Chapter X: A.d. 1613-1623 (1)

KING OF GREAT BRITAIN:--James I., 1603-1625.

Continued animosity between the Earls of Caithness
and Sutherland--The latter imprisoned as a suspected
Catholic--Formidable Rebellion in the South Hebrides--Suppressed
by the Earl of Argyle--Fresh intrigues of the Earl of
Caithness--His oppressions--Burning of the corn at Sanset--Legal
proceedings against the Guns--Agreement between the Earl of
Caithness, Sir Robert Gordon, and Lord Forbes--Lord Berridale
imprisoned--Conditions of release--Put in possession of
the family Estates--Alliance between the Earl of Caithness
and Sir Donald Mackay--Sir Robert Gordon protects the clan
Gun--Mackay’s attempts against the Clan--Mackay and Sir Robert
Gordon reconciled--Quarrel between the Earl of Enzie and the
clan Chattan--Slaughter of Thomas Lindsay--Hostile preparations
against the Earl of Caithness--Expedition into Caithness--Flight
of the Earl--Reduction and pacification of Caithness.

As the Privy Council showed no inclination to decide the questions submitted to them by the Earl of Caithness and his adversaries, the earl sent his brother, Sir John Sinclair of Greenland, to Edinburgh, to complain of the delay which had taken place, and desired him to throw out hints, that if the earl did not obtain satisfaction for his supposed injuries, he would take redress at his own hands. The earl thought that he would succeed, by such a threat, in moving the council to decide in his favour, for he was well aware that he was unable to carry it into execution. To give some appearance of an intention to enforce it, he, in the month of October, 1613, while the Earl of Sutherland, his brothers and nephews, were absent from the country, made a demonstration of invading Sutherland or Strathnaver, by collecting his forces at a particular point, and bringing thither some pieces of ordnance from Castle Sinclair. The Earl of Sutherland, having arrived in Sutherland while the Earl of Caithness was thus employed, immediately assembled some of his countrymen, and, along with his brother Sir Alexander, went to the marches between Sutherland and Caithness, near the height of Strathully, where they waited the approach of the Earl of Caithness. Here they were joined by Mackay, who had given notice of the Earl of Caithness’s movements to the lairds of Foulis, Balnagown, and Assynt, the sheriff of Cromarty, and the tutor of Kintail, all of whom prepared themselves to assist the Earl of Sutherland. The Earl of Caithness, however, by advice of his brother, Sir John Sinclair, returned home and disbanded his force.

To prevent the Earl of Caithness from attempting any farther interference with the Privy Council, either in the way of intrigue or intimidation, Sir Robert Gordon obtained a remission and pardon from the king, in the month of December, 1613, to his nephew, Donald Mackay, John Gordon, younger of Embo, John Gordon in Broray, Adam Gordon Georgeson, and their accomplices, for the slaughter of John Sinclair of Stirkage at Thurso. However, Sir Gideon Murray, Deputy Treasurer for Scotland, contrived to prevent the pardon passing through the seals till the beginning of the year 1616.

The Earl of Caithness, being thus baffled in his designs against the Earl of Sutherland and his friends, fell upon a device which never failed to succeed in times of religious intolerance and persecution. Unfortunately for mankind and for the interests of Christianity, the principles of religious toleration, involving the inalienable right of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience, have been till of late but little understood, and at the period in question, and for upwards of one hundred and sixty years thereafter, the statute book of Scotland was disgraced by penal enactments against the Catholics, almost unparalleled for their sanguinary atrocity. By an act of the first parliament of James VI., any Catholic who assisted at the offices of his religion was, “for the first fault,” that is, for following the dictates of his conscience, to suffer confiscation of all his goods, movable and immovable, personal and real; for the second, banishment; and death for the third fault! But the law was not confined to overt acts only--the mere suspicion of being a Catholic placed the suspected person out of the pale and protection of the law; for if, on being warned by the bishops and ministers, he did not recant and give confession of his faith according to the approved form, he was excommunicated, and declared infamous and incapable to sit or stand in judgment, pursue or bear office.[205]

Under this last-mentioned law the Earl of Caithness now sought to gratify his vengeance against the Earl of Sutherland. Having represented to the Archbishop of St. Andrews and the clergy of Scotland that the Earl of Sutherland was at heart a Catholic, he prevailed upon the bishops--with little difficulty, it is supposed--to acquaint the king thereof. His majesty thereupon issued a warrant against the Earl of Sutherland, who was in consequence apprehended and imprisoned at St. Andrews. The earl applied to the bishops for a month’s delay, till the 15th February, 1614, promising that before that time he would either give the church satisfaction or surrender himself; but his application was refused by the high commission of Scotland. Sir Alexander Gordon, the brother of the earl, being then in Edinburgh, immediately gave notice to his brother, Sir Robert Gordon, who was at the time in London, of the proceedings against their brother, the earl. Sir Robert having applied to his majesty for the release of the earl for a time, that he might make up his mind on the subject of religion, and look after his affairs in the north, his majesty granted a warrant for his liberation till the month of August following. On the expiration of the time, he returned to his confinement at St. Andrews, from which he was removed, on his own application, to the abbey of Holyrood house, where he remained till the month of March, 1615, when he obtained leave to go home, “having,” says Sir Robert Gordon, “in some measure satisfied the church concerning his religion.”

The Earl of Caithness, thus again defeated in his views, tried, as a _dernier ressort_, to disjoin the families of Sutherland and Mackay. Sometimes he attempted to prevail upon the Marquis of Huntly to persuade the Earl of Sutherland and his brothers to come to an arrangement altogether independent of Mackay; and at other times he endeavoured to persuade Mackay, by holding out certain inducements to him, to compromise their differences without including the Earl of Sutherland in the arrangement; but he completely failed in these attempts.[206]

In 1614-15 a formidable rebellion broke out in the South Hebrides, arising from the efforts made by the clan Donald of Islay to retain that island in their possession. The castle of Dunyveg in Islay, which, for three years previous to 1614, had been in possession of the Bishop of the Isles, having been taken by Angus Oig, younger brother of Sir James Macdonald of Islay, from Ranald Oig, who had surprised it, the former refused to restore it to the bishop. The Privy Council took the matter in hand, and, having accepted from John Campbell of Calder an offer of a feu-duty or perpetual rent for Islay, they prevailed on him to accept a commission against Angus Oig and his followers. The clan Donald, who viewed with suspicion the growing power of the Campbells, looked upon this project with much dislike, and treated certain hostages left by the bishop with great severity. Even the bishop remonstrated against making “the name of Campbell greater in the Isles than they are already,” thinking it neither good nor profitable to his majesty, “to root out one pestiferous clan, and plant in another little better.” The remonstrance of the bishop and an offer made to put matters right by Sir James Macdonald, who was then imprisoned in Edinburgh castle, were alike unheeded, and Campbell of Calder received his commission of Lieutenandry against Angus Oig Macdonald, Coll Mac-Gillespic, and the other rebels of Islay. A free pardon was offered to all who were not concerned in the taking of the castle, and a remission to Angus Oig, provided he gave up the castle, the hostages, and two associates of his own rank.

While Campbell was collecting his forces, and certain auxiliary troops from Ireland were preparing to embark, the chancellor of Scotland, the Earl of Dunfermline, by means of a Ross-shire man, named George Graham of Eryne, prevailed on Angus Oig to release the bishop’s hostages, and deliver up to Graham the castle, in behalf of the chancellor. Graham re-delivered the castle to Angus, to be held by him as the regular constable, until he should receive further order from the chancellor, and at the same time assured Angus of the chancellor’s countenance and protection, enjoining him to resist all efforts on the part of Campbell or his friends to eject him. These injunctions Graham’s dupes too readily followed. “There can be no doubt whatever that the chancellor was the author of this notable plan to procure the liberation of the hostages, and at the same time to deprive the clan Donald of the benefit of the pardon promised to them on this account. There are grounds for a suspicion that the chancellor himself desired to obtain Islay; although it is probable that he wished to avoid the odium attendant on the more violent measures required to render such an acquisition available. He, therefore, contrived so as to leave the punishment of the clan Donald to the Campbells, who were already sufficiently obnoxious to the western clans, whilst he himself had the credit of procuring the liberation of the hostages.”

Campbell of Calder and Sir Oliver Lambert, commander of the Irish forces, did not effect a junction till the 5th of January, 1615, and on the 6th, Campbell landed on Islay with 200 men, his force being augmented next day by 140 more. Several of the rebels, alarmed, deserted Angus, and were pardoned on condition of helping the besiegers. Ronald Mac-James, uncle of Angus Oig, surrendered a fort on the island of Lochgorme which he commanded, on the 21st, and along with his son received a conditional assurance of his majesty’s favour. Operations were commenced against Dunyveg on February 1st, and shortly after Angus had an interview with the lieutenant, during which the latter showed that Angus had been deceived by Graham, upon which he promised to surrender. On returning to the castle, however, he refused to implement his promise, being instigated to hold out apparently by Coll Mac-Gillespic. After being again battered for some time, Angus and some of his followers at last surrendered unconditionally, Coll Mac-Gillespic contriving to make his escape. Campbell took possession of the castle on the 3d February, dispersed the forces of the rebels, and put to death a number of those who had deserted the siege; Angus himself was reserved for examination by the Privy Council. In the course of the examination it came out clearly that the Earl of Argyle was the original promoter of the seizure of the castle, his purpose apparently being to ruin the clan Donald by urging them to rebellion; but this charge, as well as that against the Earl of Dunfermline, appears to have been smothered.

During the early part of the year 1615, Coll Mac-Gillespic and others of the clan Donald who had escaped, infested the western coasts, and committed many acts of piracy, being joined about the month of May by Sir James Macdonald, who had escaped from Edinburgh castle, where he had been lying for a long time under sentence of death. Sir James and his followers, now numbering several hundreds, after laying in a good supply of provisions, sailed towards Islay. The Privy Council were not slow in taking steps to repress the rebellion, although various circumstances occurred to thwart their intentions. Calder engaged to keep the castle of Dunyveg against the rebels, and instructions were given to the various western gentlemen friendly to the government to defend the western coasts and islands. Large rewards were offered for the principal rebels. All the forces were enjoined to be at their appointed stations by the 6th of July, furnished with forty days’ provisions, and with a sufficient number of boats, to enable them to act by sea, if necessary.

Sir James Macdonald, about the end of June, landing on Islay, managed by stratagem to obtain possession of Dunyveg Castle, himself and his followers appearing to have conducted themselves with great moderation. Dividing his force, which numbered about 400, into two bodies, with one of which he himself intended to proceed to Jura, the other, under Coll Mac-Gillespic, was destined for Kintyre, for the purpose of encouraging the ancient followers of his family to assist him. In the beginning of July, Angus Oig and a number of his followers were tried and condemned, and executed immediately after.

Various disheartening reports were now circulated as to the disaffection of Donald Gorme of Sleat, captain of the clan Ranald, Ruari Macleod of Harris, and others; and that Hector Maclean of Dowart, if not actually engaged in the rebellion, had announced, that if he was desired to proceed against the clan Donald, he would not be very earnest in the service. The militia of Ayr, Renfrew, Dumbarton, Bute, and Inverness were called out, and a commission was granted to the Marquis of Hamilton to keep the clan Donald out of Arran.

The Privy Council had some time before this urged the king to send down the Earl of Argyle from England--to which he had fled from his numerous creditors--to act as lieutenant in suppressing the insurrection. After many delays, Argyle, to whom full powers had been given to act as lieutenant, at length mustered his forces at Duntroon on Loch Crinan early in September. He issued a proclamation of pardon to all rebels who were willing to submit, and by means of spies examined Macdonald’s camp, which had been pitched on the west coast of Kintyre, the number of the rebels being ascertained to be about 1,000 men. Argyle set himself so promptly and vigorously to crush the rebels, that Sir James Macdonald, who had been followed to Islay by the former, finding it impossible either to resist the Lieutenant’s forces, or to escape with his galleys to the north isles, desired from the earl a truce of four days, promising at the end of that time to surrender. Argyle would not accede to this request except on condition of Sir James giving up the two forts which he held; this Sir James urged Coll Mac-Gillespic to do, but he refused, although he sent secretly to Argyle a message that he was willing to comply with the earl’s request. Argyle immediately sent a force against Sir James to surprise him, who, being warned of this by the natives, managed to make his escape to an island called Inchdaholl, on the coast of Ireland, and never again returned to the Hebrides. Next day, Mac-Gillespic surrendered the two forts and his prisoners, upon assurance of his own life and the lives of a few of his followers, at the same time treacherously apprehending and delivering to Argyle, Macfie of Colonsay, one of the principal rebel leaders, and eighteen others. This conduct soon had many imitators, including Macfie himself.

Having delivered the forts in Islay to Campbell of Calder, and having executed a number of the leading rebels, Argyle proceeded to Kintyre, and crushed out all remaining seeds of insurrection there. Many of the principal rebels, notwithstanding a diligent search, effected their escape, many of them to Ireland, Sir James Macdonald being sent to Spain by some Jesuits in Galway. The escape of so many of the principal rebels seems to have given the Council great dissatisfaction. Argyle carried on operations till the middle of December 1615, refusing to dismiss the hired soldiers in the beginning of November, as he was ordered by the Council to do. He was compelled to disburse the pay, amounting to upwards of £7,000, for the extra month and a half out of his own pocket.

“Thus,” to use the words of our authority for the above details,[207] “terminated the last struggle of the once powerful clan Donald of Islay and Kintyre, to retain, from the grasp of the Campbells, these ancient possessions of their tribe.”

Ever since the death of John Sinclair at Thurso, the Earl of Caithness used every means in his power to induce such of his countrymen as were daring enough, to show their prowess and dexterity, by making incursions into Sutherland or Strathnaver, for the purpose of annoying the vassals and dependants of the Earl of Sutherland and his ally, Mackay. Amongst others he often communicated on this subject with William Kennethson, whose father, Kenneth Buidhe, had always been the principal instrument in the hands of Earl George in oppressing the people of his own country. For the furtherance of his plans he at last prevailed upon William, who already stood rebel to the king in a criminal cause, to go into voluntary banishment into Strathnaver, and put himself under the protection of Mackay, to whom he was to pretend that he had left Caithness to avoid any solicitations from the Earl of Caithness to injure the inhabitants of Strathnaver. To cover their designs they caused a report to be spread that William Mac-Kenneth was to leave Caithness because he would not obey the orders of the earl to execute some designs against Sir Robert Gordon, the tutor of Sutherland, and Mackay, and when this false rumour had been sufficiently spread, Mac-Kenneth, and his brother John, and their dependants, fled into Strathnaver and solicited the favour and protection of Mackay. The latter received them kindly; but as William and his party had been long addicted to robbery and theft, he strongly advised them to abstain from such practices in all time coming; and that they might not afterwards plead necessity as an excuse for continuing their depredations, he allotted them some lands to dwell on. After staying a month or two in Strathnaver, during which time they stole some cattle and horses out of Caithness, William received a private visit by night from Kenneth Buidhe, his father, who had been sent by the Earl of Caithness for the purpose of executing a contemplated depredation in Sutherland. Mackay was then in Sutherland on a visit to his uncle, Sir Robert Gordon, which being known to William Mac-Kenneth, he resolved to enter Sutherland with his party, and carry off into Caithness all the booty they could collect. Being observed in the glen of Loth by some of the clan Gun, collecting cattle and horses, they were immediately apprehended, with the exception of Iain-Garbh-Mac-Chonald-Mac-Mhurchidh-Mhoir, who, being a very resolute man, refused to surrender, and was in consequence killed. The prisoners were delivered to Sir Robert Gordon at Dornoch, who committed William and his brother John to the castle of Dornoch for trial. In the meantime two of the principal men of Mac-Kenneth’s party were tried, convicted, and executed, and the remainder were allowed to return home on giving surety to keep the peace. This occurrence took place in the month of January 1616.

The Earl of Caithness now finished his restless career of iniquity by the perpetration of a crime which, though trivial in its consequences, was of so highly a penal nature in itself as to bring his own life into jeopardy. As the circumstances which led to the burning of the corn of William Innes, a servant of Lord Forbes at Sanset in Caithness, and the discovery of the Earl of Caithness as instigator, are somewhat curious, it is thought that a recital of them may not be here out of place.

Among other persons who had suffered at the hands of the earl was his own kinsman, William Sinclair of Dumbaith. After annoying him in a variety of ways, the earl instigated his bastard brother, Henry Sinclair, and Kenneth Buidhe, to destroy and lay waste part of Dumbaith’s lands, who, unable to resist, and being in dread of personal risk, locked himself up in his house at Dunray, which they besieged. William Sinclair immediately applied to John, Earl of Sutherland, for assistance, who sent his friend Mackay with a party to rescue Sinclair from his perilous situation. Mackay succeeded, and carried Sinclair along with him into Sutherland, where he remained for a time, but he afterwards went to reside in Moray, where he died. Although thus cruelly persecuted and forced to become an exile from his country by the Earl of Caithness, no entreaties could induce him to apply for redress, choosing rather to suffer himself than to see his relative punished. William Sinclair was succeeded by his grandson, George Sinclair, who married a sister of Lord Forbes. By the persuasion of his wife, who was a mere tool in the hands of the Earl of Caithness, George Sinclair was induced to execute a deed of entail, by which, failing of heirs male of his own body, he left the whole of his lands to the earl. When the earl had obtained this deed he began to devise means to make away with Sinclair, and actually persuaded Sinclair’s wife to assist him in this nefarious design. Having obtained notice of this conspiracy against his life, Sinclair left Caithness and took up his residence with his brother-in-law, Lord Forbes, who received him with great kindness and hospitality, and reprobated very strongly the wicked conduct of his sister. Sinclair now recalled the entail in favour of the Earl of Caithness, and made a new deed by which he conveyed his whole estate to Lord Forbes. George Sinclair died soon after the execution of the deed, and having left no issue, Lord Forbes took possession of his lands of Dunray and Dumbaith.

Disappointed in his plans to acquire Sinclair’s property, the Earl of Caithness seized every opportunity of annoying Lord Forbes in his possessions, by oppressing his tenants and servants, in every possible way, under the pretence of discharging his duty as sheriff, to which office he had been appointed by the Earl of Huntly, on occasion of his marriage with Huntly’s sister. Complaints were made from time to time against the earl, on account of these proceedings, to the Privy Council of Scotland, which, in some measure, afforded redress; but to protect his tenants more effectually, Lord Forbes took up a temporary residence in Caithness, relying upon the aid of the house of Sutherland in case of need.

As the Earl of Caithness was aware that any direct attack on Lord Forbes would be properly resented, and as any enterprise undertaken by his own people would be laid to his charge, however cautious he might be in dealing with them, he fixed on the clan Gun as the fittest instruments for effecting his designs against Lord Forbes. Besides being the most resolute men in Caithness, always ready to undertake any desperate action, they depended more upon the Earl of Sutherland and Mackay, from whom they held some lands, than upon the Earl of Caithness; a circumstance which the latter supposed, should the contemplated outrages of the clan Gun ever become matter of inquiry, might throw the suspicion upon the two former as the silent instigators. Accordingly, the earl opened a negotiation with John Gun, chief of the clan Gun in Caithness, and with his brother, Alexander Gun, whose father he had hanged in the year 1586. In consequence of an invitation, the two brothers, along with Alexander Gun, their cousin-german, repaired to Castle Sinclair, where they met the earl. The earl did not at first divulge his plans to all the party; but taking Alexander Gun, the cousin, aside, he pointed out to him the injury he alleged he had sustained, in consequence of Lord Forbes having obtained a footing in Caithness,--that he could no longer submit to the indignity shown him by a stranger,--that he had made choice of him (Gun) to undertake a piece of service for him, on performing which, he would reward him most amply; and to secure compliance, the earl desired him to remember the many favours he had already received from him, and how well he had treated him, promising, at the same time, to show him even greater kindness in time coming. Alexander thereupon promised to serve the earl, though at the hazard of his life; but upon being interrogated by the earl whether he would undertake to burn the corn of Sanset, belonging to William Innes, a servant of Lord Forbes, Gun, who had never imagined that he was to be employed in such an ignoble affair, expressed the greatest astonishment at the proposal, and refused, in the most peremptory and indignant manner, to undertake its execution; yet, to satisfy the earl, he told him that he would, at his command, undertake to assassinate William Innes,--an action which he considered less criminal and dishonourable, and more becoming a gentleman, than burning a quantity of corn! Finding him obdurate, the earl enjoined him to secrecy.

The earl next applied to the two brothers, John and Alexander, with whom he did not find it so difficult to treat. They at first hesitated with some firmness in undertaking the business on which the earl was so intent; and they pleaded an excuse, by saying, that as justice was then more strictly executed in Scotland than formerly, they could not expect to escape, as they had no place of safety to retreat to after the crime was committed; as a proof of which they instanced the cases of the clan Donald and the clan Gregor, two races of people much more powerful than the clan Gun, who had been brought to the brink of ruin, and almost annihilated, under the authority of the laws. The earl replied, that as soon as they should perform the service for him he would send them to the western isles, to some of his acquaintances and friends, with whom they might remain till Lord Forbes and he were reconciled, when he would obtain their pardon; that in the meantime he would profess, in public, to be their enemy, but that he would be their friend secretly, and permit them to frequent Caithness without danger. Alexander Gun, overcome at last by the entreaties of the earl, reluctantly consented to his request, and going into Sanset, in the dead of night, with two accomplices, set fire to all the corn stacks which were in the barn-yard, belonging to William Innes, and which were in consequence consumed. This affair occurred in the month of November, 1615. The Earl of Caithness immediately spread a report through the whole country that Mackay’s tenants had committed this outrage, but the deception was of short duration.

It may be here noticed that John, sixth Earl of Sutherland, died in September, 1615, and was succeeded by his eldest son, John, a boy six years old, to whom Sir Robert Gordon, his uncle, was appointed tutor.

Sir Robert Gordon, having arrived in the north of Scotland, from England, in the month of December following, resolved to probe the matter to the bottom, not merely on account of his nephew, Mackay, whose men were suspected, but to satisfy Lord Forbes, who was now on friendly terms with the house of Sutherland; but the discovery of the perpetrators soon became an easy task, in consequence of a quarrel among the clan Gun themselves, the members of which upbraided one another as the authors of the fire-raising. Alexander Gun, the cousin of Alexander Gun, the real criminal, thereupon fled from Caithness, and sent some of his friends to Sir Robert Gordon and Donald Mackay with these proposals:--that if they would receive him into favour, and secure him from danger, he would confess the whole circumstances, and reveal the authors of the conflagration, and that he would declare the whole before the Privy Council if required. On receiving this proposal, Sir Robert Gordon appointed Alexander Gun to meet him privately at Helmsdale, in the house of Sir Alexander Gordon, brother of Sir Robert. A meeting was accordingly held at the place appointed, at which Sir Robert and his friends agreed to do everything in their power to preserve Gun’s life; and Mackay promised, moreover, to give him a possession in Strathie, where his father had formerly lived.

When the Earl of Caithness heard of Alexander Gun’s flight into Sutherland he became greatly alarmed lest Alexander should reveal the affair of Sanset; and anticipating such a result, the earl gave out everywhere that Sir Robert Gordon, Mackay, and Sir Alexander Gordon, had hired some of the clan Gun to accuse him of having burnt William Innes’s corn. But this artifice was of no avail, for as soon as Lord Forbes received notice from Sir Robert Gordon of the circumstances related by Alexander Gun, he immediately cited John Gun and his brother Alexander, and their accomplices, to appear for trial at Edinburgh, on the 2d April, 1616, to answer to the charge of burning the corn at Sanset; and he also summoned the Earl of Caithness, as sheriff of that county, to deliver them up for trial. John Gun, thinking that the best course he could pursue under present circumstances was to follow the example of his cousin, Alexander, sent a message to Sir Alexander Gordon, desiring an interview with him, which being granted, they met at Navidale. John Gun then offered to reveal everything he knew concerning the fire, on condition that his life should be spared; but Sir Alexander observed that he could come under no engagement, as he was uncertain how the king and the council might view such a proceeding; but he promised, that as John had not been an actor in the business, but a witness only to the arrangement between his brother and the Earl of Caithness, he would do what he could to save him, if he went to Edinburgh in compliance with the summons.

In this state of matters, the Earl of Caithness wrote to the Marquis of Huntly, accusing Sir Robert Gordon and Mackay of a design to bring him within the reach of the law of treason, and to injure the honour of his house by slandering him with the burning of the corn at Sanset. The other party told the marquis that they could not refuse to assist Lord Forbes in finding out the persons who had burned the corn at Sanset, but that they had never imagined that the earl would have acted so base a part as to become an accomplice in such a criminal act; and farther, that as Mackay’s men were challenged with the deed, they certainly were entitled at least to clear Mackay’s people from the charge by endeavouring to find out the malefactors,--in all which they considered they had done the earl no wrong. The Marquis of Huntly did not fail to write the Earl of Caithness the answer he had received from Sir Robert Gordon and Mackay, which grieved him exceedingly, as he was too well aware of the consequences which would follow if the prosecution of the Guns was persevered in.

At the time appointed for the trial of the Guns, Sir Robert Gordon, Mackay, and Lord Forbes, with all his friends, went to Edinburgh, and upon their arrival they entreated the council to prevent a remission in favour of the Earl of Caithness from passing the signet until the affair in hand was tried; a request with which the council complied. The Earl of Caithness did not appear; but he sent his son, Lord Berridale, to Edinburgh, along with John Gun and all those persons who had been summoned by Lord Forbes, with the exception of Alexander Gun and his two accomplices. He alleged as his reason for not sending them that they were not his men, being Mackay’s own tenants, and dwelling in Dilred, the property of Mackay, which was held by him off the Earl of Sutherland, who, he alleged, was bound to present the three persons alluded to. But the lords of the council would not admit of this excuse, and again required Lord Berridale and his father to present the three culprits before the court on the 10th June following, because, although they had possessions in Dilred, they had also lands from the Earl of Caithness on which they usually resided. Besides, the deed was committed in Caithness, of which the earl was sheriff, on which account also he was bound to apprehend them. Lord Berridale, whose character was quite the reverse of that of his father, apprehensive of the consequences of a trial, now offered satisfaction in his father’s name to Lord Forbes if he would stop the prosecution; but his lordship refused to do anything without the previous advice and consent of Sir Robert Gordon and Mackay, who, upon being consulted, caused articles of agreement to be drawn up, which were presented to Lord Berridale by neutral persons for his acceptance. He, however, considering the conditions sought to be imposed upon his father too hard, rejected them.

In consequence of the refusal of Lord Berridale to accede to the terms proposed, John Gun was apprehended by one of the magistrates of Edinburgh, on the application of Lord Forbes, and committed a prisoner to the jail of that city. Gun thereupon requested to see Sir Robert Gordon and Mackay, whom he entreated to use their influence to procure him his liberty, promising to declare everything he knew of the business for which he was prosecuted before the lords of the council. Sir Robert Gordon and Mackay then deliberated with Lord Forbes and Lord Elphinston on the subject, and they all four promised faithfully to Gun to do everything in their power to save him, and that they would thenceforth maintain and defend him and his cousin, Alexander Gun, against the Earl of Caithness or any person, as long as they had reason and equity on their side; besides which, Mackay promised him a liferent lease of the lands in Strathie to compensate for his possessions in Caithness, of which he would, of course, be deprived by the earl for revealing the latter’s connexion with the fire-raising at Sanset. John Gun was accordingly examined the following day by the lords of the council, when he confessed that the Earl of Caithness made his brother, Alexander Gun, burn the corn of Sanset, and that the affair had been proposed and discussed in his presence. Alexander Gun, the cousin, was examined also at the same time, and stated the same circumstances precisely as John Gun had done. After examination, John and Alexander were again committed to prison.

As neither the Earl of Caithness nor his son, Lord Berridale, complied with the commands of the council to deliver up Alexander Gun and his accomplices in the month of June, they were both outlawed and denounced rebels; and were summoned and charged by Lord Forbes to appear personally at Edinburgh in the month of July immediately following, to answer to the charge of causing the corn of Sanset to be burnt. This fixed determination on the part of Lord Forbes to bring the earl and his son to trial had the effect of altering their tone, and they now earnestly entreated him and Mackay to agree to a reconciliation on any terms; but they declined to enter into any arrangement until they had consulted Sir Robert Gordon. After obtaining Sir Robert’s consent, and a written statement of the conditions which he required from the Earl of Caithness in behalf of his nephew, the Earl of Sutherland, the parties entered into a final agreement in the month of July, 1616. The principal heads of the contract, which was afterwards recorded in the books of council and session, were as follows:--That all civil actions between the parties should be settled by the mediation of common friends,--that the Earl of Caithness and his son should pay to Lord Forbes and Mackay the sum of 20,000 merks Scots money,--that all quarrels and criminal actions should be mutually forgiven, and particularly, that the Earl of Caithness and all his friends should forgive and remit the slaughter at Thurso--that the Earl of Caithness and his son should renounce for themselves and their heirs all jurisdiction, criminal or civil, within Sutherland or Strathnaver, and any other jurisdiction which they should thereafter happen to acquire over any lands lying within the diocese of Caithness then pertaining, or which should afterwards belong, to the Earl of Sutherland, or his heirs,--that the Earl of Caithness should deliver Alexander Gun and his accomplices to Lord Forbes,--that the earl, his son, and their heirs, should never thenceforth contend with the Earl of Sutherland for precedency in parliament or priority of place,--that the Earl of Caithness and his son, their friends and tenants, should keep the peace in time coming, under the penalty of great sums of money, and should never molest nor trouble the tenants of the Earl of Sutherland and Lord Forbes,--that the Earl of Caithness, his son, or their friends, should not receive nor harbour any fugitives from Sutherland or Strathnaver,--and that there should be good friendship and amity kept amongst them in all time to come.

In consequence of this agreement, the two sons of Kenneth Buy, William and John before-mentioned, were delivered to Lord Berridale, who gave security for their keeping the peace; and John Gun and Alexander his cousin were released, and delivered to Lord Forbes and Mackay, who gave surety to the lords of the council to present them for trial whenever required; and as the Earl of Caithness had deprived them of their possessions in Caithness on account of the discovery they had made, Mackay, who had lately been knighted by the king, gave them lands in Strathnaver as he had promised. Matters being thus settled, Lord Berridale presented himself before the court at Edinburgh to abide his trial; but no person of course appearing against him, the trial was postponed. The Earl of Caithness, however, failing to appear, the diet against him was continued till the 28th of August following.

Although the king was well pleased, on account of the peace which such an adjustment would produce in his northern dominions, with the agreement which had been entered into, and the proceedings which followed thereon, all of which were made known to him by the Privy Council; yet, as the passing over such a flagrant act as wilful fire-raising, without punishment, might prove pernicious, he wrote a letter to the Privy Council of Scotland, commanding them to prosecute, with all severity, those who were guilty of, or accessory to, the crime. Lord Berridale was thereupon apprehended on suspicion, and committed a prisoner to the castle of Edinburgh; and his father, perceiving the determination of the king to prosecute the authors of the fire, again declined to appear for trial on the appointed day, on which account he was again outlawed, and declared a rebel as the guilty author.

In this extremity Lord Berridale had recourse to Sir Robert Gordon, then resident at court, for his aid. He wrote him a letter, entreating him that, as all controversies were now settled, he would, in place of an enemy become a faithful friend,--that for his own part, he, Lord Berridale, had been always innocent of the jars and dissensions which had happened between the two families,--that he was also innocent of the crime of which he was charged,--and that he wished his majesty to be informed by Sir Robert of these circumstances, hoping that he would order him to be released from confinement. Sir Robert answered, that he had long desired a perfect agreement between the houses of Sutherland and Caithness, which he would endeavour to maintain during his administration in Sutherland,--that he would intercede with the king in behalf of his lordship to the utmost of his power,--that all disputes being now at an end, he would be his faithful friend,--that he had a very different opinion of his disposition from that he entertained of his father, the earl; and he concluded by entreating him to be careful to preserve the friendship which had been now commenced between them.

As the king understood that Lord Berridale was supposed to be innocent of the crime with which he and his father stood charged, and as he could not, without a verdict against Berridale, proceed against the family of Caithness by forfeiture, in consequence of his lordship having been infeft many years before in his father’s estate, his majesty, on the earnest entreaty of the then bishop of Ross, Sir Robert Gordon, and Sir James Spence of Wormistoun, was pleased to remit and forgive the crime on the following conditions:--1st. That the Earl of Caithness and his son should give satisfaction to their creditors, who were constantly annoying his majesty with clamours against the earl, and craving justice at his hands. 2d. That the Earl of Caithness, with consent of Lord Berridale, should freely renounce and resign perpetually, into the hands of his majesty, the heritable sheriffship and justiciary of Caithness. 3d. That the Earl of Caithness should deliver the three criminals who had burnt the corn, that public justice might be satisfied upon them, as a terror and example to others. 4th. That the Earl of Caithness, with consent of Lord Berridale, should give and resign _in perpetuum_ to the bishop of Caithness, the house of Strabister, with as many of the feu lands of that bishopric as should amount to the yearly value of two thousand merks Scots money, for the purpose of augmenting the income of the bishop, which was at that time small in consequence of the greater part of his lands being in the hands of the earl. Commissioners were sent down from London to Caithness in October 1616, to see that these conditions were complied with. The second and last conditions were immediately implemented; and as the earl and his son promised to give satisfaction to their creditors, and to do everything in their power to apprehend the burners of the corn, the latter was released from the castle of Edinburgh, and directions were given for drawing up a remission and pardon to the Earl of Caithness. Lord Berridale, however, had scarcely been released from the castle, when he was again imprisoned within the jail of Edinburgh, at the instance of Sir James Home of Cowdenknowes, his cousin german, who had become surety for him and his father to their creditors for large sums of money. The earl himself narrowly escaped the fate of his son and retired to Caithness, but his creditors had sufficient interest to prevent his remission from passing till they should be satisfied. With consent of the creditors the council of Scotland gave him a personal protection, from time to time, to enable him to come to Edinburgh for the purpose of settling with them, but he made no arrangement, and returned privately into Caithness before the expiration of the _supersedere_ which had been granted him, leaving his son to suffer all the miseries of a prison. After enduring a captivity of five years, Lord Berridale was released from prison by the good offices of the Earl of Enzie, and put, for behoof of himself, and his own and his father’s creditors, in possession of the family estates from which his father was driven by Sir Robert Gordon acting under a royal warrant, a just punishment for the many enormities of a long and misspent life.[208]

Desperate as the fortunes of the Earl of Caithness were even previous to the disposal of his estates, he most unexpectedly found an ally in Sir Donald Mackay, who had taken offence at Sir Robert Gordon, and who, being a man of quick resolution and of an inconstant disposition, determined to forsake the house of Sutherland, and to ingratiate himself with the Earl of Caithness. He alleged various causes of discontent as a reason for his conduct, one of the chief being connected with pecuniary considerations; for having, as he alleged, burdened his estates with debts incurred for some years past in following the house of Sutherland, he thought that, in time coming, he might, by procuring the favour of the Earl of Caithness, turn the same to his own advantage and that of his countrymen. Moreover, as he had been induced to his own prejudice to grant certain life-rent tacks of the lands of Strathie and Dilred to John and Alexander Gun, and others of the clan Gun for revealing the affair of Sanset, he thought that by joining the Earl of Caithness, these might be destroyed, by which means he would get back his lands which he meant to convey to his brother, John Mackay, as a portion; and he, moreover, expected that the earl would give him and his countrymen some possessions in Caithness. But the chief ground of discontent on the part of Sir Donald Mackay was an action brought against him and Lord Forbes before the court of session, to recover a contract entered into between the last Earl of Sutherland and Mackay, in the year 1613, relative to their marches and other matters of controversy, which being considered by Mackay as prejudicial to him, he had endeavoured to get destroyed through the agency of some persons about Lord Forbes, into whose keeping the deed had been intrusted.

After brooding over these subjects of discontent for some years, Mackay, in the year 1618, suddenly resolved to break with the house of Sutherland, and to form an alliance with the Earl of Caithness, who had long borne a mortal enmity at that family. Accordingly, Mackay sent John Sutherland, his cousin-german, into Caithness to request a private conference with the earl in any part of Caithness he might appoint. This offer was too tempting to be rejected by the earl, who expected, by a reconciliation with Sir Donald Mackay, to turn the same to his own personal gratification and advantage. In the first place, he hoped to revenge himself upon the clan Gun, who were his principal enemies, and upon Sir Donald himself, by detaching him from his superior, the Earl of Sutherland, and from the friendship of his uncles, who had always supported him in all his difficulties. In the second place, he expected that, by alienating Mackay from the duty and affection he owed the house of Sutherland, that he would weaken his power and influence. And lastly, he trusted that Mackay would not only be prevailed upon to discharge his own part, but would also persuade Lord Forbes to discharge his share of the sum of 20,000 merks Scots, which he and his son, Lord Berridale, had become bound to pay them, on account of the burning at Sanset.

The Earl of Caithness having at once agreed to Mackay’s proposal, a meeting was held by appointment in the neighbourhood of Dunray, in the parish of Reay, in Caithness. The parties met in the night-time, accompanied each by three men only. After much discussion, and various conferences, which were continued for two or three days, they resolved to destroy the clan Gun, and particularly John Gun, and Alexander his cousin. To please the earl, Mackay undertook to despatch these last, as they were obnoxious to him, on account of the part they had taken against him, in revealing the burning at Sanset. They persuaded themselves that the house of Sutherland would defend the clan, as they were bound to do by their promise, and that that house would be thus drawn into some snare. To confirm their friendship, the earl and Mackay arranged that John Mackay, the only brother of Sir Donald, should marry a niece of the earl, a daughter of James Sinclair of Murkle, who was a mortal enemy of all the clan Gun. Having thus planned the line of conduct they were to follow, they parted, after swearing to continue in perpetual friendship.

Notwithstanding the private way in which the meeting was held, accounts of it immediately spread through the kingdom; and every person wondered at the motives which could induce Sir Donald Mackay to take such a step so unadvisedly, without the knowledge of his uncles, Sir Robert and Sir Alexander Gordon, or of Lord Forbes. The clan Gun receiving secret intelligence of the design upon them, from different friendly quarters, retired into Sutherland. The clan were astonished at Mackay’s conduct, as he had promised, at Edinburgh, in presence of Lords Forbes and Elphingston and Sir Robert Gordon, in the year 1616, to be a perpetual friend to them, and chiefly to John Gun and to his cousin Alexander.

After Mackay returned from Caithness, he sent his cousin-german, Angus Mackay of Bighouse, to Sutherland, to acquaint his uncles, who had received notice of the meeting, that his object in meeting the Earl of Caithness was for his own personal benefit, and that nothing had been done to their prejudice. Angus Mackay met Sir Robert Gordon at Dunrobin, to whom he delivered his kinsman’s message, which, he said, he hoped Sir Robert would take in good part, adding that Sir Donald would show, in presence of both his uncles, that the clan Gun had failed in duty and fidelity to him and the house of Sutherland, since they had revealed the burning; and therefore, that if his uncles would not forsake John Gun, and some others of the clan, he would adhere to them no longer. Sir Robert Gordon returned a verbal answer by Angus Mackay, that when Sir Donald came in person to Dunrobin to clear himself, as in duty he was bound to do, he would then accept of his excuse, and not till then. And he at the same time wrote a letter to Sir Donald, to the effect that for his own (Sir Robert’s) part, he did not much regard Mackay’s secret journey to Caithness, and his reconciliation with Earl George, without his knowledge or the advice of Lord Forbes; and that, however unfavourable the world might construe it, he would endeavour to colour it in the best way he could, for Mackay’s own credit. He desired Mackay to consider that a man’s reputation was exceedingly tender, and that if it were once blemished, though wrongfully, there would still some blot remain, because the greater part of the world would always incline to speak the worst; that whatever had been arranged in that journey, between him and the Earl of Caithness, beneficial to Mackay and not prejudicial to the house of Sutherland, he should be always ready to assist him therein, although concluded without his consent. As to the clan Gun, he could not with honesty or credit abandon them, and particularly John and his cousin Alexander, until tried and found guilty, as he had promised faithfully to be their friend, for revealing the affair of Sanset; that he had made them this promise at the earnest desire and entreaty of Sir Donald himself; that the house of Sutherland did always esteem their truth and constancy to be their greatest jewel; and seeing that he and his brother, Sir Alexander, were almost the only branches of it then of age or man’s estate, they would endeavour to prove true and constant wheresoever they did possess friendship; and that neither the house of Sutherland, nor any greater house whereof they had the honour to be descended, should have the least occasion to be ashamed of them in that respect; that if Sir Donald had quarrelled or challenged the clan Gun, before going into Caithness and his arrangement with Earl George, the clan might have been suspected; but he saw no reason to forsake them until they were found guilty of some great offence.

Sir Robert Gordon, therefore, acting as tutor for his nephew, took the clan Gun under his immediate protection, with the exception of Alexander Gun, the burner of the corn, and his accomplices. John Gun thereupon demanded a trial before his friends, that they might hear what Sir Donald had to lay to his charge. John and his kinsmen were acquitted, and declared innocent of any offence, either against the house of Sutherland or Mackay, since the fact of the burning.

Sir Donald Mackay, dissatisfied with this result, went to Edinburgh for the purpose of obtaining a commission against the clan Gun from the council, for old crimes committed by them before his majesty had left Scotland for England; but he was successfully opposed in this by Sir Robert Gordon, who wrote a letter to the Lord-Chancellor and to the Earl of Melrose, afterwards Earl of Haddington and Lord Privy Seal, showing that the object of Sir Donald, in asking such a commission, was to break the king’s peace, and to breed fresh troubles in Caithness. Disappointed in this attempt, Sir Donald returned home to Strathnaver, and, in the month of April, 1618, he went to Braill, in Caithness, where he met the earl, with whom he continued three nights. On this occasion they agreed to despatch Alexander Gun, the burner of the corn, lest Lord Forbes should request the earl to deliver him up; and they hoped that, in consequence of such an occurrence, the tribe might be ensnared. Before parting, the earl delivered to Mackay some old writs of certain lands in Strathnaver and other places within the diocese of Caithness, which belonged to Sir Donald’s predecessors; by means of which the earl thought he would put Sir Donald by the ears with his uncles, expecting him to bring an action against the Earl of Sutherland, for the warrandice of Strathnaver, and thus free himself from the superiority of the Earl of Sutherland.