SKAKOKTI! AND THE KARL OF MORAY. 375 



;ir rights, he raised the rents thereoff, as he did off all 

 the rest of his estate, he not wanting a farthine of his rent, 

 notwithstanding some sufferings of his tennants, or such of 

 his friends as had possession by private rights." The 

 memorandum denied the rigid dealings complained of by 

 Seaforth, and sarcastically combated the suggestion that 

 the arrears of feu-duty should be remitted.* 



It is probable that these charges against Seaforth in- 

 fluenced the King and his advisers in their dealings with 

 the Karl, for, with the exception of the Sheriffdom of Ross, 

 and the other offices which have been named, there is no 

 record of any mark of Royal favour having been shown 

 him. But he was not alone in this neglect. While 

 honours were showered upon Middleton, none of his old 

 Highland comrades if we except Glengarry who got a 

 trumpery title received rewards which were in any way-- 

 adequate to the sacrifices which they had undergone for 

 Charles II. It may be that loyalty should be its own 

 reward, but gratitude is a virtue wherever it is found ; and 

 gratitude was not one of Charles Stuart's strong points. 



By an Act of Parliament, a Commissioner was ap- 

 pointed to report upon the losses of various Royalists 

 during the " usurpation " ; and Seaforth 's name is found 

 on the list. If the Earl had hopes of relief from the 

 creditors of his estates, they were rudely dispelled by an 

 Act passed in 1663, ratifying certain comprisings led 

 against the property by virtue of an Act of 1649. The 

 Acts of the Parliament of 1649 were, after the Restoration, 

 declared to be null, but an exception was made in this 

 instance for the protection of the rights of private persons. 

 In 1678, an arrangement was made with the creditors, 

 by virtue of which the Seaforth estates were vested in 

 trustees (Sir George Mackenzie of Tarbat and others) for 

 behoof of the heir, Kenneth Og.f We shall notice, later, 



* MS. in Urit. Mus. (Add. 23,117, Fol. XVII.). 



t Seaforth wrote Tarbat on 7th August, 1678, alluding to a current report, 

 which he refused to believe. He expressed the hope that whatever preferment 

 Tarbat might receive from the Duke of Lauderdale, would not " interfier " 

 with him (Seaforth). 



