Tradition certainly makes the Macphersons of Cluny the male representatives of the chiefs of the old clan Chattan; but even if this is correct, it does not therefore follow that they have now, or have had for the last six hundred years, any right to be regarded as chiefs of the clan. The same authority, fortified by written evidence of a date only about fifty years later than Skene’s MS., in a MS. history of the Mackintoshes, states that Angus, 6th chief of Mackintosh, married the daughter and only child of Dugall Dall, chief of clan Chattan, in the end of the 13th century, and with her obtained the lands occupied by the clan, with the station of leader, and that he was received as such by the clansmen. Similar instances of the abrogation of what is called the Highland law of succession are to be found in Highland history, and on this ground alone the title of the Mackintosh chiefs seems to be a good one. Then again we find them owned and followed as captains of clan Chattan even by the Macphersons themselves up to the 17th century; while in hundreds of charters, bonds and deeds of every description, given by kings, Lords of the Isles, neighbouring chiefs, and the septs of clan Chattan itself, is the title of captain of clan Chattan acceded to them—as early as the time of David II. Mr Skene, indeed, employs their usage of the term Captain to show that they had no right of blood to the headship—a right they have never claimed, although there is perhaps no reason why they should not claim such a right from Eva. By an argument deduced from the case of the Camerons—the weakness of which will at once be seen on a careful examination of his statements—he presumes that they were the oldest cadets of the clan, and had usurped the chiefship. Ho doubt the designation captain was used, as Mr Skene says, when the actual leader of a clan was a person who had no right by blood to that position, but it does not by any means follow that he is right in assuming that those who are called captains were oldest cadets. Hector, bastard son of Ferquhard Mackintosh, while at the head of his clan during the minority of the actual chief, his distant cousin, is in several deeds styled captain of clan Chattan, and he was certainly not oldest cadet of the house of Mackintosh.
It is not for us to offer any decided opinion respecting a matter where the pride and pretensions of rival families are concerned. It may therefore be sufficient to observe that, whilst the Macphersons rest their claims chiefly on tradition, the Mackintoshes have produced, and triumphantly appealed to charters and documents of every description, in support of their pretensions; and that it is not very easy to see how so great a mass of written evidence can be overcome by merely calling into court Tradition to give testimony adverse to its credibility. The admitted fact of the Mackintosh family styling themselves captains of the clan does not seem to warrant any inference which can militate against their pretensions. On the contrary, the original assumption of this title obviously implies that no chief was in existence at the period when it was assumed; and its continuance, unchallenged and undisputed, affords strong presumptive proof in support of the account given by the Mackintoshes as to the original constitution of their title. The idea of usurpation appears to be altogether preposterous. The right alleged by the family of Mackintosh was not direct but collateral; it was founded on a marriage, and not derived by descent; and hence, probably, the origin of the secondary or subordinate title of captain which that family assumed. But can any one doubt that if a claim founded upon a preferable title had been asserted, the inferior pretension must have given way? Or is it in any degree probable that the latter would have been so fully recognised, if there had existed any lineal descendant of the ancient chiefs in a condition to prefer a claim founded upon the inherent and indefeasible right of blood?
Further, even allowing that the Macphersons are the lineal male representatives of the old clan Chattan chiefs, they can have no possible claim to the headship of the clan Chattan of later times, which was composed of others besides the descendants of the old clan. The Mackintoshes also repudiate any connection by blood with the old clan Chattan, except through the heiress of that clan who married their chief in 1291; and, indeed, such a thing was never thought of until Mr Skene started the idea; consequently the Macphersons can have no claim over them, or over the families which spring from them. The great body of the clan, the historical clan Chattan, have always owned and followed the chief of Mackintosh as their leader and captain—the term captain being simply employed to include the whole—and until the close of the 17th century no attempt was made to deprive the Mackintosh chiefs of this title.
Among many other titles given to the chief of the Mackintoshes within the last 700 years, are, according to Mr Fraser-Mackintosh, those of Captain of Clan Chattan, Chief of Clan Chattan, and Principal of Clan Chattan. The following on this subject is from the pen of Lachlan Shaw, the historian of Moray, whose knowledge of the subject entitled him to speak with authority. It is printed in the account of the Kilravock Family issued by the Spalding Club. “Eve Catach, who married MacIntosh, was the heir-female (Clunie’s ancestor being the heir-male), and had MacIntosh assumed her surname, he would (say the MacPhersons) have been chief of the Clanchatan, according to the custom of Scotland. But this is an empty distinction. For, if the right of chiftanry is, jure sanguinis, inherent in the heir-female, she conveys it, and cannot but convey it to her son, whatever surname he takes; nam jura sanguinis non prœscribunt. And if it is not inherent in her, she cannot convey it to her son, although he assume her surname. Be this as it will, MacIntosh’s predecessors were, for above 300 years, designed Captains of Clanchatan, in royal charters and commissions, in bonds, contracts, history, heraldrie, &c.; the occasion of which title was, that several tribes or clans (every clan retaining its own surname) united in the general designation of Clanchatan; and of this incorporated body, MacIntosh was the head leader or captain. These united tribes were MacIntosh, MacPherson, Davidson, Shaw, MacBean, MacGilivray, MacQueen, Smith, MacIntyre, MacPhail, &c. In those times of barbarity and violence, small and weak tribes found it necessary to unite with, or come under the patronage of more numerous and powerful clans. And as long as the tribes of Clanchatan remained united (which was till the family of Gordon, breaking with the family of MacIntosh, disunited them, and broke their coalition), they were able to defend themselves against any other clan.”
In a MS., probably written by the same author, a copy of which now lies before us, a lengthened enquiry into the claims of the rival chiefs is concluded thus:—“In a word, if by the chief of the clan Chattan is meant the heir of the family, it cannot be doubted that Cluny is chief. If the heir whatsoever is meant, then unquestionably Mackintosh is chief; and whoever is chief, since the captaincy and command of the collective body of the clan Chattan was for above 300 years in the family of Mackintosh, I cannot see but, if such a privilege now remains, it is still in that family.” In reference to this much-disputed point, we take the liberty of quoting a letter of the Rev. W. G. Shaw, of Forfar. He has given the result of his inquiries in several privately printed brochures, but it is hoped that ere long he will place at the disposal of all who take an interest in these subjects the large stores of information he must have accumulated on many matters connected with the Highlands. Writing to the editor of this book he says, on the subject of the chiefship of clan Chattan:—
“Skene accords too much to the Macphersons in one way, but not enough in another.
“(Too much)—He says that for 200 years the Mackintoshes headed the clan Chattan, but only as captain, not as chief. But during these 200 years we have bonds, &c., cropping up now and then in which the Macphersons are only designated as (M. or N.) Macpherson of Cluny. Their claim to headship seems to have been thoroughly in abeyance till the middle of the 17th century.
“(Too little)—For he says the Macphersons in their controversy (1672) before the Lyon King, pled only tradition, whereas they pled the facts.
“De jure the Macphersons were chiefs; de facto, they never were; and they only claimed to use the title when clanship began to be a thing of the past, in so far as fighting was concerned.
“The Macphersons seem to have been entitled to the chieftainship by right of birth, but de facto they never had it. The might of ‘the Macintosh’ had made his right, as is evidenced in half-a-hundred bonds of manrent, deeds of various kinds, to be found in the ‘Thanes of Cawdor,’ and the Spalding Club Miscellany—passim. He is always called Capitane or Captane of clan Quhattan, the spelling being scarcely ever twice the same.”