As such an example of insubordination among the Earl of Sutherland’s vassals might, if overlooked, lead others to follow a similar course, Sir Alexander caused the laird of Duffus and his brother of Clyne, with their accomplices, to be cited to appear at Edinburgh on the 16th of November following, to answer before the Privy Council for their misdemeanours. The laird of Duffus, however, died in the month of October, but the laird of Clyne appeared at Edinburgh at the time appointed, and produced before the Privy Council the letter he had received from Mackay, as his authority for acting as he had done. Sir Alexander Gordon also produced the letter sent to him by Sir Donald, who was thereby convicted of having been the intentional originator of the difference; but as the lords of council thought that the laird of Clyne had exceeded the bounds of his commission, he was imprisoned in the jail of Edinburgh, wherein he was ordered to remain until he should give satisfaction to the other party, and present some of his men who had failed to appear though summoned. By the mediation, however, of James Sutherland, tutor of Duffus, a reconciliation was effected between Sir Robert and Sir Alexander Gordon, and the laird of Clyne, who was, in consequence, soon thereafter liberated from prison.[217]
The year 1628 was marked by the breaking out of an old and deadly feud among the Grants, which had been transmitted from father to son for several generations, in consequence of the murder of John Grant of Ballindalloch, about the middle of the sixteenth century, by John Roy Grant of Carron, the natural son of John Grant of Glenmoriston, at the instigation of the laird of Grant, the chief of the tribe, who had conceived a grudge against his kinsman. Some years before the period first mentioned, James Grant, one of the Carron family, happening to be at a fair in the town of Elgin, observed one of the Grants of the Ballindalloch family eagerly pursuing his (James’s) brother, Thomas Grant, whom he knocked down in the street and wounded openly before his eyes. The assailant was in his turn attacked by James Grant, who killed him upon the spot and immediately decamped. Ballindalloch then cited James Grant to stand trial for the slaughter of his kinsman, but, as he did not appear on the day appointed, he was outlawed. The laird of Grant made many attempts to reconcile the parties, but in vain, as Ballindalloch was obstinate and would listen to no proposals. Nothing less than the blood of James Grant would satisfy Ballindalloch.
This resolution on the part of Ballindalloch almost drove James Grant to despair, and seeing his life every moment in jeopardy, and deprived of any hope of effecting a compromise, he put himself at the head of a party of brigands, whom he collected from all parts of the Highlands. These freebooters made no distinction between friends and foes, but attacked all persons of whatever description, and wasted and despoiled their property. James Grant of Dalnebo, one of the family of Ballindalloch, fell a victim to their fury, and many of the kinsmen of that family suffered greatly from the depredations committed by Grant and his associates. The Earl of Murray, under the renewed and extended commission which he had obtained from King Charles, made various attempts to put an end to these lawless proceedings, but to no purpose; the failure of these attempts serving only to harden James Grant and his party, who continued their depredations. As John Grant of Carron, nephew of James Grant, was supposed to maintain and assist his uncle secretly, a suspicion for which there seems to have been no foundation, John Grant of Ballindalloch sought for an opportunity of revenging himself upon Carron, who was a promising young man. Carron having one day left his house, along with one Alexander Grant and seven or eight other persons, to cut down some timber in the woods of Abernethy, Ballindalloch thought the occasion favourable for putting his design into execution. Having collected and armed sixteen of his friends, he went to the forest where Carron was, and under the pretence of searching for James Grant and some of his associates, against whom he had a commission, attacked Carron, who fought manfully in defence of his life, but being overpowered, was killed by Ballindalloch. Before Carron fell, however, he and Alexander Grant had slain several of Ballindalloch’s friends, among whom were Thomas Grant of Davey, and Lauchlan Macintosh of Rockinoyr. Alexander Grant afterwards annoyed Ballindalloch, killing several of his men, and assisted James Grant to lay waste Ballindalloch’s lands. “Give me leave heir,” says Sir R. Gordon, “to remark the providence and secrait judgement of the Almightie God, who now hath mett Carron with the same measure that his forefather, John Roy Grant of Carron, did serve the ancestor of Ballendallogh; for upon the same day of the moneth that John Roy Grant did kill the great-grandfather of Ballendallogh (being the eleventh day of September), the verie same day of this month wes Carron slain by this John Grant of Ballendallogh many yeirs thereafter. And, besides, as that John Roy Grant of Carron was left-handed, so is this John Grant of Ballendallogh left-handed also; and moreover, it is to be observed that Ballendallogh, at the killing of this Carron, had upon him the same coat-of-armour, or maillie-coat, which John Roy Grant had upon him at the slaughter of the great-grandfather of this Ballendallogh, which maillie-coat Ballendallogh had, a little before this tyme, taken from James Grant, in a skirmish, that passed betwixt them. Thus wee doe sie that the judgements of God are inscrutable, and that, in his own tyme, he punisheth blood by blood.”[218]
The Earl of Murray, when he heard of this occurrence, instead of taking measures against Ballindalloch for his outrage against the laws, which he was fully entitled to do by virtue of the commission he held, took part with Ballindalloch against the friends of Carron. He not only represented Ballindalloch’s case favourably at court, but also obtained an indemnity for him for some years, that he might not be molested. The countenance thus given by his majesty’s lieutenant to the murderer of their kinsmen, exasperated James and Alexander Grant in the highest degree against Ballindalloch and his supporters, whom they continually annoyed with their incursions, laying waste their lands and possessions, and cutting off their people. To such an extent was this system of lawless warfare carried, that Ballindalloch was forced to flee from the north of Scotland, and live for the most part in Edinburgh, to avoid the dangers with which he was surrounded. But James Grant’s desperate career was checked by a party of the clan Chattan, who unexpectedly attacked him at Auchnachyle, in Strathdoun, under cloud of night, in the latter end of December, 1630, when he was taken prisoner after receiving eleven wounds, and after four of his party were killed. He was sent by his captors to Edinburgh for trial before the lords of the council, and was imprisoned in the castle of Edinburgh, from which he escaped in the manner to be afterwards noticed.
About the time that James Grant was desolating the district of the Highlands, to which his operations were confined, another part of the country was convulsed by a dispute, ending tragically, which occurred between James Crichton of Frendret, or Frendraught, and William Gordon of Rothiemay, whose lands lay adjacent to each other. Part of Gordon’s lands which marched with those of Crichton were purchased by the latter; but a dispute having occurred about the right to the salmon fishings belonging to these lands, an irreconcilable difference arose between them, which no mediation of friends could reconcile, although the matter in dispute was of little moment. The parties having had recourse to the law to settle their respective claims, Crichton prevailed, and succeeded in getting Gordon denounced rebel. He had previously treated Rothiemay very harshly, who, stung by the severity of his opponent, and by the victory he had obtained over him, would listen to no proposals of peace, nor follow the advice of his best friends. Determined to set the law at defiance, he collected a number of loose and disorderly characters, and annoyed Frendraught, who, in consequence, applied for and obtained a commission from the Privy Council for apprehending Rothiemay and his associates. In the execution of this task he was assisted by Sir George Ogilvy of Banff, George Gordon, brother-german of Sir James Gordon of Lesmoir, and the uncle of Frendraught, James Leslie, second son of Leslie of Pitcaple, John Meldrum of Reidhill, and others. Accompanied by these gentlemen, Crichton left his house of Frendraught on the 1st of January, 1630, for the house of Rothiemay, with a resolution either to apprehend Gordon, his antagonist, or to set him at defiance by affronting him. He was incited the more to follow this course, as young Rothiemay, at the head of a party, had come a short time before to the very doors of Frendraught, and had braved him to his face. When Rothiemay heard of the advance of Frendraught, he left his house, accompanied by his eldest son, John Gordon, and about eight men on horseback armed with guns and lances, and a party of men on foot with muskets, and crossing the river Deveron, went forward to meet Frendraught and his party. A sharp conflict immediately took place, in which Rothiemay’s horse was killed under him; but he fought manfully for some time on foot, until the whole of his party, with the exception of his son, were forced to retire. The son, notwithstanding, continued to support his father against fearful odds, but was at last obliged to save himself by flight, leaving his father lying on the field covered with wounds, and supposed to be dead. He, however, was found still alive after the conflict was over, and being carried home to his house, died within three days thereafter. George Gordon, brother of Gordon of Lesmoir, received a shot in the thigh, and died in consequence ten days after the skirmish. These were the only deaths which occurred, although several of the combatants on both sides were wounded. John Meldrum, who fought on Frendraught’s side, was the only person severely wounded.
The Marquis of Huntly was highly displeased at Frendraught for having, in such a trifling matter, proceeded to extremities against his kinsman, a chief baron of his surname, whose life had been thus sacrificed in a petty quarrel. The displeasure of the marquis was still farther heightened, when he was informed that Frendraught had joined the Earl of Murray, and had claimed his protection and assistance; but the marquis was obliged to repress his indignation. John Gordon of Rothiemay, eldest son of the deceased laird, resolved to avenge the death of his father, and having collected a party of men, he associated himself with James Grant and other freebooters, for the purpose of laying waste Frendraught’s lands, and oppressing him in every possible way. Frendraught, who was in the south of Scotland when this combination against him was formed, no sooner heard of it than he posted to England, and, having laid a statement of the case before the king, his majesty remitted the matter to the Privy Council of Scotland, desiring them to use their best endeavours for settling the peace of the northern parts of the kingdom. A commission was thereupon granted by the lords of the council to Frendraught and others, for the purpose of apprehending John Gordon and his associates; but, as the commissioners were not able to execute the task imposed upon them, the lords of the council sent Sir Robert Gordon, tutor of Sutherland, who had just returned from England, and Sir William Seaton of Killesmuir, to the north, with a new commission against the rebels. As it seemed to be entirely out of the power of the Earl of Murray to quell the disturbances in the north, the two commissioners received particular instructions to attempt, with the aid of the Marquis of Huntly, to get matters settled amicably, and the opposing parties reconciled. The lords of the council, at the same time, wrote a letter to the Marquis of Huntly to the same effect. Sir Robert Gordon and Sir William Seaton accordingly left Edinburgh, on their way north, in the beginning of May, 1630. The latter stopped at Aberdeen for the purpose of consulting with some gentlemen of that county, as to the best mode of proceeding against the rebels; and the former went to Strathbogie to advise with the Marquis of Huntly.
On Sir Robert’s arrival at Strathbogie, he found that the marquis had gone to Aberdeen to attend the funeral of the laird of Drum. By a singular coincidence, James Grant and Alexander Grant descended the very day of Sir Robert’s arrival from the mountains, at the head of a party of 200 Highlanders, well armed, with a resolution to burn and lay waste Frendraught’s lands. As soon as Sir Robert became aware of this circumstance, he went in great haste to Rothiemay house, where he found John Gordon and his associates in arms, ready to set out to join the Grants. By persuasion and entreaties Sir Robert, assisted by his nephew the Earl of Sutherland, and his brother, Sir Alexander Gordon, who were then at Frendraught on a visit to the lady of that place, who was a sister of the earl, prevailed not only upon John Gordon and his friends to desist, but also upon James Grant and his companions-in-arms, to disperse.
On the return of the Marquis of Huntly to Strathbogie, Rothiemay and Frendraught were both induced to meet them in presence of the marquis, Sir Robert Gordon, and Sir William Seaton, who, after much entreaty, prevailed upon them to reconcile their differences, and submit all matters in dispute to their arbitrament. A decree-arbitral was accordingly pronounced, by which the arbiters adjudged that the laird of Rothiemay and the children of George Gordon should mutually remit their father’s slaughter, and, in satisfaction thereof, they decerned that the laird of Frendraught should pay a certain sum of money to the laird of Rothiemay, for relief of the debts which he had contracted during the disturbances between the two families,[219] and that he should pay some money to the children of George Gordon. Frendraught fulfilled these conditions most willingly, and the parties shook hands together in the orchard of Strathbogie, in token of a hearty and sincere reconciliation.[220]
The laird of Frendraught had scarcely been reconciled to Rothiemay, when he got into another dispute with the laird of Pitcaple, the occasion of which was as follows:—John Meldrum of Reidhill had assisted Frendraught in his quarrel with old Rothiemay, and had received a wound in the skirmish in which the latter lost his life, for which injury Frendraught had allowed him some compensation; but, conceiving that his services had not been fairly requited, he began to abuse Frendraught, and threatened to compel him to give him a greater recompense than he had yet received. As Frendraught refused to comply with his demands, Meldrum entered the park of Frendraught privately in the night-time, and carried away two horses belonging to his pretended debtor. Frendraught thereupon prosecuted Meldrum for theft, but he declined to appear in court, and was consequently declared rebel. Frendraught then obtained a commission from the Privy Council to apprehend Meldrum, who took refuge with John Leslie of Pitcaple, whose sister he had married. Under the commission which he had procured, Frendraught went in quest of Meldrum, on the 27th of September, 1630. He proceeded to Pitcaple’s lands, on which he knew Meldrum then lived, where he met James Leslie, second son of the laird of Pitcaple, who had been with him at the skirmish of Rothiemay. Leslie then began to expostulate with him in behalf of Meldrum, his brother-in-law, who, on account of the aid he had given him in his dispute with Rothiemay, took Leslie’s remonstrances in good part; but Robert Crichton of Conland,[221] a kinsman of Frendraught, grew so warm at Leslie’s freedom that from high words they proceeded to blows. Conland, then, drawing a pistol from his belt, wounded Leslie in the arm, who was thereupon carried home, apparently in a dying state.
This affair was the signal for a confederacy among the Leslies, the greater part of whom took up arms against Frendraught, who, a few days after the occurrence, viz., on the 5th of October, first went to the Marquis of Huntly, and afterwards to the Earl of Murray, to express the regret he felt at what had taken place, and to beg their kindly interference to bring matters to an amicable accommodation. The Earl of Murray, for some reason or other, declined to interfere; but the marquis undertook to mediate between the parties. Accordingly, he sent for the laird of Pitcaple to come to the Bog of Gight to confer with him; but, before setting out, he mounted and equipped about 30 horsemen, in consequence of information he had received that Frendraught was at the Bog. At the meeting with the marquis, Pitcaple complained heavily of the injury his son had sustained, and avowed, rather rashly, that he would revenge himself before he returned home, and that, at all events, he would listen to no proposals for a reconciliation till it should be ascertained whether his son would survive the wound he had received. The marquis insisted that Frendraught had done him no wrong, and endeavoured to dissuade him from putting his threat into execution; but Pitcaple was so displeased at the marquis for thus expressing himself, that he suddenly mounted his horse and set off, leaving Frendraught behind him. The marquis, afraid of the consequences, detained Frendraught two days with him in the Bog of Gight, and, hearing that the Leslies had assembled, and lay in wait for Frendraught watching his return home, the marquis sent his son, John, Viscount of Aboyne, and the laird of Rothiemay along with him, to protect and defend him if necessary. They arrived at Frendraught without interruption, and being solicited to remain all night, they yielded, and, after partaking of a hearty supper, went to bed in the apartments provided for them.