confession of faith he was liberated. Being not unjustly suspected of harbouring catholic emissaries, and of carrying on intrigues for the restoration of the papacy, he was summoned to appear on 12 June 1616 before the commission of the kirk, and subscribe the confession (Calderwood, vii. 212). Declining to do so, he was again warded within the castle of Edinburgh, but by warrant of the king was relieved on the 18th from confinement, and went up to the court in London. While there he was, with the consent of the Bishop of Caithness, absolved from the sentence of excommunication by the Archbishop of Canterbury, after which he received the communion. This seeming interference with their ecclesiastical authority caused a great sensation among the ministers of the kirk; but their indignation was abated by a letter of the archbishop, explaining that he had absolved Huntly ‘of brotherly affection, and not as claiming any superiority over the kirk of Scotland’ (ib. vii. 226, where the ‘reasons moving the Bishop of Canterbury’ are given). It was therefore resolved to confirm the absolution, provided Huntly again subscribed the confession of faith, and promised to give obedience to the ordinances of the kirk in all time coming, and communicate as occasion should be offered. This he accordingly did at Aberdeen on 16 Aug., and was solemnly ‘relaxed from excommunication’ by the Bishop of Glasgow (ib. p. 233).
Though the reconciliation between Huntly and Moray had been cemented by the marriage in 1601 of Moray to Huntly's daughter, the old jealousy between the rival families was at once aroused into activity when Moray in 1624, in order to subjugate the clan Chattan, received from the king a lieutenandry in the north (Spalding, History of the Troubles, i. 5). Shortly afterwards King James died, and when the lieutenandry was renewed by King Charles, Huntly complained that Moray was abusing his trust. But with the death of James, Huntly found his position at court entirely changed. The government had all along been jealous of the almost independent rule of Huntly in the northern regions, and welcomed every opportunity to weaken his influence. At the instance of Moray, Huntly was deprived in 1630 of a jurisdiction which had been in his family for 160 years, a precept for 5,000l. upon the treasury of Scotland being granted him as a consolation (ib. p. 10). Additional opportunity to undermine his authority was not long afterwards found in connection with his dealings with the Crichtons, who held the lordship of Frendraught, in the heart of Huntly's territory. In 1630 a dispute arose between the Crichtons and William Gordon of Rothiemay in regard to the rights of salmon fishing, which led to manslaughters and a blood feud. Upon Huntly's interposition, Frendraught [see Crichton, James, d. 1650] submitted to pay a fine for killing Gordon of Rothiemay. Another affray followed, in which Frendraught declared that he was not concerned. Huntly sent his second son John, lord Melgum, with a party to escort Frendraught to his house. They were hospitably received and lodged in the square tower. It was fired in the night, when Melgum and other Gordons were burnt. The Crichtons affirmed that the fire was accidental; but Huntly and the Gordons asserted that Frendraught and his lady looked on without the smallest attempt to succour the victims. The actual incendiary was found to have been a person named Meldrum, formerly a servant with Frendraught, against whom Frendraught's apologisers said he had a private grudge (extended quotations from the accounts of the trial in the records of the privy council of Scotland and of the court of lusticiary are published in Appendix to Spalding's ‘Memorials,’ i. 381-410). The event powerfully excited the popular imagination, and, though Meldrum was executed, the public feeling throughout the highlands remained strong against the Crichtons. Their name became a byword; they were outside the pale of protection, and their territory became the common prey of the robber hordes throughout the highlands. The privy council, holding Huntly responsible for the ravages committed against the Crichtons, summoned him to appear before them in 1635, and compelled him to find caution for the Gordons within his bounds that they would keep the peace. He also engaged that the pillagers should be sent to Edinburgh, or be compelled to leave the country. One of them, Adam Gordon, son of Sir Adam Gordon of Park, asserted in self-defence that Huntly had instigated the depredators, and he was therefore in December again summoned before the council. Although he defended himself with great plausibility, he was ‘on presumption’ warded in the castle of Edinburgh, not obtaining his liberty till the following June. The imprisonment completely broke his health. For a short time after his release he resided in the Canongate, but finding himself becoming daily weaker, he expressed a strong desire to reach his castle of Strathbogie. He began his journey northwards in a ‘wand bed within his chariot,’ but was not able to proceed further than Dundee, and died there on 13 June, professing himself a Roman catholic. On the 25th his body was removed from Dundee, and brought to the chapel of Strathbogie, and on the night of
