|
THE Maclellans are supposed to have come from
Ireland at a very early period. They certainly possessed lands in
Galloway in the reign of Alexander II., 1217, and were hereditary
sheriffs of that province. Maclellan of Bom bie,
an ancestor of Lord Kirkcudbright, accompanied the Scottish
patriot, Wallace, when, after his defeat at Falkirk, in 1298, he
sailed from Kirkcudbright for France, in order to entreat the help
of Philip, the French king, in his struggle against Edward I.,
their common enemy. The Maclellans became so numerous and
prosperous about the beginning of the fifteenth century, that
there were no fewer than fourteen knights of the name at that
period living in Galloway. About the middle of the century they
unfortunately, through no fault of theirs, came into collision
with the formidable house of Douglas. SIR PATRICK MACLELLAN OF
BOMBIE, head of the family and Sheriff of Galloway, refused to
join the confederacy of the eighth Earl of Douglas with the Earls
of Ross and Crawford, against the King. The imperious Earl,
enraged at this opposition to his will, besieged and captured Sir
Patrick in his stronghold of Raeberry Castle, and carried him a
prisoner to his fortress of Thrieve. Sir Patrick Gray, Maclellan’s
uncle, who held a high office at Court, obtained a letter from the
King (James II.) entreating, rather than ordering, Douglas to set
his prisoner at liberty, which Gray carried himself. The Earl
professed to receive him with all courtesy, but requested that he
should partake of some refreshment before entering upon the
business which had brought him so long a journey. ‘It’s ill
talking,’ he said, ‘between a fou man and a fasting.’ In the
meantime, however, having a shrewd guess as to Gray’s errand, he
ordered Maclellan to be immediately put to death. When Sir Patrick
had finished his repast he presented the royal letter to the
Earl, who, after
perusing it, expressed his deep regret that it was not in his
power to comply fully with his Majesty’s request, and, conducting
Gray to the courtyard where Maclellan’s body lay, he jeeringly
said, ‘Yonder, Sir Patrick, lies your sister’s son. Unfortunately
he wants the head, but you are welcome to do with the body what
you please.’ ‘My lord,’ said Gray, suppressing his indignation,
‘since you have taken his head, you may dispose of his body as you
will.’ He then instantly called for his horse. But, after crossing
the drawbridge, his indignation could no longer be restrained,
and, turning round, he exclaimed to the Earl, who was standing at
the gate, ‘If I live, you shall bitterly pay for this day’s work,’
and immediately galloped off. ‘To horse! to horse!’ exclaimed
Douglas, ‘and chase him.’ Gray was closely pursued till near
Edinburgh, and if he had not been well mounted, would, without
doubt, have shared the fate of his nephew. [See D0UGLASES, vol. 1.
63, 64.]
The Maclellans were
from the earliest times staunch Royalists, and zealously supported
the successive kings of Scotland in their contests with their
turbulent and too powerful nobles. SIR ROBERT MACLELLAN, a direct
descendant of the Laird of Bombie whom the Earl of Douglas
murdered, was one of the Gentlemen of the Bed-chamber, and was
raised to the peerage by Charles I., in 1633, by the title of Lord
Kirkcudbright. The newly created peer fought gallantly on the
royal side in the Great Civil War. JOHN, the third lord, was very
eccentric and hotheaded, and in his impetuous zeal on behalf of
the royal cause, he compelled his vassals in a body to take up
arms in behalf of the King, and incurred such enormous expense in
raising and arming them as completely ruined his estates, which
were seized and sold by his creditors. As nothing was left to
support the dignity, the title was not claimed for nearly sixty
years after the death of this luckless Royalist, and even then it
was assumed only for the purpose of voting in a keen contest, for
the position of representative peer, between the Earls of
Eglintoun and Aberdeen.
The sixth Baron
Kirkcudbright, de jure, was so reduced in his circumstances
that he was obliged to support himself and his family by keeping a
glover’s shop in Edinburgh. Once a year, however, on the night of
the Peers’ Ball, he took his place in full dress, with his sword
by his side, among his brother nobles, and by this act asserted
his equality of rank with those who on other occasions were his
customers. It was to this peer that Goldsmith alluded somewhat
flippantly in one of his letters written while studying medicine
at the Edinburgh University, in 1753. ‘Some days ago I walked into
my Lord Kilcowbry’s; don’t be surprised, his lordship is but a
glover.’ There can be little doubt that Sir Walter Scott had this
worthy and noble tradesman in his eye when he put into the mouth
of King James VI., in the ‘Fortunes of Nigel,’ his memorable
description of the course adopted by poor Scottish peers. ‘Ye see
that a man of right gentle blood may for a season lay by his
gentry and yet ken where to find it when he has occasion for it.
It would be as unseemly for a packman or pedlar, as ye call a
travelling merchant, whilk is a trade to which our native subjects
of Scotland are specially addicted, to be blazing his genealogy in
the faces of those to whom he sells a bawbee’s worth of ribbon, as
it would be for him to have a beaver on his head and a rapier by
his side when the pack was on his shouthers. Na, na; he hings his
sword on the cleek, lays his beaver on the shelf, puts his
pedigree into his pocket, and gangs as doucely and cannily about
his peddling craft as if his blood was nae better than
ditch-water. But let our pedlar be transformed, as I have ken’d it
happen mair than ance, into a fair thriving merchant, then ye
shall have a transformation, my lords. Out he pulls his pedigree,
on he buckles his sword, gives his beaver a brush, and cocks it in
the face of all creation.’
The custom which
the British Solomon describes in such graphic terms doubtless
originated, like many other Scottish customs, in the intercourse
with France. Down to the time of the first French Revolution,
there existed in Brittany a law of great antiquity, which
authorised a nobleman whose income was insufficient for the
maintenance of his dignity, to descend for a season to the
condition of a commoner. In token that he had temporarily laid
aside his rank and its accompanying privileges, he deposited his
sword in the archives of the Duchy, where it remained until he was
in circumstances to redeem it, and to resume his original
position. A very striking and affecting description is given by
Sterne of a scene which he witnessed at Rennes, when a marquis,
the representative of an ancient and illustrious family,
accompanied by his wife and daughter and two sons, claimed from
the Court the formal restoration of the sword which, twenty years
before, he had deposited with the state authorities when about to
embark for Martinico, to engage in commercial pursuits, with the
view of repairing the dilapidated fortunes of his house.
The Edinburgh
citizen who inherited, but did not assume, the titles of his
family, had three sons. The eldest predeceased him; the third
entered the Royal Navy, and was killed in 1782, in an engagement
with the French, while in command of the Superb, the
flagship of Sir Edward Hughes, and was highly commended in the
Admiral’s despatches, ‘as an excellent officer in every department
of the service.’ The second son, JOHN, seventh Lord Kirkcudbright,
on petition to the King, had his claim to the title allowed by the
House of Lords in 1773. He entered the army and attained the rank
of lieutenant-colonel. He died in1801, leaving two sons. The
elder, SHOLTO HENRY, became eighth Lord Kirkcudbright, and died
without issue. The younger, CAMDEN GREY, ninth lord, had an only
child—a daughter—and on his death, in 1832, the title became
dormant or extinct. |
