In this state of matters, the Earl of Caithness wrote to the Marquis of Huntly, accusing Sir Robert Gordon and Mackay of a design to bring him within the reach of the law of treason, and to injure the honour of his house by slandering him with the burning of the corn at Sanset. The other party told the marquis that they could not refuse to assist Lord Forbes in finding out the persons who had burned the corn at Sanset, but that they had never imagined that the earl would have acted so base a part as to become an accomplice in such a criminal act; and farther, that as Mackay’s men were challenged with the deed, they certainly were entitled at least to clear Mackay’s people from the charge by endeavouring to find out the malefactors,--in all which they considered they had done the earl no wrong. The Marquis of Huntly did not fail to write the Earl of Caithness the answer he had received from Sir Robert Gordon and Mackay, which grieved him exceedingly, as he was too well aware of the consequences which would follow if the prosecution of the Guns was persevered in. At the time appointed for the trial of the Guns, Sir Robert Gordon, Mackay, and Lord Forbes, with all his friends, went to Edinburgh, and upon their arrival they entreated the council to prevent a remission in favour of the Earl of Caithness from passing the signet until the affair in hand was tried; a request with which the council complied. The Earl of Caithness did not appear; but he sent his son, Lord Berridale, to Edinburgh, along with John Gun and all those persons who had been summoned by Lord Forbes, with the exception of Alexander Gun and his two accomplices. He alleged as his reason for not sending them that they were not his men, being Mackay’s own tenants, and dwelling in Dilred, the property of Mackay, which was held by him off the Earl of Sutherland, who, he alleged, was bound to present the three persons alluded to. But the lords of the council would not admit of this excuse, and again required Lord Berridale and his father to present the three culprits before the court on the 10th June following, because, although they had possessions in Dilred, they had also lands from the Earl of Caithness on which they usually resided. Besides, the deed was committed in Caithness, of which the earl was sheriff, on which account also he was bound to apprehend them. Lord Berridale, whose character was quite the reverse of that of his father, apprehensive of the consequences of a trial, now offered satisfaction in his father’s name to Lord Forbes if he would stop the prosecution; but his lordship refused to do anything without the previous advice and consent of Sir Robert Gordon and Mackay, who, upon being consulted, caused articles of agreement to be drawn up, which were presented to Lord Berridale by neutral persons for his acceptance. He, however, considering the conditions sought to be imposed upon his father too hard, rejected them.