The exact weight and money value of these services must have varied widely. The author of MS. 104 proposes that, in future, all services shall be definitely stated in writing when a tenant takes a farm. ‘Extravagant services are still required’ (_circ._ 1750) ‘and performed, which the landlord would be ashamed to commit to writing.’ He also, like Culloden, advocates the compulsory granting of leases for not less than twenty years. But he has already said that the people, accustomed to hereditary entry on farms from father to son, refuse to take written leases. As to ‘services,’ Mr. Fraser Mackintosh, on the other side, tells us how the Lochiels, in exile, ‘regularly received part of the rent.’ That he only sent 100_l._ to Lochiel’s children in France, and made the tenants work on his lands instead of on the county roads, is a charge made by Colonel Crawfurd against Lochiel’s brother, Fassifern.[177] Mr. Fraser Mackintosh comments on the loyalty of Lochiel’s tenants, but adds ‘in former times rent in the form of money was a minor easy consideration, the real burden or tax being services’—especially ‘the almost intolerable burden’ of war. Thus the exile of the Chief became ‘really no hardship to the people,’ enabling them ‘to pay a double (money) rent now and then with comparative ease.’[178] Thus, in this author’s opinion, ‘the real burden or tax’ was ‘services,’ not money rent. Happily he gives a case of commutation of services for money on Glengarry’s estate. The commutation was ‘apparently quite disproportionate and oppressive. For instance, in the case of Dugald Cameron, late cowherd to Glengarry, afterwards tenant of Boline, while his rent was 11_l._ 4_s._ 3_d._, the converted services amounted to 3_l._ 2_s._ 8_d._’ Well, if services were ‘the real burden,’ where is the ‘oppressive disproportion’?[179] This seems absurd. If it be agreed that ‘services’ were the main part of rent, how oppressive a hostile tacksman, say Barisdale, might make them is easily conceived.[180] Whatever we may think of the advantages of a definite Culloden rent, it is pretty plain that the people did not like it. But the old kind of rent and services was of scarce any value to a probably non-resident proprietor, who could get high returns on the new system from large farmers or graziers. He did not want hens and cheese, and had now no use for claymores. The consequences were raised rents, emigration, evictions, the Highland grievances. But were there no evictions, and removals, and forced migrations in the good old times? Mr. Fraser Mackintosh says, ‘The Commissioners on the Forfeited Estates, or, more properly, their Factors, were the first evictors in the Highlands, and they were guilty of favouritism to such a degree in favour of strangers, that many of the tenants emigrated voluntarily.’