THE 1st DUKE OF GORDON BY JOHN MALCOLM BULLOCH HUNTLY : JOSEPH DUNBAR 1908. THE FIRST DUKE OF GORDON. The luck of the Gordons was indeed extraor. (linary ; their vitality simply amazing. Its precise psychology is difficult to determine ; in all probability it varied from crisis to crisis. In any case they almost always managed to fall on their feet, and misfortunes which crushed others only added to their importance. This was never more clearly shown than in tlhe case of the 1st Duke. When George Gordon was born about 1650, the family was in a very 'bad way indeed. His grandfather (the 2nd Marquis), long a fugitive with a price set upon Ibis head, was ultimately captured at Delnabo, in Strathdon, and kept 16 months in prison, and was ultimately executed in Edinburgh with attainder im March 1649. He went down to the grave amid many sorrows. His eldest son, George was killed at the battle of Alford, 1645; Oris second son, James, died of a broken heart in Paris, 1648; several of his children were abroad, and the whole world must have seemed to this defeated Royalist at sixes and sevens. But within a very few years things duly came right. His son, Lewis, who succeeded, managed to get the family honours restored by the King in 1651, while the Earldom of Aboyne was created in 1660 for Lord Oharles, the 2nd Marquis's fifth son. In 1661 the attainder, which had been remitted by the King alone, was re- versed by Act of Parliament, and in 1684 the Dukedom was created for the 4th Marquis to last for 152 in the direct line. That is to say, the 4th Marquis saw within a period of 40 years the family stripped of its honours, restored to them and advanced to a dukedom—surely a rare re» cord. In his sixty odd years of life Tie saw the State go through a greater series of ups and downs. Born in the reign of Oharles I., he lived through the Commonwealth (1653-60), the Restoration (1660), the reigns of Charles II. and James II., the ad- vent of William of Orange (1689-1702), the reign of Anme (1702-18), and almost the ap- pearance of the House of Hanover itself. During that period he still hankered after the old regime which had raised him to a dukedom, and dabbled in the retrogression of 1683, and in the Jacobite plots of 1705, 1707, and 1715, manag- ing amid the many changes to hold that which he had gained. Which was certainly clever. His own character seems to have been pacific, always seeking the line of least resistance; but his family were uncompromising. His mother lived and died a Catholic, living so late as 1707 at Banff amid a "nest of priests" (Portland Papers, Hist. MSS., Com. iv., 467). His eldest sister, Anne, who married Sir Miles Crouly, in- dulged in a "Popish" plot. His second sister, Mary, married as her second husband that in- veterate Jacobite the 4th Earl of Perth, suffered imprisonment ; while his youngest 6ister Jean's husband, the 4th and last Earl of Dun- fermline, fought at Killiecrankie, was forfeited. Interesting as the 1st Duke's life was, it is curious that, beyond Mr T. r . Henderson's excel- lent summary of his career in the "Dictionary of National Biography," nothing has been done with it, for William Gordon, who was his contemporary, deals with him mainly in the terms of his defence of Edinburgh Castle; and Lord Huntly's "Becords of Aboyne" do not touch him. Most of the letters quoted here from the Additional Manuscripts in the British Museum have never been published before, and the rest of the matter has not previously been co-ordinated. George Gordon, 4th Marquis of Huntly and 1st Duke of Gordon, was born about 1650, his father, then Earl of Enzie, having married in October 1614, Mary, daughter of Sir John Grant of Freuchie, with a useful tooher of 10,000 merks. This was fortunate, for the lands ot Strath bogie had been devastated by his uncle, Argyll. The exact date of the Duke's birth is a little doubtful. In nearly all the books of refer- ence you will find it stated that he succeeded his father in 1653 when " about 10 years of age," but in view of the faet that his father was not married until October 1644, this statement is rather wide of the fact. We have, however, a fairly definite clue to the Duke's birth year from the letter which he wrote to Lord Lauderdale from Edinburgh on July 4, 1664, when he says (Add. MSS. 23,122 f. 80) that he has "almost at- tined to the 14 year of my agge complit." HIS HARD BOYHOOD. Hi* father, the Marquis, found life far too much for him, and died in December 1653, leav- ing one .son ; lid three daughters. The boy "lived with his lady mother at Elgin very mean," and can scarcely have dreamed that in thirty years he would be raised to a dukedom. The March- ion ess must have 'had a hard time, for she not only lost her husband, but was ii.nder the lynx- like eye of the Synod of Moray. On May 2, 1654, the Synod recomrdended to the Presbytery of Strathbogie to take notice of her "for her al- ledged professioue of poperie, she haveing hlr resilience now in their bounds" (Cramond's "Synod of Moray," p. 118). On October 3, it is reported that she openly professes popery and keeps a priest in her liou.se (ibid., 119), and from that time onward she was constantly a thorn in their flesh: 1656, May.—The Synod, considering: that Huntly's children were in danger of being "bred in pcpperie," ordered the Moderator to write to the Marquis of Argyll "desyring that course may be taken for their educatione according to the older prescribed in the Act of the General As- semblie made anent the education of papists' children (ibid, p. 120). 1658, October 5. —Mr William Jameson reported to the Synod that he had pronounced the sentence of excommunication against the Marchioness for her obstinacy in poperie, conform to the ordinance of the last Synod; whereupon the Synod ordained the same to be intimated to the several congrega- tions within the province (ibid., p. 125). 1659, October 4.—There is a reference in the Presbytery book of Elgin anent the permitting of Lady Huntly to dwell in Elgin. Five conditions were laid down:—(1) That she shall bring no excommunicated papist with her; (2) Permit her children to be educated in schools, and repair to the public ordinances; (3) Shall not let any mass priests go to her house; (4) That she shall' admit of conference with the ministers of Elgin as often as offered; and (5) That neither she nor any in her family "sail vse anie means to ensnare anie person within Elgin with anie popish errors." The Synod, out of their love to the recovery of the lady, advises the Presbytery not to oppose her "liicomeiug to and dwelling in Elgin up gude securrtie" (ibid., p. 127). 1660, April 4.—It was reported to the Synod that she did not seem to keep anv of the qualifica- tions, nor were any of them observed by her ex- cept that she did not refuse conference'; "whilk did take little effect." The Presbytery had dealt with the laird of Pluseardine mot to give her a house, and the Synod commended the Provost of Elgin to do the same (ibid., p. 128). 1660, April 5. —Some members of the Synod de- clared that 'there was a report in the country that some persons did "dyet" with Lady Huntly on superstitions Yule day. The Presbytery of Elgin entered a process against them (ibid., p. 129). It is sometimes stated that the Marquis was ed icated abroad in a Frenoh Catholic seminary. .\.s a matter of fact, he was under the Protestant eye, for on April 4, 1660, the Synod of Moray had represented to it that the Marquis, being "hot a boy," was lilkely "to be breade in poperie," so the Synod besceched Lord Lome, who was then in Elgin, to "tak notice of the education of the said noble young man." Lord Lome promised to have "serious thoughts of the Marquis's education." Indeed, the story of the Catholic seminary ill accords with the fact that the Marquis was a ward of Lord Lauderdale, and in constant touch with his lordship. Lauderdale, who was the grand-nephew of Maitland of Letlhington, the famous Minister of Mary Queen of Scots, was perhaps the most powerful Scotsman of the time. His great idea was to keep Scots affairs in Scots hands, strongly opposing 1 Clarendon's arrange- ment which placed Engiishmeai on the Scots Privy Council. He was, therefore, the right man for young Huntly to placate, and the letters which the young Marquis wrote him slhow a quick ap- preciation of the situation. Sometime in 1660, one of the first 6teps to re- suscitate the Marquis's position was taken by his uncle, Lord Charles Gordon, afterwards Earl of Aboyne, who sent the following petition to the King on behalf of Huntly and himself (Add. MSS., 23,114, f. 20): — S'heweth,—That nob only your petitioner's father was (for his Loyalty) destroyed both in life and fortuine, but likewise your petitioner himself debarred from his patrimony. As also that his predecessors had for many generations continued hereditary Sherifes of Aberdeen and Inverneese till his grandfather was moved by your Royal father to resigme his right into His Majestie's hands upon the assurance of 5000 lib.