The Stewarts of Ardvorlich

A Legend of Montrose was written chiefly with a view to place before the reader the melancholy fate of John Lord Kilpont, eldest son of William Earl of Airth and Menteith, and the singular circumstances attending the birth and history of James Stewart of Ardvoirlich, by whose hand the unfortunate nobleman fell.

Our subject leads us to talk of deadly feuds, and we must begin with one still more ancient than that to which our story relates. During the reign of James IV., a great feud between the powerful families of Drummond and Murray divided Perthshire. The former, being the most numerous and powerful, cooped up eight score of the Murrays in the kirk of Monivaird, and set fire to it. The wives and the children of the ill-fated men, who had also found shelter in the church, perished by the same conflagration. One man, named David Murray, escaped by the humanity of one of the Drummonds, who received him in his arms as he leaped from amongst the flames. As King James IV. ruled with more activity than most of his predecessors, this cruel deed was severely revenged, and several of the perpetrators were beheaded at Stirling. In consequence of the prosecution against his clan, the Drummond by whose assistance David Murray had escaped, fled to Ireland, until, by means of the person whose life he had saved, he was permitted to return to Scotland, where he and his descendants were distinguished by the name of Drummond-Eirinich, or Ernoch, that is, Drummond of Ireland; and the same title was bestowed on their estate.

The Drummond-ernoch of James the Sixth’s time was a king’s forester in the forest of Glenartney, and chanced to be employed there in search of venison about the year 1588, or early in 1589. This forest was adjacent to the chief haunts of the MacGregors, or a particular race of them, known by the title of MacEagh, or Children of the Mist. They considered the forester’s hunting in their vicinity as an aggression, or perhaps they had him at feud, for the apprehension or slaughter of some of their own name, or for some similar reason. This tribe of MacGregors were outlawed and persecuted, as the reader may see in the Introduction to ROB ROY; and every man’s hand being against them, their hand was of course directed against every man. In short, they surprised and slew Drummond-ernoch, cut off his head, and carried it with them, wrapt in the corner of one of their plaids.

In the full exultation of vengeance, they stopped at the house of Ardvoirlich and demanded refreshment, which the lady, a sister of the murdered Drummond-ernoch (her husband being absent), was afraid or unwilling to refuse. She caused bread and cheese to be placed before them, and gave directions for more substantial refreshments to be prepared. While she was absent with this hospitable intention, the barbarians placed the head of her brother on the table, filling the mouth with bread and cheese, and bidding him eat, for many a merry meal he had eaten in that house.

The poor woman returning, and beholding this dreadful sight, shrieked aloud, and fled into the woods, where, as described in the romance, she roamed a raving maniac, and for some time secreted herself from all living society. Some remaining instinctive feeling brought her at length to steal a glance from a distance at the maidens while they milked the cows, which being observed, her husband, Ardvoirlich, had her conveyed back to her home, and detained her there till she gave birth to a child, of whom she had been pregnant; after which she was observed gradually to recover her mental faculties.

Meanwhile the outlaws had carried to the utmost their insults against the regal authority, which indeed, as exercised, they had little reason for respecting. They bore the same bloody trophy, which they had so savagely exhibited to the lady of Ardvoirlich, into the old church of Balquidder, nearly in the centre of their country, where the Laird of MacGregor and all his clan being convened for the purpose, laid their hands successively on the dead man’s head, and swore, in heathenish and barbarous manner, to defend the author of the deed. This fierce and vindictive combination gave the author’s late and lamented friend, Sir Alexander Boswell, Bart., subject for a spirited poem, entitled “Clan-Alpin’s Vow,” which was printed, but not, I believe, published, in 1811 [See Appendix No. I].

The fact is ascertained by a proclamation from the Privy Council, dated 4th February, 1589, directing letters of fire and sword against the MacGregors [See Appendix No. II]. This fearful commission was executed with uncommon fury. The late excellent John Buchanan of Cambusmore showed the author some correspondence between his ancestor, the Laird of Buchanan, and Lord Drummond, about sweeping certain valleys with their followers, on a fixed time and rendezvous, and “taking sweet revenge for the death of their cousin, Drummond-ernoch.” In spite of all, however, that could be done, the devoted tribe of MacGregor still bred up survivors to sustain and to inflict new cruelties and injuries.

[I embrace the opportunity given me by a second mention of this tribe, to notice an error, which imputes to an individual named Ciar Mohr MacGregor, the slaughter of the students at the battle of Glenfruin. I am informed from the authority of John Gregorson, Esq., that the chieftain so named was dead nearly a century before the battle in question, and could not, therefore, have done the cruel action mentioned. The mistake does not rest with me, as I disclaimed being responsible for the tradition while I quoted it, but with vulgar fame, which is always disposed to ascribe remarkable actions to a remarkable name.-See the erroneous passage, ROB ROY, Introduction; and so soft sleep the offended phantom of Dugald Ciar Mohr.

It is with mingled pleasure and shame that I record the more important error, of having announced as deceased my learned acquaintance, the Rev. Dr. Grahame, minister of Aberfoil.-See ROB ROY, p.360. I cannot now recollect the precise ground of my depriving my learned and excellent friend of his existence, unless, like Mr. Kirke, his predecessor in the parish, the excellent Doctor had made a short trip to Fairyland, with whose wonders he is so well acquainted. But however I may have been misled, my regret is most sincere for having spread such a rumour; and no one can be more gratified than I that the report, however I have been induced to credit and give it currency, is a false one, and that Dr. Grahame is still the living pastor of Aberfoil, for the delight and instruction of his brother antiquaries.]

Meanwhile Young James Stewart of Ardvoirlich grew up to manhood uncommonly tall, strong, and active, with such power in the grasp of his hand in particular, as could force the blood from beneath the nails of the persons who contended with him in this feat of strength. His temper was moody, fierce, and irascible; yet he must have had some ostensible good qualities, as he was greatly beloved by Lord Kilpont, the eldest son of the Earl of Airth and Menteith.

This gallant young nobleman joined Montrose in the setting up his standard in 1644, just before the decisive battle at Tippermuir, on the 1st September in that year. At that time, Stewart of Ardvoirlich shared the confidence of the young Lord by day, and his bed by night, when, about four or five days after the battle, Ardvoirlich, either from a fit of sudden fury or deep malice long entertained against his unsuspecting friend, stabbed Lord Kilpont to the heart, and escaped from the camp of Montrose, having killed a sentinel who attempted to detain him. Bishop Guthrie gives us a reason for this villainous action, that Lord Kilpont had rejected with abhorrence a proposal of Ardvoirlich to assassinate Montrose. But it does not appear that there is any authority for this charge, which rests on mere suspicion. Ardvoirlich, the assassin, certainly did fly to the Covenanters, and was employed and promoted by them. He obtained a pardon for the slaughter of Lord Kilpont, confirmed by Parliament in 1634, and was made Major of Argyle’s regiment in 1648. Such are the facts of the tale here given as a Legend of Montrose’s wars. The reader will find they are considerably altered in the fictitious narrative.

POSTSCRIPT (to the INTRODUCTION TO A LEGEND OF MONTROSE, by Sir Walter Scott)

While these pages were passing through the press, the author received a letter from the present Robert Stewart of Ardvoirlich, favouring him with the account of the unhappy slaughter of Lord Kilpont, differing from, and more probable than, that given by Bishop Wishart, whose narrative infers either insanity or the blackest treachery on the part of James Stewart of Ardvoirlich, the ancestor of the present family of that name. It is but fair to give the entire communication as received from my respected correspondent, which is more minute than the histories of the period.

“Although I have not the honour of being personally known to you, I hope you will excuse the liberty I now take, in addressing you on the subject of a transaction more than once alluded to by you, in which an ancestor of mine was unhappily concerned. I allude to the slaughter of Lord Kilpont, son of the Earl of Airth and Monteith, in 1644, by James Stewart of Ardvoirlich. As the cause of this unhappy event, and the quarrel which led to it, have never been correctly stated in any history of the period in which it took place, I am induced, in consequence of your having, in the second series of your admirable Tales on the History of Scotland, adopted Wishart’s version of the transaction, and being aware that your having done so will stamp it with an authenticity which it does not merit, and with a view, as far as possible, to do justice to the memory of my unfortunate ancestor, to send you the account of this affair as it has been handed down in the family.

“James Stewart of Ardvoirlich, who lived in the early part of the 17th century, and who was the unlucky cause of the slaughter of Lord Kilpont, as before mentioned, was appointed to the command of one of several independent companies raised in the Highlands at the commencement of the troubles in the reign of Charles I.; another of these companies was under the command of Lord Kilpont, and a strong intimacy, strengthened by a distant relationship, subsisted between them. When Montrose raised the royal standard, Ardvoirlich was one of the first to declare for him, and is said to have been a principal means of bringing over Lord Kilpont to the same cause; and they accordingly, along with Sir John Drummond and their respective followers, joined Montrose, as recorded by Wishart, at Buchanty. While they served together, so strong was their intimacy, that they lived and slept in the same tent.

“In the meantime, Montrose had been joined by the Irish under the command of Alexander Macdonald; these, on their march to join Montrose, had committed some excesses on lands belonging to Ardvoirlich, which lay in the line of their march from the west coast. Of this Ardvoirlich complained to Montrose, who, probably wishing as much as possible to conciliate his new allies, treated it in rather an evasive manner. Ardvoirlich, who was a man of violent passions, having failed to receive such satisfaction as he required, challenged Macdonald to single combat. Before they met, however, Montrose, on the information and by advice, as it is said, of Kilpont, laid them both under arrest. Montrose, seeing the evils of such a feud at such a critical time, effected a sort of reconciliation between them, and forced them to shake hands in his presence; when, it was said, that Ardvoirlich, who was a very powerful man, took such a hold of Macdonald’s hand as to make the blood start from his fingers. Still, it would appear, Ardvoirlich was by no means reconciled.

“A few days after the battle of Tippermuir, when Montrose with his army was encamped at Collace, an entertainment was given by him to his officers, in honour of the victory he had obtained, and Kilpont and his comrade Ardvoirlich were of the party. After returning to their quarters, Ardvoirlich, who seemed still to brood over his quarrel with Macdonald, and being heated with drink, began to blame Lord Kilpont for the part he had taken in preventing his obtaining redress, and reflecting against Montrose for not allowing him what he considered proper reparation. Kilpont of course defended the conduct of himself and his relative Montrose, till their argument came to high words; and finally, from the state they were both in, by an easy transition, to blows, when Ardvoirlich, with his dirk, struck Kilpont dead on the spot. He immediately fled, and under the cover of a thick mist escaped pursuit, leaving his eldest son Henry, who had been mortally wounded at Tippermuir, on his deathbed.

“His followers immediately withdrew from Montrose, and no course remained for him but to throw himself into the arms of the opposite faction, by whom he was well received. His name is frequently mentioned in Leslie’s campaigns, and on more than one occasion he is mentioned as having afforded protection to several of his former friends through his interest with Leslie, when the King’s cause became desperate.

“The foregoing account of this unfortunate transaction, I am well aware, differs materially from the account given by Wishart, who alleges that Stewart had laid a plot for the assassination of Montrose, and that he murdered Lord Kilpont in consequence of his refusal to participate in his design. Now, I may be allowed to remark, that besides Wishart having always been regarded as a partial historian, and very questionable authority on any subject connected with the motives or conduct of those who differed from him in opinion, that even had Stewart formed such a design, Kilpont, from his name and connexions, was likely to be the very last man of whom Stewart would choose to make a confidant and accomplice. On the other hand, the above account, though never, that I am aware, before hinted at, has been a constant tradition in the family; and, from the comparative recent date of the transaction, and the sources from which the tradition has been derived, I have no reason to doubt its perfect authenticity. It was most circumstantially detailed as above, given to my father, Mr. Stewart, now of Ardvoirlich, many years ago, by a man nearly connected with the family, who lived to the age of 100. This man was a great-grandson of James Stewart, by a natural son John, of whom many stories are still current in this country, under his appellation of JOHN DHU MHOR. This John was with his father at the time, and of course was a witness of the whole transaction; he lived till a considerable time after the Revolution, and it was from him that my father’s informant, who was a man before his grandfather, John dhu Mhor’s death, received the information as above stated.

“I have many apologies to offer for trespassing so long on your patience; but I felt a natural desire, if possible, to correct what I conceive to be a groundless imputation on the memory of my ancestor, before it shall come to be considered as a matter of History. That he was a man of violent passions and singular temper, I do not pretend to deny, as many traditions still current in this country amply verify; but that he was capable of forming a design to assassinate Montrose, the whole tenor of his former conduct and principles contradict. That he was obliged to join the opposite party, was merely a matter of safety, while Kilpont had so many powerful friends and connexions able and ready to avenge his death.

“I have only to add, that you have my full permission to make what use of this communication you please, and either to reject it altogether, or allow it such credit as you think it deserves; and I shall be ready at all times to furnish you with any further information on this subject which you may require, and which it may be in my power to afford.

“ARDVOIRLICH, 15TH JANUARY, 1830.”

The publication of a statement so particular, and probably so correct, is a debt due to the memory of James Stewart; the victim, it would seem, of his own violent passions, but perhaps incapable of an act of premeditated treachery.

ABBOTSFORD, 1ST AUGUST, 1830.

From The Lake of Menteith – Its Islands and Vicinity, With Historical Accounts of the Priory of Inchmahome and the Earldom of Menteith – By A. F. Hutchinson, 1899

APPENDIX – The Murder of Lord Kilpont at Collace

John, Lord Kilpont, was born in or about 1633. ‘When his father held the title of Earl of Strathern, [sic. He never held the title of Earl of Strathearn. He sought the title and failed and was granted the title of Earl of Airth after insulting the king.] he married Lady Mary Keith, eldest daughter of the Earl Marischal, receiving with her a dowry of £30,000 Scots, while the lady was infeft in the baronies of Kilbride and Kilpont, and received an annuity of 1000 merks out of the barony of Drummond. The contract is dated 11th April, 1632, and the marriage took place in the coarse of that year. Lord Kilpont acted as his father’s assistant in the justioiarship of Menteith, and in that capacity was instrumental in bringing to justice the noted robber, John Dhu Macgregor. For this service he was thanked by the King in 1636. He also received a letter of thanks in 1639 for his steady adherence to the King’s interest as against the Covenanters.

In 1644 the Committee of Estates authorised him to assemble the men of Menteith, Lennox, and Keir, in order to guard the passages to Perth against the Irish levies who were on their march from the west. With this force, amounting to about 400 men, he was posted at the hill of Buchanty, in Glenalmond, when he was met by Montrose at the head of the Irish and Highland troops, and so far from resisting, he went over to him with the whole body of troops under his command.
The battle of Tibbermuir was fought on the 1st of September. After a rest of a few days in Perth, Montrose crossed the Tay on the 5th of September, and pitched his camp at Collace. That night he gave an entertainment to his officers to celebrate the victory at Tibbermuir. After the banquet a quarrel of some sort arose between Kilpont and his intimate friend, James Stewart of Ardvoirlioh, who had shared hie tent and his bed, which ended in Stewart stabbing his friend with hie dagger and escaping from the camp. The murderer fled to the Covenanting army, where he was received by Argyll, and promoted ultimately to the rank of Major. The body of Lord Kilpont was conveyed to Menteith. and interred in the Chapter House of the Priory of Inchmahome.1 Lady Kilpont was so affected by the death of her husband that she lost her reason. A bitter feud which lasted long between the Grahams of Menteith and their friends and the Stewarts of Lochearnside was another consequence. Kilpont’s son was a boy of about ten years of age at the time of his father’s death, but he never forgot the circumstances. At the very earliest opportunity be had, that is, immediately after the Restoration in 1660, he tried to open the question of his father’s murder by a petition to the King. After his accession to the earldom, he addressed the King again on the subject. Neither of these petitions had any effect. But the Earl continued to cherish his feeling of resentment, and as late as 1681, in a letter to the Marquis of Montrose, he refers to one Robert Stewart, who had purchased Stragartney, as “the treterous son of that cruell murderer of my faither, who was his Lord and Master.”2

The motive of Ardvoirlich in this slaughter of his friend is obscure, and the accounts are somewhat conflicting. The sources of information in regard to it are three. First, there is the story as told by Wishart, the Chaplain of Montrose. This was the version that was before Sir Walter Scott when he wrote the Legend of Montrose, and it of course reports the incident from the Royalist point of view. Next there is the account handed down in the Ardvoirlich family, and sent by one of the members of that family to Sir Walter, who published it in a postscript to his story.

1 See chap iv. p. 111
2 Letter in the Red Book of Menteith, ii., p. 192.

That, as might be expected, puts the action of Stewart in a distinctly more favourable light. And, in the third place, there is the statement of the circumstances in the Act of Parliament which ratified the pardon for the deed previously granted by the Privy Council, which-if it may not be held as an absolutely impartial statement-may at least be taken as putting the case in a light that was not regarded as unfavourable to Ardvoirlich.

Wishart accuses Ardvoirlioh, whom he calls “a base slave,” of a plot to murder Montrose. He endeavoured to draw Kilpont into the plot, and when the latter expressed his detestation of the villainy, he stabbed him with many wounds before he had time to put himself on his guard; then killing a sentinel, he escaped in the darkness. He adds- “Some say the traitor was hired by the Covenanters to do this ; others, only that he was promised a reward if he did it” – the distinction seems rather a fine one. “However it was, this is most certain, that he is very high in their favour unto this very day; and that Argyle immediately advanced him, though he was no soldier, to great commands in his army.” And he concludes with a touching account of Montrose’s tribute to his dead friend ¬ “Montrose was very much troubled with the loss of that nobleman, his dear friend, and one that had deserved very well both from the King and himself; a man famous for arts, and arms, and honesty; being a good philosopher, a good divine, a good lawyer, a good soldier, a good subject, and a good man. Embracing the breathless body again and again, with sighs and tears he delivers it to bis sorrowful friends and servants, to be carried to his parents to receive its funeral obsequies, as became the splendour of that honourable family,”1

The family account is to the effect that Stewart was not a subordinate of Kilpont, but in an independent command; and through his intimacy with Kilpont he had induced the latter to join the royalist cause. The Irish levies, when coming from the west under the command of Colkitto, had plundered the lands of Ardvoirlich, and of this Stewart complained to Montrose, but obtained no redress. ‘He then challenged Colkitto and Montrose, on the information and advice of Kilpont, it is said, put both under arrest and then patched up a sort of reconciliation. But Stewart was far from being satisfied; and after the banquet, when the friends had returned to their tent, he broke out into fierce reproaches again. both Kilpont and Montrose. Kilpont replied also in high words. From words they went to blows, and Stewart, who was a man of great strength, slew Kilpont on the spot. He fled after the deed and, for his own safety, was obliged to throw himself into the hands of the Covenanters.2 This account frees Ardvoirlich from the accusation of treachery to Montrose, though it represents him as a man of violent temper.
The Act of Parliament narrates that John, Lord Kilpont, being employed in the public service against James Graham, then Earl of Montrose, the Irish rebels and their associates, did treacherously and treasonably join himself and induce

1 Wishart’s Commentaries on the Wars of Montrose, quoted by Sheriff Napier in hi sMemoirs of Montrose, ii. 446
2 Legend of Montrose, Postscript to Introduction (edit. 1829)

400 others under his command to join the said rebels ; that Stewart and some of his friends, repenting of their error, resolved to forsake their wicked company, and imputed this resolution to Kilpont, who endeavoured, “out of his malignant dispositione,” to prevent them, and fell a struggling with the said James, who, for his own relief, was forced to kill him, along with two Irish rebels who resisted his escape; and that then, with his son and friends, he came straight to the Marquis of Argyle and offered their services to the country.’

The particulars in this narrative would in all probability be supplied by James Stewart himself, and they seem, in every point, to contradict the family tradition. No mention is made of the plot to murder Montrose ascribed to him by Wishart, but in other respects the account of that writer is confirmed. He tried, according to this statement approved by himself, to make Kilpont false to the cause of the Royalists, and killed him when he did not succeed. It is quite possible that the statement may be not altogether ingenuous, as he might suppose that his zeal for the Covenant would be likely to condone the offence of killing one of its enemies. But if not accepted as it is, the plot to assassinate Montrose must still stand on a footing of at least equal authority with the grievance against Colkitto as the cause of the quarrel which ended so fatally.

1 Acts of the Parliament of Scotland, vol. vi. pt. i, p. 359 (1st March 1645)

The Murder of Lord Kilpont

A murder during Montrose´s campaign in 1644

by Jenn Chamberlain, Stewart Society Archivist.

Click here for the original article.

Montrose raised the Royal Standard at Blair Atholl on the 30th of August, 1644, . As the Royalists approached the valley of the Earn they were intercepted near Buchanty by a force of 400 bowmen under the command of Lord Kilpont, accompanied by John Drummond (a younger son of the Earl of Perth), the Master of Madertie (Montrose’s brother in law), and James Stewart of Ardvorlich with his son Henry. Kilpont, who was unaware of Montrose’s arrival in Scotland, had been summoned by the local Covenanting authorities to muster his men to oppose the Irish under the command of Alastair Mac Colla.

As the eldest son of William Graham, Earl of Airth and Menteith, the most important of the Graham cadets, he was related to Montrose and, having seen the King’s commission, he willingly brought his men over to join the Royalists. Kilpont’s force subsequently fought with distinction at Tippermuir the following day. Montrose’s army suffered many wounded but only one Royalist is said to have been killed outright on the battlefield. However, Henry Stewart, Ardvorlich’s son, was mortally hurt in the fight and died of his wounds a few days later.

During the early hours of the morning of 5th September a commotion broke out in the Royalist camp. Assuming that a quarrel had broken out between the Irish soldiers and the local highland troops. Montrose and his officers drew their swords and rushed towards the centre of the disturbance. There they found the body of Lord Kilpont who had been stabbed to death only a short time before. The murderer was known to have been James Stewart of Ardvorlich, who had also killed two Irish sentries when they tried to prevent his escape. The crime was the more terrible in that Kilpont had been Ardvorlich’s closest friend.

As a young man he was befriended by Lord Kilpont (they were distantly related) and the two became virtually inseparable. They regularly slept in the same room together and on the night of the murder they were sharing a tent. It is possible they were lovers.

The Royalist account of the murder, published shortly afterwards in a pamphlet entitled ‘A True Relation of the success of His Majesty’s forces in Scotland under the conduct of The Lord James, Marquis of Montrose……..’, suggested that Ardvorlich’s true intention had been to assassinate Montrose himself:

‘While he was on his march, one morning by the break of day, Captain James Stewart did withdraw the Lord Kilpont to the utmost Centry where he had a long and serious discourse with him; at the end whereof, my Lord (Kilpont), knocking upon his breast, was overheard to say these words, “Lord forbid man; would you undoe us all?”, upon which immediately the Captain stob’d him with a durke, and my Lord falling with the first stroke, he gave him fourteen more through the body as he lay upon the ground; that he might be sure as is probable that he should not reveal what had passed between them; for it is conceived that he had intended so much for the Marquisse (Montrose), and that he had disclosed his purpose to my Lord Kilpont (whom) he thought to have engaged in the plot in regard to the familiarity (that) was between them. After the villain had committed this barbarous act, he came to the Centry and shot him through the body and so by reason of a thick fogge, made an escape to the Rebells, of whom he was well received’.

The account of the affair handed down in Ardvorlich’s family, however, ascribes James Stewart’s motive to a deep-seated grudge which he had conceived against Alastair MacDonald. According to this version the Irish soldiers, during their earlier wanderings prior to linking up with Montrose, were said to have pillaged some lands belonging to Ardvorlich who, shortly after joining the army at Buchanty, made a formal complaint to the King’s Lieutenant. It seems that Montrose, possibly because of his anxiety to conciliate his new allies rather than to judge between them, returned an evasive answer which so dissatisfied Ardvorlich that he became angry and challenged Alastair to single combat. Before they could meet Montrose, acting it is said on the advice and information of Lord Kilpont, placed both men under arrest until they should become reconciled. They were eventually persuaded to shake hands in his presence, which they did with an ill grace, and Ardvorlich gripped Alastair’s hand so hard as to cause the blood to start from under his fingernails. Stewart however was still very dissatisfied. According to this version, as told to Sir Walter Scott in 1830 by Robert Stewart of Ardvorlich.

‘A few days after the battle of Tippermuir, When Montrose with his army was camped at Collace, an entertainment was given by him to his officers in honour of the victory he had obtained, and Kilpont and his comrade Ardvorlich were of the party. After returning to their quarters, Ardvorlich, who seemed still to brood over his quarrel with the MacDonald, and being heated with drink, began to blame Lord Kilpont for the part he had taken in preventing his obtaining redress, and reflecting against Montrose for not allowing him what he considered proper reparation. Kilpont defended the conduct of himself and his relative Montrose till their argument came to high words; and finally, from the state they were both in, by an easy transition, to blows, when Ardvorlich with his dirk struck Kilpont dead on the spot’.

This version of the story was said to have been drawn from the account of John dhu Mhor, a natural son of Ardvorlich, who was also with his father at Collace and may thus have actually witnessed the murder. John dhu Mhor lived until after the revolution and passed the story on to his grandson, who told it to the father of Sir Walter Scott’s informant.

It does not ring altogether true however for two reasons. Firstly, the Clanranald MS gives an account (often quite detailed) of Alastair’s movements between the time of his landing in Ardnamurchan and his meeting with Montrose at Blair Atholl, and there is no record of the Irish soldiers having pillaged in the neighbourhood of Ardvorlich’s lands prior to Tippermuir. They did burn Ardvorlich as a reprisal for the murder the following year (1645) shortly before the battle of Auldearn. Secondly, given Alastair’s own fiery temperament and his standing among the Irish, it is unlikely that Montrose would have risked actually putting him under arrest. What is interesting about this family version of the affair is the suggestion that the pillaging of Ardvorlich’s lands or property may have had some sort of bearing on it. (It is equally strange perhaps that none of the accounts refer to the death of his son only a few days previously as a factor which may have affected his state of mind).

There are however two letters written by the Marquis of Argyll to John Campbell the Younger of Glenorchy and dated 4th and 5th of September – that is, the day before and the day of the murder. Argyll had received the news of Tippermuir and was in the process of mustering an army to pursue Montrose. He was also initiating a long investigation into the cause of the disaster, while his officers were instructed to discover precisely who had joined or assisted Montrose, and upon what occasion. In the first letter of 4th September Argyll told Glenorchy that he: ‘….may medle with the goods of James Stewart of Ardvorlich for it is more reasonable to secure the goods of those who entertained the rebels than those of honest men’.

The second letter, while ordering Glenorchy to punish by death any troops found guilty of plundering, robbery, or other disorders, then instructed him to march towards Glenalmond ‘carrying Ardvorlich’s goods along’. Considering that Argyll was meticulously drawing up a list of all those who had helped Montrose – which, after Tippermuir included a number of the local gentry such as Kilpont, Drummond and Madertie, – it is strange that only Ardvorlich should have been mentioned by name in Glenorchy’s instructions. Indeed, he was singled out for special treatment. It is also odd that an army marching to pursue Montrose should have been ordered to encumber itself with Ardvorlich’s goods when these could more sensibly have been deposited safely in Glenorchy, Inveraray, or some other suitable place. It is almost as if Ardvorlich was to be confronted with his own plundered goods.

This indeed may well have been Argyll’s purpose. Something had made him decide that Ardvorlich should be singled out and special pressure brought to bear on him. Pressure implies a threat, but a threat, if it is intended to be effective, precedes the act. In other words, Argyll’s tactic was not just to raid Ardvorlich’s lands but also to make sure that Ardvorlich knew that it would happen. If this sequence is logical and correct then given that the first order to Glenorchy was sent on 4th September, the threat was made between Ardvorlich’s joining Montrose’s army on 31st August and that date – all of which points to some sort of exchange having taken place while the army was in Perth. By the 4th September Argyll, unaware of just how effective the pressure was proving, was ready to carry out the threat (of pillaging Ardvorlich’s lands) and ensure, by having the plunder brought with the army, that Ardvorlich got to hear of it.

It was more likely therefore that it was Argyll, and not Montrose or Alastair, who triggered the tragic murder of Lord Kilpont. Of we cannot be sure what Ardvorlich was being forced to do, whether merely to desert Montrose, or to murder him or to find a means of betraying the army. Ardvorlich himself, already fragile because of the death of his son and now likely to lose land wealth and cattle as well, possibly decided to accede, and told Kilpont he was going to do so. Kilpont was horrified, but before he could reveal anything of the conversation Ardvorlich, despairing and possibly drunk, killed him. The fourteen stab wounds in the body suggest something of a frenzy.

After the murder Ardvorlich had little choice. He joined Argyll (who wrote no more about the plunder) and was made a Major in his regiment. The Covenanters praised him for the deed and made what propaganda they could out of it. ‘Kilpont’s treachery is avenged by his death justly inflicted’ wrote one minister, and when in 1645 the Scottish Parliament formally ratified Ardvorlich’s ‘pardon’, it was stated that he had been entirely justified in his action: ‘………heartily therefore repenting of his error in joining with the said rebels, and abhorring their cruelty, (Ardvorlich) resolves with his said friends to forsake their wicked company, and imparted this said resolution to the said umquhile Lord Kilpont. But he, out of his malignant disposition opposed the same, and fell in struggling with the said James, who, for the sake of his own relief, was forced to kill him at the Kirk of Collace, with two Irish rebels who resisted his escape, and so removed happily….and came straight to the Marquis of Argyll and offered his service to his country. Whose carriage in this particular being considered by the Committee of Estates, they find and declare that the said Stewart did good service to the Kingdon in killing the said Lord Kilpont…. And approved of what he did therein’. (Acts Parlt. Scot. V1. pt. i 359).

Argyll’s reception of Ardvorlich was no doubt intended to encourage others to similar action, and on 12th September, as a logical sequel, the Committee of Estates offered a bounty of £20,000 to anyone who would assassinate Montrose.

Many of the weapons used by James Stewart are still at Ardvorlich House now including the dirk used to murder Kilpont.

Lord Kilpont was the eldest son of the William Graham, 7th earl of Mentieth and was born about 1613. In April 1633 he married Lady Mary Keith, daughter of William, 6th earl Marischal. They had a son and three daughters.
He was buried in the family´s mausoleum in the old chapter house of the priory of Inchmahome, on Inchmahome Island in the Lake of Menteith which the Society now owns. There is no plaque or any other marker to his memory. The site of his grave is covered by another tomb monument from another period, moved some years ago.