This hypothesis, for I acknowledge it is little more, at least gives a result corresponding precisely to our present idea of a merk of land, and also accounts for the great variety of contents which we find in merk, since, to be equal in value, they must have been of very different extent in different situations. The number of merks in each town is known from old records and traditions, or, practically, from the sum of all the proprietors. Thus, if in the town of M. 40 merks belong to A., 30 to B., and 20 to C., then is M. a town of 40 + 30 + 20 = 90 merks. It is of no consequence here whether M. contains five acres or five hundred, 40-90ths of the whole belong to A., and 30-90ths to B., etc. And, on the other hand, the number of merks might be double, triple, or in any other proportion, without at all altering the extent or state of the property, except that the interest of each proprietor would be expressed by proportionally higher figures. A. would have 80-180ths, B. 60-180ths, and so forth. In these circumstances, if a landlord lets to a tenant any given number of merks, it is just giving him a fractional share, of which the total number of merks in the town is the denominators, and the number let the numerator. A tenant taking ten merks in the above supposed town of M., would just have right to 10-90ths of the corn land, 10-90ths of the meadow land, 10-90ths of the stinted pasture within the dyke, and 10-90ths of the unstinted pasture, or 'scatthold,' without the dyke. But the rent is charged at so much per merk -- <Ergo>, the tenant does pay rent for the scatthold, Q.E.D.!! I do not, however, allege that the rent thus paid is anything like what it might easily be under a better system. That the rents were anciently fixed by public authority, is, I believe, an established fact, and there is reason to believe that the practice continued long after the transference of this country from Norway to Scotland, when, of course, it ceased to be law. This practice, and the long period for which both rents and improvements were stationary, had produced so strong an impression upon our habits of thinking on this subject, that, at so late a period as to be distinctly within my own recollection, landlords, in general, had no clear practical confidence in their own right to demand a direct rise of rent, and, under this feeling, resorted, in many instances, to indirect methods of doing that which they had a right to have done openly and avowedly. The sight of this sort of thing, without an understanding of the circumstances and habits of thinking which lie to it, gave superficial observers an idea that much oppression and injustice was exercised towards the tenantry, and produced much of that obloquy (some of which may possibly have fallen in your way) which has been thrown upon the Shetland landholders.