[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 entitled 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 entitled 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.'