# Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Macleod, Neil

​MACLEOD, NEIL, eleventh of Assynt (1628?–1697?), eldest son of Neil, tenth of Assynt, by Florence, fifth daughter of Torquil Conanach Macleod of Lewis, Outer Hebrides, was born about 1628. It was in Assynt's territories that Montrose took refuge after his defeat at Invercarron, on 27 April 1650, by the forces of Strachan and Sutherland. A manuscript memoir on the district of Assynt, drawn up by George Taylor of Golspie from original sources, represents Montrose as under the belief that Macleod would apprehend him if he declared himself (quoted in the Quarterly Review, 1847, lxxix. 48-9). Wishart, on the contrary, asserts that Assynt had formerly been one of Montrose's ​own followers (Memoirs of Montrose, p. 377), and Burnet affirms that Montrose ‘was betrayed by one of those to whom he trusted himself, Mackloud of Assin’ (Own Time, ed. 1838, p. 34); but even if Montrose hoped for shelter in Assynt, it was probably only on the grounds mentioned by Nicoll, that not Neil himself, but his father, had been ‘ane of his auld acquaintance’ (Diary, p. 11). It is true that in 1646 ‘a 100 men of Assint under Seaforth's command’ joined Montrose at Inverness (Transactions of the Gaelic Society of Inverness, xvi. 202); but, although at one time the Macleods of Assynt fought under Montrose's banner, the attempts of Seaforth to possess himself of Assynt (ib. pp. 200–7) seem to have compelled the Macleods for their own protection to finally ally themselves with Sutherland, who supported the covenanting party. According to Gilbert Gordon's ‘Continuation’ of Sir Robert Gordon's ‘Earldom of Sutherland’ (pp. 555–7), Macleod at the time of the capture was a deputy-sheriff of Sutherland, and apprehended Montrose by directions from his brother-in-law, Captain Monro, one of Strachan's officers. Wishart also states that Macleod ‘was abroad in arms with some of his tenants in search of’ Montrose when the latter discovered himself. Both Gordon and Wishart mention that Montrose offered Macleod large sums for his liberty, and Wishart also adds that he desired to be slain by his captors rather than given up to his enemies. But as soon as he had apprehended him, Macleod wrote to the lieutenant-general, Strachan, that he had him in his keeping, and Strachan directed a party to bring him to Sutherland. There may be some truth in the tradition that the person chiefly responsible for the surrender of Montrose was not Macleod, who ‘was of no great decision’ (Memoir in Quarterly Review, lxxix. 50), but his wife, who is said to have inherited the ‘stern, unbending disposition of her father.’ On 7 May parliament remitted to the committee of despatches to determine on a recompense to be given to Macleod for his ‘good service’ (Acta Parl. Scot. vi. pt. ii. p. 563). It seems to have been paid in kind, and to have amounted to four hundred bolls of oatmeal (Macleod's Indictment, 1674).
After the Restoration Macleod was apprehended on the charge of having delivered up Montrose, and remained a prisoner in the Tolbooth without trial for nearly three years (Appendix to Kemp's ed. of Pococke's Tour in Sutherlandshire, p. 45). In August 1663 his case, after having been debated before parliament, was referred to the king (Cal. State Papers, Dom. Ser. 1663–4, p. 245; Acta Parl. Scot. vii. 500). Macleod denied the fact that he had apprehended Montrose; but he claimed that even if that were true, he had received an indemnity from the king at Breda in 1650 (ib.) The apprehension of Montrose under any circumstances was, however, in the eyes of Charles II's government necessarily a crime, and virtually amounted in law to a betrayal of Montrose, since it was the duty of all loyal subjects to aid him in his escape (‘Details of the Accusation against the Laird of Assynt,’ Cal. State Papers, Dom. Ser. 1663–1664, p. 409).
Macleod remained in prison for nearly three additional years after his case was referred to the king, but on 20 Feb. 1666 he received a pardon on the ground of the Breda indemnity (Minute of Privy Council quoted in Kemp's ed. of Pococke's Tour in Sutherlandshire, App. p. 47). Possibly the original accuser of Macleod was Kenneth Mackenzie, third earl of Seaforth. On 10 Jan. 1654–1655 Seaforth and other Mackenzies had come under obligation to give satisfaction to Macleod for damages inflicted on him (‘Articles of Agreement between General Monck and Thomas Mackenzie, Laird of Pluscardine, in behalf of Kenneth, Earl of Seaforth,’ Cal. State Papers, Dom. Ser. 1655, p. 13). Disputes between Macleod and the Mackenzies were also resumed after Macleod's liberation in 1666. For violently opposing a claim of ejectment against him at the instance of the Mackenzies, a commission of fire and sword was in July 1672 obtained against Macleod. His territory was ravaged, and he was brought south a prisoner to Edinburgh, where on 2 Feb. 1674 he was tried on four charges: (1) Treachery to Montrose, (2) assisting English rebels, (3) exacting arbitrary taxation upon shipping in his creeks, and (4) fortifying and garrisoning his house in 1670 against the king. The lord-advocate did not, however, insist on the first two charges, except as aggravations, and the first had of course been disposed of by the royal pardon granted in 1666. On the two last he was also acquitted. After a long process of litigation he was, however, in 1690 deprived of his estates and forced to quit Assynt. He died probably about 1697. By his wife, a daughter of Colonel John Monro of Lemlair, he left no issue.
T. F. H.