The Great Historic Families of Scotland
The Gordons

The Gordons are one of the oldest and most illustrious of the historical families of Scotland, and from the twelfth century down to the present day have taken a very prominent part in public affairs. They have shed their blood like water for their sovereign and country, at home and abroad, on the scaffold and the battlefield. They have earned distinction both as statesmen arid warriors, and have filled the highest offices in the Church and the State. Their exploits have been commemorated in song, and ballad, and tradition, as well as in the historic records of the country; and several members of the family have acquired an honourable position among Scottish authors. ‘O send Lewie Gordon hame,’ ‘Kenmure’s on and awa,’ ‘Cauld Kail in Aberdeen,’ and ‘Tullochgorum,’ represent different phases of the character of the ‘gay Gordons,’* gallant as gay. They claim a share in the poetry of Byron, whose mother was a Gordon; and the ‘Genealogical History of the Family of Sutherland,’ ‘The History of the Ancient, Noble, and Illustrious Family of Gordon,’ and the ‘Itinerarium Septentrionale’ of ‘Sandy Gordon,’ besides numerous treatises, historical, classical, and theological, attest the learning and are the fruits of the grave studies of the Gordons. The ‘Gordon Highlanders,’ raised among the clan and led by their chief, have carried the British standard to victory on many a well-fought field, in Holland and Egypt, in Spain and Belgium, at Corunna, Quatre Bras, and Waterloo; and the chiefs of the various branches of the house have been among the bravest and most skilful officers in the British army.

There are few of the ancient families of Scotland respecting whose origin so many absurd and fabulous stories have been told as of the Gordons. According to one account, they came from Greece into Gaul, and thence into Scotland, at least a thousand years ago. Another fabulist traces their origin to Spain, and a third to Flanders. Some writers affirm that the Gordons are descended from Bertrand de Gourdon, who, in 1199, wounded mortally with an arrow Richard Coeur de Lion, while he was besieging the castle of Chalons in the Limoges. But there can be no doubt that the Gordons were originally from Normandy, and that the founder of the Scottish branch of the family came into Scotland in the reign of David I. (1124—53), from whom he received a grant of the lands of Gordon. There is a tradition that the first of the name came from England in the days of Malcolm Canmore, and that, as a reward for his services in killing a wild boar which infested the Borders, he received from that monarch a grant of land in the Merse of Berwickshire, which he called Gordon after his own name, and settling there, he assumed a boar’s head for his armorial bearings in commemoration of his exploit. In all probability the story was invented to account for the arms of the family, and its founder was much more likely to have styled himself ‘de Gordon’ after his lands, than to have given his name to the place where, he settled.

The ancestor of the Gordons had two sons, Richard and Adam. Richard, the elder, who died in the year 1200, appears to have been a liberal benefactor to the monastery of Kelso. His son confirmed by charter his grants of land, and his grandson increased them, and gave lands also to the monks of Coldstream. He died in 1285 without male issue, and his only daughter, Alice, married her cousin, Adam de Gordon, the son of Adam the younger brother of Richard, and thus united the two branches of the family. This Adam is said to have accompanied Louis of France in his crusade for the recovery of the Holy Sepulchre, in 1270, and to have died during the expedition. His son, who was also named Adam, was a supporter of Baliol in his contest with Bruce for the crown, but he died before the commencement of the War of Independence.

His son, SIR ADAM DE GORDON, was one of the most powerful nobles of his time, and took a prominent part in the struggle for national freedom. He was at the outset an adherent of John Baliol, but after the death of that unfortunate monarch, Sir Adam gave in his adhesion to Robert Bruce. He was sent as ambassador to the papal court to submit to the Pope the spirited memorial prepared by the Parliament in 1320, in vindication of the freedom and independence of their country, and succeeded in persuading the Roman Pontiff to suspend the publication of his sentence of excommunication and interdict, and to address an epistle to the English king recommending him to conclude a peace with Scotland. As a reward for his important services, Sir Adam received from Robert Bruce a grant of the forfeited estate of David de Strathbogie, Earl of Athole; but that nobleman, having returned to his allegiance, was allowed to retain possession of his lands.

Sir Adam was killed at the battle of Halidon Hill, in 1333. He was succeeded by ALEXANDER, the eldest of his four sons, who fought with great gallantry by his father’s side, and was one of the few nobles who escaped from that fatal field. He is said to have fallen at the battle of Durham, October 17th, 1346, but his name does not appear in the list of the slain given by Lord Hailes. His son, SIR JOHN, was present at that engagement, and was taken prisoner, along with King David. He was detained in captivity in England until 1357.

The Earl of Athole, who was noted for his rapacity and cruelty, once more joined the English invaders, in 1335, but was defeated by Sir Andrew Moray, the Regent, at Kilblane, near Braemar, and was killed in the battle. His estates were then finally forfeited, and in 1376 SIR JOHN DE GORDON, the son of the Sir John who was captured at Durham, obtained from Robert II. a new charter of the lands of Strathbogie. The Gordon clan were thus transferred from the Borders to the Highlands, though they continued to possess their original estates in Berwickshire till the beginning of the fifteenth century. Their northern domain and lordship received the name of Huntly from a small village near Gordon, and their title was taken from it when the family was raised to the peerage. Sir John de Gordon was a redoubted warrior, and many of his exploits are narrated in the Border annals and traditions of his age.

In 1371-2 the English Borderers invaded and plundered the lands of Gordon. Sir John retaliated as usual by an incursion into Northumberland, where he laid waste and plundered the country. But as he returned with his booty, he was attacked unawares by Sir John Lilburn, a Northumbrian baron, who, with a greatly superior force, lay in ambush near Carham to intercept him. Gordon harangued and cheered his followers, charged the English gallantly, and, after having himself been five times in great peril, gained a complete victory, taking the English commander and his brother captive. According to Wyntoun, Sir John was desperately wounded, but—

‘The’re rayse a welle grete renowne,
And gretly prysyd wes gude Gordown.’

Shortly after this exploit Sir John of Gordon encountered and defeated Sir Thomas Musgrave, a renowned English knight, whom he made prisoner. Wyntoun says of Sir John and the Laird of Johnston, another celebrated Borderer—

‘He and the Lord of Gordown
Had a soverane gude renown
Of ony that war of thare degré,
For full that war of grete bounté.’

Sir John and his clan fought at the battle of Otterburn in 1587, under the banner of the Earl of Douglas, and, along with his renowned leader, he lost his life in that fiercely-contested conflict.

Lord John left three sons, the two younger of whom were known in tradition by the familiar names of Jock and Tam. The former was the ancestor of the Gordons of Pitlurg; the latter of those of Lesmoir and of Craig-Gordon.

His eldest son, SIR ADAM DE GORDON, a young noble conspicuous for his gallantry, fell at the battle of Homildon Hill. When the English archers were pouring their volleys with deadly effect on the closely wedged ranks of the Scottish spearmen, who were falling by hundreds, Sir John Swinton, a brave Border knight of gigantic stature, well advanced in years, exclaimed, ‘Why stand we here to be shot like deer and marked down by the enemy? Where is our wonted courage? Are we to be still and have our hands nailed to our lances? Follow me, and let us at least sell our lives as dearly as we can.’ This gallant proposal won the admiration of Adam de Gordon, whose family were at deadly feud with that of Swinton, and throwing himself from his horse and kneeling down before him, he said, ‘I have not been knighted, and never can I take the honour from the hand of a truer, more loyal, more valiant leader. Grant me the boon I ask, and I unite my forces to yours, that we may live and die together.’ Swinton cordially complied with Gordon’s request, and after having hastily performed the ceremony, he tenderly embraced his late foe. The two knights then mounted their horses, and, at the head of a hundred horsemen, charged fiercely on the English host; but, unsupported by their countrymen, the little band, with its gallant leaders, were overpowered and slain.

Sir Adam was succeeded in his estates by his only child, ELIZABETH GORDON, who became the wife of ALEXANDER DE SETON, second son of Sir William de Seton of Seton. He assumed the name of Gordon, was styled Lord Gordon and Huntly, and carried on the line of the family. He had two sons by the heiress of the Gordons. ALEXANDER, the eldest, was created EARL OF HUNTLY in 1449. He was a good deal employed in embassies and negotiations at the English court. During the rebellion of the Douglases Huntly was appointed by James II. (who placed great confidence in his integrity and judgment) lieutenant-general of the kingdom, and was intrusted with the difficult task of suppressing the rebellion of the Earls of Crawford and Ross, who had entered into a treasonable association with the Earl of Douglas. Marching northward with a powerful army under the royal standard, he encountered Crawford, at the head of his retainers and vassals, on a moor about two miles north-east of Brechin. The battle was fiercely contested, and for a considerable time the issue was very doubtful; but it was decided against the Tiger Earl, as Crawford was called, by the desertion in the heat of the fight of one of his most trusted vassals, Collace of Balnamoon, at the head of three hundred men. Huntly lost two of his brothers, and Gordon of Methlic, ancestor of the Earl of Aberdeen, in this sanguinary conflict. A brother of Crawford, and sixty other lords and gentlemen who fought on his side, were among the slain. The Earl and his discomfited followers fled to Finhaven Castle. On alighting from his horse, the savage Earl called for a cup of wine, and declared with an oath that ‘he wad be content to hang seven years in hell by the breers o’ the e’en [eyelashes] to gain such a victory as had that day fallen to Huntly.’

The Earl of Moray, one of the brothers of the Earl of Douglas, in revenge for Crawford’s defeat, burned Huntly’s castle of Strathbogie and ravaged his estates, and he shortly after surprised and defeated a body of the Gordons in a morass called Dunkinty. This repulse is commemorated in a jeering song which runs thus :—

‘Where did you leave your men,
Thou Gordon so gay?
In the bog of Dunkinty,
Mowing the hay.’

Lord Huntly died 15th July, 1470, and was buried at Elgin. He was three times married. His first wife, daughter of Robert de Keith, grandson of the Great Marischal of Scotland, brought him a fine estate but no children. His second wife, who was daughter and heiress of Sir John Hay of Tullibody, bore to him a son, Sir Alexander Seton, who inherited his mother’s estate, and was ancestor of the Setons of Touch. The Earl’s third wife, a daughter of Lord Crichton, High Chancellor of Scotland, bore to him three sons and three daughters. The title and estates were settled by charter on the issue of this third marriage, and the eldest son succeeded his father in 1470.

GEORGE, second Earl of Huntly, was appointed, with the Earl of Crawford, joint justiciary of the country beyond the Forth. He was a member of the Privy Council of James IlI. Though he was an accomplice of Bell-the-Cat and the other disaffected barons in the murder of the royal favourites at Lauder, in the final struggle between them and James, Huntly supported the cause of that unfortunate sovereign, and, along with the Earl of Athole, commanded the vanguard of the royal army in the battle of Sauchieburn, where the King lost his life. James IV., however, seems to have entertained no hostile feelings towards the Earl, for in 1491 he nominated him his lieutenant in the northern parts of Scotland beyond the North Esk river; and, in 1498, he appointed Huntly High Chancellor of Scotland. He resigned this office in 1502, and died soon after. The Earl was twice married. His first wife, Annabella, daughter of James I., bore to him six daughters and five sons. His eldest son became third Earl. His second son, Adam, married Elizabeth, Countess of Sutherland, and became Earl of Sutherland in her right. William, third son, was the ancestor of the Gordons of Gight, from whom Lord Byron was descended. James Gordon of Letterfourie, the fourth, was admiral of the fleet in 1513. Lady Catherine, the eldest daughter of Lord Huntly, who was regarded as the most beautiful and accomplished woman in Scotland, was given in marriage by the King to Perkin Warbeck, whose claims to the English throne he warmly supported. She accompanied that adventurer to England; after his execution King Henry granted her a pension, and assigned her a post of honour at the English Court, where she was known by the name of the White Rose of Scotland. Lady Catherine afterwards married Sir Matthew Cradock, an ancestor of the Pembroke family. The Earl had no issue by his second wife, a daughter of the first Earl of Errol.

ALEXANDER, third Earl of Huntly, according to Holinshed, was held in the highest reputation of all the Scottish nobility for his valour, joined with wisdom and policy. He contributed greatly to the suppression of a rebellion in the Isles in 1505, and in the following year he stormed the castle of Stornoway, in Lewis, the stronghold of Torquil Macleod, the leader of the insurgents. The Earl, along with Lord Home, commanded the left wing of the Scottish army at the battle of Flodden, 9th September, 1513, and overpowered and threw into disorder the division commanded by Sir Edward Howard. The Earl and his brother, the Earl of Sutherland, were among the few Scottish nobles who returned in safety from that fatal field, but Sir William Gordon of Gight was among the slain, as was also Alexander Gordon, heir-apparent of Lochinvar. When the Queen-Dowager was appointed Regent of the kingdom, the Parliament resolved that she should be guided by the counsels of Huntly, along with Angus and the Archbishop of Glasgow. During the minority of James V. Huntly’s authority was predominant in the north. When the Duke of Albany left the country in 1517, the Earl was nominated One of the Council of Regency, and, in the following year, he was appointed the royal lieutenant over all Scotland, except the West Highlands. He died at Paris, 10th January, 1524. By his first wife, a daughter of John, Earl of Athole, uterine brother of James IV., the Earl had four sons and two daughters. By his second wife, a daughter of Lord Gray, he had no issue. His eldest son, George, died young. John, his second son, also predeceased him, leaving two sons by his wife Margaret, an illegitimate daughter of James IV. Alexander, his third son, was ancestor of the Gordons of Cluny; and the fourth, William, was Bishop of Aberdeen from 1547 to his death in 1577.

Bishop Gordon has obtained an unenviable notoriety for his immoral life and his alienation of the revenues of his diocese. Spottiswood says :—‘ This man, brought up in letters at Aberdeen, followed his studies a long time in Paris, and returning thence was first, parson of Clat, and afterwards promoted to the See. Some hopes he gave at first of a virtuous man, but afterwards turned a very epicure, spending all his time in drinking and whoring. He dilapidated the whole rents by feuing the land, and converting the victual-duties in money, a great part whereof he wasted upon his base children and their mothers.’ The registers of the diocese fully bear out these severe statements respecting the conduct of this unworthy prelate. Mention is made in them of no fewer than forty-nine ‘charters of assedation’ of various portions of the land belonging to the bishopric granted by him during the course of a single year— 1549. The Dean and Chapter of Aberdeen, in a memorial of advice presented to Bishop Gordon in January, 1558, ‘humbly and heartily pray and exhort my lord, their ordinary, for the honour of God, relief of his own conscience, and weil of his diocese, and the eviting of great scandal, that his lordship will be so good as to show edicative example; in special in removing and discharging himself of the company of the gentlewoman by whom he is greatly slandered; without the which be done, divers that are partners say they cannot accept counsel and correction of him who will not correct himself.’

This really affecting appeal, however, had no effect on the bishop. On the 20th October, 1565, he granted a charter of the lands of North Spittal to Janet Knowles (probably ‘the gentlewoman by whom he was greatly slandered’) in life-rents, and to his children, George, John, and William, Elizabeth, Margaret, and Martha Gordon, in feu.

GEORGE, fourth Earl of Huntly, eldest son of Lord John Gordon, succeeded his grandfather in 1524, when only ten years of age. He was educated along with James V., his maternal uncle, and was carefully instructed by the best masters. His frequent intercourse with the Court of France not only polished his manners, but gave him an insight into the inner machinery of public government. At an early age he filled several important offices, and in 1537 he was appointed Lieutenant-general of the country beyond the Forth. The Earl was possessed of almost regal influence in the north, which he frequently exercised in an arbitrary and tyrannical manner. He took a very prominent part in public affairs during the reign of James V. and his unfortunate daughter Mary. In July, 1542, he defeated, at Haddon Rig, near Kelso, Sir Robert Bowes, Warden of the East Marches, who was ravaging Teviotdale at the head of three thousand men, and took six hundred prisoners, including Bowes himself, with his brother and several other persons of note. This defeat so enraged King Henry that he sent an expedition consisting of thirty thousand men into Scotland, under the Duke of Norfolk, with orders to lay waste the country; but they were kept in check by Huntly with a force only a third of that number, and were ultimately compelled to retreat to Berwick.

After the death of King James, Huntly was constituted Lieutenant-general of all the Highlands, and of Orkney and Shetland. In May, 1544, he marched with a numerous army, reinforced by Lord Lovat and the Frasers, against the clan Cameron and the Macdonalds of Clanranald, who were plundering Glenmoriston, Strathglass, and the whole adjoining district. At his approach they retired to their own territories. But as soon as Huntly had separated from the Frasers to return home, they were attacked by the Macdonalds at Loch Lochy, and so fierce was the conflict, that only two combatants on the one side and four on the other survived. Huntly lost no time in retracing his steps, and after laying waste the district, he apprehended and put to death a number of the leading men of the rebellious tribes.

The Earl was appointed High Chancellor of Scotland in 1546. He commanded the vanguard at the battle of Pinkie, 10th September, 1547, and was taken prisoner by the English. He was first sent to London, but was subsequently removed to Morpeth Castle. He promised that, if allowed to return home, he would join the English party and forward the project of marriage between the young Scottish queen and King Edward. He did not mislike the match so much, he said, as the manner of wooing. His offer does not appear to have been accepted; probably its sincerity was doubted. Among the papers, however, in Gordon Castle, there are covenants between Huntly and the Protector Somerset which show that the Earl had agreed to promote the project of an English marriage and alliance, while he was at the same time regarded as the main support of the Roman Catholic party, who were bent on an alliance and marriage with France. He succeeded in making his escape from his prison, in 1548, by the assistance of George Car, a well-known Borderer. ‘George Car,’ says the family historian, ‘came at the appointed time with two horses, the best the Borderers could afford for the purpose, the one being for the Earl and the other for his servant. The appointed night he prepares a good supper for his keepers, and invites them solemnly to it, and to play at cards, to put off the tediousness of the night. At length, as if he had been weary-of playing, he left off, entreating them to continue; and, going to the window, he did by a secret sign observe that all things were ready for his escape, tho’ the night was extremely dark. He began then to be doubtful, sometimes in hope, and other times in fear. At last, without thinking, he burst out into this speech, A dark night, a wearied knight; GOD be the Guide. The keepers, hearing him speaking to himself, asked what he meant by that? He answered that these words were used as a proverb among the Scots, and had their beginning from the old Earl of Morton uttering the same in the middle of the night, when he lay a-dying. Whereupon, that his keepers might have no suspicion of his designed escape, he sitteth down again to cards, after which he suddenly rose from them on the plea of necessity, and went suddenly out with his servant, found the horses furnished by George Car ready, which he and his servant immediately mounted, and on them, with all possible speed, fled to the Scot’s Borders.’

Huntly was now the, recognised head of the Roman Catholic party in Scotland, and when the marriage of Queen Mary to the Dauphin of France was proposed, he received the order of St. Michael from the French King, and, in 1549 he obtained a grant of the earldom of Moray.

The severity of Huntly’s proceedings against the Highland clans had excited a strong feeling of revenge, and a plot was formed for his assassination. Mackintosh, the chief of the clan Chattan, who had been liberally educated by the Earl of Moray, Huntly’s enemy, was at the head of this conspiracy. The plot being discovered, Huntly caused Mackintosh to be apprehended and beheaded at Strathbogie.

In 1554 a violent outbreak took place on the part of the chief of Clanranald, accompanied as usual with rapine and bloodshed, and Huntly was entrusted by the Queen-Regent with full powers to bring the offenders to justice. The expedition, however, was unsuccessful, mainly in consequence of dissensions among the Earl’s followers, and its failure was attributed to his own mismanagement. He was, in consequence, apprehended and committed to prison, was deprived of all his offices, and was sentenced to be banished to France for five years. He was at the same time compelled to renounce the earldom of Moray, and the lordship of Abernethy, with his leases and possessions in Orkney and Shetland. The sentence of banishment, however, was recalled by the Queen-Regent and commuted for a heavy fine, and he was restored to his office of Chancellor, of which he had been deprived.

During the fierce contentions between Mary of Guise and the Lords of the Congregation, Huntly repeatedly interposed, in order to prevent hostilities. On her behalf he signed the agreement with them which led to their evacuation of Edinburgh, but, shortly after, he entered into a bond with the Duke of Chatelherault, and the other Lords of the Congregation, for the support of the Reformation and the expulsion of the French troops from the kingdom. It need excite no surprise that in these circumstances the Queen-Regent, in her last interview with the lords, warned them against the crafty and interested advice of the Earl of Huntly.

The power of the Gordon family had now reached its greatest height. They had succeeded to the vast influence of the old Earls of Ross; and the ‘Cock of the North,’ as the head of the house was termed, exercised almost supreme authority over the vast territory to the north and west of Aberdeen, extending from the Dee as far as the chain of lakes which now form the Caledonian Canal. They possessed also large estates on the fertile east coast of Scotland, which were cultivated by an industrious Lowland tenantry, furnishing them with the means of living in princely state at their castle of Strathbogie, and of maintaining a numerous body of armed retainers. The Earls of Huntly were not only the chiefs of a clan, but the heads of a party almost strong enough to cope with royalty, and the great offices of Lieutenant-General of all the Highlands, King’s Lieutenant over all Scotland, and Lord High Chancellor, which were held by several of them in succession, added largely to their already overgrown power. They possessed a vast number of bonds of man-rent, friendship, and alliance, given to them not only by the minor houses of their own kindred, but by most of the leading families in the north of Scotland, dating from 1444 to 1670, which testify, in a very unmistakable way, the enormous following which could be relied on by the chiefs of the Gordons in all emergencies.

The earliest of these bonds—a hundred and seven in all—was given in 1444 by James of Forbes, who ‘becomes man till ane honourable and mighty Lord, Alexander of Seton of Gordon.’ Among the important and influential persons who, in subsequent times, gave similar bonds to Huntly, was the Earl of Argyll, who, in 1583, promised to ‘concur and take aefeld, true, and plain part’ with the chief of the Gordons, ‘in all his honest and guid causes, against whatsomever that live or die may, our sovereign lord and his authority alone excepted.’ In 1587, Rattray of Craighall binds himself and his dependents ‘to serve the said Earl in all his actions and adoes, against all persons, the King’s Majesty only excepted, and sall neither hear nor see his skaith, but sall make him foreseen therewith, and sall resist the same sae far as in me lies, and that in respect the same Earl has given me his bond of maintenance.’ Similar engagements were entered into by Macleod of Lewis, Colin of Kintail, chief of the clan Mackenzie; Munro of Foulis, Glengarry, Macgregor of Glenstrae, Drummond of Blair, Donald Gorm of Sleat, progenitor of the present Lord Macdonald; Grant of Freuchie, Lady Menzies of Weem, the Earl of Orkney, Lord Lovat, Lord Spynie, Cameron of Lochiel, Menzies of that ilk, Menzies of Pitfodels, the Laird of Luss, Mackintosh of Dunnachtan, Innes of Innermarky, the Laird of Melgund, the clan Macpherson, and numerous other powerful chiefs and lairds.

The rental of the widespread lands of the chief of the Gordons was, of course, correspondingly large, though a great portion of it was paid in kind, as was shown by an incident which occurred in 1556. In that year the Queen-Dowager, on a progress to the northern part of the country, was sumptuously entertained by Huntly in his castle of Strathbogie, which he had recently enlarged and adorned at a great expense. After a stay of some days, the Queen, apprehensive that her prolonged visit, with her large retinue, might put her host to inconvenience, proposed to take her departure. Huntly, however, entreated her to remain, which she agreed to do. On expressing a wish to inspect the cellars and storehouses which furnished the bounteous cheer provided for her, she was shown, among other stores of food of every sort, an enormous quantity of wildfowl and venison. The Frenchmen in the Queen’s retinue asked how and whence a supply so vast and yet so fresh was procured, and were informed by the Earl that he had relays of hunters and fowlers dispersed in the mountains, woods, and remote places of his domains, who daily forwarded to his castle the game which they caught, however distant their quarters might be. D’Oisel, on hearing this reply, remarked to the Queen that such a man was not to be tolerated in so small and poor a kingdom as Scotland, and that his wings ought to be clipped before he became too arrogant.

In the contest between the Reformers and the Romish Church, the fourth Earl, unfortunately for himself and his family, resolved to stand forth as the leader of the Popish party. During the commotions under the regency of the Queen-mother, as we have seen, he had acted a temporising part. He at one time assisted the Regent in her efforts to carry out the Popish policy dictated by her brothers, the Guises. At another he professed to have joined the Lords of the Congregation, though he took care to give no material aid to the Protestant cause, and was present at the famous Parliament of 1560, in which the Romish Church was overthrown. He was courted and feared by each of the contending parties, as Robertson remarks, and in consequence, both connived at his encroachments in the north, and he was thus enabled, by a combination of artifice and force, to add every day to his already exorbitant power and wealth. But there can be no doubt that he had, long before this time, determined to become the leader of the Scottish Roman Catholics, in their life and death struggle with the Protestants. After the death of the French king, Mary’s husband, Huntly, in conjunction with some other Romish nobles, sent an envoy to the young Queen, to invite her, on her return to her own country, to land at Aberdeen, where they were prepared to welcome her as the champion of the old faith, with an army of twenty thousand men. But Mary was aware that the acceptance of this offer would incur the risk of a desperate civil war, and that whether it terminated in victory or defeat, it would be ruinous to her hopes of gaining the English crown. She therefore contented herself with enjoining the envoy to assure the lords and prelates who had sent him of her favour towards them, and her intention to reside in her kingdom.

In carrying out the policy which she adopted at this stage, Mary chose as her chief counsellor her half-brother, Lord James Stewart, the leader of the Protestant lords, and it transpired that she intended to create him Earl of Moray. Huntly was deeply offended at the favour thus shown to his rival, and especially at the prospect of being deprived of the extensive domains attached to the earldom of Moray, which had for some years been in his possession. His disaffection to the Government was not concealed, and there was reason to believe that he was organising his retainers and allies with a view to take up arms in support of the ancient faith, as soon as a favourable opportunity should present itself.

In these circumstances the Queen resolved to make a journey to the north, no doubt by Moray’s advice, though Randolph says it was ‘rather devised by herself than approved by her council.’ In the course of this royal progress, which was to terminate at Inverness, Mary was to visit Huntly at his splendid castle of Strathbogie, by way of doing honour to the northern potentate. It is doubtful, however, whether the Earl regarded the proposal quite in this light, and it could not suit his purposes that his keen-eyed rival should have an opportunity of inspecting closely the state of affairs at the headquarters of the Popish party.

At this time an incident occurred which had an important influence on the relations between the Queen and her potent subject. In a conflict which took place in the streets of Edinburgh, between Sir John Gordon, one of Huntly’s younger sons, and Lord Ogilvy, that nobleman was severely wounded, and Gordon was immediately arrested and committed to prison. He made his escape, however, from the Tolbooth, and took refuge on his estate in the north. His mother persuaded him to submit himself to the pleasure of the Queen, who ordered him to be conveyed to the castle of Stirling. On his way thither he repented of his submission, escaped from his guards, and gathering a strong body of horsemen, bade defiance to the royal authority.

The Queen set out from Edinburgh on her royal progress (11th August, 1562), accompanied by Randolph, the English ambassador, her brother, Lord James, at that time Earl of Mar, Secretary Lethington, and a large body of the nobility. She arrived at Old Aberdeen on the 27th of August. Huntly was evidently afraid to trust himself within her power without knowing whether she came for a peaceful or a hostile purpose, and he sent his wife to wait on her Majesty, and to invite her to his castle of Strathbogie. The Queen declined to accept the invitation, on the ground that she would not visit the Earl so long as his son was a fugitive from justice. Randolph, however, who was the Earl’s guest for two nights, in a letter to Cecil, says, ‘his house is fair, and best furnished of any house that I have seen in this country. His cheer is marvellous great.’ There can be no doubt that both the Queen and her chief counsellor ran considerable risk in venturing into the Gordon territory, and it transpired that while spending a night in the Castle of Balquhain, a stronghold of the Leslies, they both narrowly escaped seizure. At Darnaway Castle, the chief mansion of the earldom of Moray, a meeting of the Privy Council was held, at which the Lord James produced his patent of the earldom of Moray, which he exchanged for that of Mar, ‘both more honourable,’ says Randolph, ‘and greater in profit than the other.’ The conferring this honour upon his rivals seems to have driven Huntly to despair. He immediately assembled his vassals, and advanced with rapid marches towards Aberdeen, with the hope of seizing the Queen’s person. A party of the royal soldiers were attacked near Findlater, one of the Earl’s castles, by his son, Sir John Gordon. Their leader was captured, a number of them killed, and the rest disarmed. ‘This fact,’ says Knox, ‘so inflamed the Queen that all hope of reconciliation was past; and so the said Earl of Huntly was charged, under pain of putting him to the horne, to present himself and the said Sir John before the Queen and Council within six days, which charge he disobeyed, and so was pronounced a rebel.’

A considerable force had at first assembled round the Gordon standard, but the Mackintoshes, whose chief he had beheaded some years before, and several other clans that had hitherto submitted to the iron rule of Huntly, now availed themselves of the opportunity to free themselves from his yoke, under the plea of loyalty. His troops thus gradually melted away until they had dwindled down to between seven and eight hundred men. On the other hand, the royal forces, swelled by the deserters from Huntly’s standard, numbered about two thousand. The Earl, however, with the courage of despair, assumed the offensive. A conflict took place on the declivity of a hill called Corrichie, about fifteen or eighteen miles west of Aberdeen. On the first attack, the clans that had passed from Huntly to the Queen took to flight; but Moray restored the battle, which terminated in the complete defeat of the insurgents. The Earl himself was found dead on the field—smothered, it was said, in his armour, owing to his corpulence, and the pressure of the crowd of fugitives and pursuers. [One of the numerous misstatements, to use the mildest term, of Bishop Leslie, is to the effect that Huntly was taken prisoner and put to death by Moray’s order. In accordance with the barbarous law and practice of the time, Huntly’s dead body was embowellerl and roughly embalmed, in order that it might be brought to Edinburgh, to the meeting of Parliament, where sentence of forfeiture was pronounced upon him. Leslie, who must have known better, says this was done because Moray’s hatred of all good men prompted him to insult even their remains.] Two of his sons, Sir John and Adam Gordon, were taken prisoners. The latter, who was only eighteen years of age, was pardoned on account of his youth; but, three days after the battle, Sir John, who was regarded as the chief cause of the rebellion, was beheaded at Aberdeen. Buchanan says, ‘he was generally pitied and lamented, for he was a noble youth, very beautiful, and entering on the prime of his age.’ He was said to have aspired to the hand of the Queen, and it is alleged that on this account, at the instance of Moray, she witnessed his execution.

There can be no doubt that Huntly had meditated the most violent measures against his sovereign. Randolph states in a letter to Cecil that ‘Sir John Gordon confessed his treasonable designs, but laid the burden of them on his father; that two confidential servants of that nobleman, Thomas Ker and his brother, acknowledged that their master, on three several occasions, had plotted to cut off Moray and Lethington; and that the Queen herself, in a conversation with Randolph, thanked God for having delivered her enemy into her hand. She declared,’ he says, ‘many a shameful and detestable part that he thought to have used against her, as to have married her where he would, to have slain her brother, and whom other he liked; the places, the times, where it should have been done; and how easy matter it was, if God had not preserved her.’

Lord George Gordon, Huntly’s eldest surviving son, was shortly after apprehended in the Lowlands, and having been brought to trial for treason, was found guilty and condemned to death, but was respited, and committed a prisoner to the castle of Dunbar.

The movables in Huntly’s splendid mansion of Strathbogie were divided between the Queen and the Earl of Moray. The inventory of the Queen’s share has been preserved, and, as Dr. Stuart remarks, it enables us to realise the grandeur of Huntly’s style of living, as well as his taste and refinement. The beds carried from Strathbogie to Holyrood were of rich velvets, with ornaments and fringes of gold and silver work; many pieces of tapestry, vessels of gilded or coloured glass, figures of animals, and images of a monk and nun, the marble bust of a man, and a wooden carving of the Samaritan woman at the well, were items in the list.

It is startling to learn that several of the most costly articles of which Queen Mary had thus despoiled her unfortunate subject were employed to deck the apartments in the Kirk of Field which were hastily fitted up for Darnley when he was brought from Glasgow to the place selected for his murder. The hall was hung with five pieces of tapestry, part of the plunder of Strathbogie. The walls of the king’s chamber on the upper floor were hung with six pieces of tapestry, which, like the hangings of the wall, had been spoiled from the Gordons after Corrichie. There were two or three cushions of red velvet, a high chair covered with purple velvet, and a little table with a broad cloth, or cover of green velvet, also brought from Strathbogie.

At the first meeting of Parliament, Huntly’s vast estates were confiscated to the Crown, and the potent house of Gordon was reduced at once to insignificance and penury. Such a signal overthrow of one of the greatest territorial magnates in the kingdom was regarded by the Protestants as a signal judgment upon him for his hostility to the good cause. John Knox, in pointing the moral of Huntly’s downfall, for the benefit of the courtiers, said, referring to the Earl’s public deportment, ‘Have ye not seen ane greater than any of ye, sit picking his nails and pull down his bonnet over his eyes when idolatry, witchcraft, murder, oppression, and such vices were rebuked? Was not his common talk, "When the knaves have railed their fill they will hold their peace"? Have you not heard it affirmed in his own face that God should revenge that his blasphemy, even in the eyes of such as were witness to his iniquity? Then was the Earl of Huntly accused by you as the maintainer of idolatry and only hinderer of all good order. Him has God punished even according to His threatenings, that his and your ears heard, and by your hands hath God executed his judgments.’

In no long time, however, the house of Gordon rose again from its ruins with undiminished splendour and power.

By his countess, a granddaughter of the third Earl Marischal, Lord Huntly had nine sons and three daughters. Alexander, the eldest, who married a daughter of the Duke of Chatelherault, died without issue in 1553. George, the second son, became fifth Earl. Of the other sons, one was a Jesuit and died at Paris, in 1626. Sir Adam of Auchindoun, the sixth son, whom Queen Mary pardoned, was long a staunch and powerful supporter of her cause in the north. On the 9th of October, 1571, he defeated the Forbeses, the hereditary enemies of the Gordons, and the opponents of the Queen’s party, with the loss of a hundred and twenty men. Two hundred hagbuteers were despatched by the Regent to the assistance of the Forbeses, but, in a second encounter, at the ‘Craibstane,’ near Aberdeen, they were again defeated by Gordon: three hundred of them were killed, and two hundred, along with the Master of Forbes, were taken prisoners. ‘But,’ says a contemporary chronicler, ‘what glory and renown he (Auchindoun) obtained by these two victories, was all casten down by the infamy of his next attempt; for, immediately after his last conflict, he directed his soldiers to the castle of Towie, desiring the house to be rendered to him in the Queen’s name, whilk was obstinately refused by the lady, and she burst out with certain injurious words. And the soldiers, being impatient, by command of their leader, Captain Ker, fire was put to the house, whence she and the number of twenty-seven persons were cruelly burnt to the death.’

This atrocious deed has been commemorated in the beautiful and touching ballad entitled ‘Edom o’ Gordon.’

[The description, by the unknown poet, of the scene in which the mother and her children appear, as they see the flames climbing up the battlements and the smoke closing around them, as Mr. Murray remarks, is perhaps unsurpassed in popular poetry; while the picture of the beautiful dead face, smiting even the ruffian soldier with a feeling which he cannot bear, is sketched as if by the hand of Nature herself

‘O then bespake her youngest son,
Sat on the nurse’s knee;
"O mother dear, gie ower your house,
For the reek it smothers me."

Of wad gie a’ my gowd, my bairn,
Sae wad I gie my fee,
For ae blast o’ the westlan’ wind
To blaw the reek frae thee."]

The Laird of Towie Castle, one of the chiefs of the Forbes family, was from home when his mansion and family were thus ruthlessly destroyed. The ballad represents him as pursuing the murderers, and states that only five of them escaped his vengeance. There is, unfortunately, no reason to believe that they met with the condign punishment which their shocking crime deserved. As Sir Adam Gordon retained Ker in his service after this inhuman deed, he was regarded by the public as equally guilty.

O then bespake her dochter dear—
She was baith jimp and sma’—.
"O row me in a pair o’ sheets,
And tow me ower the wa’."

O bonny, bonny was her mouth,
And cherry were her cheeks,
And clear, clear was her yellow hair,
Whereon the red bluid dreeps.

Then wi’ his spear he turned her ower;
O gin her face was wan!
He said, "Ye are the first that e’er
I wished alive again."

He turned her ower and ower again,
O gin her skin was white!
"I might hae spared that bonny face
To been some man’s delight.

The Ballads and Songs of Scotland. By J. Clark Murray, LL.D.

Sir Patrick, the seventh son of the Earl of Huntly, was killed at the battle of Glenlivet, in 1594.

The Earl’s second daughter, Lady Jean, had a memorable career. She married, on 22nd February, 1566, the notorious Earl of Bothwell; but, in 1567, her marriage was annulled, in order to allow him to become the third husband of Queen Mary. This was done on the plea that he was related to Lady Jean within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity, and that no dispensation had been obtained from the Pope sanctioning their union. It was suspected at the time that a dispensation had been given by the Papal legate, the Archbishop of St. Andrews, the same prelate that declared the marriage null and void from the beginning, and indeed it was asserted by the commissioners at Westminster, that the sentence of nullity ‘for consanguenitie standing betwixt Bothwell and his wiff precedit oralie becaus the dispensation was abstracted.’ This has now been proved to be the case, by the discovery of this important document at Dunrobin. It must, therefore, have all along been in the possession of Lady Jean Gordon; who must, of course, have withheld it by collusion. The motives which led to the suppression of the dispensation by her and her family are very obvious. Her brother, the Earl of Huntly, was closely connected with the Queen at this juncture, and his family estates, which had been forfeited by his father in 1562, were formally restored and his forfeiture rescinded on the 19th of April, the very day on which he and other nobles signed the bond in Ainslie’s tavern, recommending Bothwell, his sister’s husband, as a fit person to marry the Queen. His motive, therefore, for promoting the dissolution of the marriage is quite apparent. After Bothwell’s downfall and flight, Throckmorton, in a letter to Queen Elizabeth, says, ‘Now I hear sayde earle of Huntley can be contented that Bodwell shuld myscarye, to ryd the quene and hys sister of so wicked a husbande.’ The allusion in this letter to Huntly’s sister evidently implies that it was still possible that she might be held to be legally Bothwell’s wife; and this is confirmed by the statement that ‘she hath protested to the Lady Moray that she will never live with the Earl of Bothwell nor take him for her husband.’ Unless she had been aware that the divorce had been collusive and fraudulent, she could not have regarded it as a possible occurrence that she might be called upon to live again with Bothwell as his wife.

With regard to Lady Jean’s own reasons for agreeing so readily to separate from her husband, apart from the question whether this step was taken with the knowledge of the Queen’s affection, real or supposed, for Bothwell, and with a view to the restoration of the fortunes of her house, as was positively asserted by the Earl of Moray, it is doubtful whether she did really sacrifice her feelings by consenting to the divorce. Bothwell, according to all accounts, was a person of violent temper and gross habits, as well as of notorious profligacy, and short as had been the time of their union, it was long enough to disgust a lady whom her son, the Earl of Sutherland, describes as ‘virtuous, religious, and wyse, even beyond her sex,’ and to make her willing, if not anxious, that her connection with her worthless husband should be brought to a termination. It must also be kept in mind that, contrary to custom in such cases, special arrangements were made for the preservation of her legal rights as Bothwell’s wife, and that, though her marriage was annulled, and his estates were twice forfeited before her death, she continued to draw her jointure from them to the end of her long life, and this notwithstanding her own marriage to two husbands in succession, after her separation from Bothwell in 1566. In 1573 Lady Jean married Alexander, twelfth Earl of Sutherland, to whom she bore two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom, Sir Robert Gordon of Gordonstoun, was the historian of the family of Sutherland. After the death of the Earl, the Countess married Alexander Ogilvie of Boyne, whom she also outlived. She died, May 14th, 1629, having survived, in peace and honour, her divorce from Bothwell the long period of sixty-two years. Her son, Sir Robert Gordon, eulogises in glowing terms her excellent memory, sound judgment, and great understanding, the prudence and foresight with which she managed her affairs ‘amidst all the troublesome times, and variable courses of fortune’ which she experienced. ‘By reason of her husband, Earl Alexander, his sickly disposition, together with her son’s minority at the time of his father’s death, she was in a manner forced to take upon her the managing of all the affairs of that house a good while, which she did perform with great care, to her own credit and the weal of that family.’

GEORGE, fifth Earl of Huntly, as we have seen, was tried and condemned for treason after the battle of Corrichie. A story has been told, on the authority of Gordon of Straloch, respecting an alleged attempt on the part of the Earl of Moray to procure the execution of Lord George Gordon during his imprisonment in Dunbar Castle, without the Queen’s knowledge, though professedly by her authority. But it rests on no trustworthy authority, and carries falsehood on its face. The death of Lord George, who was a condemned traitor, could have been of no service to Moray while other six of Huntly’s sons were alive and at liberty. After Queen Mary had resolved to marry Darnley in spite of the opposition of Moray and the other Protestant lords, she released Gordon from prison, and restored to him his titles and estates. The Earl of Huntly was in Holyrood at the time of Rizzio’s murder, and was supping along with Bothwell and Athole in another part of the palace. Having reason to believe that they were obnoxious to the perpetrators of that dastardly crime, they made their escape through a window of their apartment towards the garden on the north side. When the Queen took refuge in Dunbar, Huntly hastened to the royal standard with his retainers, and was rewarded for his loyalty with the office of Chancellor, of which the Earl of Morton was deprived for his complicity in the murder of Rizzio. He is said to have been present at the memorable conference with the Queen respecting the proposal that she should obtain a divorce from her worthless husband; and there is every reason to believe that he was one of those who subscribed the bond for Darnley’s murder. After that foul deed was executed he accompanied Mary to Seton, about twelve miles from Edinburgh, along with Bothwell, Argyll, and others implicated in the crime. There, according to an entry in a contemporary, ‘Diary of Occurrences,’ ‘they passed their time meryly.’ Huntly and Seton, it was said, played a match against the Queen and Bothwell in shooting at the butts, and the former, who were the losers, entertained the winners to dinner in the adjoining village of Tranent. Huntly was present at the notorious supper of the most influential peers, and members of the Estates, which was held on the 19th of April, in Ainslie’s tavern, and signed the document recommending Bothwell as a suitable husband to the Queen, and promising to promote their marriage,— probably the most shameful deed of that disgraceful period. Huntly’s titles and estates were restored on that same day, no doubt with the distinct understanding that he would further Bothwell’s divorce from his sister.

After the insurrection of the Confederate lords had compelled the Queen to separate from her husband, Bothwell took refuge with Huntly at Strathbogie, and it was not until the attempt of the two earls to raise a fresh force for the Queen’s cause had failed that Bothwell resolved to flee the country. It need excite no surprise that Huntly, whose whole conduct showed that he was as selfish as he was unprincipled, was then ‘contented that Bothwell should myscarye,’ and that in a short space of time he was acting with the nobles who were denouncing the Queen’s marriage, and loudly execrating Bothwell’s conduct. He signed the bond to support the authority of the infant king, and carried the sceptre at the first Parliament of the Regent Moray, 3rd December, 1567. After Mary’s escape from Lochleven Castle the Earl once more changed sides, and joined the association which was formed at Hamilton in support of the Queen. Huntly had gone to the north, in order to raise forces in her behalf, and was on his march with a considerable army to her aid, when the battle of Langside rendered her cause hopeless. He was deprived of his office of Chancellor—a step which no doubt strengthened his hostility to the Regent; but, after uniting with the Hamiltons in an attempt to let loose the Borderers upon England, in order to bring about a war between the two countries, and writing to the Duke of Alva soliciting his assistance, Huntly made his peace with Moray in May, 1569.

After the murder of the Regent, in 1570, the Earl accepted from Mary the office of Lieutenant-General of the kingdom, and collected a strong force at Aberdeen. But he and the other leaders of the party were proclaimed traitors by the new Regent, Lennox, who attacked him on his march southward, and defeated him at Brechin. At a Parliament held at Stirling in 1571, an Act of forfeiture was passed against Huntly and his brother, Sir Adam Gordon, along with other adherents of the Queen. The Earl was one of the leaders of the force despatched by Kirkaldy of Grange against the Regent at Stirling, which had nearly succeeded in taking prisoners the most influential members of the King’s party. Lennox lost his life on that occasion, and Captain Calder, who shot him, declared previous to his execution, that Huntly and Lord Claud Hamilton gave him orders to shoot both the Regent and the Earl of Morton. A treaty of peace was at length concluded, 23rd February, 1573, between the Duke of Chatelherault and Huntly on the one side, and the new Regent, Morton, on the other, by which the former became bound to acknowledge the King’s authority, and the Regent pledged himself to get the Act of attainder against them repealed and their estates restored. The Parliament confirmed these conditions, and Huntly laid down his arms and retired to his northern domains. He died at Strathbogie in 1576. The startling suddenness of his death was regarded by his contemporaries as a divine judgment upon him for his crimes, and especially for his participation in the murder of Darnley, and of Regent Lennox; and marvellous stories were told of the mysterious noises that were heard in the room in which his body was laid, and how several individuals, on opening the door of the room and attempting to enter it, fell down instantly as if dead, and were with difficulty recovered. He was certainly one of the worst of the unprincipled Scottish nobles of that period, blackened with crimes of the most atrocious nature.

GEORGE, sixth Earl and first Marquis of Huntly, succeeded his father when he was a minor. Like him, he was the leader of the Roman Catholic party in the north, and united with the Earls of Crawford and Errol in intriguing with the King of Spain and the Pope, for the overthrow of the Protestant Church and the restoration of Romish supremacy in Scotland. in 1588, however, he professed to give in his adherence to the Reformed faith, and subscribed the Confession, but in his intercepted letters to the Spanish King, he says, ‘the whole had been extorted from him against his conscience.’ In the following year he and his associates took up arms against the Government, but were speedily overthrown, almost without a struggle. He was brought to trial and found guilty of repeated acts of treason, but the King, with whom the Earl was a favourite, and whose policy was to conciliate the English Roman Catholics, would not allow sentence to be pronounced against him. At the time of his marriage and the public rejoicings with which it was accompanied, James set at liberty this potent nobleman, who, however, refused to remain at Court, and retired to his estates in Aberdeenshire, where he appears to have exerted himself to suppress the feuds which at that time raged in the north. His efforts do not appear to have been attended with much success, and he became involved himself in bitter feuds with the Grants, and the clan Chattan, which were not unattended with bloodshed.

A deadly quarrel took place at this time between Huntly and the Earl of Moray, son-in-law of the ‘Good Regent,’ a young nobleman of great promise and of remarkably handsome appearance, who had befriended the clans at feud with the Gordons. A rumour was circulated, which was utterly untrue, that Moray had abetted Bothwell in his attempt to seize the King’s person in 1591. Huntly communicated this fabulous story to James, and importuned him to take proceedings against the traitor. Though the King well knew that Huntly was the mortal enemy of Moray, he granted him a commission to apprehend that nobleman and bring him to trial. Armed with this authority, Huntly, at the head of a body of horsemen, hastened to Dunnibrissle, a mansion on the northern shore of the Firth of Forth, where Moray was then residing. He arrived about midnight, and surrounding the house, summoned the Earl to surrender. Unwilling to put himself in the power of his deadly foe, Moray refused to comply, and with the few retainers whom he had with him, maintained a stout defence against his assailants. Unable to force an entrance, Huntly set fire to the house, and the inmates were compelled to come out, in order to escape being suffocated or burnt to death. Sheriff Dunbar, who was the first to rush out, was mistaken for the Earl, and was at once put to death; but Moray succeeded in forcing his way through the assailants and escaped to the sea-shore. His pursuers, however, followed him down amongst the cliffs, where he was endeavouring to conceal himself, and put him to death with savage cruelty. Gordon of Buckie, who took a prominent part in this foul deed, insisted on Huntly becoming ‘art and part’ in the murder by stabbing the dead body of the Earl.

When the tidings of this atrocity reached the capital next morning, the whole city was immediately in commotion. Loud lamentations were heard on every side for the death of Moray, who was a great favourite with the people, and especially with the Presbyterian party, and the King himself was violently denounced as a participant in the murder. There were various suspicious circumstances which strengthened the general conviction that James was not free from guilt in the matter, notwithstanding his public and solemn protestation of his own innocence. The public indignation grew so strong and threatening that he withdrew in great alarm to Glasgow; but he persisted notwithstanding in his determination to screen Huntly. In a letter which James wrote to him at this crisis, he says, ‘Since your passing herefra, I have been in such danger and perill of my life, as since I was borne I was never in the like, partlie by the grudging and tumults of the people, and partlie by the exclamation of the ministrie, whereby I was moved to dissemble. Alwise I sall remain constant. When you come heree, come not by the ferries, and if ye doe, accompanie yourself as yee respect your own preservation.’

With the hope of putting a stop to the loud clamours for justice, James at length made a show of proceeding against Huntly. The Earl was accordingly summoned to surrender and stand his trial; and having received from the King a secret assurance of safety, he at once obeyed, and on the 10th of March, 1592, he entered himself in ward in the castle of Blackness. But as soon as the popular feeling against him was somewhat allayed, he was set at liberty, on finding security to re-enter and stand his trial, when he should be required. No trial, however, was intended, and none ever took place, and this mockery of justice was terminated by Huntly obtaining the royal pardon and being permitted to return to Court.

The murder of the Earl of Moray was not the only savage deed in which Huntly was implicated. The chief of the clan Macintosh, in conjunction with the Laird of Grant and the Earls of Argyll and Athole, ravaged Huntly’s lands, in revenge for the slaughter of Moray, and Mackintosh burned the castle of Auchindoun, which belonged to the Gordons. Huntly, in revenge for this outrage, not only assailed the hostile sept with his own followers, but let loose upon them all the neighbouring clans who were under his influence, and ‘would do anything,’ as the old phrase was, ‘for his love or for his fear.’ In order to save his clan from extermination, Mackintosh resolved to surrender himself to Huntly, to atone for the offence he had committed. He accordingly proceeded to the castle of the Bog of Gight for this purpose. The Earl was from home, but the chief presented himself to the Countess, a stern and haughty woman, and, after expressing his penitence for the burning of Auchindoun, entreated that his clan should be spared. The lady informed him that her husband was so deeply offended by his conduct, that he had sworn that he would never pardon the outrage till he had brought the offender’s neck to the block. Mackintosh expressed his willingness to submit even to that humiliation, and to put himself at her mercy, and, kneeling down, he laid his head on the block on which the slain bullocks and sheep were broken up, no doubt expecting that the Countess would be satisfied with this token of unreserved submission. But, with a vindictiveness which proved her to be a worthy helpmate to her husband, she made a sign to the cook, who stepped forward with his hatchet, and severed the unfortunate chief’s head from his body.

Another story is told of Huntly which not only exhibits his personal character, but throws light on the manners of the times. The Farquharsons of Deeside had killed Gordon of Brackley, the head of a minor branch of the family. The Earl resolved to inflict condign punishment for this slaughter not only on the actual homicides, but also on the whole sept. He summoned to his assistance his ally, the Laird of Grant, and arranged that he should commence operations on the upper end of the Vale of Dee, while the Gordons should ascend the river from beneath, and thus place the devoted clan between two fires. The Farquharsons, thus enclosed as in a net, and taken unawares, were almost entirely destroyed, both men and women, and about two hundred orphan children were nearly the only survivors. Huntly carried the poor orphans to his castle, and fed them like pigs. About a year after this destructive foray, the Laird of Grant paid a visit to the Bog of Gight, and, after dinner, Huntly said he would show him rare sport. Conducting his guest to a balcony which overlooked the kitchen, he showed him a large trough, into which all the broken victuals left from the dinner of the whole household had been thrown, and on a signal given by the cook, a hatch was raised and there rushed into the kitchen a mob of children, half naked, and as uncivilised as a pack of hounds, who clamoured and struggled each to obtain a share of the food. Grant, who, unlike his host, was a humane man, was greatly shocked at this degrading scene, and inquired who these miserable children were that were thus fed like so many pigs. He was informed that they were the children of those Farquharsons whom the Gordons and the Grants slew on Deeside. Grant must have felt deeply the consequences thus presented to him of the sanguinary raid in which he had taken part, and he put in his claim to be allowed to maintain these wretched orphans as long as they had been kept by Huntly. The Earl, who was probably tired of the joke of the pig-trough, readily consented to get the rabble of children taken off his hands, and gave himself no further trouble about them. The Laird of Grant was allowed to carry them to his castle, and ultimately to disperse them among his clan. They of course bore the laird’s own name of Grant; but it is said that for several generations their descendants continued to bear the designation of the Race of the Trough, to mark their origin.

Huntly had now returned to his own country, but he was very soon involved in fresh troubles and conflicts. In conjunction with the Earls of Angus and Errol, he entered into a treasonable conspiracy to overturn the Protestant religion in Scotland. He was, in consequence, summoned with great reluctance by the King, to answer to the charge brought against him of conspiring, along with other discontented Popish nobles, against the sovereign. Instead, however, of surrendering to stand his trial, Huntly and his associates took refuge in their northern fastnesses. James, indignant at this disregard of his authority, marched against them (17th February, 1593) at the head of a strong body of troops. But on hearing of his arrival at Aberdeen, Huntly and his fellow-conspirators quitted their strongholds, and fled to the mountains, leaving their wives to present the keys of their castles in token of surrender. James placed garrisons in these strongholds, and followed up these steps by the forfeiture of the Popish lords and the seizure of their land; but this was done in such a way as to justify the remark of Lord Burleigh, that the King only ‘dissembled a confiscation.’ In the course of a few months he invited the Countess of Huntly to Court, and, it was believed, even consented to hold a secret meeting at Falkland with Huntly himself. The Protestant party vehemently remonstrated against the lenity which James was showing to the men who were conspirators against his throne, as well as against the Protestant faith; but he would proceed no farther against them than to offer that their offences should be ‘abolished, delete, and extinct, and remain in oblivion for ever,’ provided that they would renounce Popery and embrace the Presbyterian religion. If they refused this offer they were to go into exile. Huntly and the other two Earls declined to avail themselves of these proferred terms, and they entered into a new conspiracy with Francis Stewart, Earl of Bothwell, for the seizure of the King’s person. They were in consequence declared guilty of high treason, their estates and honours were forfeited, and a commission was given to the Earl of Argyll to lay waste their territory, and to pursue them with fire and sword. The Earl accordingly marched to the north at the head of a strong body of men, and encountered Huntly at a place called Glenlivet. After a fierce contest Argyll was defeated with considerable loss. [See CAMPBELLS OF ARGYLL.]

The King, who had reached Dundee on his way northwards, though he seems to have regarded with great complacency the misfortune that had befallen Argyll, [On seeing the Earl return attended only by a small body of his own retainers, James is said to have remarked, ‘Fair fa’ ye, Geordie Gordon, for sending him back sae like a subject.’] was so enraged at the insult to his own authority, that he hastened to the north with his whole army, reinforced by the clans at feud with the Gordons, and reached Aberdeen on the 15th of October, 1594. He thence marched to Strathbogie—the castle of Huntly, who had fled into Caithness— which he caused to be blown up with gunpowder and levelled with the ground. The Earl, finding himself reduced to extremity by the desertion of his followers and by the rigour of the northern winter, which had just set in, implored and obtained the King’s permission to depart out of Scotland, on the condition that he would not return without his Majesty’s consent, or during his exile engage in any new attempt against the Protestant religion or the peace and liberties of his native country.

Huntly did, notwithstanding, return secretly to Scotland in December, 1597, with the connivance of the King. Great offers were made in his behalf by his Countess, and liberal promises were given to the judicatories of the Kirk, that, if allowed to remain, he would abstain from any attempt to overthrow or injure the Protestant Church, would banish from his company all Jesuits and seminary priests, and would even confer with any of the ministers of the Kirk on the subject of religion, and, if convinced by their arguments, would embrace the Protestant faith. On these conditions, which were never meant to be kept, Huntly was again reconciled to the Kirk with much public solemnity, and was suffered to remain in the country, and to retain possession of his castles and estates. As a mark of the royal favour he obtained a grant of the dissolved abbey of Dunfermline, was appointed Lord-Lieutenant of the North, and on the 15th of April, 1599, was created Marquis of Huntly. James had always cherished a great liking for the chief of the Gordons; and Calderwood, under the date of A.D. 1600, says that he and the King ‘passed over the time with drinking and waughting’ (quaffing in large draughts).

Through the interposition of the King, Huntly was reconciled, in 1603, to the Earl of Moray, the son of the ‘Bonnie Earl’ whom he had murdered, and in token of their amity he gave the young nobleman his eldest daughter in marriage.

He was again, however, in trouble with the Protestant clergy, and Mr. George Gladstanes, minister of St. Andrews, was appointed by the General Assembly to remain with the Marquis ‘for ane quarter, or ane half year, to the effect by his travels and labours the said noble lord and his family might be informit in the word of truth.’ The ‘travels and labours’ of this worthy minister, however, failed to induce his lordship to ‘resort to the preaching at the ordinar times in the parish kirk,’ or to cease his efforts to promote the Roman Catholic religion in Scotland, and to shelter and encourage the Jesuits and priests. He was in consequence excommunicated by the General Assembly in 1608, and in the following year was committed to Stirling Castle. He regained his liberty in December, 1610, on his engaging to subscribe the Confession of Faith, and to make satisfaction to the Kirk—a stipulation as discreditable to the clerical leaders as it was to the Popish Earl. He of course speedily relapsed into his old habits, and directed his officers to prohibit his tenants from attending the Protestant Church. For this conduct he was summoned, in 1610, to appear before the Court of High Commission, and on his refusal to subscribe the Confession of Faith he was committed prisoner to the castle of Edinburgh. He was speedily set at liberty by the Lord Chancellor, and proceeded to London, where he was absolved from the sentence of excommunication by the Archbishop of Canterbury, a proceeding which gave great offence to the Scottish prelates, who regarded it as a revival of the old claim of supremacy over the Church of Scotland. The Archbishop of St. Andrews noticed it in a sermon which he preached in St. Giles’s Church, Edinburgh, and stated that the King had promised that ‘the like should not fall out hereafter.’ This admission, however, was not regarded as satisfactory, and the Marquis was obliged to appear before the General Assembly in August, 1616, and there to acknowledge his offence, and to promise that he would educate his children in the faith of the Reformed Church, and continue therein himself. On the faith of this confession and promise, he was absolved by the Archbishop of St. Andrews. He then made oath that he would truly conform to the Established Church, and subscribed the Confession of Faith. It is not easy to decide whether the conduct of the Marquis or of the Assembly in this dishonest proceeding, deserves the more severe condemnation. Though he professed to have been converted four or five times over by the Protestant ministers, there can be no doubt that he was during his whole life a warm adherent of the Romish Church.

Huntly does not appear to have been such a favourite with Charles I. as he was with James, for he compelled the too powerful nobleman to resign the sheriffships of Aberdeen and Inverness for the sum of £5,000; which, however, was never paid. The Marquis became involved in the feud with the Crichtons of Frendraught, and his vassals, uniting with the Gordons of Rothiemay, ravaged the lands of Frendraught, hanged one of his tenants, and carried off a large booty, which they disposed of by public sale. [See THE CRICHTONS OF FRENDRAUGHL] Frendraught hastened to Edinburgh, and complained of these outrages to the Privy Council, who issued an order, in the beginning of 1635, for Huntly to appear before them. He attempted to excuse himself on the plea of old age and infirmity, but the Council were inexorable. He was outlawed for contumacy; and some of his friends were apprehended, and two of them were executed. Having, however, afterwards appeared in Edinburgh, his sentence was reversed, and he was about to be set at liberty, on giving his bond that he and his allies and retainers should keep the peace, when he was accused by Captain Adam Gordon of Park, one of the ringleaders in the attacks upon Frendraught, of being the resetter of the ‘broken-men’ in the north, and the prime mover in the depredations against the Crichtons, and in all the disorders by which the peace of the northern districts had been disturbed. The aged noble was summoned by the Council to appear before them in Edinburgh to answer this charge, and though it was now ‘the dead of the year, cold, tempestuous, and stormy,’ he was compelled to obey. Though he is said to have ‘cleared himself with great dexteritie, beyond admiration,’ he was imprisoned in the castle of Edinburgh, in a room where he had no light, and was denied the company of his lady, who had accompanied him, except on a visit at Christmas. He afterwards obtained permission to live in ‘his own lodging, near to his Majesty’s palace of Holyrood House, with liberty to walk within ane of the gardens or walks within the precincts of the said palace, and no farther.’ His health had now broken down, and finding himself growing weaker and weaker, he expressed a strong desire to return to Strathbogie. He accordingly set out in June, 1636, on his journey northward ‘in a wand-bed within his chariot, his lady still with him.’ He got no farther than Dundee, where he died in an inn, June 13th, and his body was carried on a horse-litter to Strathbogie for burial. He was in the seventy-fourth year of his age, and had possessed the family estates and honours for sixty years.

The Marquis was interred at Elgin, with great magnificence, according to the rites of the Roman Catholic Church. ‘He had torch-lights,’ says Spalding, ‘carried in great numbers by friends and gentlemen.’ His son and other three nobles bore the coffin. ‘He was carried to the east style of the College Kirk, in at the south door, and buried in his own aile, with much mourning and lamentation; the like form of burial with torch-light was seldom seen before.’

If we may rely on the testimony of the clerk of the Consistorial Court of the diocese of Aberdeen, the Marquis of Huntly, notwithstanding the sanguinary feuds, and treasonable intrigues in which he was often engaged, seems to have been highly respected in the north. ‘He was of a great spirit,’ says Spalding, ‘for in time of trouble he was of an invincible courage and boldly bare down all his enemies. He was never inclined to war himself, but by the pride and influence of his kin was diverse times drawn into troubles, whilk he did bear through valiantly. He loved not to be in the law contending against any man, but loved rest and quietness with all his heart, and in time of peace he lived moderately and temperately in his diet, and fully set to building all curious devices. A good neighbour in his marches, disposed rather to give than to take a foot wrongously. He was heard to say he never drew a sword in his own quarrel. In his youth a prodigal spender, in his old age more wise and worldly, yet never counted for cost in matters of credit and honour. A great householder; a terror to his enemies, whom he ever, with his prideful kin, held under subjection and obedience. Just in all his bargains, and was never heard of for his true debt.’

The rent-roll of the Marquis, which has fortunately been preserved, gives a striking idea of the means and influence of this great nobleman. It states in detail the sums of money, and the produce due from each farm on his vast estates. A large proportion of the rent was paid in kind. ‘The silver mail,’ or money rent, amounted to £3,819, besides £636 of teind silver. The ‘ ferme victual’ payable, to the Marquis was 3,816 bolls, besides which there were 55 bolls of custom meal, 436 of multure beir, 108 of custom oats, 83 of custom victual, 167 marts (cattle to be slaughtered at Martinmas), 483 sheep, 316 lambs, 167 grice (young pigs), 14 swine, 1,389 capons, 272 geese, 3,231 poultry, 700 chickens, 5,284 eggs, 5 stones of candles, 46 stones of brew tallow, 34 leats of peats, 990 ells of custom linen, 94 stones of custom butter, 40 barrels of salmon, 8 bolls of teind victual, 2 stones of cheese, and 30 kids. This vast amount of grain and live stock was, of course, devoted to the maintenance of the large body of retainers who were at his command, and ready to support his cause, even against the sovereign himself.

In his latter years, the Marquis occupied himself much in building and planting. In 1602, he rebuilt with great splendour the ancient castle of Strathbogie, now known as Huntly Castle, which, though in a ruinous state, attests the magnificent style in which the chief of the great family of the Gordons lived. ‘He built a house at Kinkail, on the Dee,’ says Sir Robert Gordon, ‘called the New House, which standeth amidst three hunting forests of his own. He built the house of Ruthven, in Badenoch, twice, it being burnt down by aventure, or negligence of his servants, after he had once finished the same. He built a new house in Aboyne; he repaired his house in Elgin; he hath built a house in the Plewlands, in Moray; he hath enlarged and decoreat the house of Bog-Gicht, which he hath parked about; he repaired his house in the old town of Aberdeen.’

The feeling against Roman Catholics ran so high at this time that the Marchioness, a daughter of Esme, Duke of Lennox, the favourite of King James, was compelled to return to France, where she had been born and educated, in order to escape excommunication, which at that time would have incurred forfeiture of her whole property. ‘Thus resolutely,’ says Spalding, ‘she settles her estates, rents, and living, and leaves with sore heart her stately building of the Bog, beautified with many yards, parks, and pleasures—closes up the yetts, and takes journey with about sixteen horse. . . . A strange thing to see a worthy lady, near seventy years of age, put to such trouble and travail, being a widow, her eldest son, the Lord Marquis, being out of the kingdom, her bairns and oyes [grandchildren] dispersed and spread; and albeit nobly born, yet left helpless and comfortless, and so put at by the Kirk, that she behoved to go, or else to bide excommunication, and thereby lose her estate and living. . . . It is said she had about three hundred thousand merks in gold and jewels with her, by and attain the gold and silver plate of both houses of Bog and Strathbogie.’ On her journey southward the Marchioness remained about three months in Edinburgh; but though Charles I. was in the Scottish capital at this time, he was powerless to protect her. She died in France in the ensuing year.

The Marquis of Huntly left by this lady four sons and five daughters. His second son, John, who was created Viscount Melgum and Lord Aboyne by Charles I. in 1627, perished in the burning of Frendraught Castle. [Viscount Melgum was married to Lady Sophia Hay, fifth daughter of the Earl of Errol. This lady was a Roman Catholic, and was ministered to by Gilbert Blackhal, a priest of the Scots’ mission in France, in the Low Countries, and in Scotland, who, in a work which has been published by the Spalding Club, entitled, ‘A brieff narration of the services done to three noble Ladyes,’ has recorded ‘How I came to be engaged in the service of my Ladye of Aboyne,’ and ‘of the services that I rendered to my Lady of Aboyne, in the capacities of priest, chamberlain, and captain of her castle.’] His eldest son, GEORGE, was second Marquis of Huntly. During the lifetime of his father he spent some time at the Court in London, and great pains were taken by the King to educate him in the Protestant religion. On his return to his own country, the Earl of Enzie, as he was termed, became involved, in 1618, in a quarrel with Sir Lauchlan Mackintosh—chief of the clan Chattan, his hereditary enemies—which greatly disturbed the peace of the country. In the end the Earl, who possessed superior influence at Court, induced King James to commit Mackintosh to the castle of Edinburgh, until he should give satisfaction to the heir of the Gordons. In 1623, accompanied by a band of ‘gallant young gentlemen and well appointed,’ he went over to France, and was made Captain of the Scots Bodyguard to the French king, an office of great honour and influence, which had long been held by the Stewarts of D’Aubigny, Earls and Dukes of Lennox. Louis XIII. was at that time assisting the German princes against the House of Austria, and Lord Enzie was sent into Lorraine, and served with great distinction there, and afterwards in Alsace. Louis, on reviving the corps, intended to confer the command on Frederick, Duke of Richmond and Lennox, but on the sudden death of that nobleman in 1624, the honour was transferred to his nephew, Lord Gordon, under the Marshal de Ia Force. The French king cordially acknowledged the signal services rendered to him by the Scottish company in this campaign. The Earl was recalled from Germany by his father, as his assistance was urgently required in suppressing the disorders in the Highlands and in Aberdeenshire. He was created Viscount Aboyne in 1632, with remainder to his second son, James, and his heirs male. He succeeded to the hereditary honours and estates of his family on the death of his father in 1636, and when the ill-advised proceedings of Charles I., in attempting to force an English liturgy on the people of Scotland, had caused them to take up arms in vindication of their rights and liberties, the Marquis of Huntly received a commission from the King as his Lieutenant in the North, and raised the royal standard there.

The Covenanters, who were well aware of Huntly’s great influence in the north, made an earnest effort to induce him to join their party. Colonel Robert Munro, an officer who had served in the German wars, was sent as their envoy to Strathbogie. ‘The sum of his commission to Huntly was, that the noblemen Covenanters were desirous that he should join with them in the common cause; that if he would do so, and take the Covenant, they would give him the first place and make him leader of their forces; and further, they would make his state and his fortunes greater than ever they were; and, moreover, they should pay off and discharge all his debts, which they knew to be about ane hundred thousand pounds sterling; that their forces and associates were a hundred to one with the King; and therefore it was to no purpose to him to take up arms against them, for if he refused this offer, and declared against them, they should find means to disable him for to help the King; and, moreover, they knew how to undo him, and bade him expect that they would ruinate his family and estates.’

The offer was tempting to an ambitious man, but Huntly’s loyalty was proof against the temptation. ‘To this proposition,’ says the contemporary writer, ‘Huntly gave a sharp and absolute repartee, that his family had risen and stood by the kings of Scotland; and for his part, if the event proved the ruin of the King, he was resolved to lay his life, honours, and estate under the rubbish of the King his ruins. But, withal, thanked the gentleman who had brought the commission, and had advised him thereto, as proceeding from one whom he took for a friend and good-willer, and urged out of a good intention to him.’