172 HISTORY OF THE OUTER HEBRIDES. 



had set his heart. The Act enabled him to initiate his 

 plan with an imposing show of legality. It was well 

 known to the King and his advisers that several chiefs 

 had lost their title-deeds. It was well known that some 

 of them would find it difficult, if not impossible, to find 

 the required security for their good behaviour. It was 

 shrewdly suspected that certain of them, who possessed 

 title-deeds and could find the necessary bail, would never- 

 theless fail to put in an appearance at Edinburgh. All 

 these contingencies were clearly well considered, before 

 the machinery of the Law was put in motion to grab the 

 land of ignorant or careless chiefs. This remarkable 

 Act of Parliament was conceived in guile, drafted with 

 duplicity, and executed, as we shall see, with violence. 



The Act for creating three free burghs in the disaffected 

 districts was, to all appearance, an innocent measure. 

 That it was likely to prove beneficial to those districts 

 may be readily conceded. But that it was part of the 

 great scheme for swamping the natives with Lowland 

 colonies, or improving them out of existence, is also 

 tolerably clear. To this Act, the burghs of Campbeltown 

 in Kintyre, Fortwilliam in Lochaber, and Stornoway in 

 Lewis owe their origin, but Campbeltown is the only one 

 of the three whose claims to the full privileges of a Royal 

 burgh are undisputed ; and its erection did not take piace 

 until 1700 the last creation of the kind previous to the 

 Union of Parliaments. On 4th May, 1598, a Council was 

 appointed to consider how the meaning of the Act was to 

 be effected, the Isles reduced to obedience, and "justice 

 and quietnes establishit thairin." Of the ten Councillors 

 thus appointed, two Sir George Home of Wedderburn, 

 and Colonel Sir William Stewart, Prior of Pittenweem 

 soon afterwards appear as participants in an act of 

 legalised robbery : the seizure of Lewis by the Fife Adven- 

 turers. So much for the constitution of this Council, and 

 the disinterested motives of its members. 



There are no records to show what chiefs failed to 

 present their title-deeds by 15th May, 1598. We know, 



