Part 4 (1/2)

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:-

'<lerwick>, 22<d> Nov. 1870.

'WILLIAM,-I now write, as I promised, to explain what I expect the Seafield tenants to do in regard to fis.h.i.+ng, 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.