Series 4 > Papers on Sutherland Estate Management 1802-1816 > Volume 9

I?
1802-1807
That my hands are locked up, from an immediate Resignation of
my Tack, in order to enter on a New one, was not my Fault. I was
importuned, to give the Letter of Sub-sett mentioned in my last
to Mr McKenzie. It was a Measure I never approved of, nor did
I see a precedent of such till last Sett, tho’ I am a Man Advanced in
years. And I must be allowed to say, that I saw as good a Master,
as good a Land Lord, at the Head of the Sutherland Family granting
Tacks as Great Britain can produce, or Could at that Period.
Your Lordshipp will forgive me to say, that the Man who cannot
be trusted with a few Subtenents, without such Back Bonds is not
worthy of geting a Lease, because Void of the right principle . . .
[compliments to Countess and family].
Colin Mackenzie to David Campbell
Edinburgh, 22 November 1802
I have a letter from Murdoch Mckenzie in Stronchrubie, Assint,
which chiefly occasions my troubling you now. What I gather from
his letter is that prior to the Sett made last April the farm of Brack-
lach was possessed in part by a John McLeod, whose Share was by
that Sett diminished for the purpose of making room for his
brother Roderick McLeod than a Subtenant of Mckenzie’s in the
farm of Duchlash, and the Minutes of Sett accordingly Conferred
on Roderick ten Merks pay of Bracklach. Notwithstanding this
it would appear that John (from what Motives is immaterial)
refused access to his brother. A Summons of Removing had been
used previous to the Sett and I suppose the Decree extracted and a
Precept of Ejection issued by the Sheriff, for it is stated that a party
was sent to eject John from the Share of Bracklach Set to his brother.
The Party it is said met with resistance but effected their purpose and
placed Roderick’s Cattle on the ground and cleared his house for
him, and tho’ Roderick was not present himself his Sons and
Servants took possession, in which however they were disturbed
and molested. Roderick I imagine had such a hold of his possession
in Duchlash that Mckenzie Could not turn him out without his
own Consent, which I take to have been given in Consideration of
his getting a Situation in Bracklach. It is therefore not much to be
Wondered at that he Complained, and as far as I Can See, the
h c