The Gunn MacHamish line was manipulated into being Clan Gunn Chief
Setting
According to the Reverend Sage[1] in the year
1800 the Countess (of Sutherland) informed the Reverend Alexander Sage of her desire to know who was the chief of the Clan Gunn ... This wish of the Duchess-Countess put the whole Clan in commotion. There was no universally recognised chief[2]
So in 1800 there was no accepted Chief. The consequence of her desire was simple - probably due to the importance of the Countess - in 1803 an ‘inquisition’ was held. Now it is worth quoting Sinclair[3];
The inquisition was made at the sheriff-court of Caithness, held at Thurso, 31st May 1803, in the presence of Mr William Brodie, sheriff substitute of the said county, by these subscribed honest and faithful men of the county, namely Captain James Mackay of Borgie, George Paterson arms-bearing, bailie of Thurso; Messrs Alexander Paterson, James Craig, James Waters, John Mackay, Alexander Brodie, Peter Swany, Junior, and Patrick Leith, all merchants in Thurso; Messrs Donald Robeson, William Sinclair and John Reid, solicitors there; Messrs William Munro and John Macdonald, schoolmasters there; and George Morison vintner there. These being sworn, having given their solemn oath, say that the deceased Alexander Gunn, the McHamish, of Navidale and Killearnan, commonly called McHamish the Fifth ... the said Hector Gunn ... is the legitimate and nearest heir-male of the said deceased Alexander Gunn, his great-great-grandfather...
To restate; the MacHamish line was declared by this ‘inquisition’ to be the Chief line and Hector Gunn the Chief (his son, the Factor George Gunn, became 'Chief' after him). Sinclair continues
Something may be said of the notable persons of the deposition ... About the personal respectability of the inquisition there can be no doubt, although the decision in favour of Hector Gunn has been persistently disputed.[4]
The ‘inquisition’ seems to have been a procession of local notables who were sworn and made their statement. We have no idea on what basis they held their beliefs and there is no mention of anyone being able to challenge what was said. We also have no idea whether they actually knew what they were talking about; did that many people in Thurso in 1803 really know all the details of the Clan Gunn genealogy? I doubt it. That people were capable of making judgements as to male descent from a branch of the Gunn family is far more plausible. And note what is now (it has only been clarified in modern times) a real weakness; ‘heir-male’. A Clan Gunn ‘Chief’ could descend through the female line and, of course, without considering the female options their judgment as to who was ‘Chief’ was flawed. Of course, if you accept this ‘inquisition’ then from the known[5]female descendants of this line should come the ‘Chief’.
Sinclair[6] notes three depositions were sent to John Robertson W.S. (lawyer) in Edinburgh when ‘Chief’ Hector Gunn was getting involved with Lord Lyon’s office; one was from John Gunn Dalnaha (brother of Donald Gunn the sennachie and of the MacHamish line); one was from Robert Gunn of Achnakin (who links into the MacHamish line) and the third was from James Mackay of Strath Halladale. So at least two of the three depositions were written by people who were linked to the MacHamish line; as such they had something to gain from the result – their family would become linked to the Chief.
It is important to recognise that the ‘inquisition’ was not the relevant court to make such a decision in fact it is not clear what legal right the ‘inquisition’ held. It is a term used regularly for heresy and, earlier, the poor, but I find no reference for its genealogical use. It is possible it was an ad hoc creation; the Countess of Sutherland, after all, owned much of Caithness and Sutherland and so was a woman who could not be ignored. Lord Lyon is the court which decides if a person may bear the arms of the Chief of the Clan and his court was certainly in operation at this time (the last revision of the Lyon Act being in 1672[7]). Hector Gunn[8] wrote to the Lord Lyon court but did not formalise the Chiefship with it.
As I make clear elsewhere significant primary evidence where the ‘Chief’ issue should have been mentioned (or even just ‘Chieftain’) in support of the MacHamish line is not so mentioned (see ‘Alexander Gunn of Badenloch and later Wester Helmsdale’ entries). This certainly suggests the ‘inquisition’ was wrong in its judgement.
Clan Gunn Society
It is worth noting, though, the role of the first Clan Gunn Society in support of the inquisition’s outcome. In Mark Rugg Gunn’s view (page 236-237) the first Clan Gunn Society was established by
several of the more well-to-do Gunns ... amongst whom were Lieutenant John Gunn, merchant in Swiney,Donald Gunn, Braehour (father of Captain Gunn), and Alexander Gunn, merchant in Thurso (son of the Robert in Achankin family)
And the key 1821 letter to George Gunn, Factor, was signed by Donald Gunn of Braehour and Alexander Gunn, Merchant, Thurso. In MRG’s words this showed that ‘George Gunn was the official Chief’ at least to the Clan Gunn Society.
But it’s also worth noting the names of the committee of that society (Sinclair page 174); John Gunn merchant in Swiney, Alexander Gunn in Osculay (Osclay), Donald Gunn farmer in Braehour, George Gunn innkeeper in Thurso, William Gunn farmer in Knockglass, John Gunn messenger in Dunbeath, Alexander Gunn Shoemaker in Buolkork, James Gunn messenger in Thurso, Peter Gunn in Swiney, Robert Gunn farmer in Olginbreg and John Gunn, Thurso.
Who were these members?
Donald Gunn of Braehour was from the MacHamish line – and he was the sennachie (‘historian’) so who could disagree with him, especially in the early 1800s? Alexander Gunn of Osclay married Donald Gunn’s sister. Alexander Gunn of Buolkork was the son-in-law of Donald Gunn. So out of a committee of eleven at least three were closely linked by marriage (including the dominant voice of the historian).
Now I can not – yet – be as sure about the others but the Gunns of Swiney (Sinclair page 121) are from the MacHamish line and Alexander Gunn, merchant in Thurso is also descended from the MacHamish line. So that’s possibly five – at least – to push for the MacHamish line as Chief as they descend from that line. The first Clan Gunn society seems to be stacked; when too many of one family are on a committee its impartiality is certainly open to question.
Overall
So even though there is no academic evidence for the sequence – or even exact number – of coroner Gunn’s children the ‘inquisition’ and the Clan Gunn Society chose the MacHamish line. By major contrast (as already mentioned) in documents by Alexander Gunn of Badenloch and Wester Helmsdale – an earlier supposed ‘Chief’ – there is no mention of him being Chief even when it would have been extremely useful for him to make such a claim. If primary sources written at the direction of the ‘Chief’ do not mention the ‘Chief’ when it would be legally advantageous to do so then one must assume he was not ‘Chief’.
It’s worth remembering (again) the only nearly contemporary account – that of Sir Robert Gordon - ‘absolutely writes of John Gunn alias Robson, as “chieftain of the Clan Gunn in Caithness” again and again’ (Thomas Sinclair page 175). As well, in 1775 a letter from George Gunn Munro of this Robson line says ‘I consider myself the Chief (of the Clan Gunn)’[9] which also makes a mockery of the MacHamish branch as the Chief line.
To state the obvious; I doubt that the MacHamish line was ever Chief of the Clan Gunn. It might now be the senior line left from the coroner, but that's a different issue.
[1] It is worth noting that the living which the Reverend Sage held was ‘owned’ by the Countess; if he annoyed her he could lose his position.
[2] MRG pages 206-207
[3] Sinclair page 168
[4] Sinclair, pages 169-170
[5] Yes, they exist; I have been in touch with one branch of the family.
[6] Sinclair page 169
[7] http://www.bletherskite.net/2012/10/29/the-lyon-act/
[8] Sinclair page 169
[9] MRG page 175.
According to the Reverend Sage[1] in the year
1800 the Countess (of Sutherland) informed the Reverend Alexander Sage of her desire to know who was the chief of the Clan Gunn ... This wish of the Duchess-Countess put the whole Clan in commotion. There was no universally recognised chief[2]
So in 1800 there was no accepted Chief. The consequence of her desire was simple - probably due to the importance of the Countess - in 1803 an ‘inquisition’ was held. Now it is worth quoting Sinclair[3];
The inquisition was made at the sheriff-court of Caithness, held at Thurso, 31st May 1803, in the presence of Mr William Brodie, sheriff substitute of the said county, by these subscribed honest and faithful men of the county, namely Captain James Mackay of Borgie, George Paterson arms-bearing, bailie of Thurso; Messrs Alexander Paterson, James Craig, James Waters, John Mackay, Alexander Brodie, Peter Swany, Junior, and Patrick Leith, all merchants in Thurso; Messrs Donald Robeson, William Sinclair and John Reid, solicitors there; Messrs William Munro and John Macdonald, schoolmasters there; and George Morison vintner there. These being sworn, having given their solemn oath, say that the deceased Alexander Gunn, the McHamish, of Navidale and Killearnan, commonly called McHamish the Fifth ... the said Hector Gunn ... is the legitimate and nearest heir-male of the said deceased Alexander Gunn, his great-great-grandfather...
To restate; the MacHamish line was declared by this ‘inquisition’ to be the Chief line and Hector Gunn the Chief (his son, the Factor George Gunn, became 'Chief' after him). Sinclair continues
Something may be said of the notable persons of the deposition ... About the personal respectability of the inquisition there can be no doubt, although the decision in favour of Hector Gunn has been persistently disputed.[4]
The ‘inquisition’ seems to have been a procession of local notables who were sworn and made their statement. We have no idea on what basis they held their beliefs and there is no mention of anyone being able to challenge what was said. We also have no idea whether they actually knew what they were talking about; did that many people in Thurso in 1803 really know all the details of the Clan Gunn genealogy? I doubt it. That people were capable of making judgements as to male descent from a branch of the Gunn family is far more plausible. And note what is now (it has only been clarified in modern times) a real weakness; ‘heir-male’. A Clan Gunn ‘Chief’ could descend through the female line and, of course, without considering the female options their judgment as to who was ‘Chief’ was flawed. Of course, if you accept this ‘inquisition’ then from the known[5]female descendants of this line should come the ‘Chief’.
Sinclair[6] notes three depositions were sent to John Robertson W.S. (lawyer) in Edinburgh when ‘Chief’ Hector Gunn was getting involved with Lord Lyon’s office; one was from John Gunn Dalnaha (brother of Donald Gunn the sennachie and of the MacHamish line); one was from Robert Gunn of Achnakin (who links into the MacHamish line) and the third was from James Mackay of Strath Halladale. So at least two of the three depositions were written by people who were linked to the MacHamish line; as such they had something to gain from the result – their family would become linked to the Chief.
It is important to recognise that the ‘inquisition’ was not the relevant court to make such a decision in fact it is not clear what legal right the ‘inquisition’ held. It is a term used regularly for heresy and, earlier, the poor, but I find no reference for its genealogical use. It is possible it was an ad hoc creation; the Countess of Sutherland, after all, owned much of Caithness and Sutherland and so was a woman who could not be ignored. Lord Lyon is the court which decides if a person may bear the arms of the Chief of the Clan and his court was certainly in operation at this time (the last revision of the Lyon Act being in 1672[7]). Hector Gunn[8] wrote to the Lord Lyon court but did not formalise the Chiefship with it.
As I make clear elsewhere significant primary evidence where the ‘Chief’ issue should have been mentioned (or even just ‘Chieftain’) in support of the MacHamish line is not so mentioned (see ‘Alexander Gunn of Badenloch and later Wester Helmsdale’ entries). This certainly suggests the ‘inquisition’ was wrong in its judgement.
Clan Gunn Society
It is worth noting, though, the role of the first Clan Gunn Society in support of the inquisition’s outcome. In Mark Rugg Gunn’s view (page 236-237) the first Clan Gunn Society was established by
several of the more well-to-do Gunns ... amongst whom were Lieutenant John Gunn, merchant in Swiney,Donald Gunn, Braehour (father of Captain Gunn), and Alexander Gunn, merchant in Thurso (son of the Robert in Achankin family)
And the key 1821 letter to George Gunn, Factor, was signed by Donald Gunn of Braehour and Alexander Gunn, Merchant, Thurso. In MRG’s words this showed that ‘George Gunn was the official Chief’ at least to the Clan Gunn Society.
But it’s also worth noting the names of the committee of that society (Sinclair page 174); John Gunn merchant in Swiney, Alexander Gunn in Osculay (Osclay), Donald Gunn farmer in Braehour, George Gunn innkeeper in Thurso, William Gunn farmer in Knockglass, John Gunn messenger in Dunbeath, Alexander Gunn Shoemaker in Buolkork, James Gunn messenger in Thurso, Peter Gunn in Swiney, Robert Gunn farmer in Olginbreg and John Gunn, Thurso.
Who were these members?
Donald Gunn of Braehour was from the MacHamish line – and he was the sennachie (‘historian’) so who could disagree with him, especially in the early 1800s? Alexander Gunn of Osclay married Donald Gunn’s sister. Alexander Gunn of Buolkork was the son-in-law of Donald Gunn. So out of a committee of eleven at least three were closely linked by marriage (including the dominant voice of the historian).
Now I can not – yet – be as sure about the others but the Gunns of Swiney (Sinclair page 121) are from the MacHamish line and Alexander Gunn, merchant in Thurso is also descended from the MacHamish line. So that’s possibly five – at least – to push for the MacHamish line as Chief as they descend from that line. The first Clan Gunn society seems to be stacked; when too many of one family are on a committee its impartiality is certainly open to question.
Overall
So even though there is no academic evidence for the sequence – or even exact number – of coroner Gunn’s children the ‘inquisition’ and the Clan Gunn Society chose the MacHamish line. By major contrast (as already mentioned) in documents by Alexander Gunn of Badenloch and Wester Helmsdale – an earlier supposed ‘Chief’ – there is no mention of him being Chief even when it would have been extremely useful for him to make such a claim. If primary sources written at the direction of the ‘Chief’ do not mention the ‘Chief’ when it would be legally advantageous to do so then one must assume he was not ‘Chief’.
It’s worth remembering (again) the only nearly contemporary account – that of Sir Robert Gordon - ‘absolutely writes of John Gunn alias Robson, as “chieftain of the Clan Gunn in Caithness” again and again’ (Thomas Sinclair page 175). As well, in 1775 a letter from George Gunn Munro of this Robson line says ‘I consider myself the Chief (of the Clan Gunn)’[9] which also makes a mockery of the MacHamish branch as the Chief line.
To state the obvious; I doubt that the MacHamish line was ever Chief of the Clan Gunn. It might now be the senior line left from the coroner, but that's a different issue.
[1] It is worth noting that the living which the Reverend Sage held was ‘owned’ by the Countess; if he annoyed her he could lose his position.
[2] MRG pages 206-207
[3] Sinclair page 168
[4] Sinclair, pages 169-170
[5] Yes, they exist; I have been in touch with one branch of the family.
[6] Sinclair page 169
[7] http://www.bletherskite.net/2012/10/29/the-lyon-act/
[8] Sinclair page 169
[9] MRG page 175.