Feas of Clestrain \ James I \ James II \ James III \ James IV \ James V \ James VI \ Pundlar Process

Dissension On The Pundlar Process

The fact that the anti Mortonian lairds decided to levy money for a law suit, the opposition of Andrew Ross (Sheriff-Depute) and the news that the Earl of Morton would visit Orkney in the summer of 1743 caused some of the heritors to have second thoughts about their involvement in the proceedings.

William Honeyman from Graemsay was one who later gave evidence of parting company from James Fea of Clestrain.

When he first met with the heritors in the year 1743, he discovered a good deal of keenness in several of the gentlemen at that meeting; and....(the gentlemen)  ....were unanimous, as he believes, in thinking that the weights were fallacious; but that (he, William Honeyman), the Deponent, from his own proper knowledge,  could not think they (i.e. the weights) were increased, as mentioned in (the) said reports; and depones, that he and some others, murmured, and stopped at some words used in the report; And that James Fea of Clestren, the Preses of the meeting, dictated the report in his own words.  O.L. Pundlar Process, 12 November 1757, pages 221-2 From Orkney Feuds And The 45' (1980): R  P Fereday pages 50-1

At a meeting following the first on 8th April 1743, "it being proposed to assess the gentlemen of the county in general, in coming to the bottom of the affair of the weights", Honeyman disagreed and walked out.  A number of other lairds followed suit including: Graemeshall, Tankerness, Young of Castleyards and Mr Meason (the Dean of Guild).  Others, including James Sutherland of Windbreck in South Ronaldsay, regretted having signed the original allegations drawn up by James Fea and withdrew from further meetings.