arms.

At Banff the warlike stores brought in and delivered up amounted to sixty-six guns, fifteen pistols, twenty-six swords, three dirks, and four Danish axes or halberts. At Cullen, there were delivered one hundred and thirty-six guns, seventy-four pistols, nine barrels of guns, two hundred and thirty-six swords, thirty-three dirks, a "steel cape," and three calivers. These arms were placed in the custody of the magistrates of Banff and Cullen respectively. At. Keith there were delivered up no fewer than six hundred and thirty-four swords, ninety-one dirks, three hundred and ninety-six guns and barrels of guns, fifteen locks of guns, two hundred and nineteen pistols, thirty-seven halberts or partisans, eighteen targets, and one steel breastplate. These were deposited in the steeple of Keith, that being the "place of best security," and four men appointed to guard the same nightly. New doors, new locks, hasps, staples, and "hinging locks," were ordered to be put on the steeple for better security. It being afterwards found necessary to remove the arms from Cullen and Keith to Banff, so many horses for each £100 (Scots) of valued rent, were to be furnished by the neighbouring parishes, with packets and creels for the small arms, which were to be put into sacks and sealed; the valuators, two and two, by turns to go from Keith and Cullen to Banff to see the arms delivered, obtain receipts for them, and use all possible care to prevent theft or exchange of the weapons delivered. Extract Minutes of Meeting of Deputy-Lieutenants at Castle Grant

A notification of what they had done was communicated to Brigadier Grant by his deputies, with the expression of their hope that he and the [366] Government would be satisfied with their care and diligence. They begged that the measures to be taken against certain gentlemen, including Sir James Dunbar of Durn, and James Gordon of Letterfourie, who had recently surrendered themselves, should be lenient. The Deputy Lieutenants at the same time sent a list of gentlemen whom they propose should be made Justices of Peace, and they request definite instructions as to the limits of their own authority. Original Letter, dated 12th December 1716, at Castle Grant

The Brigadier also continued in the command of his regiment, which was quartered at Fort-William and elsewhere. He received from Whitehall an intimation, dated 9th June 1716, referring to disorders committed by the troops in their quarters for want of a sufficient number of officers to preserve discipline, and desiring the Brigadier to direct that one field officer, with two-thirds of the officers of all grades, shall repair to quarters and continue with the regiment, any officer desiring leave of absence receiving it only when relieved by another of the same rank. Original Order, ibid.

Towards the end of the year he received a letter from Colonel Cecil, the officer in actual command of the regiment, who refers to certain former causes of complaint at Fort-William which had been removed, and then adds, "I have thought it for the advantage of your regiment and good of the service, to discharge all such men as were much under size, or other wise unfitt to serve, in order to recruit better, by which the coare (corps) may be much mended whenever you think it convenient to send your commands and instructions about it." Letter, dated 25th May 1717, at Castle Grant.

Shortly afterwards, Brigadier Grant received official intimation that his regiment was to be transferred to the Irish establishment on 24th June 1717, up to which date he would receive the full pay of the regiment, provided he embarked the complete number of men. He was also instructed to make a return of the effective strength of his regiment, that arrangements might be made for their transport to Ireland. Original Letters ibid.

The Brigadier, on 17th July, was curtly informed that the King had no further occasion for his services, Vol. ii of this work. p. 34, an event which was not [367] unexpected by him. In a letter to his sister, Mrs. Grant of Ballindalloch, he indicates the reasons of this anticipation, and the ungrateful policy of the Government. He says, "I hourly expect a bill of ease for voting what I thought was right in relation to Lord Cadogan the other day." Original Letter, dated 15th June 1717, at Ballindalloch. A few days after receiving the intelligence of his dismissal, in a letter to Colonel Grant, he again refers to the subject, and in similar terms, adding that he was not alone in being thus disposed of by the King. He says, "I own it was no surprise upon me, because I expected it, and you'l see by the prints I'm not the only man turned out for my honesty, for I goe in good company." Original Letter, dated 25th July 1717, at Ballindalloch.

In the letter of 15th June to his sister the death of his second wife is recorded by Brigadier Grant. He felt the loss keenly, and expresses himself as being doubly bereft: "My dearest sister may easily imagine with what a sorrowful heart I take the pen in my hand, when it is to tell you that my wife dyed last Teusday in the evening. Shurely I am the most misfortunate creature alive, for there was nothing left me to wish for to compleat my happiness in a married state but that of children, and no sooner was there a prospect of that, then it has pleased the Almighty to take both from me. She was brought to bed about two hours before she dyed. This subject is so melancolly, that I shall only tell you her body is carryed out of town to be buryed to-morrow at her father's burying-place in the countrey."

Brigadier Grant now retired into private life; and being persuaded to renounce a project which he had formed of going abroad, he wished to devote himself to his duties as a landlord. Before undertaking the journey home, he went, at the earnest solicitation of his father-in-law, to Tidworth, in Hampshire, the residence of Mr. Smith, where he remained for some time. The letter to Colonel Grant was written from that place and in it he narrates his intentions for the future. He says, "Ther's a talk as if this Parliament were to be dissolved. If so, I shall be down very soon. If otherways, I don't thinck of goeing before nixt March. I shall be here with Mr. Smith till December; and you may imagin I will have [368] some desire to see how matters goe for 2 or 3 moneths in Parliament nixt winter: after which, I am resolved to be as reall a countrey gentleman as I take you to beat present." From the same place, three days later, the Brigadier again wrote on some matters of private interest. Original Letter at Castle Grant

About this time he authorised negotiations to be entered into for the building of a stone bridge over the river Dulnain, at a place called the Linn of Dalrachnie. The bridge was to consist of one arch, of a height and breadth sufficient to receive the water at its highest flood. The benefit of such a structure to the neighbourhood may be estimated from a letter from certain gentlemen of the adjoining parishes to Brigadier Grant, in which they give him hearty thanks for the proposal to build a stone bridge, adding, "We need not much insist on the conveniency and charitableness of this good work, and how usefull it is both to the country and strangers travelling the road, especially in such a seasone as the last was, ther being severall burrialls stopt and oblidged to be carried be Inshlume, by the frequencie of speats, your Honour being a very good judge of such accidents:" The remainder of the letter treats of details as to the contract, etc. Original Letter, etc., dated at Duthil, 3d May 1717, Ibid.

In the spring of 1719 Brigadier Grant, while yet in England, was seized with his fatal illness, and for a considerable time his life was despaired of, Original Letter at Ballindalloch. He recovered sufficiently to leave London for Scotland about the beginning of August, accompanied by his brother, Sir James Colquhoun. But, though he made a good journey, he had a recurrence of his malady the day after his arrival at Leith, and died there on 19th August 1719. His body lay a short time in South Leith parish church, and was transported thence and buried in the Chapel Royal at Holyrood, Accounts for funeral at Castle Grant, where also his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather had all been buried.

A letter from Sir James Colquhoun to the Earl of Moray narrates tile circumstances of the death in the following terms: "I thought it my duty to acquaint your Lordship that it pleased God to remove my brother, Brigadier Grant, by death, Wednesday last, in the house of Mr. Fenton in [369] Leith, and that yesternight his body was transported to the church of South Leith, and is to be interred to-morrow, at sex o'cloack at night, in the Chappell Royall of Holyrood House. I waited of him from London, whence we sett out Saturday was two weeks, and we aryved at Leith, Sunday in the evening. His health was rather the better then the worse of the journie; but Monday morning he was seazed of one of his former fitts with great violence, and then his lethargie came on, in which he slept to death without any pain or sensation." Draft Letter at Castle Grant

A document drawn up for one of his successors in the estate of Grant, describes Brigadier Grant as follows: Alexander Grant, eldest son to Ludovick (Grant), from all accounts inherited the manly features of his father's character, and united to these the cultivated understanding of a polite gentleman. He was an excellent classical scholar, and being in the army, much abroad and at Court, he received a polish which was unknown to his father. While his profession allowed him to be upon his own estate, he improved the police of the country and manners of the people. He knew how to blend severity and rigid discipline towards offenders, with benevolence, hospitality, and humanity in the general tenor of his conduct." Memorial for Sir James Grant of Grant, at Castle Grant.

After commenting on General Grant's friendship with John Duke of Argyll, and his loyalty to the Government, it is added that he fell into a "languishing sickness, as is commonly said, from chagrin at the unmerited treatment he had received," and died in the year 1719. The "unmerited treatment" here spoken of appears, from the context, to refer to futile applications to obtain from Government payment of the large sums expended for the public good by the family of Grant.

Brigadier General Grant of Grant was twice married. His first wife was Elizabeth Stewart, daughter of James Lord Doune, son and heir of Alexander, sixth Earl of Moray, and his Countess Lady Katharine Talmash. Their marriage-contract is dated 30th September and 29th December 1699, the marriage having been previously solemnised on 3d December 1698. As the lady's father was dead, the consenting parties for her were her mother and Lionel, Earl of Dysart, her uncle. Her tocher was £5000 sterling, bequeathed to her as a legacy by the Duchess [370] of Lauderdale, her grandmother. The other terms of the marriage-contract are related elsewhere, Vol. iii of this work, p. 485. Elizabeth Stewart predeceased the Brigadier, dying on 22d April 1708, without surviving issue, and was buried at Duthil, Register of Deaths of the Parish of Boharm, in office of Register-General, General Register House, Edinburgh.

A year later, on 7th April 1709, the Brigadier, then Colonel Grant, contracted his second marriage with Anne Smith, daughter of the Honourable John Smith, sometime Speaker of the House of Commons, then Chancellor of the Exchequer. Anne Smith was one of Queen Anne's maids of honour, having been appointed to that post on 26th June 1706, as appears from a certificate of her admission of that date, Original Certificate at Castle Grant. In the drawing-room of the Castle are two beautiful cabinets which were brought there by Miss Smith, and also a large organ which is said to have been given to her by Queen Anne as a wedding present (Information by the Earl of Seafield.) The contract was entered into at first in a provisional form, owing to the Brigadier's absence from home, and his inability to secure the consent of his father, but this was afterwards rectified. The tocher obtained with this lady was the same as that with his first wife, £5000, Vol. iii of this work, p. 492. As already stated, Anne Smith also predeceased the Brigadier, dying in June 1717, and also without survivmg issue.

Brigadier-General Alexander Grant was succeeded in the Grant estates by his next eldest surviving brother, James, whose history is given in the following memoir.

Volume 1 Chapter 16(i)