[83] IT WOULD NOT BE RIGHT to omit mention of whisky in this book because it is such an important factor in the economics of the locality today, and there are so many 'Grant' whiskies, such as 'Grant's Stand Fast', 'Strathspey', 'Glen Grant', 'Grant's Royal', 'Grant's Glenlivet', and so on. There are also many brands which have other names. Two examples are 'Glenfarclas', one of the oldest distilleries, and 'Long John', one of the newest. Both are situated not far from Grantown; and then there is 'Glenfiddich', made by an old Grant distillery.

First of all we should know what this curious name, 'whisky', means. Until fairly recent times this distilled spirit was known as ‘aqua vitae'-the water of life. Nowadays aquavitae is quite a different liquor in its own right and is Scandinavian. Whisky has been distilled in Scotland for centuries, but the first written record of distilling occurs in the year 1494. The Gaelic word for 'water of life' was uisgebeatha which rather difficult word was concertined into uisge and then to usky, and finally into whisky. For centuries it was used as a medicine in Scotland. Whisky had also been distilled in Ireland as early as 1200, and, in fact, is still made there. Many whisky drinkers today define what they want by ordering 'Scotch', so as to make sure they do not get 'Irish', Canadian, Tennessee, or some other type of whisky, none of which, in fact, taste like Scotch.

There were undoubtedly a very large number of cottage or glen-side distillers hidden away on Speyside over the centuries until these were all eliminated by excise officers. Today we have, I have been told, something in the region of forty (legal) distillers round about Speyside. It is recorded that the first authentic mention of 'usky' being drunk in the Highlands was at a laird's funeral in 1618. Pure burn water and peat smoking fires were used, and hence Highland whisky had already assumed its unique peaty flavour we all so enjoy today. Certainly I have found no early record of our Chief drinking whisky, but 'all' was a favourite drink. I have, however, no doubt in my mind that many inter-clan battles and others, against the English, must have been fortified [84] by whisky and good Highland beef, as surely these fierce, energetic people cannot have been fired on oatmeal and milk alone, which in theory was all the Highland folk had to keep them nourished.

Many of the whisky stills from this time on were operated by outlawed members of the MacGregor clan, who were given safe harbourage on Speyside. There is no record of any of the Grant Chiefs or their relatives having actually owned or operated a still or distillery, but all were, and some are today, on leased Grant land. My late cousin, the Countess Nina, and her husband, did try during the war, before she became of age, to persuade the Trustees to buy a distillery, which she told me was then for sale for about £3,000. They would not agree to this expenditure. Your guess is as good as mine as to what it would cost today, certainly one hundred times as much.

Precisely what particular type of Speyside whisky a Grant would prefer to consume depends entirely on individual taste, and the depths of one's purse. All are good, and indeed many people would find it almost impossible to tell one from another, especially after one or two 'wee drams'! Generally speaking, the older the whisky, the better it will be to the connoisseur's palate. Again, some people prefer a blend, and some a straight malt. Some whiskies are more peaty in flavour than others. When I was a little boy with toothache my mother used to give me a certain brand of ordinary blend to hold in my mouth to anaethetise the tooth, and as a result I dislike that brand and never had it again, until two or three years ago when I had to consume quite a quantity at one gulp at a public entertainment. Well-I was really surprised to find how excellent it was! This, I think, proves my point, all are good in different ways. Do not fall into the trap of thinking that I am a whisky drinker, because you would be wrong. I am not, and only consume it on rare occasions, which, nevertheless, are enjoyable.

We can now get back to the excise and the control of spirituous production, which happened after the Act of Union. In fairness, it must be made clear that tax on spirituous liquors had been exacted long before this, particularly during Cromwell's government, and also there had been to some extent free trade between Scotland and England. Strangely enough, at the time of the Union the official production of whisky was only 50,000 gallons imperial per annum, but in the space of 50 years (that is to say by 1758) the duty paid production had increased by nearly nine times to 434,000 gallons. This figure only represented a fraction by comparison with the illicit, duty-free, production. On Speyside it is stated that in 1820 there were over 200 illicit stills, but not one legal still, so you can see that the joyous Grants were still full of good cheap spirit as recently as 1820 and beyond! A propos of this it is recorded that the Rev. John Grant of Tomintoul wrote of his flock in 1790. 'Tomintoul is inhabited by 37 families, without a single manufacture, all of them sell whisky and all of them drink it.' On my last visit to this rather charming square village situated a few miles south of the Spey and above [85] Glenlivet on a high dreek plateau, I was surprised to observe the number of traders selling a large variety of whiskies, mostly of names rarely seen or heard of...

It should be borne in mind that the illicit distiller was uncontrolled as to the strength of his product, and it is doubtful if any 70 per cent proof (our present English diluted standard) could be obtained, and that 90 or 100 was the norm. The more one goes into this the more one realises that life on Speyside could not have been so bad. In those days there was little sale for the licensed and taxed spirit. I am not in the least surprised.

Many of today's well-known distilleries are sited on the sites of illicit stills, because both, of course, are dependent on a good supply of pure burn water. It will be recollected that Robert Burns succeeded in achieving his strange ambition of becoming an exciseman, but not in our part of Scotland.

What happy days for Speyside and the Grants. It was great to be a Grant then, just as it is today. Sad to say, by 1834 the government excisemen had about won the battle, and the days of illicit stills and smuggling of spirit to market were over. By 1842 the population of Scotland was about 22 million, and the whisky consumption was 51⁄2 million gallons. An average of over two gallons per annum for every man, woman and child. It doesn't seem an awful lot to me, but it is supposed to be a very high consumption. I have read that in those days whisky was so strong (presumably this was four times distilled spirit) that it was advisable to take only one or two spoons full. This fact, of course, makes the per capita consumption look even more impressive. I have no knowledge of today's consumption rate.

An illuminating few words were written by Lady Elizabeth Grant of Rothiemurchus in 1813 (when she was 16) about the forestry workers of those days. 'When the men met in the morning they were supposed to have breakfasted at home, and had perhaps had their private dram, it being cold work in a dark wintry dawn, to start over the moor for a walk of some miles to end standing up to their knees in water; yet on collecting, whisky was always handed round; a lad with a small cask-a quarter anker-on his back, and a horn cup in his hand that held a gill, appeared three times a day among them. They all took their "morning" raw, undiluted and without accompaniment, so they did the gill at parting when the work was done; but the noontide dram was part of a meal. There was a twenty minutes' rest from labour, and a bannock and a bit of cheese taken out of every pocket to be eaten leisurely with the whisky. When we were there the horn cup was offered first to us, and each of us took a cup to the health of our friends around us, who all stood up. Sometimes a floater's wife or bairn would come with a message; such messenger was always offered whisky. Aunt Mary had a story that one day a woman with a child in her arms, and another bit thing at her knee, came up among them; the horn cup was duly handed to her, she took a "gey guid drap" herself, and then gave a little to each of the babies. "My goodness, child", said my mother [86] to the wee thing that was trotting by the mother's side, "doesn't it bite you?” "Ay but I like the bite," replied the creature.'

Today we have better food and clothing and transport, so it could be said that 'usky' is not so necessary now. Nevertheless, it does seem that the government ought to make excise tax reductions for the Highland folk. It is said that Acts of Parliament were made nonsense of when M.P.s, like Lady Grant's father, bought only George Smith's illicit whisky from Glenlivet, and King George IV in 1822 on his famous visit to Edinburgh insisted on being provided with pure Glenlivet from the same illicit source and would drink nothing else.