about, and the Depon't being informed yt ye Sd George, E. of Seaforth, and Thomas McKenzie of Pluscardy, had made a right to Donald McNiel of Assint, grandfayr to Niel, the pursuer of the sd Estate, qerein they had obligd themselves to free the Said Estate of the said infeftment, he was desirous to know if there was any such a Right, and qt was the tenor of it which the Sd E. of Seaforth did bring to the Deponent to peruse the same, and that yey were taken out of Assint's Charter Chiest, and that the deponent did peruse them, and did find them of the Sd Tenor. There is also amongst this E. of Cromarty's Papers a Coppy of an Alienation and Disposition of the right of apprising, by Thomas McKenzie of Pluscardin, in favours of Donald McLeod, younger of Assint, dated Anno 1642 and 1643, with anoyr coppy of the same. There is also in the Sd place ye Prinall. obligation by Thos. McKenzie of Pluscardy and his Catr. [cautioner] to Dod. McLeod of Assint for obtaining the E. of Seaforths Charater of Confirmation to him, dated ye 5th of Aprile 1643 years, Togother wt an Inventory of Writes Belonging to Assint Dated Ao. 1662, all folded in one bundle marked on the back number 21.

Notwtstanding of qt is above represented and that it seems Assint did fully Satisfy and pay Seaforth and Pluscardy To whom the sd Claims did belong; yet the sd. Claim has been all alongs made use of agst the Estate of Assint since yt time. For Seaforth and Pluscardy haveing antecedently to ye Obligaton forsd To Assint conveyed their Right to Scatwell as Is mentiond in the above Disposion, John the Sd Scatwell's eldest son conveyed the same To Tarbat, Tarbat conveyed the same to Angush Macleod of Cadboll, and Cadboll having Septr 2d, 1690, got a Wadset from Mr John McKenzie of Assint, which extinguished 10,000 mrks of the sd claim of 40,000 mrks, did wt Consent of Ld Tarbat dispon to the Sd Mr John McKenzie ye Wadsett entred into between Seaforth and Scatwell, in so far as Concerns the remaining 30,000 merks. This Disposition is sd To be Dated Septr 11th 1696, and no doubt but it is among the prinill [principal] Register McKenz of Assint has to produce to the Estate.

It is Supposed and believed that Cadboll gave Tarbat for the above Claime no more than 10,000, and got no more good Deed for the whole 40,000 than the 10,000 above mentioned.

Besides qt bade usage the people of Assint met wt from Seaforth Ao. 1670 as is above narrated yey did further undergo ye outmost hardships Ao. 1646 as follows:

In that year Seaforths men haveing joined Montrose at Inverness, where were likewise a 100 men of Assints under his Superior

Seaforths command, and Niel of Assint himself, then a minor, being a friend in Seaforth's House at Braen, Seaforth ordred his men in the Highlands to fall upon Assints Estate, where yey made fearful Havock, carried away, as Niel represents, 3000 cows, 2000 horses, 7000 sheep and goats, and burnt the habitations of 180 Familys. When complaint was made of this at the South, Seaforth was brought of by the interest of Middletown and by virtue of a Capitulation which he had with Seaforth yn in the North.

In the year 1654 Seaforth led about a body of his own men wt a part of the broken army under the command of Middletown to Assint and made great depredatious, destroyed a very great Quantity of Wine and Brandy which the Laird of Assint had bought, besides other commodities, in all to the value of 50,000 mrks out of a Ship then on that Coast, Carryed of 2400 Cows, 1500 Horses, about 6000 Sheep and Goats, besides that he burnt and destroyed many familys. Assint was not lyable in Law to any such usage from them haveing Receipts from Seaforth and Lord Reay for his proportion of the Levie apptd at that time for the Kings Service. When Middleton came to that country he declare he had given no Warrant for what Seaforth had done, and that in presence of the Lord McDonald and Sr George Munro, &c. When Assint pursued Seaforth before the English Judges of the time, Seaforth defeated his process by proveing that Assint had been in Armes agst the English, and did then alleadge no Cause for the Injuries done by him to Assint but a private quarrell. But when Assint did afterwards at the Restoraton pursue Seaforth, he alleadged in Defence that he had acted by a warrant from Middletown who was then Commissioner to the Parliament. But Niel says if yere was any such warrant it was certainly given posterior to the Injuries done him. However things stood yn in such way that Niel was not Likely to procure any Justice.

It is to be observed that after the Restoration Niel of Assint under went great disadvantages on accott of Montrose,1 who had been unluckly taken in his country, and for which Niel was accused and pursued criminally at Edr., but he haveing proved that he was when Montrose was taken at no less than 60 milles Distance from his country, and that he had no hand in it, he was by an Assize assoilzied as innocent of the Sd process.

And to make it further evident that he had no hand in That barbarous Cruel action, he was put under So great hardships by the Ld of Seaforth and his friends that he was obliged in the year 1674 to procure a Remission (whereof yre is a noteriall copy

1 See Hist. of Macleods, 411-419. Wishart's Life of Montrose, 377.

extent) for defending his house of Assint, and tho the Sd remission containing all the Crimes1 that could be imagined or mustered up agst him there is not the Least mention made of his being accessory to the tragicall action qch could not possibly be if He had not been formerly assoilzied, as that crime was much greater yan all the Rest contained in the remission; however, the predjuices that had been conceived upon that Accott were so strong agst him that his Enemies had great advantage thereby wt respect to all their methods by which yey did effectuate his Ruine.

But the Claime upon qch the McKenzies did principally found their pretended right to Assints Estate was this which follows :—

Neil of Assint wt. McKenzie of Scatwell did unluckly become Catr. [cautioner] in a Bond granted by Ross of Little Tarroll for about 150 pds. Sterline, upon which anno 1656 apprising was Laid agst the Estate of Assint at the instance of the Laird of May, in whose person the Claim was intrust for McKenzie of Scatwell, one of the Cationers to whom the same was afterwards assigned by May' Scatwell assigned it to Sr. George McKenzie of Tarbat and Mr John McKenzie, Second Son to the Earle of Seaforth. Niel Represents that qn. he apprehended danger from the Claim he fell upon proper methods towards purgeing his Estate of ye same, but that he was disuaded from it by the Lord Tarbat his Cousin German, who promised, he says, and swore solemnly before many witnesses, that the Catry. and apprising should not militate agst him and his estate, and that his paying of the debt would irritate Seaforth agst him, as qt would disapoint another design of his.

There is also a Copy of an Instrumt., John McCurchy, Notar dated 21 Septr. 1667, desiring and Requiring Kenneth E. of Seaforth to receive the sd. sum contained in Little Tarroll's Bond Prinlls. and @ rents [annual rents or interest], as also all the by gon feu duties that were resting, and that in the new Kirk of Edr., within 40 days after the date of the sd. Instrument, and its thot. that the prinll. Instrument weell as the Instrument of Consigna'on wis among

as

Assint's papers when Spoulizied. Howevir some years yereafter, viz. in the year 1668 or 1699 or 1670, the Legal of the apprising being expired, Decreet of Mailes and Duties was obtained upon the claim agst. the Estate of Assint and ejection agst. himself. Upon pursueing this ejection in 1671, severall illegall steps were alleadged agst. Assint, particularly holding out the Castle of Ard. break agst the King and his oyrwise violently opposing the

1In 1674 he was tried for various crimes, including the betrayal of Montrose. -Hist. of Macleods, 417.

Seaforths command, and Niel of Assint himself, then a minor, being a friend in Seaforth's House at Braen, Seaforth ordred his men in the Highlands to fall upon Assints Estate, where yey made fearful Havock, carried away, as Niel represents, 3000 cows, 2000 horses, 7000 sheep and goats, and burnt the habitations of 180 Familys. When complaint was made of this at the South, Seaforth was brought of by the interest of Middletown and by virtue of a Capitulation which he had with Seaforth yn in the North.

In the year 1654 Seaforth led about a body of his own men wt a part of the broken army under the command of Middletown to Assint and made great depredatious, destroyed a very great Quantity of Wine and Brandy which the Laird of Assint had bought, besides other commodities, in all to the value of 50,000 mrks out of a Ship then on that Coast, Carryed of 2400 Cows, 1500 Horses, about 6000 Sheep and Goats, besides that he burnt and destroyed many familys. Assint was not lyable in Law to any such usage from them haveing Receipts from Seaforth and Lord Reay for his proportion of the Levie apptd at that time for the Kings Service. When Middleton came to that country he declare he had given no Warrant for what Seaforth had done, and that in presence of the Lord McDonald and Sr George Munro, &c. When Assint pursued Seaforth before the English Judges of the time, Seaforth defeated his process by proveing that Assint had been in Armes agst the English, and did then alleadge no Cause for the Injuries done by him to Assint but a private quarrell. But when Assint did afterwards at the Restoraton pursue Seaforth, he alleadged in Defence that he had acted by a warrant from Middletown who was then Commissioner to the Parliament. But Niel says if yere was any such warrant it was certainly given posterior to the Injuries done him. However things stood yn in such way that Niel was not Likely to procure any Justice.

It is to be observed that after the Restoration Niel of Assint. under went great disadvantages on accott of Montrose,1 who had been unluckly taken in his country, and for which Niel was accused and pursued criminally at Edr., but he haveing proved that he was when Montrose was taken at no less than 60 milles Distance from his country, and that he had no hand in it, he was by an Assize assoilzied as innocent of the Sd process.

And to make it further evident that he had no hand in That barbarous Cruel action, he was put under So great hardships by the Ld of Seaforth and his friends that he was obliged in the year 1674 to procure a Remission (whereof yre is a noteriall copy 1 See Hist. of Macleods, 411-419. Wishart's Life of Montrose, 377.

extent) for defending his house of Assint, and tho the Sd remission containing all the Crimes1 that could be imagined or mustered up agst him there is not the Least mention made of his being accessory to the tragicall action qch could not possibly be if He had not been formerly assoilzied, as that crime was much greater yan all the Rest contained in the remission; however, the predjuices that had been conceived upon that Accott were so strong agst him that his Enemies had great advantage thereby wt respect to all their methods by which yey did effectuate his Ruine.

But the Claime upon qch the McKenzies did principally found their pretended right to Assints Estate was this which follows

Neil of Assint wt. McKenzie of Scatwell did unluckly become Catr. [cautioner] in a Bond granted by Ross of Little Tarroll for about 150 pds. Sterline, upon which anno 1656 apprising was Laid agst the Estate of Assint at the instance of the Laird of May, in whose person the Claim was intrust for McKenzie of Scatwell, one of the Cationers to whom the same was afterwards assigned by May· Scatwell assigned it to Sr. George McKenzie of Tarbat and Mr John McKenzie, Second Son to the Earle of Seaforth. Niel Represents that qn. he apprehended danger from the Claim he fell upon proper methods towards purgeing his Estate of ye same, but that he was disuaded from it by the Lord Tarbat his Cousin German, who promised, he says, and swore solemnly before many witnesses, that the Catry. and apprising should not militate agst him and his estate, and that his paying of the debt would irritate Seaforth agst him, as qt would disapoint another design of his.

There is also a Copy of an Instrumt., John McCurchy, Notar dated 21 Septr. 1667, desiring and Requiring Kenneth E. of Seaforth to receive the sd. sum contained in Little Tarroll's Bond Prinlls. and @rents [annual rents or interest], as also all the by gon feu duties that were resting, and that in the

new

as

Kirk of Edr., within 40 days after the date of the sd. Instrument, and its thot. that the prinll. Instrument weell as the Instrument of Consigna'on wis among Assint's papers when Spoulizied. Howevir some years yereafter, viz. in the year 1668 or 1699 or 1670, the Legal of the apprising being expired, Decreet of Mailes and Duties was obtained upon the claim agst. the Estate of Assint and ejection agst. himself. Upon pursueing this ejection in 1671, severall illegall steps were alleadged agst. Assint, particularly holding out the Castle of Ard. break agst the King and his oyrwise violently opposing the

1In 1674 he was tried for various crimes, including the betrayal of Montrose. Hist. of Macleods, 417.