The History of the Highland Clearances 26

The History of the Highland Clearances 26

Recruits for Highland regiments could not be obtained for the simple

reason that the Highlands had been depopulated. Six regiments which

from the date of their foundation had worn the kilt and bonnet were

ordered to lay aside their distinctive uniform and henceforth became

merged into the ordinary line corps. From the mainland the work of

destruction passed rapidly to the isles. These remote resting-places

of the Celt were quickly cleared, during the first ten years of the

great war, Skye had given 4000 of its sons to the army. It has been

computed that 1600 Skyemen stood in the ranks at Waterloo. To-day in

Skye, far as the eye can reach, nothing but a bare brown waste is to be

seen, where still the mounds and ruined gables rise over the melancholy

landscapes, sole vestiges of a soldier race for ever passed away.’”

 

[14] Major W. S. Butler in _MacMillan’s Magazine_ for May, 1878.

 

In January, 1882, news had reached Inverness that Murdo Munro, one

of the most comfortable tenants on the Leckmelm property, had been

turned out, with his wife and young family, in the snow; whereupon

the writer started to enquire into the facts, and spent a whole day

among the people. What he had seen proved to be as bad as any of the

evictions of the past, except that it applied in this instance only to

one family. Murdo Munro was too independent for the local managers,

and to some extent led the people in their opposition to Mr. Pirie’s

proceedings: he was first persecuted and afterwards evicted in the most

cruel fashion. Other reasons were afterwards given for the manner in

which this poor man and his family were treated, but it has been shown

conclusively, in a report published at the time, that these reasons

were an after-thought.[15] From this report we shall quote a few

extracts:--

 

[15] See pamphlet published at the time entitled _Report on the

Leckmelm Evictions, by Alexander Mackenzie, F.S.A., Scot., Editor of

the “Celtic Magazine,” and Dean of Guild of Inverness_.

 

“So long as the laws of the land permit men like Mr. Pirie to drive

from the soil, without compensation, the men who, by their labour and

money, made their properties what they are, it must be admitted that

he is acting within his legal rights, however much we may deplore the

manner in which he has chosen to exercise them. We have to deal more

with the system which allows him to act thus, than with the special

reasons which he considers sufficient to justify his proceedings; and

if his conduct in Leckmelm will, as I trust it may, hasten on a change

in our land legislation, the hardships endured by the luckless people

who had the misfortune to come under his unfeeling yoke and his ideas

of moral right and wrong, will be more than counterbalanced by the

benefits which will ultimately accrue to the people at large. This is

why I, and I believe the public, take such an interest in this question

of the evictions at Leckmelm.

 

“I have made the most careful and complete inquiry possible among Mr.

Pirie’s servants, the tenants, and the people of Ullapool. Mr. Pirie’s

local manager, after I had informed him of my object, and put him on

his guard as to the use which I might make of his answers, informed

me that he never had any fault to find with Munro, that he always

found him quite civil, and that he had nothing to say against him.

The tenants, without exception, spoke of him as a good neighbour. The

people of Ullapool, without exception, so far as I could discover,

after enquiries from the leading men in every section of the community,

speak well of him, and condemn Mr. Pirie. Munro is universally spoken

of as one of the best and most industrious workmen in the whole parish,

and, by his industry and sobriety, he has been able to save a little

money in Leckmelm, where he was able to keep a fairly good stock on

his small farm, and worked steadily with a horse and cart. The stock

handed over by him to Mr. Pirie consisted of 1 bull, 2 cows, 1 stirk,

1 Highland pony, and about 40 sheep, which represented a considerable

saving. Several of the other tenants had a similar stock, and some of

them had even more, all of which they had to dispense with under the

new arrangements, and consequently lost the annual income in money and

produce available therefrom. We all know that the sum received for

this stock cannot last long, and cannot be advantageously invested in

anything else. The people must now live on their small capital, instead

of what it produced, so long as it lasts, after which they are sure to

be helpless, and many of them become chargeable to the parish.

 

“The system of petty tyranny which prevails at Leckmelm is scarcely

credible. Contractors have been told not to employ Munro. For this

I have the authority of some of the contractors themselves. Local

employers of labour were requested not to employ any longer people

who had gone to look on among the crowd, while Munro’s family, goods,

and furniture, were being turned out. Letters were received by others

complaining of the same thing from higher quarters, and threatening

ulterior consequences. Of all this I have the most complete evidence,

but in the interests of those involved, I shall mention no names,

except in Court, where I challenge Mr. Pirie and his subordinates to

the proof if they deny it.

 

* * * * *

 

“The extract in the action of removal was signed only on the 24th of

January last in Dingwall. On the following day the charge is dated,

and two days after, on the 27th of January, the eviction is complete.

When I visited the scene on Friday morning, I found a substantially

built cottage, and a stable at the end of it, unroofed to within three

feet of the top on either side, and the whole surroundings a perfect

scene of desolation; the thatch, and part of the furniture, including

portions of broken bedsteads, tubs, basins, teapots, and various other

articles, strewn outside. The cross-beams, couples, and cabars were

still there, a portion of the latter brought from Mr. Pirie’s manager,

and paid for within the last three years. The Sheriff officers had

placed a padlock on the door, but I made my way to the inside of the

house through one of the windows from which the frame and glass had

been removed. I found that the house, before the partitions had been

removed, consisted of two good-sized rooms and a closet, with fireplace

and chimney in each gable, the crook still hanging in one of them, the

officer having apparently been unable to remove it after a considerable

amount of wrenching. The kitchen window, containing eight panes of

glass, was still whole, but the closet window, with four panes, had

been smashed; while the one in the “ben” end of the house had been

removed. The cottage, as crofters’ houses go, must have been fairly

comfortable. Indeed, the cottages in Leckmelm are altogether superior

to the usual run of crofters’ houses on the West Coast, and the tenants

are allowed to have been the most comfortable in all respects in the

parish, before the land was taken from them. They are certainly not

the poor, miserable creatures, badly housed, which Mr. Pirie and his

friends led the public to believe within the last two years.

 

“The barn in which the wife and infant had to remain all night had the

upper part of both gables blown out by the recent storm, and the door

was scarcely any protection from the weather. The potatoes, which had

been thrown out in showers of snow, were still there, gathered and a

little earth put over them by the friendly neighbours.

 

“The mother and children wept piteously during the eviction, and many

of the neighbours, afraid to succour or shelter them, were visibly

affected to tears; and the whole scene was such that, if Mr. Pirie

could have seen it, I feel sure that he would never consent to be held

responsible for another. His humanity would soon drive his stern ideas

of legal right out of his head, and we would hear no more of evictions

at Leckmelm.”

 

Those of the tenants who are still at Leckmelm are permitted to remain

in their cottages as half-yearly tenants on payment of 12s. per annum,

but liable to be removed at any moment that their absolute lord may

take it into his head to evict them; or, what is much more precarious,

when they may give the slightest offence to any of his meanest

subordinates.

 

 

LOCHCARRON.

 

BY ALEXANDER MACKENZIE.

 

The following account was written in April, 1882, after a most

careful enquiry on the spot:--So much whitewash has been distributed

in our Northern newspapers of late by “Local Correspondents,” in the

interest of personal friends who are responsible for the Lochcarron

evictions--the worst and most indefensible that have ever been

attempted even in the Highlands--that we consider it a duty to state

the actual facts. We are really sorry for those more immediately

concerned, but our friendly feeling for them otherwise cannot be

allowed to come between us and our plain duty. A few days before

the famous “Battle of the Braes,” in the Isle of Skye, we received

information that summonses of ejectment were served on Mackenzie and

Maclean, Lochcarron. The writer at once communicated with Mr. Dugald

Stuart, the proprietor, intimating to him the statements received, and

asking him if they were accurate, and if Mr. Stuart had anything to say

in explanation of them. Mr. Stuart immediately replied, admitting the

accuracy of the statements generally, but maintaining that he had good

and valid reasons for carrying out the evictions, which he expressed

himself anxious to explain to us on the following day, while passing

through Inverness on his way South. Unfortunately, his letter reached

us too late, and we were unable to see him. The only reason which he

vouchsafed to give in his letter was to the following effect:--“Was

it at all likely that he, a Highlander, born and brought up in the

Highlands, the son of a Highlander, and married to a Highland lady,

would be guilty of evicting any of his tenants without good cause?” We

replied that, unfortunately, all these reasons could be urged by most

of those who had in the past depopulated the country, but expressing a

hope that, in his case, the facts stated by him would prove sufficient

to restrain him from carrying out his determination to evict parents

admittedly innocent of their sons’ proceedings, even if those

proceedings were unjustifiable. Early in April, 1882, we proceeded to

Lochcarron to make enquiry on the spot, and the writer on his return

from Skye a few days later reported as follows to the Highland Land Law

Reform Association:--

 

“Of all the cases of eviction which have hitherto come under my notice

I never heard of any so utterly unjustifiable as those now in course

of being carried out by Mr. D. Stuart in Lochcarron. The circumstances

which led up to these evictions are as follows:--In March, 1881, two

young men, George Mackenzie and Donald Maclean, masons, entered into

a contract with Mr. Stuart’s ground officer for the erection of a

sheep fank, and a dispute afterwards arose as to the payment for the

work. When the factor, Mr. Donald Macdonald, Tormore, was some time

afterwards collecting the rents in the district, the contractors

approached him and related their grievance against the ground officer,

who, while the men were in the room, came in and addressed them in

libellous and defamatory language, for which they have since obtained

substantial damages and expenses, in all amounting to £22 13s. 8d., in

the Sheriff Court of the County. I have a certified copy of the whole

proceedings in Court in my possession, and, without going into the

merits, what I have just stated is the result, and Mr. Stuart and his

ground officer became furious.

 

“The contractors are two single men who live with their parents,

the latter being crofters on Mr. Stuart’s property, and as the

real offenders--if such can be called men who have stood up for

and succeeded in establishing their rights and their characters in

Court--could not be got at, Mr. Stuart issued summonses of ejection

against their parents--parents who, in one of the cases at least,

strongly urged his son not to proceed against the ground officer,

pointing out to him that an eviction might possibly ensue, and that it

was better even to suffer in character and purse than run the risk of

eviction from his holding at the age of eighty. We have all heard of

the doctrine of visiting the sins of the parents upon the children, but

it has been left for Mr. Dugald Stuart of Lochcarron and his ground

officer, in the present generation--the highly-favoured nineteenth

century--to reverse all this, and to punish the unoffending parents,

for proceedings on the part of their children which the Sheriff of the

County and all unprejudiced people who know the facts consider fully justifiable.