witnesses came forward to testify to the thraldom of the tenantry,
and the injustice which they had suffered under his rule. The
evidence against Mouat was certainly given with such freedom, I
might say with such an earnestness of hatred, as was not displayed
towards any merchant or tacksman who is still in the country.
After making allowance for exaggeration, it is certain that the state
of Coningsburgh during the seventeen years of his rule must have
been very distressing. Every tenant on the ground was bound to
sell to him not only his fish, but all the saleable produce of his
farm. Money could not be got from him, according to one witness,
either at settlement or during the season. The witness John
Halcrow, who is much less vehement in his language than some
others, says:

'13,089. Were they bound to deal with him for shop goods?-The
fishermen were. They were required to go to him with all their
produce, meal, ponies, and eggs, as well as with their fish.'
'13,090. But they were not bound to buy their goods from him?-
No; but they had to do so, because he received all their produce,
and they could not go anywhere else. They had no money.'
'13,091. Would he not give them money for their produce?-Yes,
for such as cattle he would. But it was very few of them who had
any money to get from him.'
'13,092. Why?-Because they were bound to fish for him, and he
received all their fish.'
'13,093. But if he received all their fish he would have to pay them
money for them?-It was very hard to get it from him.'
'13,094. Did he prefer to give them the price in goods?-Yes, if
they would take it.'
'13,095. And did they take it in goods?-Not very much.'