[24] I cannot find any good authority for the popular tradition that has branded Macleod with the treachery of betraying an old friend and companion-in-arms. After the Restoration, when the act of his having delivered an officer holding the royal commission over to a usurping power would of course be called treasonable, he was twice tried on this indictment; first before the Scottish Parliament, when, after four years' imprisonment, he was released by order of the King under an Act of Indemnity; a second time at Law, when he was acquitted of this and other treasonable charges. In Nichol's Diary of Transactions in Scotland, the father is said to have been out with Montrose; but neither in Gordon's History of the Earldom of Sutherland (where the story of the capture is told by one who knew the Laird) nor in Mackenzie's History of the Macleods is there a trace of any Macleod of this line having been in arms for the King during the war. On the contrary, the evidence of both books, such as it is, tends the other way, and Gordon explicitly says that Neil fought under the Earl of Sutherland for the Covenant. John Macdonald, the bard of Keppoch, composed a pathetic lament for Montrose, "the manly, mighty lion," in which Neil "of woful Assynt" and his family are not spared; but he is not accused of betraying a friend (Cumha Mhontroise in Mackenzie's Beauties of Gaelic Poetry, for a translation of which I am obliged to Mr. Alexander Nicolson, Advocate, of Edinburgh; according to the bard three fourths of the meal, which formed a part of the reward, were found to be sour). In the Old Statistical Account of Scotland it is alleged that Neil was on the march to join Montrose in Caithness, that the fugitive was brought to his house during his absence, and that the traitor was (presumedly) his wife, a sister of Monro of Lamlair one of Strachan's officers. This story (first told in 1792 by the minister of Kincardine) is, however, directly at variance with Gordon's, and it was proved moreover before Parliament that Neil had received the promised reward. On the whole evidence it seems hard to suppose that Macleod acted otherwise than any Covenanter in his situation would at that time have acted towards the man whom he had been taught to regard as the most dangerous enemy of his country.
[25] In the Memory of the Somervilles Montrose is said to have very nearly effected his escape through the help of the Lady of Grange, at whose house, near Dundee, he was lodged for a night. The story is mentioned nowhere else—not even in the minute account of the journey written by an eye-witness, the Rev. James Fraser, chaplain to Lord Lovat, from which and from an account by another eye-witness (printed from the Wigton Manuscripts for the Maitland Club), these details are taken. Napier accepted it at first, but eventually rejected it on grounds which seem to me sufficient (Memoirs of Montrose, ii. ch. 38 and 39).
[26] This disgraceful scene is mentioned in more than one contemporary document; among others, though in a slightly different form, in a letter from M. de Graymond, French Resident in Edinburgh, to Cardinal Mazarin. See Memoirs of Montrose, ii. 77-82, and notes. Argyll always maintained that he had refused to take any part in pronouncing sentence on Montrose.
[27] See Memoirs of Montrose, ii. 814-816, and Appendix I. The carnation silk stockings, and the linen sheet in which the body was wrapped, are in the possession of Lord Napier and Ettrick.
[28] This memorial was erected by general subscription in 1888. Among its most active promoters was the late Mr. Graham Murray of Stenton, to whose kindly assistance this little book has been much indebted.
Transcriber's Notes
Minor punctuation errors have been silently corrected.
Page [187]: "Innerquharity" is probably a typo for "Inverquharity."
Macmillan's Globe Library: "MORTE DARTHUR" was original spelling for "MORTE D'ARTHUR."