The Highlanders of Scotland - Clan Strachan Society

CHAP. VII] OF SCOTLAND loi
early period we find instances of lands in the Highlands being
held by a feudal tenure, and the chiefs exercising a feudal juris-
diction; while in the latter, the struggle between the two systems
was long and doubtful. Many years have not passed since the
feudal law of succession and marriage came into general use in
the Highlands, and to this source may be traced most of the
controversies which have arisen among many of the Highland
families regarding succession and chieftainship.
The system of clanship in the Highlands, though possessing
this apparent resemblance, was in principle very different indeed
from the feudal system as observed in the rest of the country.
In the one case, the people followed their chief as the head of
their race, and the representative of the common ancestor of the
whole clan ; in the other, they obeyed
their leader as feudal
proprietor of the lands to which they were attached, and for
their portion of which they were bound to render military
service. In the one, the Highland chief was the hereditary lord
of all who belonged to his clan, wherever they dwelt or whatever
lands they possessed ;
in the other, the feudal baron was entitled
to the military service of all who held lands under him, of
whatever race they might individually be. The one dignity, in
fact, was personal, while the other was territorial ; yet these two
systems, so different in principle, were still in appearance and
effect almost identic. Both .systems exhibited the appearance
of a subject m possession of unlimited power within his territories,
and exacting unqualified obedience from a numerous band of
followers, over whom they held a power of life and death, and
whose defection they could resist with fire and sword. Both
were calculated to raise the power of the turbulent
nobles of the period, and to diminish that of the
chiefs and
crown— to
retard the operations of justice throughout the country, and to
impede the progress of improvement. The one system was
peculiarly adapted to a people in the hunting and pastoral state
of society— to a people the nature of whose country prevented
the adoption of any other mode of life, and whose manners must
consequently remain the same, how^ever much their mental state
might be susceptible of improvement. The other system was
necessary to a population occupying a fertile country, possessing
but a rude notion of agriculture, and obliged to defend their