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

SIR JAMES GRANT OF GRANT, BARONET, ANNE COLQUHOUN, HEIRESS OF LUSS, HIS WIFE, 1719-1747.

[371] SIR JAMES GRANT was the third son of Ludovick Grant of Grant and Janet Brodie, but owing to the death of his eldest brother, John, in 1682, Sir .James became heir-presumptive to the Grant estates during the lifetime of his next eldest brother, Brigadier-General Alexander Grant. On the death of the Brigadier without issue, Sir James Grant succeeded as Laird of Grant.

He was born on 28th July 1679. From his correspondence preserved at Castle Grant. it appears that part of his education, at least, was obtained at a seminary in the town of Elgin, but little is known of his history until his marriage in his twenty-third year to Anne Colquhoun, sole child and heiress of Sir Humphrey Colquhoun, fifth Baronet of Luss, which took place on 29th January 1702.

Sir James Grant was for some time designated of Pluscardine, from the abbey and lands of that name, which he inherited as the second surviving son of Janet Brodie, daughter and only child of Alexander Brodie of Lethen. The abbey and lands of Pluscardine for some time belonged to the Mackenzies of Kintail, but were apprised from them in 1649 and sold to Ludovick Grant of Grant in 1677 for £5000. The purchase-money was provided by Mr. Brodie of Lethen, and the lands were to form a provision for the second son of his daughter. Ludovick Grant of Grant only managed the Pluscardine property as tutor and trustee for his son till the year 1709. In the following year James Grant sold the estate to William Duff of Dipple, ancestor of Earl Fife, who is the present proprietor of Pluscardine. James Grant retained the designation of Pluscardine until his succession to his father-in-law in the title and estates of of Colquhoun.

After his marriage with the heiress of Luss, Sir James, in terms of an entail, made in his favour by his father-in-law, of the estates of Luss, [372] dated 4th and 27th December 1706, 11. The Chiefs of Colquhoun, by William Fraser, vol. i. p. 311. assumed the surname of Colquhoun. He is subsequently mentioned as concerned in several transactions as to lands in the barony of Luss. 22. Ibid. p. 323, etc. 326. He also accompanied his father-in-law on what was known as the "Lochlomond Expedition," a movement made against the Macgregors in 1715 to secure the boats on Lochlomond, and thus hinder that clan in their predatory excursions. The Macgregors had hastened to join the Earl of Mar, and, in order to fit themselves out for service, had plundered their neighbours in Dumbartonshire of arms, horses, etc. Among other appropriations they had taken possession of all the boats upon Lochlomond, and it was resolved by Sir Humphrey Colquhoun and others to recover these boats. To this end a considerable body of armed men left Dumbarton on the 12th October 1715, and were joined on their way to buss by a number of noblemen and gentlemen of the locality. At Luss, where they spent the night, they were met by Sir Humphrey Colquhoun and "James Grant of Pluscarden his son-in-law,

. . . followed by forty or fifty stately fellows in their short hose and belted plaids, armed each of them with a well-fixed gun on his shoulder, a strong handsome target, with a sharp-pointed steel of about half an ell in length screwed into the navel of it, on his left arm, a sturdy claymore by his side, and a pistol or two, with a dirk and knife in his belt." The volunteers were met by the country-people with alarming stories about the numbers of the Macgregors and the dangers of encountering them, "but all could not dishearten these brave men; they knew that the Macgregors and the devil are to be dealt with after the same manner, and that if they be resisted they will flee." The enterprise was completely successful as regarded the obtaining possession of the boats, and the volunteers encountered no rebels, save "an auld wife or two." 33. "The Lochlomond Expedition, etc., 1715",quoted in The Chiefs of Colquhoun, vol. i. pp. 325,

Sir Humphrey Colquhoun was not only desirous to carry out in all points the marriage settlement of his daughter, but he also especially wished that failing the heirs-male of his own body, the title of Baronet should be inherited by his son-in-law, James Grant, and the heirs-male of [373] his marriage. He accordingly resigned his baronetcy in the hands of the Crown for a new patent. Queen Anne, by a regrant and new patent, dated 29th April 1704, granted, renewed, and conferred upon Sir Humphrey and his sons to be born; whom failing, upon James Grant of Pluscarden, and the heirs-male of his marriage with Anne Colquhoun, only daughter of Sir Humphrey; whom failing, upon the other heirs therein specified, the hereditary title, rank, dignity, and designation of knight-baronet, with all precedencies belonging thereto. 11. Vol. iii. of this work, pp. 489-491. Accordingly, upon the death of Sir Humphrey in 1718, his title descended, in terms of the regrant, to his son-in-law, who was then designated Sir James Colquhoun of Luss, Baronet.

He held the lands of Luss only for one year. In 1719, his elder brother, Brigadier-General Alexander, the Laird of Grant, having died without surviving children, Sir James succeeded to the estates of Grant. He was retoured heir to his brother by special service before the baffle of the Regality of Grant on 24th October 1720, and was infeft in the Grant estates on 10th November following. He thereupon dropped the name and arms of Colquhoun of Luss, and resumed his paternal surname of Grant. This was done in terms of a clause in the entail executed by Sir Humphrey Colquhoun, which expressly provided that the estate of Luss should never be held by a Laird of Grant. 22. The Chiefs of Colquhoun, vol. i. p. 313. In terms of the entail, Sir James Grant's second son, Ludovick, now became the possessor of the barony of Luss, Humphrey Grant, the elder son, being the heir-apparent to the Grant estates. 33. Ibid. p. 330. On his succession to the estates of Grant, Sir James also discontinued for a time the title of Baronet, but he afterwards resumed it, and continued to hold the dignity till his death in terms of the limitation in the regrant in favour of him and the heirs-male of his marriage with Anne Colquhoun.

Sir James Grant was returned Member of Parliament for the county of Inverness on 12th April 1722. 44. Return of Election of Members of Parliament, 1878, Part ii. p. 60. He was twice re-elected, in 1727 and 1734, and continued to represent that county till the year 1741, when he resigned, and was returned member for the Elgin burghs, which he represented till his death in 1747. Sir James was thus in Parliament for a quarter of a century. The recent returns of members of Parliament show that the [374] family of Grant is one of four Scotch families who can actually boast of an unbroken descent of seven generations in Parliament. 11. Mr. Forster's Members of Parliament, Scotland, 1882, p. 160, and Preface, p. viii.

While in Parliament, Sir James Grant was on intimate terms with Sir Robert Walpole. A few years after Sir James was first returned, the great Minister asked him a favour, not of a political, but of a private nature. This appears from a letter, dated from London, 12th June 1725, written by Sir James to his sister Anne, to whom and her husband, Colonel William Grant of Ballindalloch, Sir James confided a great part of the management of his estate previous to the year 1732. Mr. Walpole, he says, had desired a favour of him: "He is at present building a park, quhich he enclyns much to stock with roes, quhich is a rarity here, and not to be had, and he has begg'd of me to gett him some. Secretar Johnston told him what diversion my father gave him there, soe I must entreat that you give orders to search for them, and give what you please for every on that can be had." Sir James adds, after giving directions as to the shipping of the roes, "this will be ane unexpressable complement to him." 22. Original Letter at Ballindalloch. The roe-deer were, however, not obtainable for that year at least, as the request had been made too late in the season.

Like other gentlemen, Sir James Grant had an interest in the South Sea Enterprise, a circumstance referred to in two letters from his brothers Lewis and George, who both refer to the closing of the South Sea Company's books, though the stock had risen, but could not be sold. 33. Original Letters, dated in 1721, at Castle Grant. He also took an interest in Church affairs. This is shown by a letter from the Moderator of the Synod of Glasgow and Ayr, dated 7th October 1725, thanking Sir James for his "just and generous concern for the desolation of the parish of Tarbat" (now Arrochar), and his "ready disposition to contribute good offices for a speedy settlement, and particularly to allow the vacant stipends yet undisposed to goe to such a natural use." The Presbytery of Dumbarton were absent from the Synod, but were ordered to make their own address to Sir James, that his views might be fully carried out. 44. Original Letter, ibid. This letter evidently refers to the building of a church for [375] the parish of Tarbat, which had been disjoined from the parish of Luss about 1678, but in which neither church nor manse had as yet been built, and if there was a school, it had only been recently erected. A church was built there in 1733. 11. The Chiefs of Colquhoun, vol. ii. pp. 82, 83.

Although the barony of Luss had devolved on his second son Ludovick who was retoured heir to his mother therein on 27th March 1729, Sir James Grant had no small trouble in giving up his connection with that barony. In 1727, without consulting his father, and also without the consent of the lady's parents, Ludovick married Marion Dalrymple, daughter of Sir Hew Dalrymple of North Berwick, President of the Court of Session. This step involved the young couple in the heavy displeasure of the parents of both, but Sir Hew was the first to condone the offence, and in their interest he besieged Sir James with applications for a proper settlement of the barony of Luss. An able lawyer of the clan, Patrick Grant of Elchies, afterwards a Lord of Session with the title of Lord Elchies, conducted the arrangement of affairs on behalf of Sir James, and on 17th May 1729, a long letter containing the President's final proposals was sent for Sir James's consideration. The proposals made were, shortly, as follows: 1. That Sir James and his son Ludovick should assist each other in giving bonds for the debts' of the one and the other; 2. That in this they should ask the aid of their friends; 3. That Sir James should make over to his son all claims that he had against the estate of Luss, and also debts due to that family, his right to the Slate-crag, etc.; 4. That Sir James should make over to Ludovick a certain debt exigible from Sir John Houston; 5. That certain questions should be raised as to the application of the price paid for the estate of Colquhoun, sold after the deed of entail, and as to a discharge of the price granted by Sir James, with the view of securing any balance due to the family of Luss; 6. That Ludovick should discharge Sir James of the latter's whole intromissions with the estate of Luss, and of all claims against Sir James in any way; 7. That Ludovick should take on himself the burden of £50,000 of debt, and the interest thereof, from Whitsunday 1729, and of any claims made by the superiors of the lands, and that Sir James should relieve him of all other debts. 22. Original Letter at Castle Grant.

[376] It would appear that Sir James, after some consideration, assented to these proposals, as no further proceedings resulted, and in the following year Ludovick Colquhoun completed his feudal title to the barony of Luss.

While Sir James was thus engaged with his son Ludovick he received several letters, containing much good advice, from his eccentric brother-in-law, Simon Fraser, Lord Lovat. He writes: ". . . I beg you suspend your wrath till all be rightly examin'd, and remember what I told you in my last, that he (Ludovick) truly is the hopes of your family, but he must be an obedient son; and truly you deserve obedience and affection from your childeren, for you have been the most tender and indulgent father that ever was, and I think you was too much that way, but it's erring on the right side; but I am absolutly for peace, and I know it is for your interest, . . . so, for God's sake, set humour aside, and be fully reconcil'd; and if Louis does amiss, let him ask your pardon on his knees, and never offend you any more." Vol. ii of this work, p. 296.

As Member of Parliament for the county of Inverness, Sir James Grant naturally took a deep interest in the elections. There is no evidence in the Grant correspondence of any change or difficulty as to the representation of the county until about 1732, when the influence of the Lord Advocate Duncan Forbes of Culloden, was brought to bear on the gentlemen of the neighbourhood. A curious account of an electioneering intrigue is given by Alexander Brodie of Brodie, who was Lyon King-of-Arms, and member for the county of Nairn, in a letter to Ludovick Grant on 4th October 1732. After referring to the decease of Mr. Grant's elder brother Humphrey, Mr. Brodie says: ". . . As to the concert made with the aqua vitae pots, The Culloden family were extensive distillers I cannot give you any very particular information, being still in the dark as to that congress, any further than that your father (Sir James Grant) does insist upon my giveing a present of the shire of Nairn to John Forbes, and that without John's condescending to ask it of me. But, as I am allow'd to guess at the secret articles, they are supposed to be as follows: Great compliments being made of the sincere regard the advocate and his brother have for the family of Grant, they choose to enter into a league, defensive and offensive, with him, and in [377] particular they choose to ow him an obligation rather than to such a litle puny fellow as the Lyon, who pretended to give himself such airs as to be chosen for two counties, which insolence the Laird of Grant was the most proper person to curb, and as it would be difficult to get the better of him in Nairn, the most proper method was for the Laird of Grant to show him his interest in the shire of Murray was such that he could not pretend to be able to carry the representation of Murray but by the Laird of Grant's assistance, and therefore, if I was to have that shire, I must allow Craigalachie the absolute disposal of Nairn in favours of Culloden, and in case I was not easily to be prevailed upon to come into this measure, that G rant must be either opposed or bullied in the shire of Inverness, in order to be a pretext for him to set up in the shire of Murray." Original Letter at Castle Grant. The writer also remonstrates against any concession being made to the family of Culloden, and insists strongly on his own friendship for Sir James Grant auld family.

In regard to the same matter Lord Lovat wrote also to Ludovick Grant, a fortnight later, that Lord Islay had declared himself against the two brothers John and Duncan Forbes, but that the two were resolved to carry Inverness, Ross, and Nairn. "Ross they think themselves very sure of, and they have hook'd in Macleod to get the shire of Inverness by him.

And my Lord Advocate is gone express ...to assist him to make twelve or twenty barons, so that he will, according to their scheme, beat the shire, and then give it up to Culodin so that if your father does not bestir himself and make as many barons as will ballance McLeod, he is affronted, and what will the ministry think of his interest and mine in this shire." Lord Lovat even fears that Sir James may lose his seat in Parliament and his interest in Moray, "so that he is mad and disstracted if he does not for ever mantain his interest and election in the shire of Inverness." The writer declares he has five votes, and hopes soon to have ten, and lie adjures Sir James to exert himself: "Let him not force his friends and allays too forsake him and join those whom they hate. . . . If he is not active for himself, he can make as many barons in Urquhart as be pleases, and the divel take his advisers if he does not make as many as secures himself." Ibid.

As to the question of making barons, Sir James Grant's own opinion, [378] as expressed in a letter to Macleod himself, may be quoted here, though the letter is dated a few months later. After a general reference to election matters, Sir James writes: "Sir, I am sorrie that your thoughts should be soe mean of me as to allow your selfe to imagin that by makeing seven barrons on the lands of Glenmoriston, I had therby a design of enslaveing the shyr, that being a work that though you and I both joyn'd together, we are not capable of, and as litle able to bring about. For my part I alwayes relye entyrly on the gentlemen of the shyr for there help and assistance, and as I have hitherto endeavour'd to make my behaviour, I hope in noe maner dissagreeable to them, soe I shall still relye on there favour and friendship for the tym to come, and leave the event to there pleasure, and whenever I carrie ane election, I shall esteem it as there free grant in the honour they doe me, and will studie that my actions be agreeable therto." Original Draft at Castle Grant, dated 3d March 1733

On 25th October 1732, Lord Lovat wrote to Sir James Grant that he had written to Lord Islay for a grant of the sheriffship of Inverness, and that Lord Islay was inclined to give it to Lovat, but desired to consult Sir James Grant. Lord Lovat thought it would be as much for Sir James's interest that he should be Sheriff as that Ludovick Grant should be. He therefore hopes that their friendship may be reciprocal, and he begs that Sir James would yield "that feather" to him, "since I am convinc'd that you belive that I will stretch a point to serve you as your son."

Sir James Grant, however, did not at first accede to the proposal so advantageous in Lord Lovat's eyes, and the latter wrote: . . . "I never dream'd that my brother-in-law would refuse me a feather that might be of good use to me in my present condition, and cannot be of a sexpence profit to you; especially when I offer'd to resign it to your son whenever he had any occasion for it. I am very sory that you thought my letter too long, since it did produce nothing but a refusal. This shall be as short as you please, as it is only to tell you . . . that you had no relation more zealous for . . . your person and family than I was. . . . . . . However, you are best judge of your own affairs, etc." Original Letter, dated 2d November 1732, at Castle Grant.

[379] To this Sir James replied: "I must own my surpryse is noe less than your Lordship's at what you insist on and desyr of me. You told me when I had the honour of a visit from you that you had writt about the sherrifship, and that you desyr'd it only in the event that I was not to have it, but now your Lordship seems to take it amiss that I wont resign what pre-. tensions my wryting soe earnestly about it may entitle me." Original Draft at Castle Grant. 1 It may be mentioned that the matter was ultimately arranged in accordance with Lovat's wishes, as appears from a letter of his in February 1733.

The amenities of electioneering are graphically depicted in another letter by Lord Lovat to Sir James. The writer refers to the above disagreement, and says, "My pett is over, and I am resolved to live with you as an affectionat brother. . . . But I cannot nor will not suffer to be maltraited by my inferior. . . . This makes me highly inrag'd at / the Laird of Brody, Lord Lyon, who, befor your son Luss" and others, "after giving himself the aires of being my Lord Hay's minister in the north, he abus'd me, threaten'd me, and insulted me. It was in his own room, and I bless God I keep'd very much my temper. He first accus'd me sillily that I and all the Frasers had made a league with Oulodin against Grant. I could not forbear telling him that what he said was false, that I was sincerly for the Laird of Grant when he was against him. Then he threatened me, and told me that he would blow me up with the Earle of Hay. I told, him that he and all the Brodies on earth joined to all the divels in hell could not blow me up with the Earle of Hay. He then insulted me in telling me that he would get Lord Hugh to make Barons. I own my temper was much try'd at that expression, but tiess God, provi dence stiffled my passion, that I did not send the mad fool to hell as lie deserv'd." Original Letter, dated 23d January 1733, ibid. Lord Lovat then states lie will keep his just resentment till the election is over, and then demand satisfaction, "if he was as stout as any Lyon that ever was in Arabia, let the consequences be what they will." On other occasions Lovat called the Lyon "the King of Beasts."

Sir James Grant gained the election, though if Lord Lovat is to be depended on, he was anxious about the result. Lovat advised the Laird to be easy about the matter and to put all trust in him.

[380] In another letter to Sir James, Lord Lovat writes: "As they are pelting us with rhime at Inverness, a friend of mine put the enclosed in my hand this morning. It will make you laugh at a bottle." Original Letter, dated 20th June 1734, at Castle Grant. The following are the verses referred to:

The Peer and his Clan were there to a man,
His Lordship look'd big, like a Hector;
No doubt he will vaunt, in the Evening Courant,
With a hey, Sine Sanguine Victor. One of Lord Lovat's mottoes.

THE ANSWER.

1. Tho' the Brothers did brag, yet at last they did fag,
Notwithstanding two clans was their shield;
For the sight of a Grant made all their hearts lant
That they durst not appear in the field.

2. Tho' our story does boast of the Frasers and host
Before Foilies from Adam came out;
Yet the fourt of that Race, with his impudent face,
Said, the Grants and the Frasers he 'd rout.

3. But now he does feel, with his brass and his steel,
When he thought he had all the North rug;
Notwithstanding his lyes and the flams of his eyes.
He had the wrong sow by the lug.

4. Tho' his office of State made him always look great,
And give places and posts to his creatures;
Tho' MacLeod be his Hector, who ne'er will be victor,
The brave Grants made a change in his features.

Sir James Grant himself, or by his adherents, opposed the Laird of Brodie's election for Nairn, and supported Mr. Brodie of Lethen against his chief The election took place in March 1735, and resulted in favour of the Lyon, but Sir James Grant's feelings, and in part the cause of them, are shown [381] in a somewhat humorous passage in a letter to the Lyon himself, dated in October 1734. Sir James writes that he would regret any difference arising betwixt them, but that if he or his son Ludovick had any interest in the shire of Nairn, their "near relation to Mr. Brodie of Lethin would undoubtedly entitle him verie readily to it," and that he had their good wishes. He begs the Lyon very earnestly to follow the example of others, and be reconciled to Mr. Brodie of Lethen, who indeed was unconscious of any cause of offence. Sir James then adds, "There is on thing you tax Mr. Brodie with, quhich I believe my son and I should know best, which is that he endeavour'd to raise misunderstandings twixt your familie and myn. I don't know who has told you soe, hut I doe on my honour and conscience ashure you, its a most false calumnious aspersion, and that he never was in the least guiltie of it. I have now wearied you with a longe letter, and I think answered yours as much as I can. I shall onlie beg leave as a High land chiefe to give the chiefe of the godlie ane advice (tho' probablie you'l think it comes but ill from me) that you'l take more nottice of the Lord's prayer" (though now out of fashion with us) and even forgive your enemies, and give noe ground to those who beare you noe good will, to rejoice in seeing differences betwixt you and your friends: your motto is a very good on, and I hope will subsist." Original Draft Letter at Castle Grant. The motto of the family of Brodie is "Unite."

Lord Lovat's letters at this time show that he also supported Mr. Brodie of Lethen, and his correspondence with Sir James Grant and his son is full of animus against the Lyon, with corresponding vehemence in expression of regard for Grant. The value of Lord Lovat's brotherly affection did not then stand high in the mind of Sir James Grant, as may be inferred from the following passage in a letter to his son Ludovick: "I am plagued with letters from Lovat anent Foyers, Fraser of Foyers, for whom Lord Lovat desired a lieutenant's commission. I have answered him very freely, which I believe will save me furder trouble on that head. The Frasers' friendship has not been for nothing, and it seems the continowance of it must be purchased at noe litle trouble." Original Letter, dated 17th April 1736, at Castle Grant.

Sir James Grant, though seldom at Castle Grant, as his Parliamentary [382] duties obliged him to reside chiefly in London, yet promoted the plantation and improvement of his estate and neighbourhood. This is shown by a letter to his son Ludovick, who acted as resident and virtual Laird of Grant. After referring to certain money matters, he turns to affairs of domestic interest. "The syd sadle was sent to Lieth, and the litle blake, A negro page for Lady Margaret Grant, went in the same ship. I think it were proper you ordered him north, as he won't gett the best of instruction at Edinburgh whyl you are not there, and it's a pitie such a prettie boy should be lost. . . . . . In a letter to my daughter I send you some spruce firr seed which I had from the Peer (Lord Islay), with a good quantity of pynaster apples which I thought to have sent in the last ship that went to Findhorn, but unluckilie miss'd the occasion. They shall be sent with first. There are in the box with them 4 ounces large ston pyne, halfe ane ounce cyprus (cypress), four aples of the large cedar on ounce laburnurn, and on ounce bladdersencie. The cedar-apples must be opened to gett out the seed by makeing a hole with a smale gemelet from the on end to the other, and then breaking it (them), and the seed will be easily taken out. The same method will doe with the pynasters the fire must not be used to open them. Pray let me know how the elms. beeches, and willowes doe that were sent last. I wish there be care taken to preserve the willowes from the cattle, for I propose great pleasure in them, as you know they have shads of them in several places here of the same hight with those sent." Original Letter, dated 3d April 1736, at Castle Grant.

He adds: " "I had almost forgott to tell you that Mr. Heron, our member who droves in cattle, spoke to me severall times anent the cattle of our countrey, and sayd that if the countrey people would keep them for him, lie would send a servant in a litle time who should buy them, and pay readie money as they could agree, only they should be oblieged to keep and grase them untill the ordinar time of sending them to Criefe ore Falkirk. This they doe everie year, however. Pray tell the countrey of this, for Mr. Heron seems verie much enclyri'd to bargain with them, and here their money is shure, and noe after deductions when they are pay'd. Acquaint me by first how this proposal is relishd, and if I shall speak yet more [383] seriously to him about it, for I would not wish that at my desyr he sent his servant, and that the cattle were disposed of befor he went."

In a later letter, Sir James again refers to this subject: "As I wrote last, Mr. Heron is to send a servant to buy the cattle of the countrey, and as he will give readie money or payment without deduction, I think they should encourage him, and not ask extravagant prices, which now cattle don't give." Letter at Castle Grant.

From London Sir James occasionally, and especially at election times, endeavoured, to influence his friends by letter, but, on the whole, he seems to have led a comparatively quiet life, taking little active part in politics. To this may perhaps be attributed the fact that though a Member of Parliament under Sir Robert Walpole's administration, Sir James Grant never received any public office or place for himself or members of his family. it would appear, however, that on one or two occasions he deemed himself entitled to consideration in such matters, hut he did not press his claims upon the administration.

This reserve, or apathy as it was deemed by some, was by no means agreeable to Sir James's energetic brother-in-law, Lord Lovat, who wrote so persistently about himself, his estate, his affection for and devotion to the family of Grant, his admiration of and submission to the Earl of Islay, that it is difficult to mention anything in which Sir James Grant took interest that was not in some way interfered with by Lovat. He also constantly besieged Sir James to do something on his behalf, a circumstance which evoked such sarcastic comments as the one quoted above, that the "Frasers' friendship had not been for nothing."

From 1740 to 1745, Lovat's correspondence with Sir James Grant and his son declined, and latterly appears to have ceased. But though Lord Lovat did not write so much, he did not hesitate to use other means gain his ends. An election contest was proceeding in May 1741, and the following extracts from two letters then written show how differently Sir James and Lord Lovat acted under somewhat similar circumstances.

Writing to his son-in-law, Lord Braco, Sir James Grant says, "It gives me not a little trouble to heare that you design personally to appear [384] against my son in his design of standing candidate for the shyr of Morray. I am perfectly shure that had you yourself stood for the shyr of Banff, nothing would have hindered him from standing by you against any could have pretended to oppose you, and I wish soe, I hope that any little accidental mistakes betwixt you (which I am perswaded won't be of longe continowance) won't lead you to carry maters soe as at this time publickly to appear personally against him, and therefor my dear Lord, to beg and entreat that you would at least stay away from the election in Morray; for I doe ashure your Lordship that to see differences subsist between you two, would be on of the greatest misfortunes can attend me in life." Original Draft Letter, dated 14th May 1741, at Castle Grant.

The other letters addressed to Ludovick Grant by the (laughter of a voter, with evident reference to his or his father's candidature at this time, gives a glimpse of Lord Lovat's proceedings. The writer acknowledges receipt of a note to her father, and says, "It is impossible I can describe his condition, but I 'm afraid lie '11 be render'd uncapable of doing service at the ensuing election, being SC) confounded and teaz'd out of his life by the nearest party, that its surprizing how lie bears it out so long. The day I had the honour to write to you last, Lovat came here, and there were many present that heard the hott ingagment my sister and I had with his Lordship for the unaturall flight he had taken against his brother-in-law. our worthy friend, Sir .James Grant. I won't insist on his ansuers, only tell you that we took up all his time, so that lie had no roorne to plague papa that day, but every day that past since, he lies had ambasaders here, and hes sett all his relations and kindred upon papa, telling him what a slur he is like to bring on his name by appearing to make any difficulty in serving a chief who is willing to do all in his power for his family, and likewise holding forth what a hard thinge it is to live in Rome and appear against the Pope. . . . I am certain that they have not gained the least advantage as to their design." 0riginal Letter, 13th May 1741, ibid.

It would seem, from the incidents related in this letter, that Lovat's partisanship for time family of Grant had failed, as his interest and theirs [385] no longer coincided. But from this date there is no evidence of any further intercourse between Sir James Grant and his brother-in-law. If the correspondence between them was continued as formerly, it has not been discovered in the repositories at Castle Grant.

The same courtesy which dictated the mild remonstrance by Sir James Grant to his son's opponent, Lord Braco, appears even more plainly in a letter written at this time to a more formidable rival, Lord President Forbes. The latter had always opposed the influence of the Grant family in Inverness-shire, and had now gained so large a party that Sir James Grant felt that to contest the county would involve too great expense, especially as his son Ludovick Grant was also a candidate for Parliamentary honours. He therefore withdrew from the field, and intimated the fact to the Lord President in the following short note, which was carried by Sir James's brother: "As my brother is the bearer of this . . . . . . he will fully inform your Lordship of the usage I have mett with, the design I have taken and the reasons for which I have done soe, to which I referr. I shall only now beg leave to tell your Lordship that for those very reasons I have given over any design of standing candidat for the shyr of Invernes, and have resolved to support my son in the shyr of Morray, and at the same time I have writt to my friends and beggd the favour your of them that they will waite of your Lordship, attend the election, and be directed by you in the choise of a member. I am with truth, etc." Original Draft Letter at Castle Grant.

Sir James Grant, however, though he retired from the representation of the shire of Inverness, sought and obtained the suffrages of another and not unsuitable constituency, the Elgin district of burghs. In the letter containing his proposal, addressed to the town-council of Elgin, he grounds his hope of their acceptance of his offer upon his personal acquaintance with many in the town, and also upon the fact that he was for some time educated among them Draft Letter, ibid. The election took place at Cullen, on 28th May 1741, when Sir James was returned as Member of Parliament for the Elgin district of burghs, and sat as such in the House of Commons until his death in 1747 Annals of Elgin, by Robert Young, p. 530.

[386] It may be of interest to note here a letter dated 9th January 1747, but which refers to a previous date, showing that Sir James Grant and his family were the patrons of a bursary in the College of St. Andrews. The writer of the letter was the Rev. Thomas Tullideph, Principal of St. Mary's College, St. Andrews. It is addressed to the Rev. Patrick Grant, minister of Calder, and refers to a contract drawn up between Sir James Grant and the College, in 1744, to some provisions in which Sir James's agent took exception, but, on finding they were similar to those agreed to by the patron of the Wilkie bursaries, he consented to forward the contract to James Grant to be completed. Through some inadvertence the deed was not signed, and the Principal desires that it might now be arranged that the annual income might be regularly paid. It is not clear whether the sum named was the regular yearly payment or not, but the Principal owns receipt of £19, 4s. sterling, and discharges Mr. Grant's bond from Martinmas 1744 to Martinmas 1745.

The Principal relates a curious episode about the hursars. "Untill (he writes) I received your last it had quite escaped me that you had formerly complained of the ill usage of the Grant bursars. Upon receipt of that I have casten up yours of the 26th January 1746, and therein I find you mention that they were apparently ill used at our table last session, but as they were not here to explain that ill usage to me, it had quite escaped me. . . . It is very true that, since they came up this time, they complained to me that their beef at table was coarse; but upon examining the undertaker (contractor), and the porter who then served them, I found it was of the very same carcass that we were eating, and I assure you that I have the undertaker's promise that all the bursars shall eat of the same meat with the Masters, and we reckon we never had better beef than we have this year." Original Letter at Castle Grant.

When Prince Charles Edward landed in Scotland, Sir James Grant was in Morayshire during one of his brief residences in the north. On learning the news, he at once went to Castle Grant and concerted with his son Ludovick what should be done. Sir James himself, however, was obliged to go to London to attend to his Parliamentary duties. Shortly [387] after he left, he received from his son, through the post, a letter from Prince Charles Edward. This letter, which was sealed when Sir James received it, was handed by him unopened to the Marquis of Tweeddale, then Secretary of State, from whose repositories, by the courtesy of his descendant, the present Marquis, it has been obtained, and, along with a facsimile of the original, is here given:

"Kinlochiel, August the 22, 1745.

"You cannot be ignorant of my being arrived in this country, and of my having set up the Royal Standard, and of my firm resolution to stand by those who will stand by me. I refer you to my printed declaration for the rest. On such an occasion, I cannot but expect the concurrence of all those who have the true interest of their country at heart. And I have heard such a character of you as makes me hope to see you among the most forward. By answering these expectations, you will entitle yourself to that favour and friendship of which I shall be ever ready to give you proofs.

CHARLES, P. R.
For Sir James Grant, Baronet."

No answer was returned to this letter, and Sir James remained quietly in London, while his son managed affairs at home.

A history of what was done by the Grant family during the Rebellion of 1745, is given in the memoir of Sir Ludovick Grant, which immediately follows this; but as Sir Ludovick deferred much to the opinion of his father, it may be stated that Sir James Grant was, in common with his kinsman, Sir Archibald Grant of Monymusk, and others, strongly opposed to the scheme of the Independent Companies, the plan adopted by the Government in seeking aid from the loyal clans. Sir James considered that the best way for securing the active co-operation of his own clan, or any other, was to summon the whole clan under its chief, after the usual Highland custom, and engage them in active service. By doing this, and marching the loyal clans together, he believed that a very considerable force would be raised for the Government, which also would be far better fitted than the regular troops to encounter the rebel army in the field.

[388] This view was founded on the well-known aversion which the lower class of Highlanders entertained to fighting under any one save the head of their clan, unless it were a distinguished leader such as Montrose or Dundee. It is true that the calling out of the clans in a body would probably have led to disputes among their chiefs, but under a good commander this difficulty might have been obviated. In any case, it was the method adopted by the young Pretender, and contributed greatly to his success. Had the same plan been promptly taken by the Government, and the loyal clans in the neighbourhood of the locality where the Prince's standard was first raised been called out in a body, the insurrection might have been checked at the outset. These sentiments are expressed in a memorial, dated 30th October 1745, addressed by Sir James Grant to the Right Hon. Henry Pelham, Secretary of State, in which he offered to raise a regiment from his own country and clan on the same terms as those regiments raised by the Duke of Bedford and others in England, but it was not accepted.

Before leaving Strathspey Sir James Grant counselled his son to remain passive unless lie and the clan were called out together; that is, they were to remain loyal, defend their own territory only if attacked, and aid the Government in every way, but not to rise in arms unless summoned to do so. The strength of his opinion regarding the independent companies may be inferred from two letters written by him at this time. In the first letter, to his son Ludovick, dated 2d November 1745, he says:
"You know the advice I gave you at parting. I hope you have kept to it, for it would give me the greatest uneasines if I but gave credit to a letter I saw from Inverness, telling that young Grant was to send a company of men there. I hope it is false, and noe advice or arguments from any person will perswade you to such a thing until I acquaint you. I shall be in great trouble unless you write the conterar, and had I suspected it in the least, I would not have left the country as I did." Draft Original Letter at Castle Grant. In the second letter, which is addressed to his law-agent in Edinburgh, Lachlan Grant, writer there, dated 4th January 1746, Sir James says: "I think my son did very right in not accepting of any of those commissions offered by the President, and my letter to him (which I finde the rebels have gott) [389] was to that purpose, and discharging the raising my men in any shape except for protecting the countrey (their own territory), untill some better offers were made by the Government then we have formerly met with., I told him my family had already suffered more in the cause than many in Brittain, and therefor desyrd he might take care."

It will be seen from the memoir of Sir Ludovick Grant that he really had accepted one of the independent companies, and his reasons for so doing are stated. But though he accepted the first to show his goodwill to Government, he refused to raise a second company.

Owing probably to interception by the rebels, few of Sir James Grant's letters to his son Ludovick at this time are preserved, but it appears that Sir James made another direct application to the Secretary of State, on 23d January 1746, renewing his former offer of assistance. After detailing the circumstances which led to the second proposal, the defeat of the royal troops at Falkirk, the affairs in the north of Scotland, and such like, Sir James says: "By what I know of the temper of those people and of the companies already with Lowden, from the several tribes of which they consist, The independent companies were Grants, Macleods, Monroes, Mackenzies, Mackay; and others. I am well assured that these companies will not serve with that alacrity and submission that they would doe, if the main body of each clan were called out by the Crown under there proper chiftans ore some near relation of there family, which would raise ane emulation among them who should most distinguish themselves in the common cause." Vol. ii. of this work, p. 216.

Sir James Grant did not rest content with memorialising the Secretary of State. A few days after his application to the latter, he wrote to the Lord Justice-Clerk of Scotland, then Andrew Fletcher of Milton, relating his former proposals and their ill-reception, and begging that this proposal might be laid before the Duke of Cumberland himself as Commander-in-Chief for Scotland Ibid. p. 217. This was done, and the offer was accepted, as appears from a letter from Mr. Grant to Sir Everard Falkener, dated 16th February 1746 Ibid. p. 235. The circumstances which prevented the full carrying out of Sir James Grant's wishes will be found fully narrated in the next memoir.

[390] The treaty of neutrality entered into with the rebels by Grant of Rothiemurchus, and several other gentlemen of the Clan Grant, greatly distressed Sir James Grant. He wrote to Lord Findlater that the affair had made a great noise in London, and that he was ashamed to show his face, Original Letter at Castle Grant.

Sir James was looking forward to another parliamentary election, and one of his last letters to his son Ludovick, on 30th September 1746, contained instructions to arrange matters for the ensuing contest, but in the end of 1746, or beginning of 1747, while still in London, he was seized with gout in the stomach, and died there on 16th January 1747.

The following character of Sir James Grant has been given by one who obviously knew him intimately: "He was a gentleman of a very amiable character, justly esteemed and honoured by all ranks of men; his natural temper was peculiarly mild, his behaviour grave, composed, and equal; and his social conduct was full of benevolence and goodness. To his clan he was indulgent, almost to a fault; to his tenants just and kind; and did not very narrowly look into things himself, but committed the management of his fortune to his factors and favourites. To sum up his character, he was a most affectionate husband, a most dutiful and kind parent, sober, temperate, just, peaceable, an encourager of religion and learning, a lover of all virtue and good men; he was very solicitous for the welfare and support of the families, both of Grant and Luss; and when, upon the death of his eldest son, Humphrey, and the resignation of the second son, Ludovick, of the estate of Luss in favour of his third son, James, he was put into the possession of it, it gave Sir James the highest satisfaction. He was very happy in his children, and they in him." 22. The Chiefs of Colquhoun, by William Fraser, vol i p. 331

By his wife, Anne Colquhoun, who died at Castle Grant on 25th June 1724, Sir James Grant had fourteen children, six sons and eight daughters.
The sons were:
1. Humphrey, who was born on Wednesday, 2d December 1702, 33. From a leaf pasted into an old Bible at Rossdhu. The entry is holograph of Sir James Colquhoun, husband of Lady Helen Sutherland. The dates of the births of the other children are taken from the same authority, supplemented from another family list and who died, unmarried, in September 1732.
[391] 2. Ludovick, who was born on Monday, 13th January 1707, and who succeeded to the estates of Luss and afterwards to those of Grant.
3. Alexander, who was born on Saturday, 8th September 1709, and died 12th March 1712.
4. James, who was born on Monday, 22d February 1714, and baptized on the 24th of that month. Luss Register of Baptisms. He succeeded to the Luss estates, and carried on the family of Colquhoun of Luss. A memoir of Sir James is given in the Chiefs of Colquhoun.
5.Francis, who was born on Saturday, 10th August 1717. He became a lieutenant-colonel of the Royal Scotch Highlanders, and afterwards a lieutenant-general in the army. He obtained the estate of Dunphail, in the county of Elgin, and was M.P. for that county from 1768 to 1774. He also held property in Hants, and is styled "of Windmill Hill" there, in his will, which is dated 5th July 1781. He died on 30th December the same year. He married Catherine Sophia, daughter of Joseph Cox of Stanford Vale, Berks, and Catherine Sophia Sheffield, daughter of John, Duke of Buckinghamshire and Normandy. By his wife he left three sons and three daughters.
6.Charles Cathcart, was born 3d April 1723, and became a captain in the Royal Navy, lie died unmarried on 11th February 1772. His brother Sir Ludovick was served heir to him.
The daughters were:
1.Janet, who was born 31st May and died 5th October 1704.
2.Jean, who was born on Friday, 28th September 1705. She married, in 1722, William Duff, who was raised to the Peerage of Ireland by the Queen Regent, Caroline, under the title of Baron Braco of Kilbryde, in the county of Cavan, on 28th July 1735. On 26th April 1759, he was advanced to the rank of Viscount Macduff and Earl Fife, also in the Peerage of Ireland. She was his second wife, and bore to him seven sons and seven daughters. From the eldest son the present Earl Fife is descended.
[392] 3. Margaret, who was born on Monday, 19th January 1708, and died on Wednesday, 7th September 1709.
4. Anne Drummond, who was born 2d May 1711, and who married, in 1727, Sir Henry Innes of Innes, ancestor of the present Duke of Roxburghe.
5. Elizabeth, was born 22d January, and died on 1st February 1713.
6. Sophia, who was born 12th January 1716, and died unmarried on 25th March 1772.
7. Penuel, who was born on Thursday, 12th August 1719, and who married, contract dated February 1740, Captain Alexander Grant of Ballindalloch. Penuel is called in the contract the fourth surviving daughter - her three elder sisters, Janet, Margaret, and Elizabeth, having all predeceased. Of the marriage of Penuel there was one son, William, who became a Major in the Army. He succeeded to Ballindalloch on the death of his father on 14th January 1751.
8. Clementina, who was born at Castle Grant, 12th April 1721, and who married in 1737, Sir William Dunbar of Durn, in the county of Banff. She was then the fifth surviving daughter. Of this marriage there was issue one surviving son, who became Sir James Dunbar, Baronet, and died unmarried in 1811.

Volume 1 Chapter 16(ii)