Yet not one family in Harris would accept the proprietor’s offer to bear all the expense of their emigration.
The condition of Lewis and Harris, as above shown, may be taken as a fair specimen of the Western Islands at the time of Sir John M’Neill’s inquiry in 1851.
An experiment, which if properly managed, might have succeeded, was tried in 1850 and the two following years; it also proved a failure. The following is the account given in the Edinburgh Review for October 1857. The reader must remember, however, that the article is written by an advocate of all the modern Highland innovations:—A number of people in the district of Sollas in North Uist had agreed to emigrate, but “a committee in the town of Perth, which had on hand £3000 collected for the Highland Destitution Relief Fund of 1847, resolved to form these people into a ‘settlement,’ Lord Macdonald assenting, and giving them the choice of any land in the island not under lease. The tenants, about sixty in number, removed to the selected place in autumn 1850, provided by the committee with an agricultural overseer. In the following spring a large crop of oats and potatoes was laid down. The oats never advanced above a few inches in height, and ultimately withered and died, and the potatoes gave little or no return. A great part of the land so dealt with has never since been touched, and it is now even of less value than before, having ceased to produce even heather. This result, however, we are bound to mention, was at the time, and perhaps still, popularly ascribed, like all Highland failures, to the fault of those in authority. A new overseer was therefore sent, and remained about a year and a half; but in 1852 a third of the people, becoming painfully impressed with the truth of the matter, went off to Australia. In 1853 a third manager was sent ‘to teach and encourage;’ but as the money was now running short, he had little to give but advice, and as the people could not subsist on that any more than on the produce of their lots, they went off to seek employment elsewhere—and so ended what was called ‘this interesting experiment,’ but of which it seems to be now thought inexpedient to say anything at all. The results were to spend £3000 in making worse a piece of the worst possible land, and in prolonging the delusions and sufferings of the local population, but also in supplying one more proof of the extreme difficulty or impossibility of accomplishing, and the great mischief of attempting, what so many paper authorities in Highland matters assume as alike easy and beneficial.”
It would almost seem, from the failure of the above and many other experiments which have been tried to improve the condition of the Highlanders, that any extraneous positive interference by way of assistance, experiments, charity, and such like, leading the people to depend more on others than on themselves, leads to nothing but disastrous results. This habit of depending on others, a habit many centuries old, was one which, instead of being encouraged, ought to have been by every possible means discouraged, as it was at the bottom of all the evils which followed the abolition of the jurisdictions. They had been accustomed to look to their chiefs for generations to see that they were provided with houses, food, and clothing; and it could only be when they were thoroughly emancipated from this slavish and degrading habit that they could find scope for all their latent energies, have fair play, and feel the necessity for strenuous exertion.
As a contrast to the above accounts, and as showing that it is perfectly possible to carry out the small or moderate farm system, even on the old principle of runrig, both with comfort to the tenants and with profit to the proprietors; and also as showing what the Highlanders are capable of when left entirely to themselves, we give the following extract from Sir J. M’Neill’s Report, in reference to the prosperity of Applecross in Ross-shire:—
“The people have been left to depend on their own exertions, under a kind proprietor, who was always ready to assist individuals making proper efforts to improve their condition, but who attempted no new or specific measure for the general advancement of the people. Their rents are moderate, all feel secure of their tenure so long as they are not guilty of any delinquency, and a large proportion of those who hold land at rents of £6 and upwards, have leases renewable every seven years. During the fifteen years ending at Whitsunday 1850, they have paid an amount equal to fifteen years’ rent. Many of the small crofters are owners, or part owners, of decked vessels, of which there are forty-five, owned by the crofters on the property; and a considerable number have deposits of money in the banks. The great majority of these men have not relied on agriculture, and no attempt has been made to direct their efforts to that occupation. Left to seek their livelihood in the manner in which they could best find it, and emancipated from tutelage and dependence on the aid and guidance of the proprietor, they have prospered more than their neighbours, apparently because they have relied less upon the crops they could raise on their lands, and have pursued other occupations with more energy and perseverance.
“Of the crofters or small tenants on this property who are not fishermen, and who are dependent solely on the occupation of land, the most prosperous are those who have relied upon grazing, and who are still cultivating their arable land in ‘runrig.’ These club-farmers, as they are called, hold a farm in common, each having an equal share. They habitually purchase part of their food. They have paid their rents regularly, and several of them have deposits of money in bank. Mr Mackinnon, who has for more than fifteen years been the factor on the property, gives the following account of the club-farmers of Lochcarron:—
“‘Of the lotters or crofters paying £6 and upwards, a large proportion have long had leases for seven years, which have been renewed from time to time. Those paying smaller rents have not leases. The lots which are occupied by tenants-at-will are much better cultivated than those which are held on leases. I don’t, of course, attribute the better cultivation to the want of leases; all I infer from this fact is, that granting leases to the present occupants of lots has not made them better cultivators of their lots. The most successful of the small tenants are those who have taken farms in common, in which the grazings are chiefly stocked with sheep, and in which there happens to be a sufficient extent of arable land connected with a moderate extent of grazing to enable them to raise crops for their own subsistence. Since the failure of the potatoes, however, all the tenants of this class have been obliged to buy meal. On those farms which are held on lease, the land is still cultivated on the ‘runrig’ system. There are five such farms on Mr Mackenzie’s property in the parish of Lochcarron. One of these is let at £48, to six persons paying £8 each; another for £56, to seven men at £8 each; another for £72, to eight men at £9 each; another to eight men at £13, 10s., equal to £108; another to eight men at £15 each, equal to £120. The cultivation on all of these farms is on the ‘runrig’ system. Their sales of stock and wool are made in common,—that is, in one lot. Their stock, though not common property (each man having his own with a distinctive mark), are managed in common by a person employed for that purpose. The tenants of this class have paid their rents with great punctuality, and have never been in arrear to any amount worth mentioning. A considerable number of them have money in bank. They have their lands at a moderate rent, which is no doubt one cause of their prosperity. Another cause is, that no one of the tenants can subdivide his share without the consent of his co-tenants and of the proprietor. The co-tenants are all opposed to such subdivision of a share by one of their number, and practically no sub-division has taken place. Their families, therefore, as they grow up, are sent out to shift for themselves. Some of the children find employment at home,—some emigrate to the colonies.’”[90]
Of course it is not maintained that this is the most profitable way for the proprietor to let his lands; it is not at all improbable that by adopting the large-farm system, his rent might be considerably increased; only it shows, that when the Highlanders are left to themselves, and have fair play and good opportunities, they are quite capable of looking after their own interests with success.
A comparatively recent Highland grievance is the clearance off of sheep, and the conversion of large districts, in one case extending for about 100 miles, into deer forests. Great complaint has been made that this was a wanton abuse of proprietorship, as it not only displaced large numbers of people, but substituted for such a useful animal as the sheep, an animal like the deer, maintained for mere sport. No doubt the proprietors find it more profitable to lay their lands under deer than under sheep, else they would not do it, and by all accounts[91] it requires the same number of men to look after a tract of country covered with deer, as it would do if the same district were under sheep. But it certainly does seem a harsh, unjust, and very un-British proceeding to depopulate a whole district, as has sometimes been done, of poor but respectable and happy people, for the mere sake of providing sport for a few gentlemen. It is mere sophistry to justify the substitution of deer for sheep, by saying that one as well as the other is killed and eaten as food. For thousands whose daily food is mutton, there is not more than one who regards venison as anything else than a rarity; and by many it is considered unpalatable. Landlords at present can no doubt do what they like with their lands; but it seems to us that in the long-run it is profitable neither to them nor to the nation at large, that large tracts of ground, capable of maintaining such a universally useful animal as the sheep, or of being divided into farms of a moderate size, should be thrown away on deer, an animal of little value but for sport.