|
The published pedigree of
the Urquharts is unique in Scottish genealogy, because Sir Thomas
Urquhart traced his lineage back to Adam, so that no family can ever
hope to surpass it in point of antiquity or splendour of descent. There
are many who regard the work as a clever satire; they say that a man of
Sir Thomas's culture could surely never credit the nonsense he had
written. But this is by no means clear; experience proves that in
genealogical matters some men possess a faith that is astonishing. In
our own unbelieving age we have an instance of this in a recent work
upon a Highland clan, where the pedigree is carried back several
centuries before the Christian era, local events being brought under
notice with a precision that is appalling.
It would be amusing to
follow the adventures of the early fathers of the Urquharts, since the
day “ when wild armed men first raised Esormon aloft on the buckler
throne, and, with clanging arms and hearts, hailed him as fortunate and
well-beloved sovereign Prince of Achaia.” He was the fifth in lineal
descent from Japhet! These men of the olden time were a nomadic race,
bearing uncouth names, and although their historian records their
illustrious alliances, and warlike exploits, I fear a recital of their
deeds would make some of you exclaim with the famous Panthea—“O
Hercules, what is this?” Sir Thomas's list of ancestors betrays a woeful
lack of patriotic sentiment; there was only one ‘ Mac ’ in the long
line, and it is to be feared Highlanders will not accept the name
‘Machemos’ as another proof of the antiquity of Gaelic. But we must not
further pursue these phantoms of Urquhart’s imagination.
The origin of the name
Urquhart has been disputed, and until experts are agreed it would be
hazardous to advance any theory. The surname is certainly derived from
the place-name, which appears on record, in various localities, long
before any family adopted it, or ere surnames became common in Scotland.
It seems purely Gaelic, and there is some ground for believing that the
Urquharts were of native stock— perhaps an offshoot of the once potent
Del Ards, reputed ancestors of the Forbeses. The Urquharts and Forbeses
claim common descent; the evidence is of course weak, in fact there is
none save a curious legend connected with Urquhart Castle. Heraldry,
which very often throws light upon obscure points in pedigree, does seem
to support the idea of kinship, but there is really nothing to shew that
the Urquharts came from the district of Lochness, and the traditional
connection between them and the Forbeses is easily explained by the
inter-marriage of later date.
Cromarty and its
sheriffdom was originally held by the Scoto-Norman family of Monte Alto
or Mowatj Sir Thomas Urquhart of course claimed these lairds as
ancestors, just in the same way as he ‘ annexed ' that daughter of
Pharaoh who found Moses among the bulrushes! One may well question
whether the Urquharts were, in any way, descended from the Mowats, who,
according to our author, valiantly resisted the English. But records
prove that Sir William de Mowat, the last sheriff of his line, was
everything but a patriot. He was an English partisan, and held office
under Edward I. On this account Sir William probably lost his lands when
Sir Robert Bruce was in these northern parts. It is significant that
ELing Robert in 1315 conveyed the whole burgh of Cromarty, as well as
the sheriffdom, to his brother-in-law, Sir Hugh de Ross (Family of
Kilravock, p. 112). It is true that, at a later date, the son and heir
of Sir William resigned certain rights in favour of the Urquharts, but
his claims were merely formal, and of a very shadowy description.
Sir Hugh, who became Earl
of Ross, married the King's sister Maud about 1308, and received grants
consolidating his rights in Cromarty. He had, with a son William,
afterwards Earl of Ross, a daughter Lilias, who, it is said, married a
William de Urchard or Urquhart—practically the first of the family on
record. Considering this alliance, William must have been a local
magnate of considerable importance, and although identified with Sir
William de Mowat, there is nothing to support such a conclusion. William
de Urquhart and Lilias, according to the pedigree, had a son Adam, who
in 1338 received a charter of the lands of Inchrory from William, Earl
of Ross. If so, Adam must have been a mere child at the date of this
grant, because his grand-parents were only married after 1308. A curious
point arises as to his real name: while Robertson's “ Index ” and
“Register of Great Seal ” give it as Adam, it appears as Alexander in
the only transcripts of the original charters which we possess. On 6th
January, 1349, Adam de Urquhart had another charter from William, Earl
of Boss, of the whole davoch lands of Brae, to be held in blench ferm
for yearly payment of a pair of white gloves. In an undated charter, W
illiam, Earl of Ross, Lord of Skye, conveyed to Alexander de Urquhart,
his beloved gentleman and kinsman, the whole burgh of Cromarty, etc., to
be held as freely as possessed by the granter’s father (Macfarlane’s
Collections, 11, p. 372-3). On the other hand, at intermediate dates, we
have, in 1351, Adam de Urquhart as witness to a charter by Hugh, Earl of
Ross, in favour of Peter de Graeme, while on 18th November, 1357, there
is a charter under the Great Seal of David H. to Ade de Urquhart of the
sheriffdom of Cromarty with the court and office of the sheriffdom,
proceeding upon a resignation of William, Earl of Ross, and Richard de
Mowat, chaplain, the son and heir of Sir William de Mowat (Antiq. and
Coll., Aberdeen, 111, p. 526-30). This document indicates when the
Urquharts became possessed of the sheriffdom, but there is still
difficulty about the order of the succession, for in 1365 Hugh de Ross,
Lord of Philorth, granted the lands of Pisherie to Ade de Urquhart,
while in 1369 Adam de Urquhart, sheriff of Cromarty, appears with his
son John, and is still styled sheriff in 1381-2. These references
clearly prove that, unless there is an error in transcription by
Macfarlane, the pedigree is faulty, the true succession being William
succeeded by Adam, who is followed by Alexander, to whom succeeded Adam,
the grantee of 1365. The exact relationship between these persons is not
clear, and the point is worthy of attention.
Passing over Sheriffs
Adam, John, and Sir William, of whom very little is known, we have a
very curious deed concerning a member of the family whose place in the
genealogy cannot be fixed. It may be given here as illustrating how the
Earl of Ross dealt with an heiress of the olden time. The document,
being in the vernacular, has a peculiar interest apart from the subjects
conveyed: —
“Be it maid kend till all
men be thir present lettres Us Alexander the Earl of Ross, and Justiciar
to our Sovereign Lord the Kinge fra the north part of the water of
Forth.......
Till haf giffyn to Walter
of Urchard our cousin, parson of Kilteam, all the right of the land of
Finlay and Rosan within the burgh of Cromarty, and his ousgang of Newaty:
Not--againstandan that the foresaid Walter his sister’s docter was .ayr
to the foresaid lands, we gif that as af free gift to the said Walter,
as throw virtue of our office and throw powar that langs (belongs) til
our lege Lord the King: the fee as giffin throw our gift, the frank
tenement remanand with the foresaid Walter quhilk be part of the same (th)at
lyes upon the foresaid land, as his indenter party proports maid their
upon. And We, the foresaid Alexander Earl of Ross, warrands to the
foresaid Walter, and his ayres and assignais, the foresaid lands, and (th)at
no man be so hardy to make grife, molestian to the said Walter in the
said lands onder pains of lyves, lands, and guds al that may tyne agains
the King and us. ‘Giffyn onder our greit seal at Ralkyny the XXIII. day
of Marche the yeir of our Lord Mo. IIIIo. XXXIXo.”—(Mac-farlane’s
Collections, II., p. 274).
William de Urquhart, the
next laird, was served heir to his father, Sir William, in 1436. He
married Isabel Forbes, -a business-like lady, who purchased two oxgangs
of Navity from John St Clair for sixteen marks. This deed, if in
existence, is one of uncommon interest, for attached to it, in token of
sasine, is the seal of the bailies of Cromarty. In 1457 the King
appointed Urquhart to assist in reforming hospitals within the diocese
of Ross, but he took part in proceedings of a more lively character, and
acted as a ‘reiver bold ’ in the most approved fashion of the time. He
extended his predatory excursions as far as Sutherland, and for his
misdeeds had a comprehensive remission at Inverness on 4th October,
1457, when the King remitted all action against him, provided he made
reparation to those whom he injured.
Documents of his time
throw fresh light on the cause of the Great Hership of Cromarty, which
some years later created such a sensation. It seems that the lairds of
Cromarty and Kilravock arranged a double marriage—William Urquhart was
to marry Mariot Rose, while Hugh Rose was to marry Agnes Urquhart. The
ladies were probably never consulted, and it so happened that Mariot
declined to be forced into the alliance until the Urquharts brought
legal proceedings against her father. The marriage was then celebrated,
but turned out unhappily; the lady forsook her husband, and on 23rd
June, 1471, David, Bishop of Moray, divorced the parties on account of
consanguinity. The whole affair left a bitter feeling between the
families, and later on resulted in disastrous consequences.
Sir William Urquhart
built the Castle of Cromarty, having: received license to do so on 6th
April, 1470. Although not a, vestige of the old pile remains, it has
been beautifully described by Hugh Miller, the most famous of Cromarty's
sons: —
“Directly behind the site
of the old town the ground rises, abruptly from the level to the height
of nearly a hundred feet,, after which it forms a table-land of
considerable extent, and then sweeps gently to the top of the hill. A
deep ravine, with a little stream running through it, intersects the
rising ground at nearly right angles with the front which it presents to
the houses; and on the eastern angle, towering over the ravine on the
one side, and the edge of the bank on the other, stood the old castle of
Cromarty. It was a massy, time-worn building, rising in some places to
the height of six stories, battlemented at the top, and roofed with gray
stone. One immense turret jutted out from the corner which occupied the
extreme point of the angle, and looking down from an altitude of at
least one hundred and sixty feet on the little stream and the straggling
row of trees which sprung up at its edge, commanded both sides of the
declivity, and the town below. Other turrets of smaller size, but
pierced like the larger one with rows of little circular apertures,
which in the earlier ages had given egress to the formidable bolt, and
in the more recent, when the crossbow was thrown aside for the petronel,
to the still more formidable bullet, were placed by pairs on the*
several projections that stood out from the main body of the building,
and were connected by hanging bartisans.
“There is a tradition
that, sometime in the seventeenth century, a party of Highlanders
engaged in some predatory^ enterprise approached so near the castle on
this side that their leader, when in the act of raising his arm to
direct their march, was shot from one of the turrets and killed, and the
party wrapping up the body in their plaids, carried it away.
“The front of the castle
opened to the lawn, from which it was divided by a dry moat, nearly
filled with rubbish, and a high wall indented with embrasures and
pierced by an arched gateway. Within was a small court, flagged with
stone, and bounded on one of the sides by a projection from the main
building, bartisanded and turreted like all the others, but only three
stories in height, and so completely fallen into decays that the roof
and all the floors had disappeared. From that level of the court a
flight of stone steps led to the vaults below; another flight of greater
breadth, and bordered on both sides by an antique balustrade, ascended
to the entrance; and the architect, aware of the importance of this part
of the building, had so contrived it that a full score of loopholes in
the several turrets and outlets which commanded the court opened
directly on the landing-place. Round the entrance itself there jutted a
broad, grotesquely-proportioned moulding, somewhat resembling an
old-fashioned picture frame, and directly over it there was a square
tablet of dark blue stone, bearing in high relief the arms of the old
proprietors; but the storms of centuries had defaced all the nicer
strokes of the chisel, and the lady with her palm and dagger, the boars’
heads (sic), and the greyhounds were transformed into so many attenuated
spectres of their former selves—no unappropriate emblem of the altered
fortunes of the house. The windows, small and narrow, and barred with
iron, were thinly sprinkled over the front; and from the lintel of each
there rose a triangular cap of stone, fretted at the edges, and
terminating at the top in ‘two nobs fashioned into the resemblance of
thistles. Initials and dates were inscribed in raised characters on
these triangular tablets. The aspect of the whole pile was one of
extreme antiquity. Flocks of crows and jays, that had built their nests
in the recesses of the huge tusked cornices which ran along the
bartisans, wheeled ceaselessly around the gables and the turrets,
awakening with their clamorous cries the echoes of the roof. The walls,
grey and weather-stained, were tapestried in some places with sheets of
ivy; and an ash sapling, which had struck its roots into the crevices of
the outer wall, rose like a banner over the half-dilapidated gateway.”
This graphic description
applies to the place as it appeared after the decay of the Urquharts.
Miller records that “two threshers could have plied their flails within
the huge chimney of the kitchen,” and in the great hall, an immense dark
chamber lined with oak, “a party of a hundred men had exercised at the
pike.” This fine old castle was pulled down in 1772, after the place had
been sold by Lord Elibank to George Ross, and the “plough and roller
passed over its foundations.”
Sir William was succeeded
by his younger son, Mr - Alexander, who was infeft in the barony of
Cromarty, the Motehill, and Sheriffship on 18th November, 1475 (Macfar-lane’s
Collections, II., p. 360). The Motehill, where the sheriffs dispensed
justice, was an artificial mound situated several hundred yards nearer
the town. In Mr Alexander’s time the King passed through Cromarty
several times, on his way to the shrine of ,St Duthus at Tain, but on
these occasions James was not the guest of Urquhart, as 18s was paid to
the priest where the King lodged, and the same amount was given to the
ferrymen.
The chief incident in the
life of this laird was the raid upon his lands by young Kilravock and a
band of Highland allies, when they swept the countryside of everything
portable. The spulzie was carried out in most thorough fashion, and the
raiders must have presented an extraordinary spectacle as they trudged
homewards with their booty. Nothing came amiss, for they took pots and
kettles as well as cattle, sheep, and swine. But the foray ended as
disastrously for the Roses as for the Urquharts, because the Highlanders
got clean away with the spoil, defied the law, and left their friends in
the lurchi As a result of the raid a great part of Urquhart’s lands lay
waste for years, and he took legal proceedings against the laird of
Kilravock, who had become surety for his son and his accomplices.
Although the quarrel originated in matrimonial infelicity, it was put to
rights by another marriage between the families, which on this occasion
proved extremely fortunate.
Thomas Urquhart, who
succeeded before November, 1506, was a patriarchal sort of person. He
paid composition for his marriage to the tune of £133 6s 8d, and
espoused Helen Abernethy, of Saltoun, by whom he had, according to the
popular story, twenty-five sons and eleven daughters. It is said that he
appeared at Inverness with all his sons mounted upon white horses, and
presented them to Mary Queen of Scots when the Highlanders rallied to
her side against the Oordons, who refused her admission to the Castle.
Franck, the Tourist, increases the number of Urquhart’s children to
thirty sons and ten daughters, who all surrounded the patriarch, and
there “was not one natural child among them.” According to this writer,
“the declining age of this venerable laird of Urquhart, for he had
reached the utmost limit of life, invited him to contemplate mortality,
and to cruciate himself by fancying his cradle his sepulchre, wherein he
was lodged night after night and hauled up by pullies to the roof of his
house, approaching as near as the roof would let him to the beautiful
battlements and suburbs of heaven ”—(Franck’s Northern Memoirs, p. 183).
The story proves how popular tradition leads one astray, for Thomas
XJrquhart died on 6th August, 1557, while Queen Mary did not visit
Inverness until 1562. Its absurdity becomes evident when one is told
that seven of the sons fell at Pinkie—a battle fought in 1547! Thomas
certainly lived to be a great-grandfather, for he arranged a marriage in
1550 between his grandson Walter and Elizabeth "Makcainzeoch" of Findon.
Alexander, the next
laird, had a special warrant to be served' heir to his father Thomas,
because, being Sheriff of 'Cromarty, he could not be served before
himself as Judge Ordinary, nor before any other judge. The Sheriff of
Inverness was therefore directed to serve him heir to his father, which
was done on 5th October, 1557. He married Beatrice Innes, and had five
sons—Walter, John of Craigfmtray (Tutor -of Cromarty), James, Arthur,
and Thomas.
Walter was infeft in the
family estates on 11th April and 28th May, 1564 (Macfarlane's
Collections, II., p. 362). His -wife was Elizabeth Mackenzie, the
spelling of whose surname is proof of the prevalence of Gaelic in the
district. He had, in 1568, a feu charter from John, Bishop of Ross, of
the lands of Kinbeachie, afterwards a favourite residence of the
Urquharts, where still may be seen a beautifully sculptured stone
bearing the family arms. After the death of his wife, he married
Elizabeth Rose of Kilravock, who was infeft in Nether Pitnellies and
other lands. This laird had a yearly pension of the Dean’s quarter
teinds of the lands of Navity, Easter Farness, Davidston, Peddieston,
Little Farness, and Udole, viz., three chalders and twelve bolls
victual, thirty-five wedders, and forty shillings of money. He also held
a considerable amount of other ecclesiastical property, as well as lands
within the burgh of Cromarty. His eldest son, Thomas, married Elspet
Abernethy of Saltoun, whose tocher, by the contract dates last of
February, 1572, amounted to 2450 marks. She was to be infeft in the
lands of Inchrory, but Thomas died during his father’s lifetime. The old
laird, becoming incapable, resigned the sheriffship in favour of his son
Henry, who died before 1599, leaving a son Thomas.
During his minority, John
Urquhart of Craigfintrav, owing to the mental infirmity of the old
laird, became Tutor of Oomarty, and managed affairs on behalf of the
young Heir, Thomas, who had sasine in the lands of Cromarty and Fisherie
in 1599, and inherited one of the finest properties in the North.
He lived in troublous
times, for the district was in an uproar on account of a deadly feud
between the Mackenzies of Kintail, the Macdonells of Glengarry, and
Macleod, “ through a cruel murder committed by some of them upon the
servants and tenants of the other.” Owing to the terrible disorder the
laird of Cromarty could not go to Inverness without a great retinue, and
he therefore petitioned the Lords of Council craving a commission for
serving his brieves (Macfarlane’s Collections, II., p. 365). This feud
is best known as the “Raid of Kilchrist,” which culminated in a terrible
tragedy.
Thomas Urquhart was
served heir to his grandfather, Walter, in 1603, and a whole series of
deeds proves how extensive were the estates he inherited. At the outset
of his career he made extensive purchases, and was knighted at Edinburgh
by King James VI., in 1617. At this time the Urquharts reached their
zenith. Although Sir Thomas received the family estates “free of debt,
or provision of brother, sister, or any other of his kindred, or
alliance wherewith to affect it,” yet he dissipated his fortune with
startling, rapidity, and the efforts of the shrewd Elphinstenes could
not avert the disastrous consequences of the laird’s imprudence. The
knight was a warm-hearted, impulsive man, and was ever ready to engage
in other men’s quarrels, as appears by the prompt way he acted on behalf
of his kinsman, Thomas Urquhart of Burdsyards. This family was long
famous for the incomparable beauty of its maidens; generation after
generation, the Burdsyard ladies were the toast of the countryside, and
gallants came to woo them from far and near. It would take up too much
time to tell how John Dunbar of Egernes, in 1617, forcibly abducted the
beautiful Marjory Urquhart, then a girl of fifteen. There is the usual
story of hot pursuit, pistol drawing, and questionable marriage—in this
instance at the Kirk of Kinloss, by “ane hieland minister called
Alexander Macpherson.” The parents invoked the aid of the law, and the
Lords of Session, doubtful whether the knot tied by Macpherson would
hold, restored the lady to her relatives. A few years later the sister
of Marjory had become equally beautiful, and an impetuous lover, Robert
Tulloch, a son of the laird of Tannachy, sought her in marriage. The
Urquharts were against the match, and on 14th September, 1621, Robert
made a desperate attempt to carry off the lady from her father’s house
in Forres. The laird appeared on the-scene and rescued his daughter, but
reluctant to prosecute a neighbour's son, he tried to arrange matters.
The young man was determined to have the lady at all costs, and the
mother's watchfulness baffling every attempt to kidnap the girl,
Tulloch, mad with passion, fired at the old lady. For this outrageous
conduct he was brought before the Lords of Council, and on 24th April,
1622, in their presence, gave solemn oath never to molest the Urquhart
household. Notwithstanding this he pressed his suit ardently and
impudently. The Sheriff of Cromarty soon afterwards was a guest at
Rurdsyards, and very likely heard the story of Tulloch's persistent
wooing. The recital roused him to anger; in his own domain he dealt out
shrewd and sharp justice, there being none to call him in question. So
next Sunday he went into the Kirk of Forres, when the third bell was
ringing to the sermon, accompanied by men armed to the teeth. The
stricken lover evidently occupied a seat near the Burdsyards' pew in the
hope of seeing his fair one. Although he never offended the Sheriff in
word or deed, yet Urquhart and his companions, “with bandit pistols,
drawn swords and whingers, immediately set upon him, and after giving
him divers bluidy straikes and woundies, threw him out of his desk and
seate, and cuttit and brak the same in pecis." The worshippers
interfered and saved Tulloch from the Sheriff's fury, and the parson—a
clansman—coming out of the pulpit, tried to reason with the rioters, and
“threatened them with the heavy wraith of God for profaning His holy
Sabbath and sanctuary." This led to further violence, for, seizing the
cleric, they cut off his garments with swords and daggers, and so “birst
and bruisit his haill bodie and bowalis" that the poor minister spat
blood for ten days, and was unable to preach “ sensyne." Sir Thomas soon
found that there was a difference between the Highlands of Cromarty and
the “ Laich of Moray," for he was committed to ward in the Castle of
Edinburgh, and had to pay £20 to every witness who was a horseman, and
ten marks to every witness who was a footman—(Reg. of Privy Council,
XIII., p. 174). Although the gallant Sheriff suffered severely in
pocket, he put ah effectual stop to Tulloch's wooing.
From this time forth his
affairs became confused. According to his son—“The unfaithfulness, on
the one side, of some of his menial servants in filching from him much
of his personal estate, and the falsehood of several chamberlains and
baylifs to whom he had intrusted the managing of his rents, in the
unconscionable discharge of their receipts by giving up one account
thrice, and of such accounts many, and on the other part by the
frequency of disadvantageous bargains, which the slyness of the subtill
merchant did involve him in, his loss came unawares upon him, and
irresistibly like an armed man, too great trust to the one and facility
on behalf of the other occasioning so grievous a misfortune, which
nevertheless did not proceed from want of knowledge or abilitie in
natural parts, for in the business of other men he would have given a
very sound advice, and was surpassing dextrous in arbitrements upon any
reference submitted to him; but he thought it did derogate from the
nobility of his house and reputation of his person to look to petty
things in matter of his own affairs."
He received a Royal
protection from his creditors in 1637, but “troubles never come singly,"
and the laird's worry was accentuated by the unfilial conduct of his
sons. They regarded him as incapable, and, making him prisoner, kept him
confined for nearly a week in the Inner Dortour within the Oastle of
Cromarty. The matter came before the courts, but, after hearing
evidence, the case was dismissed. Sir Thomas made extensive additions to
the Castle, and in 1631 craved permission from the Privy Council to
export ten chalders of beir and meal in order to get timber for his
house from Norway. This fact is interesting, and indicates that the
woods of Ross and Lochness never recovered from the operations of
Dougall Campbell, who carried away a great deal of timber, about 1512,
for the navy of James IV. Sir Thomas died in April, 1642. He had married
Christian, daughter of Alexander, 4th Lord Elphinstone, whose tocher was
£500. By this lady he had a large family, but we are only concerned with
the two eldest, Thomas and Alexander.
Thomas was knighted at
Whitehall on 7th April, 1641, and became one of the most famous of his
race. His career is so well known that it is unnecessary to enter into
much detail; his life was one long struggle with his father's creditors.
He inherited twelve or thirteen thousand pounds sterling of debt,
besides having to make provision for five brothers and two marriageable
sisters. Sir Thomas waxed eloquent over the “usurious cormorants" who
held mortgages upon his estate. The “caitiff" Robert Leslie of
Findrassie was the most unscrupulous of his tormentors, for when he
needed money to portion one of his ungainly daughters, he regarded
Urquhart’s estate as a sort of JlI Dorado, and on one occasion tried to
grab the farm of Ardoch, to which he had as much right as to distant
Jericho! Thomas Bigg of Athernie, a great moneylender in his day, drew
£2000 a year from the barony of Cromarty. There were others with
substantial claims, such as Sir Robert Farquhar of Mounie, James
Cuthbert of Drakies* Patrick Smith of Braco, and Sir James Fraser, of
whom Sir Thomas wrote in a fit of exasperation, “ no good can truly be
spoken but that he is dead." Sir Thomas desired to devote his whole
revenue to paying off the debts, and determined to-reside abroad. But he
dearly loved Cromarty, and, after a short absence, returned to find his
affairs in greater confusion than ever. He was totally unfitted to
retrieve the fallen fortunes of his house, and while he thought out
wonderful schemes for the benefit of mankind, creditors clamoured at his
gate, keeping him in perpetual turmoil. He petulantly complains “ that
above ten thousand several times I have, by these flagitators, been
interrupted for money, which never came to my use directly or indirectly
one way or other, at home or abroad, any one time whereof I was busied
about speculations of greater consequence than all they were worth in
the world; from which had I not been violently plucked away by their
importunity I would have emitted to public view about five hundred
several treatises on inventions never hitherto thought upon by any.”
He was also at issue with
the ministers of Cromarty, Kirkmichael, and Cullicudden, and opposed
augmentation of their stipends in heroic manner. They in return preached
at him from the pulpit, thundering forth denunciations before his
tenantry with spiteful and unchristian vigour. Sir Thomas confessed that
he was driven like a feather before a whirlwind, and declares that one
of his denouncers “behaved more like* a scolding tripe seller’s wife
than a good minister.” Although his difficulties led him to write
angrily about his neighbours, he bears ample testimony to the
consideration of the Robertsons of Kindeace, a gentle race whom he hoped
would “ flourish as long as there is a hill in Scotland, or the sea doth
ebb and flow.”
As became an ardent
Royalist, he took part in the early skirmishes, and in 1649 was among
those who surprised Inverness, razed its walls, and unfurled the Royal
standard. For this he was declared guilty of treason, but his well-known
eccentricity saved him, and the Rev. John Annand, of Inverness, was
asked to deal with him. He joined Charles H. at Scone, but was not
greatly impressed by the Royal following; the presence of so many
Presbyterians he regarded as a source of weakness, for they were
inclined to desert, he says, “lest they should seem to trust to the arm
of flesh." When in the field, Sir Thomas marched with an enormous
quantity of baggage; four large portmanteaus were filled with gay
apparel and other precious commodity, for he was a great dandy. There
were three trunks filled “with an hundred manuscripts of his own
composition." After the disastrous fight at Worcester, the precious MSS.
fell into the hands of ruthless Puritans, and one can fancy the fun and
frolic among Cromwell’s soldiers when they discovered the marvellous
pedigree proving that the Urquharts were descended from the Creator of
all things. The papers were promptly converted into “spills" for
lighting tobacco pipes, and only part of the Genealogy and Universal
Language was recovered.
Sir Thomas himself fell
into the hands of the enemy, and was confined in the Tower, where his
harmlessness was soon recognised, and he enjoyed a large measure of
freedom, and busied himself with writing. But wonderful tales being
bruited abroad about his MSS., the Government, early in May, 1652,
seized his papers, which were not of a dangerous character. On 14th May
he requested the authorities to secure all papers found in his Castle of
Cromarty, and suffer none to be embezzled. He then had five months leave
to go to Scotland, on condition that he did nothing to the prejudice of
the Commonwealth. This release proved very fortunate, because at
Cromarty they heard he had been killed, and the creditors calmly
appropriated his estate. They found that he was very much alive when
they demanded payment of bonds which had been discharged long before;
and, to their utter confusion, he produced the receipts. Leslie of
Findrassie, his old enemy, tried to get him made a prisoner of war in
his own house, then garrisoned by troops; but he safely returned to
London, and continuing his literary labours, withdrew himself more and
more from the haunts of men. The infirmity which he inherited became
more marked, and the remaining years of his life were passed in a state
of imbecility. On the eve of the Restoration he went abroad, and when
that event became an accomplished fact, he died, it is said, in a fit of
laughter. |
