History of the Stewarts | Battles and Historic Events
If you are a Stewart Society Member please login above to view all of the items in this section. If you want general information on how to research your ancestors and some helpful links - please look in background information.
If you have a specific question you can contact our archivist.
The Murder of Lord Kilpont
A murder during Montrose´s campaign in 1644
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.