James McConnell, Eighth Chief of Clan Iain Mhoir
We have seen that Sir James McConnell was sent to Edinburgh Castle after his capture by his father, assisted by the Campbells in 1603. He was not brought to trial until May, 1609. He was charged with being guilty of fire-raising at Askonull as well as the seizure and unnatural treatment of his father in 1598, thus committing "maist high and manifest treason," which it certainly was not. His trial was a great farce and travesty on justice. However, Sir James McConnell was convicted of treason and condemned to be beheaded as a traitor and his possessions forfeited to the crown. The sentence was never carried out and Sir James was recommitted to prison.
On May 23, 1615, Sir James escaped from prison and 2,000 pounds were offered for his capture. He returned to Kintyre where the Earl of Argyle with a large force surrounded him. Sir James escaped and took refuge in Isla, but Argyle pursued him there. Sir James again escaped, going to a small island off the coast of Ireland and later took refuge in Galway. Later he went to Spain where he remained for five years. Toward the end of that period he was joined by his old time foe, the Earl of Argyle who, through conjugal influence, had secretly abandoned Protestantism and fallen into disfavor from the government. It does credit to Sir James' magnanimity that he seems to have accorded a hearty welcome to the fallen Earl. It is significant that almost immediately after Argyle's fall and exile, Sir James McConnell received a remission under the great seal in 1621. He went to London and was granted a pension of 1,000 merks by King James.
Sir James McConnell died in London a week before Easter 1626 without lawful issue and was buried in St. Martins Church.
The head of the clan devolved upon the descendants of Collana Capull of Kenban, second son of Alexander, oldest son of John Cathanach, oldest son of Sir Joh Mor, third chief of Clan Iain Mhoir. The Dunnyveg family ceased to be a territorial house of Scotland. (Sic transit gloria mundi).
We must not judge the deeds of violence of the Chiefs of Dunnyveg by modern standards of ethics. They merely acted as their contemporaries did under like circumstances. We must remember too that the account of all acts of violence is given in the version recited by their enemies. Their deeds are probably made to appear in the worst light. These chiefs probably considered their violence as acts of war. They were Chiefs in a clan form of government, which was being overwhelmed by a more modern form of government introduced by the despised Sassenach and we should not be too critical of their actions in defending the rights which their culture had taught them to believe were theirs.