to me) studiously kept out of view. I will endeavour to supply the omission.

In the year 1848 the "Duke of Sutherland, and those entrusted with the management of his vast possessions," preferred a somewhat queer request to the Highland Destitution Committee, viz., for "the service of the Committee's staff to report whether he (his Grace) had adequately fulfilled his serious self-imposed responsibilities." That the Duke should require a certificate of good behaviour is undoubtedly a little odd, and at the expense, too, of a public charity; but such was the case, and Captain Elliot, Inspector-General, received orders to " attend to the Duke's wishes." The result of the gallant Captain's mission was a highflown report, extolling the Ducal bounty towards his Sutherlanders, which utterly excluded the necessity of aid from the committee. The Captain is touched with the ambition of fine writing, and occasionally indulges in that splendid figure of speech commonly called nonsense; but he is alway consistent in his abuse of poor incorrigible Highlanders; and in praising co-operative proprietors (particularly the distinguished Dame of Gairloch, Lady Mackenzie) the eloquent Elliot is the pink of panegyrists.

After this elaborate report, proving that the Duke of Sutherland demanded "no assistance" in the beneficent task of succouring his distressed tenantry, what was my surprise to find, in the next published proceedings of the committee, a correspondence with Mr Loch, M.P., the Duke's Premier, who put the committee in mind that the Duke of Sutherland had formerly subscribed £1000 to the Highland Destitution Fund, and conjoined with this reminiscence, a supplication to the committee to grant his noble employer the sum of £3500, to help towards the relief of the poor people of Sutherland! Subsequently, the Duke's petition was acceded to, with this important modification, namely, that the money was to be expended in the formation of a road, “bisecting" his Grace's territory "in the most favourable direction" (Mr Loch's own words). The Sutherland Premier goes on to prove the vast utility of the road in question (planned by himself, and to be executed by the committee), it being designed to stretch from Inchnadamph, in Assynt, to the boundary of the county with Caithness.

That good roads, extending inter-communication between distant districts, are admirable modes of improvement, I concede to

the uttermost; but of all the parties likely to be benefited by the proposed highway between Sutherland and the late Cromartie's possessions, who, and whose posterity are likely to reap such abundant advantages as the Duke of Sutherland and his successors? Therefore, I presume to proclaim that the opulent owner of Sutherland ought to have employed his own immense resources in constructing roads upon his own estates, instead of doffing his coronet to obtain a degrading dole from the faithless trustees of a public fund, charitably contributed for the direct relief of the destitute. Did patriotic Scotsmen, scattered over the globe, subscribe their willing suns to enable a few committee-men in Edinburgh to make roads for the pleasure and profit of the Duke of Sutherland?

These two topics have so filled up my paper, that I have no space to record my first impressions of Sutherlandshire. I had, however, the good fortune to travel with Mr Hall of this county, well known in the ovine world, and I gathered from his statements, that Sutherland is the Elysium of sheep-feeders, though I question very much if it be the paradise of the poor.-I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

Golspie, Oct. 13. 1849.

THOMAS MULOCK.

II. THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND AND THE GOLSPIE FISHERMEN.

[From the Inverness Advertiser of Oct. 30. 1849.]

To the Editor of the Inverness Advertiser.

SIR,-I am, of course, flattered to find the Duke of Sutherland, who silently passed over anonymous animadversions, honouring with his notice my avowed strictures on his maritime affairs. Faithful to our respective principles of investigation, I endeavoured to examine a case of alleged hardship by hearing the aggrieved parties; whereas the Duke relies for information on the infallibility of his factor, who happens, however, to be the inculpated aggressor, and consequently not the fairest judge of the disputed question. To Mr G. Gunn the Duke proposes what are technically (and in this case appropriately) termed fishing questions-i.e., interrogatories which suggest the desired answers, and which, moreover, have appended to them his Grace's "impressions" on the subject, not altogether correct, as I shall soon take occasion

to show. As I never do battle with chamberlains or factors, who are exclusively responsible to their employers, I assume Mr Guun's replies to have received the Dunrobin imprimatur, and that his explanations are substantially those of his noble master; for otherwise there would be some marked discrepancies between the statements of the Duke and his factor. I asserted that the fishing boats had been limited to six by the Duke's order, or supposed order. The Duke, on the contrary, arrives, by a process of reasoning, at the conclusion, that the boats at Golspie " are limited in number by the circumstance of situation." But Mr Gunn settles the point in my favour-not in a proper answer to the proper (1st) query, but in the answer to the third query, where he says" They applied last year to put up a seventh boat, but were told that it could not be." This positive restriction being plainly proved by the Duke's factor, the whole case remains precisely as I stated it; and a striking case of folly and oppression it unquestionably is. But let us hear Mr Gunn's motive for "keeping down" the fisher population of Golspie. This rigorous reformer assures us แ that there were two families living in many of the houses, in a most disgraceful manner, equally injurious to health and morals. That they were offered free houses at Helmsdale, and mussels for a year, without charge, which they refused, though it is the best fishing station on the coast." From this it would appear that poor Helmsdale is considered by Lycurgus Gunn as a sort of penal settlement, to which persons living "in a most disgraceful manner" elsewhere may be banished, getting, however, a bonus of "free houses" and gratuitous bait for transferring their alleged immorality to another quarter. It is curious enough, too, that Helmsdale, so lauded as a fishing station, is absolutely void of a single fishing boat for ordinary service-the herring fishing being only for a short season, and carried on by unskilled hands. As to the size of the boats at Golspie, I stated, and most truly, that they were" of so small a size as not to admit of being conveniently manned by more than four hands," and the oppression consists, not in the size of the boats, but in Mr Gunn's enacting that boats built for four persons shall be manned with five, so as to continue the unjust limitation of boats to six. The matter of the mussels is also mystified by Mr Gunn in a way which ought to teach the Duke how needful it is to scrutinize his factor's statements. I urged the injustice of withholding bait for

which the men had paid beforehand; but Mr Gunn blinks the real charge by extolling his own zeal for health and morality, to which I reply, with the celebrated monosyllable of Mr Burchell in the Vicar of Wakefield-fudge!

As to his Grace's "impression," that "Golspie is not suitable for a large fishing station," I beg leave to refer to facts rather than to ducal "impressions." The fishermen themselves (not the worst judges in marine matters) find no fault with the "coast or beach;" their chief complaint is, that their industry is cramped by the foolish and oppressive mandate which restricts the number of their boats, and prevents them from supplying Mr Hoggart, the fishcurer, (who has an establishment at Golspie) with as many of the finny tribe as he is ready to take off their hands. But it is too late now for the Duke to enter upon nautical disquisitions as to the eligibility of the coast of Sutherland for the profitable abode of fishermen. This would, indeed, have formed an important element for consideration when his Grace's late parents were about to issue the dreadful decree which depopulated so many inland districts when whole villages were burnt down, under circumstances of horrible havock, which the Duke of Cumberland never perpetrated upon prostrate rebels-and when these atrocities were coloured by the prospect of a peasant population being converted into fishermen! (See the "Account of the Improvements on the estate of Sutherland," by James Loch, Esq., M.P.) By the way, the Duke of Sutherland seems to be very imperfectly acquainted with some of his subjects. His Grace says, "fishermen from other districts have been brought to Portgower," leaving it to be inferred, that this was a recent proceeding; but not so, the fishermen resident here were brought from Hiltown in Ross-shire, by directions of the late Duchess Countess, who, with great good sense, was anxious to fix a small colony of expert fishermen to teach the peasants a new trade. These strangers, I must add, have been most liberally treated-are perfectly content and comfortable, and speak with deep gratitude of their obligations to the noble family of Sutherland. O si sic omnia in this region !

I am sorry to perceive, from the information furnished you, that, instead of honourably rectifying a gross abuse, the Duke's Cabinet Ministers have resorted to menace and mulct towards the justly-complaining fishermen of Golspie. What they told me was strictly true; and I now openly declare, that if I shall learn

authentically that any person has been threatened or punished for giving truthful information to me, I shall consider such injustice as the act of the Duke of Sutherland, and deal with it accordingly. I am entirely of your opinion, in forming a most favourable estimate of the Duke's personal character; but the fact is, that where oppressions exist, underlings derive a dangerous impunity from the known good qualities of their master. Some sincere friends of the Duke would paralyze my inquiries by harping upon his Grace's benevolence; but my answer is, that I am not come here to ask about the Duke's benevolence, but to satisfy myself whether justice is done to the Queen's subjects located in Sutherland; and, let me add, that I am acting fairly and amicably towards the Duke himself, in pointing out proveable grievances which ought to be rebuked and rectified. His Grace says, somewhat petulantly, that I came hither "in search of subjects of complaint;" but I beg leave to tell him that he is utterly mistaken. to Sutherland to ascertain the true condition of the poorer part of the population, and if I am so unfortunate (the Duke thinks me fortunate) in finding grievances-real, sore, unredressed grievances" as plentiful as blackberries," I apprehend that the Sutherland Metternich, Mr Loch, must be to blame, not the writer of this letter.-I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

Port Gower, October 24. 1849.

I came

THOS. MULOCK.

P.S.-How comes it that Mr Gunn, who, from his former professional pursuits, is well qualified to conduct the Duke's naval operations, has never suggested the formation of piers along an extensive line of coast? Two years ago, a dreadful loss of life and property took place in sight of Helmsdale, which Mr Gunn extols as the "best fishing station." Why not give activity and safety to the fishing trade by piers erected at judicious intervals, which would also afford employment to the local dyke-builders?

T. M.

LETTER I.-THE STATE OF SUTHERLAND IMPARTIALLY DISCLOSED.

To the Editor of the Inverness Advertiser.

SIR,-Some of my previous communications which appeared in your journal may have led your readers to expect, from my pen, a