Feuds, Forays and Rebellions: History of the Highland Clans 1475-1625 9781474472067

Citation preview

FEUDS, FORAYS AND REBELLIONS

FEUDS, FORAYS AND REBELLIONS History of the Highland Clans 1475-1625

John L. Roberts

EDINBURGH University Press

©John L. Roberts, 1999 Transferred to Digital Print 2009

Edinburgh University Press 22 George Square, Edinburgh Typeset in Bulmer by Pioneer Associates, Perthshire, and Printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Antony Rowe, Chippenham and Eastbourne A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 9780748662449 ISBN 9781474472067 (EPDF) The right of John L. Roberts to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

CONTENTS

Notes and Acknowledgements

vii

Foreword

ix

1 'Wyld, Wykkyd Heland-Men’

1

2 Clan Donald in Rebellion

24

3 Headship of the Gael

46

4 Clan Donald in Ulster

63

5 Highland Feuds and Rebellions

88

6 Daunting of the Western Isles

105

7 Aggrandisement of the MacKenzies

121

8 Plantation of the Isles

135

9 Conflicts of the Northern Clans

148

10 Supremacy in the North

160

11 Persecution of Clan Gregor

174

12 Settlement of Territorial Disputes

186

13 The King’s Peace

198

Genealogical Tables

211

Bibliography

228

Index

232

NOTES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

For the sake of consistency, I have adopted the convention of spelling all the Mac names as MacDonald, rather than Macdonald. Variants of other names such as MacDonnell, MacKintosh and MacLaine are likewise given as MacDonald, MacIntosh and MacLean. I am grateful to Nicholas Maclean-Bristol for his help in sorting out the genealogical complexities of the MacLeans of Duart, and to Professor G. W. S. Barrow for reading an earlier version of the typescript. As always, I owe a debt of gratitude to my wife Jessica and daughter Rachel, who were unstinting in their encouragement and support.

vii

FOREWORD

Known to Gaeldom as Linn nan Creach, or the Age of Feuds and Forays, the years stretching between the forfeiture of the Lordship of the Isles in 1493 and the death of King James VI of Scotland in 1625 were a turbulent peri­ od in Highland history. It is often depicted as sheer anarchy, amounting to lit­ tle more than a ‘dark and dismal period of strife and plunder, hatred and revenge’. The destruction of the Lordship meant the Highland chieftains lost their dependence upon the MacDonalds, Lords of the Isles, whose heredi­ tary right to the ‘Headship of the Gael’ they had implicitly recognised. Instead, they often came to hold their estates as tenants of the Crown, and later under the feudal superiority of such great magnates as the Gordons, Earls of Huntly, and the Campbells, Earls of Argyll. Moreover, the monarchy in Scotland was repeatedly weakened through­ out the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries by recurrent periods of minority rule. Indeed, until James VI started upon his personal reign in 1587, Scotland was governed more by regents than the Stewart kings themselves. They often succeeded to the throne when quite young, long before they came of age. The only exception was James IV, who made a determined attempt to deal with the vacuum in political power and influence that exist­ ed after the forfeiture of the Lordship of the Isles in 1493, despite his bewil­ dering changes of policy. After his death at the Battle of Flodden in 1513, lit­ tle attempt was made by the Crown to control the political turmoil endemic to the Highlands and the Western Isles for much of the sixteenth century. Only after coming of age did the Stewart monarchs start to address the Highland problem. However, they were only able to act effectively against such disorder once they had asserted their own authority in the Lowlands of Scotland, which they often struggled to achieve. Effective action was only taken by James V during the last few years of his personal reign, before his premature death in 1542, and subsequently during the final years in the minority of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, dominated as it was by the Dowager Queen Mary of Guise, her strong-minded mother. Otherwise, the

ix

x

FOREWORD

intervening periods of minority rule often triggered major disturbances in the Highlands and the Western Isles. Many of the Highland feuds which arose during these years resulted from conflicting claims over land. Powerful claimants, backed by the paper rights of feudal charters, battled to gain possession of territory granted to them by the Crown, or which they had obtained by marriage with the heiresses of now-extinct families. Equally, other Highland clans, especially in the more remote districts, sought to keep possession of their ancestral lands by sheer force of arms, whenever they lacked charters giving them a legal right of occupation. Often they had lost any rights that they had once possessed, whenever their own rebellious conduct had caused the Crown to forfeit their lands. Hardly any of these territorial feuds arose from what might be called sheer aggrandisement. There was nearly always a legal pretext to justify the action of one protagonist against another, or else extenuating circumstances, most often rooted in their past possession of the land under dispute. Only the internecine struggles for leadership within individual clans lacked any such justification. They arose largely from the peculiar customs of secular mar­ riage then prevalent within Celtic society, which allowed for polygamy, con­ cubinage and divorce outside the canon law of the Catholic Church. The ancient law tracts of Celtic Ireland recognised the legal rights of the cetmuin­ ter, or a man’s chief or first wife, but he could also take other wives of lesser status, known in later texts as adaltrach, literally ‘adulteress’, as well as con­ cubines. Later, it seems that chiefs would exchange their daughters for a year and a day in what became known erroneously as hand-fasting. The repudiation of such temporary liaisons often caused hostility between the two families, leading on occasion to actual feuds. There can be little doubt that Highland chiefs married one partner after another, or lived with them in concubinage, so that they could beget a great many sons, thus proving their virility and fit­ ness to lead their clan. Yet the very existence of such an extended family was often a source of discord, causing fratricidal quarrels to break out within clans as natural brothers struggled with one another for supremacy. It was also common in such a kin-based society for marriages to occur well within the seven degrees of consanguinity prohibited by the Catholic Church. Consequently, dispensations were often sought to legitimise such unions, long after the event, so allowing the eldest son of such a union to be recognised as the heir of his father under feudal law. Yet within the context of Gaelic society, such unions were always regarded as valid, and their off­ spring as legitimate, whether or not they were recognised by the Church. Equally, as divorce was forbidden under canon law, annulments were often

Foreword

xi

sought to bring such marriages to an end, usually on the grounds they had taken place within the forbidden degrees of consanguinity. It is difficult to know to what extent the feudal principle of primogeniture had replaced the Celtic system of kin-based succession in the Highlands and Western Isles by the late Middle Ages, whereby the great-grandsons of a common ancestor had an equal right of inheritance. Often, there is nothing in the historical record to tell us which son succeeded his father, so we real­ ly do not know if he was the eldest or just the fittest. Equally, it is not even certain if he was elected to such a position at the head of his kindred by his peers, and then ruled with the advice of a council of his elders, as asserted by George Buchanan around 1567. Only for the Council of the Isles under the Lordship is there any detailed information, and then only from traditional accounts, on how it functioned. Often, all we know from the historical record is that sons succeeded their fathers when they received a charter to their lands, apparently to the exclusion of all their other brothers and their cousins, their father’s nephews. Indeed, the feudal practice of granting out charters was well-established in the Highlands and the Western Isles by the mid-fourteenth century at the very latest, when several grants of land were made by David II. Such grants gave the recipients greater security of tenure, and often confirmed their eldest sons as their rightful heirs according to the feudal principle of primo­ geniture. Moreover, it seems likely that the Crown only acknowledged the existence of canonical marriages in making such charters, thus explaining the necessity for seeking dispensations from the Church in order to legitimise their sons and heirs. The Crown thus endorsed the right of the eldest son of such a marriage to succeed his father at the expense of all his other brothers and half-brothers, born of other unions not recognised by the Church. Often, however, the eldest son would grant land to his rivals, so reinforcing the bonds between them in what was still a kin-based society. Yet the common practice of appointing Tutors to administer the family’s affairs whenever the eldest son succeeded his father while still a child surely suggests that the feudal principle of primogeniture was paramount. Most commonly, the young heir’s uncle was designated as his Tutor, acting in this capacity as his father’s younger brother. But equally, the Tutor was heir-pre­ sumptive to his elder brother should his young charge not survive to man­ hood. Yet the kin-based system of inheritance once prevalent in Gaelic soci­ ety would have given him a far better claim to succeed his elder brother while his own nephew still remained a minor. Apparently, such an archaic system did not take precedence over the feudal principle of primogeniture, since otherwise there would be no need to appoint a Tutor in the first place to administer the family’s affairs until a young heir came of age.

xii

FOREWORD

Occasionally, eldest sons did not succeed their fathers if they were judged quite unfit to act as the chiefs of their clan. Under these circumstances, their position might well be challenged by other claimants, hoping to succeed through the kin-based system of Celtic inheritance. Where such internecine dissension broke out within clans, it was usually fomented by the rightful heir’s half-brothers, born of non-canonical unions of their common-law father. Doubtless, the protagonists justified their actions according to the tenets of Gaelic society, but nevertheless such feuds were often the prelude to the destruction of their entire family, as happened with the MacLeods of Lewis in the late-sixteenth century. The downfall of Clan Donald in 1493 occurred at a time when Donald Dubh, grandson of the last Lord of the Isles and the only rightful heir to the Lordship of the Isles, was still only a child, held captive by his mother’s fam­ ily, the Campbells, Earls of Argyll. By then, the cadet branches of Clan Donald, founded by the younger sons of the MacDonalds, Lords of the Isles, were eight in number, including the all-powerful MacDonalds of Dunivaig and the Glens. Nearly all of them came forward as the leaders of Clan Donald over the next fifty years, repeatedly attempting to restore the Lordship of the Isles, usually acting in their own name. Often lending their support by strength of arms to these rebellions against the Crown were the erstwhile vas­ sals of Clan Donald, among whom the MacLeods of Lewis, the MacLeans of Duart and their cadets of Lochbuie, Coll and Ardgour, as well as the Camerons of Locheil, were the most loyal. Only the MacLeods of Harris and Dunvegan consistently opposed the pretensions of Clan Donald to regain its former glory under the Lordship of the Isles, driven by feuds with the MacDonalds of Sleat over the lands of Trotternish, and with the MacDonalds of Clan Ranald over lands in North Uist. But even they joined the great con­ federacy of Clan Donald which culminated in the Council of the Isles, held by Donald Dubh in 1545. Only after the death of Donald Dubh in 1545 from a sudden fever, caught in Ireland while serving Henry VIII of England, did Clan Donald start to dis­ integrate into its different septs. Holding vast estates in the Glens of Antrim as well as their lands in Scotland, the MacDonalds of Dunivaig and the Glens were drawn into the struggles of the native Earls of Ulster against the English Crown, even if their own self-interest often dictated confusing shifts in their allegiance. But only when a bitter feud erupted with the MacLeans of Duart over the Rhinns of Islay during the last two decades of the sixteenth century did the MacDonalds of Dunivaig and the Glens start on the downward path of internecine conflict which eventually led to their destruction, as the Campbells, Earls of Argyll, rose to supremacy in their place. Elsewhere, the MacKenzies of Kintail profited greatly from the downfall of

Foreword

xiii

Clan Donald once they were granted charters to lands they had previously held under the earldom of Ross. Acting as the loyal servants of the Crown, they consistently pursued a policy of territorial aggrandisement. It eventual­ ly brought them lands in Wester Ross, once held by the MacDonalds of Lochalsh, before they passed by marriage to the MacDonalds of Glengarry, as well as the island of Lewis, which they purchased from the Fife Adventurers after they had failed in its plantation. Created the Earls of Seaforth in 1623, they thus displaced the MacLeods of Lewis, another Highland clan that destroyed itself by its own internecine conflicts, leaving only the MacLeods of Harris and Dunvegan in possession of their ancestral lands. Farther north, the history of Caithness and Sutherland during the six­ teenth century was dominated by the three-sided struggle between the MacKays of Strathnaver, the Sinclairs, Earls of Caithness, and the Gordons, Earls of Sutherland, who eventually triumphed over their other two protag­ onists. The way forward to power and influence during these years of conflict and turmoil in the Highlands and Western Isles was always through service to the Crown. Among the Highland families to benefit from such service were the MacKenzies of Kintail, afterwards created Earls of Seaforth, and the Gordons, Earls of Sutherland. However, among the greatest beneficiaries were the Gordons, Earls of Huntly, and the Campbells, Earls of Argyll. Already territorial magnates in their own right, the Gordons rose to pre-emi­ nence as ‘Cocks o’the North’ during the sixteenth century, acting as King’s Lieutenants within their own sphere of influence in the north-east of Scotland. Even so, after the Scottish reformation of 1560, they adhered to the Catholic faith and slowly their power and influence in the north waned in favour of the Gordons, Earls of Sutherland, descended from a younger son of the second Earl of Huntly. But even the Gordons were eclipsed in power and influence by the Campbells, Earls of Argyll, along with their cadet families, the Campbells of Glenorchy, afterwards Earls of Breadalbane, and their north-eastern branch, the Campbells of Cawdor. Already appointed as Sheriffs and King’s Lieutenants for their lands in Argyll during the late-fourteenth century, the Campbells of Lochawe established themselves as landed proprietors with widespread estates, gained by marriage or royal grant and later by outright purchase, making them among the most wealthy of all the Highland mag­ nates. Then, after their elevation to the peerage as the Earls of Argyll in the mid-fifteenth century, they first acted as Justiciars of Scotland north of the Forth, and then hereditary Masters of the King’s Household, before they were appointed Justice-Generals of Scotland, gaining a hereditary office which they held virtually without challenge until 1628.

xiv

FOREWORD

Even before 1476, when the MacDonalds, Lords of the Isles, lost the earl­ dom of Ross by their treasonable conduct, the Campbells had gained the lordship of Lorn by a complex exchange of lands which had passed by mar­ riage from the Stewarts of Lorn. Suppressing the repeated rebellions of Clan Donald against the Crown gave the Campbells, Earls of Argyll, not only ample opportunities but also rich rewards in serving as King’s Lieutenants in Argyll and the Western Isles. Then, after the death of Donald Dubh in 1545 and the ensuing collapse of his rebellion against the Crown, the fourth Earl of Argyll, and more especially his son Archibald, the fifth Earl, attempted by judicious marriages to restore the hegemony of Gaeldom under their leader­ ship, binding together the MacDonalds of Dunivaig and the Glens and the MacLeans of Duart in a close alliance with their own family. Although strained at times, this alliance lasted for more than forty years, until it was broken by the renewed outbreak of the long-lasting feud between the MacDonalds and the MacLeans over the Rhinns of Islay. Thereafter, as disorder spread in the Western Isles, the Campbells became ‘masters of aggressive feudalism’ under the leadership of Archibald Campbell, eighth Earl of Argyll, known to history as Gruamach, or Grim-Faced. Profiting from his close connection with the Crown, he pursued with ruthless ferocity the policies of James VI in proscribing the MacGregors, now among the most lawless of Highland clans. Equally it is likely that he adopted the old Campbell tactic of fomenting disorder and rebellion among the western clans so justifying his intervention on behalf of the Crown. Eventually, by exploiting the internecine divisions among the MacDonalds of Dunivaig and the Glens, his machinations caused them to forfeit Kintyre and the island of Islay, which then passed into Campbell hands. A similar fate later befell the MacIains of Ardnamurchan around 1625. By then, the stage was set for the bitter quarrel between the Campbells, Earls of Argyll, and the various septs and erstwhile allies of Clan Donald that so divided Gaeldom in its support of the Stuart kings, which eventually ended with the defeat of the Jacobite army upon Culloden Moor in 1746.

Q