Second Shetland Truck System Report Part 4

OLLABERRY.

The tenants on the Ollaberry property in Northmaven parish are obliged to fish to a firm, of which the princ.i.p.al member is Mr.

John Anderson, Hillswick, brother of the proprietor and tacksman of the estate. There are fifty or sixty tenants on this estate. There is some evidence that in this place the bound men or tenants get a lower price for their fish than those who are 'free.'

[John Anderson, 6592; W. Blance, 6014, 6026, 6048; A. Johnson, 14,890, 14,908, 14,947.]

CASE OF SEAFIELD TENANTS.

I have still to mention the latest case of this exercise of the patrimonial right of disposing of a tenant's fish, which is an instructive instance of the submissive way in which the right is accepted are Shetland. The tenants on the small property of Seafield, on Reafirth or Mid Yell Voe, twenty-one or twenty-two in number, had been in use to sell their fish in summer to Laurence Williamson, a fish-curer and merchant on the opposite side of the voe. There was, however, a shop at Seafield, the tenant of which had been carrying on business not very successfully. He had resolved to leave the place, and the business premises were likely to be shut up. In this state of matters, the law-agent for the proprietor wrote the following letter to a leading man among the tenants, William Stewart:-

', 22 Nov. 1870.

'WILLIAM,-I now write, as I promised, to explain what I expect the Seafield tenants to do in regard to fishing, that you may communicate the same to them. The business premises at Seafield cannot be allowed to remain vacant, and consequently unprofitable, while it is clear they must do so unless the tenants fish to the tenant of these premises. The Seafield tenants, therefore, must fish to Mr. Thomas Williamson upon fair and reasonable terms, and I understand he is quite prepared to meet them on such terms. I believe he will, in every respect, do you justice; and so long as [Page 9 rpt.] he does so, you have no reason to complain. But should it happen that he fails to treat you fairly and honourably (of which I have no fear), you can let me know, and matters will soon be put right. You and the tenants, however, must not act towards Mr. Williamson in a selfish or hard way either, for it is quite as possible for you to do so to him as it is for him to do so to you. Both he and you all must work together heartily and agreeably; and if you do so, I have no fear, humanly speaking, that the result will be success to both.- I am, yours faithfully, W. SIEVWRIGHT 'William Stewart, Kirkabister, Seafield, Mid Yell.'

[W. Stewart, 8917]

Mr. Sievwright made a statement with regard to this letter, which adds nothing to what appears in it, except the fact that most of the tenants were in arrear for rent. It is stated also by Thomas Williamson (who was put into business apparently by Mr. Leask, a very extensive merchant in Lerwick), that he did not 'want any of the men to fish for him;' that 'scarcely any man could keep the premises there and carry on business in them without the privilege of having the men to fish for him.' Twelve men of the Seafield tenants, forming two boats' crews, had entered into a written agreement to fish to Laurence Williamson in 1871; but they were obliged to leave him and he says 'I slightly objected to it but of course I could not help it .... Of they had to leave me because they knew, or at least they believed, they would be differently dealt with if they did not leave.'

[W. Sievwright, 15,118; T. Williamson, 9493; W. Robertson, 13,660; L. Williamson, 9003, 9005.]

In short, it has been so much a habit of the Shetlander's life to fish for his landlord, that he is only now discovering that there is anything strange or anomalous in it. This man, William Stewart, to whom Mr. Sievwright wrote, had lived in Whalsay, as I have already shown, under what appears to have been a still more disadvantageous and servile tenure. He is a fair specimen of the average peasant of such a district as Yell. It is evident that men who have been brought up in such habits, and with the tradition among them of a still more subservient time in the past, are prepared not only to submit to extreme oppression on the part of their proprietors, or those to whom their proprietors hand them over, but also to become easily subjected to the influence of merchants who possess no avowed control over them.

CASE OF ROBERT MOUAT AT MOUL

An instance of the abuse to which the system is liable in the hands of an unscrupulous tacksman, is afforded by the case of Robert Mouat, who held, until two years ago, a tack of the estate of Mr. Bruce of Simbister, in Sandwick parish. A number of witnesses came forward to testify to the thraldom of the tenantry, and the injustice which they had suffered under his rule. The evidence against Mouat was certainly given with such freedom, I might say with such an earnestness of hatred, as was not displayed towards any merchant or tacksman who is still in the country.

After making allowance for exaggeration, it is certain that the state of Coningsburgh during the seventeen years of his rule must have been very distressing. Every tenant on the ground was bound to sell to him not only his fish, but all the saleable produce of his farm. Money could not be got from him, according to one witness, either at settlement or during the season. The witness John Halcrow, who is much less vehement in his language than some others, says:

'13,089. Were they bound to deal with him for shop goods?-The fishermen were. They were required to go to him with all their produce, meal, ponies, and eggs, as well as with their fish.'

'13,090. But they were not bound to buy their goods from him?- No; but they had to do so, because he received all their produce, and they could not go anywhere else. They had no money.'

'13,091. Would he not give them money for their produce?-Yes, for such as cattle he would. But it was very few of them who had any money to get from him.'

'13,092. Why?-Because they were bound to fish for him, and he received all their fish.'

'13,093. But if he received all their fish he would have to pay them money for them?-It was very hard to get it from him.'

'13,094. Did he prefer to give them the price in goods?-Yes, if they would take it.'

'13,095. And did they take it in goods?-Not very much.'

'13,096. Why?-Because they were not very good.'

'13,097. Then they would have money to get at the end of the year if they did not take very much in goods?-Yes.'

'13,098. Did they get the money at the end of the year?-No. He said he did not have it to give them.'

'13,099. Then they did not get their money at all?-In some cases they got it.'

'13,100. But some of them did not get it?-Yes.'

'13,101. And some of them did not get goods either?-Yes; they would not take his goods.'

'13,102 Then did they go without either money or goods?-Yes.'

'13,103. Was that often?-I have had to do it myself.'

'13,104. When was that?-In 1870. He said he had no money to give me.'

'13,105. Was that at settlement?-Yes. He had the tack for two years more at that time, and he gave me a receipt for the rent of 1871. Then he failed; and I had to pay my rent for 1871 over again to Mr. William Irvine.'

And the witness produced doc.u.ments to show that he had actually paid rent in advance to Mouat in June 1871, which, according to the law of Scotland, does not discharge the tenant; and that he had afterwards paid it to Mr. Irvine, as factor for Mr.

Bruce. While it may be taken for granted that the condition of tenants under Mr. Mouat was at no time enviable, some of the statements about his conduct ought probably to be accepted as literally true only with regard to the period of struggling circ.u.mstances immediately preceding his bankruptcy.

[John Leask, 1284; Gavin Colvin, 1382; M. Malcolmson, 2978; W.

Manson, 3018; H. Sinclair, 5312; W. Irvine, 3948.]

[Page 10 rpt.]

EVICTION AND LIBERTY MONEY.

In all the cases where tenants are bound to fish for the landlord, there is a firm conviction that the penalty of disobedience is eviction, or payment of 'liberty money.' 'We knew quite well,'

said James Flawes (4964), a tenant on Quendale, 'from the statement which was made to us before, that, if any one transgressed the rule, the penalty would just be our forty days'

warning.' And cases of threatened removal for this cause, and payment of liberty money or fines, though not common, have yet been sufficiently numerous to keep alive a wholesome apprehension, and prevent widespread disobedience. Eviction to a Shetlander is a serious matter, especially when it is for such a cause as this. A new farm is always difficult to get. 'In the south,'

says one witness, 'a man can shift from town to town and get employment; but here, if he leaves his house and farm, he has no place to go to except Lerwick, and there is no room to be got there, either for love or money.'

[W. Irvine, 3625, 3755; L. Smith, 4486; J. Flawes, 4956; C.

Eunson, 5069; J. Johnston, 9238; J. Hutchison, 12,693; Peter Smith, 1012; M. Malcolmson, 2994; W. Manson, 3025; W.

Goudie, 4274, 4385, etc.; H. Sinclair, 5320; John Johnston, 9423; T.M. Adie, 5770.]

There is an impression, not perhaps always correct in a region where the excessive subdivision of land is ascribed to the desire of landlords to increase the number of their fishing tenants, that a man who is independent enough to differ from his landlord with regard to the terms of his lease is not likely to find favour in the eyes of other proprietors. A witness, speaking of another condition of his holding, says:-

'801. Are you not at liberty to make your own bargain about the land, the same as any other tenant in Scotland is?-I am not aware of that.'

'802. Suppose you were to object to make such a bargain, could you not leave the land and get a holding elsewhere?-It is not likely we would get a holding elsewhere.'

'803. Why?-We would very likely be deprecated as not being legal subjects, and the heritors would all know that we were not convenient parties to give land to. That is one reason; and another reason is, that places are sometimes not very easily got.'

'804. Do the same conditions exist on other properties in Shetland?-So far as I know, they prevail all over the country, or nearly so.'

805. You think that, if you were trying to move, you would not get free of a condition of that sort?-We might get free of it for a time, but by next year the parties to whose ground we had removed might bind us down to the same thing.'

806. But supposing all the men were united in refusing to agree to such conditions, there could be no compulsion upon them?-They have not the courage, I expect, to make such an agreement among themselves.'

[Walter Williamson, 801.]

THE FORTY DAYS' WARNING TOO SHORT

It is proper to call attention here to the fact that in agricultural subjects held from Martinmas to Martinmas on a yearly tack, the forty days' warning to remove, which is held sufficient by the law of Scotland, is objected to, with some reason, as too short. A crofter witness makes the following statement:-

'4688. Is there anything else you wish to say?-There is only forty days' warning given before Martinmas. No doubt that may be well enough for tenants town like Lerwick, who hold nothing except a room to live in, but it is very disagreeable for a tenant holding a small piece of land as we do. As soon as our crop is taken in, we must start work immediately, and prepare the land for next season.

We have to make provision for manure, and collect our peats, and prepare stuff for thatching our houses, and perhaps by Martinmas we have expended from 6 worth of labour and expense on our little farms. In that case, it is a very hard thing for us to be turned out of our holdings after receiving only forty days' notice, and perhaps only getting 1 or 2 for all that labour. Now what I would suggest is, that instead of that short notice we should be ent.i.tled to receive a longer notice, perhaps six or nine months before the term, that we are to be turned out.'

'4689. Do you think you would be more at liberty to dispose of your fish, and to deal at any shop you pleased, if you were ent.i.tled to that longer warning?-I don't think the warning would alter anything with regard to that; but if I knew that I was to be turned out at Martinmas, I would probably start fishing earlier, and I might have a larger price to get for them, instead of working upon my land.'

'4690. But you can be punished more easily by your landlord for selling your fish to another man, when he can turn you out on forty days' warning, than if he could only do it on six or eight months'

warning?-I think it would be much the same with regard to that.'

'4691. You don't think that would make any difference as to the fishing?-It might make a little difference, because if I received my warning in March, and knew that I was to leave at Martinmas, if I saw that I was to have a better price for my fish from another, I would not fish to my landlord at all; but I would go to any man I would get the best price from.'

[R. Halcrow, 4688.]

The same view is taken by the Rev. James Fraser, who gave very valuable information, both at the sitting held at Brae, and in a subsequent letter, printed in the evidence.

[R. Fraser, 8054 sqq.]

STATEMENTS BY LANDHOLDERS AND TACKSMEN

It is unnecessary to refer in detail to mere admissions on the part of landlords and tacksmen, that such obligations exist on the estates under their control. Such admissions were made in all the cases already referred to, as will be seen from the references on the margin. In some cases, however, arguments were stated in justification of the practice. Mr. Irvine perhaps put the case lower than any of this cla.s.s of witnesses for he simply said in regard to Burra, that the tack had been held for a very long time by his firm, and that when it expired many of the people owed debts, some of which would [Page 11 rpt.] not have been recovered if the island had pa.s.sed to another fish-merchant as tacksman. He a.s.sumed that here, as in other cases, the landlord in Shetland must depend on the fishing for payment of his rents. Mr. Bruce, younger, of Sumburgh thus states his views:-

'The tenants on the property in this parish managed by me are at liberty to go to sea to the Greenland or Faroe fishing, or to pursue any land occupation as they please; but if they remain at home and go to the home fishing, they are expected to deliver their fish to me, and receive for it the full market value. This is one of the conditions on which they hold their farms, and is, I consider, a beneficial rule for the fishermen. They must fish to some merchant, and as I give them as high a price as they could get from another, they are no losers, while I provide suitable curing and fishing stations, and these stations of mine are the most convenient places for them to deliver their fish .... This, I will endeavour to show, is no grievance at all, but an advantage to the fishermen.'

'In looking over the whole of Shetland, it will be found that the most prosperous districts are those under the direct management of the landlords.'