my land.'
'4690. But you can be punished more easily by your landlord for
selling your fish to another man, when he can turn you out on forty
days' warning, than if he could only do it on six or eight months'
warning?-I think it would be much the same with regard to that.'
'4691. You don't think that would make any difference as to the
fishing?-It might make a little difference, because if I received
my warning in March, and knew that I was to leave at Martinmas,
if I saw that I was to have a better price for my fish from another, I
would not fish to my landlord at all; but I would go to any man I
would get the best price from.'

[R. Halcrow, 4688.]

The same view is taken by the Rev. James Fraser, who gave
very valuable information, both at the sitting held at Brae, and in a
subsequent letter, printed in the evidence.

[R. Fraser, 8054 sqq.]

STATEMENTS BY LANDHOLDERS AND TACKSMEN

It is unnecessary to refer in detail to mere admissions on the part
of landlords and tacksmen, that such obligations exist on the
estates under their control. Such admissions were made in all the
cases already referred to, as will be seen from the references on
the margin. In some cases, however, arguments were stated in
justification of the practice. Mr. Irvine perhaps put the case lower
than any of this class of witnesses for he simply said in regard to
Burra, that the tack had been held for a very long time by his firm,