|
The Leckmelm Evictions
On Tuesday, 7th February 1882, a meeting was held in the Burgh
Court-house, Inverness, of gentlemen favourable to a reform of the Land
Laws, to hear a report from Dean of Guild Mackenzie with reference to
his recent visit to Leckmelm. About forty persons were present—the Rev.
Mr Mactavish presiding. Mr Mackenzie read a long report on the
circumstances attending the eviction of the man Munro, and on the
present condition of the tenants on Leckmelm generally. Mr Mackenzie
stated that the Rev. Mr Macmillan, the Free Church minister of the
parish (who was prominent in the former agitation), was not at home when
the eviction took place, nor for some days thereafter. All parties
concerned in the matter, to say nothing of the public generally, will
probably be interested in seeing the side of the question presented by
Mr Mackenzie. His report proceeded as follows : —
On Wednesday of last week I received a report from Ullapool of an
eviction which had taken place the. previous Friday on the now widely
known Leckmelm estate, purchased a few years ago by Mr Pirie, of
Aberdeen. A private note accompanied the report, urging me to get it
published as early as possible in one of the local newspapers, the
writer stating that “all contained therein are true facts which I have
personally witnessed.”
From what I knew of the past proceedings on the Leckmelm property since
it came into the possession of the present proprietor, I had little
doubt that the report sent me would be found substantially correct. At
the same time I did not feel justified in sending it for publication
without further corroboration of its contents, aud I submitted it to a
few of those gentlemen in Inverness who I knew took an interest in such
cases. After a consultation between these, I was asked to proceed to
Ullapool and make inquiries on the spot, before any use was made of the
report which had already reached me, and which, as I have found it,
after very careful inquiry, to be quite true, I shall now read to this
meeting, adding additional facts which I came into possession of during
my inquiries on the spot. It is as follows
“Ullapool, 28th January 1882.
“Sir,—I have travelled far and near, but never witnessed anything to
equal the scene I witnessed at Leckmelm on Friday last, the 27th inst.
About twelve o’clock, Friday, a carriage drove through the place
containing three occupants. On seeing that the attention of the people
was drawn so much to said carriage, I inquired of one I met, ‘what was
up?’ When I was answered, ‘Och tha na H’earraidean ’dol a chur a mach
Murachadh Munro’—sheriff-officers to put out Murdo Munro. ‘Is there any
to be put out but Murdo Munro?’ I inquired. ‘No, you ken Murdo stood his
ground too well when Pirie came to the place, and he never forgave him
for that.’ Seeing the officers now proceeding to Munro’s house, I
stopped my journey, which I intended to extend a few miles further on,
and watched with keen eye what would go on. In a few minutes they
commenced the unpleasant task of throwing poor Murdo’s furniture
outside. The news spread through the place like fire. From here and
there, there were men and women congregating, some of the men, I was
told, losing their half-day’s work to see what was going on. At one time
I thought there would be a row: the crowd commenced to shout and yell at
the officers, showing their disapproval of their conduct. This was when
Mrs Munro was removed outside with a suckling babe, six weeks old, on
her arm. So marked was the people’s disapproval at this stage, that the
officers got such a fright, that they sent for two policemen from
Ullapool. These arrived, but their services were not required, as Murdo
strongly urged upon the crowd not to get into trouble for his sake. The
furniture about this time was all thrown outside; one or two bags of
oatmeal I noticed with nothing to cover them, although there were heavy
showers of snow by this time. I also noticed potatoes strewn about which
can be of very little use afterwards. After the work of destruction had
gone on so far, Murdo, with his family, consisting of his wife and four
children, the oldest twelve years of age, the youngest a few weeks old,
as already stated, were removed to the outside to shift for themselves
as best they could. The fires were put out, the two policemen and one of
the officers remaining in charge all night, apparently before the family
so cruelly removed would re-enter. I had a look back this morning and
saw that the house was a wreck and not a divot left upon it. I inquired
of Murdo where the wife was all night, as it was a bitter cold night,
with keen S.W. winds, and snow showers all night. He told me she found
shelter, with the children, in a barn close by, which was little better
than the outside. Now, sir, consider the sufferings of that poor woman
who is in an infirm state of health since her recent confinement, the
child suffering as well from her infirmities. Both having to put up with
such sufferings I am afraid they will never get over. Woe, I say, to the
oppressor, that famous PIR1E; woe to the laws which empower the
oppressor to inflict such sufferings, and to a country acknowledging a
national recognition of Christianity allowing such cruel laws to be in
vogue. My own humble opinion is, that a proprietor having the cruel
heart to do what I witnessed in Leckmelm would carry said eviction out
on the Glencoe scale if law permitted him to do so. He has acted the boa
constrictor clean with Murdo Munro. Last year he licked him all over;
this year he has devoured him. Last year he got his share of the
heifer’s flesh, whisky, bogie roll, and so forth. This year said
bounties were denied him, and he has got the outside instead. Poor Murdo
Munro did not get a day’s work upon the farm for several months. Not
only was he denied work from Mr Pirie’s managers there; but contractors
having work there were strictly prohibited from giving him empleyment.
Were it not for the poor man’s industry and thriftiness previous to Mr
Pine’s coming to Leckmelm, he would now be in a bad position. Murdo
Munro is now a specimen of what Mr Pirie would have made the Leckmelm
people before now, were it not the agitation got up and brought to bear
on him at the time. No plea put forth in his behalf can justify what I
witnessed on Friday last, and I hope never to see a recurrence of the
same scene.”
I have omitted some of the stronger passages in the above communication.
When Mr Pirie came into possession Munro obtained work from him like the
other tenants on the property. Soon after, however, a dispute arose
between Paterson, Mr Pirie’s first grieve, about sheep belonging to
Munro and some others of the tenants, which bad been impounded by
Paterson on the plea that the sheep suffered from scab and ought to be
separated from tho others. Munro was indignant, and used strong language
to Paterson, telling him that he was ignorant, that he knew nothing
about sheep, and offering to submit the sheep to any competent judge in
the district. This proved the commencement of his troubles. Paterson
afterwards admitted his error in reference to the sheep, but Munro
meanwhile became a marked man among the local managers. Contractors were
told not to give him employment. He, however, obtained work on hill
drains, and afterwards worked with Roderick Fraser, one of the
contractors, until near Martinmas 1880. During the winter be secured
contracts of dykes and drains from the new grieve, which lasted until
the beginning of 1881. Since then he received no employment from Mr
Pirie’s agents.
You will naturally ask why this man should have been treated so
differently to the other tenants, and you may possibly conclude that the
convictions against him thirteen years ago, and which Mr Manners
referred to in last Saturday's Courier, was the real reason. That could
not havo been so, for it is clear from Mr Manners’s own letters that
there was no intention in October 1879 to treat Munro different from the
other tenants. On the 2nd of that month, he wrote Monro as follows:—
“I am instructed by Mr Pirie, proprietor of Leckmelin, to give you
notice that the present arrangements by which you hold the cottage,
byre, and other buildings, together with lands on that estate, will
cease from and after the term of Martinmas 1880: and further, I am
instructed to intimate to you tbat at the said term of Martinmas 1880 Mr
Pirie purposes taking the whole arable and pasture lands, but that he is
desirous of making arrangements whereby you may continue tenant of the
cottage upon terms and conditions yet to be settled upon. 1 have further
to inform you that unless you and the other tenants at once prevent your
sheep and other stock from grazing or trespassing upon the enclosures
and hill and other lands now in the occupation or possession of the said
Mr Pirie, he will not, upon any conditions, permit you to remain in the
cottage you now occupy, after the said term of Martinmas 1880, but will
clear all off the estate, and take down the cottages.
“I therefore hope that in your own interests you will pay particular
attention to this notice and not do anything likely to be offensive, and
so far as you are able will also prevent others doing so.”
The italics are mine. I am informed that each of the tenants received a
similar letter, and it is clear from the above that no intention existed
at that date to punish Munro for his conduct thirteen years previously,
and for which he at the time suffered the full penalty of the law.
In the following year arrangements were made to take over the sheep
stock of the tenants at valuation, an<i a dispute arose regarding the
tenants’ valuator, into the details of which it is just now unnecessary
to go, beyond stating that the gentleman arranged to represent the
tenants was unable to attend on the short notice given him by Mr
Manners, who suggested another in bis place. The tenants, led by Munro,
at first objected to the new man thus thrust upon them. All, however,
agreed to accept the new valuator on his arrival except Munro, who
refused, and wanted the valuation put off until their own man could
attend. He gave expression to bis feelings on that occasion also in
unmistakeable language, but he was finally prevailed upon to sign the
conditions, with the others, and the valuation was proceeded with.
On the 30th of August 1880, Mr Manners writes to confirm his notice of
2nd October 1879, but adds that Mr Pirie is ‘to take your house
[Munro’s] and lands, &c., into his own hands,’ at Martinmas following.
It will not be difficult to discover the real reason of the proceedings
against Munro, and his ultimate eviction, in the light of these facts.
It was now determined that he must go, and that determination having
once been arrived at, it must, in fairness, be admitted that Mr Pirie’s
conduct appears on the whole to have been considerate, except in the
final act. Mr Pirie apparently decided that Munro was not to be allowed
to continue on his property. Munro understood this, and he tried to
remain as long as possible, and get the best terms he could. All the
subsequent proceedings and correspondence must be considered in this
light, and so long as the present law is unrepealed, and 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 in consequence
ultimately accrue to the people at large. This is why I, and, I believe,
you, take such an interest in this question of the evictions at Leckmelm.
You will, therefore, expect me to go into fuller detail as to the
position and the feeling which exists among the other tenants on the
property and the people in the neighbourhood.
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 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, against whom
nothing could be said since his conviction before the Sheriff many years
ago. The people of Ullapool, without exception, so far as I could
discover, after inquiries from the leading men in every section of tbe_
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 stilt, 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 lose 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 advantageouslv 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 chargeable to the parish. Indeed, some of
the people have already become a burden on the Parochial Board.
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. The
sheriff-officer declared, in the presence of fifty or sixty people,
while in the act of evicting Munro, that three others were marked out
for ejection almost immediately. 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 people on the estate are in a state of constant fearof being turned
out. They have been reduced from an excellent position as some of the
best and most comfortable of the West Coast crofters to a position of
abject dependence on the will of Mr Pirie or his subordinates ; and as
regards work and the necessaries of life, to that of common navvies. In
place of milk, butter, and cheese in fair abundance, they are reduced to
sugar and treacle to their porridge and potatoes, and their supply of
meat, grown and fed by themselves, is forever lost to them.
In almost all tho letters sent to Munro, offering him money, and giving
him extension of time, it is made a condition that he behaves himself
and gives no trouble. That this applied to his behaviour in reference to
the present management of the property and the evictions, and has no
reference to his conviction 13 years ago, is quite clear from the
letters themselves. The following, from Mr Manners to Mr John Macrae,
solicitor, Dingwall, who has written in Munro’s behalf, dated 23rd of
November 1881, gives Mr Manners’s version, and, in my opinion,
conclusively proves this view as regards Munro’s behaviour :—
Copy Letter C. R. Manners, Esq., Inverness, to John Macrae, solicitor,
Dtngwall.
“Inverness, 23rd November 1881.
“Dear Sir,—I am in receipt of yours of 22nd inst., as to Murdo Munro.
This man has given us a great deal of trouble and annoyance, and is not
in any way deserving of consideration. Perhaps you are not aware that
some time ago he got Mr A. Macrae, solicitor, Dingwall, to intercede for
him, and I then offered to let him remain till next Whitsunday, and give
him ten pounds (£10) when he left, providing he would give a written
undertaking that he would leave at that term without further warning or
trouble on our part, or, in case of his unbehaving in any way, that he
would leave before that term if he were told so to do. This he refused
to do, and when I talked to him and tried to show him he was very wrong,
and acting against his own interests, as, in case of refusal, no sum
would be given him, he used threats of courts of law, and sticking to
the place until the roof were taken off, and such like nonsense. I tried
all in my power to get him to act in a reasonable way, but it was no
use.
“It is not, however, either Mr Pirie’s or my wish to act in any way
harshly, and, under the circumstances you relate, I will yet try what
can be done for him, providing he gives a full and unconditional written
undertaking that, if allowed to remain, he will flit himself and all his
belongings at Whitsunday without any further notice or warning from us,
and that if we have any cause for suspicion that he is not behaving
himself in a quiet and satisfactory manner, he will, with his
belongings, quit the place at a month’s warning during any of the
intermediate periods. He has, of course, by his obstinacy, lost the
gratuity, and without the undertaking 1 have mentioned he will be
ejected. J recognise no legal term of Whitsunday in his case. He got
full and proper legal warning long since, and has only been allowed to
remain so far on.
“Upon receipt of the written undertaking I have mentioned, I will see
what can be done, but, understand, I make no promise at present. I
expect to pass through Dingwall to-morrow (Thursday) by the evening
train, and if you wish to see me I shall'have pleasure in meeting you.—I
remain, yours faithfully,
(Signed) “C. R. Manners.”
Mark the portions which I have placed in italics "and that if we had any
cause of suspicion that he is not behaving himself in a quiet and
satisfactory manner, &c., &c.” There was to be no proof, only mere
suspicion, and the man was expected to sign conditions of removal on
terms like that! and Mr Manners was only going to see what would be done
after Munro would sign himself out of bis holding. The reason now stated
by Mr Manners is clearly an afterthought, and to give it now, for the
first time, no one will consider creditable. Further, in Mr Pirie’s last
letter to Munro, dated 30th November last, he concludes—“If Mr Manners
has taken legal proceedings against you now it is entirely in
consequence of your own behaviour.” In the face of all this, it is
somewhat cool for Mr Manners, to give the reason which he now for the
first time does for Munro’s eviction.
The threats charged against Munro, I am informed, were, that he would
open up the question of the Sheriff’s order of removal, granted in
absence on the 21st October last, and in terms of which he has now been
evicted. In this most people will, I think, consider him fully
justified. Mr John Macrae, solicitor, Dingwall (who, in consequence of
some misunderstanding, received no specific instructions to put in an
appearance for Munro), writes him on the 16th of November 1881, as
follows:—“Mr Pirie has obtained decree against you in the action of
removing. The decree can now only be opened up by a deposit of £5, to
cover, among other things, Mr Pirie’s expenses. After its being opened
up, you would require to find caution for violent profits, that is, for
whatever sums the subjects you occupy would yield in the way of rental
during the year of your possession. . . . . I think you could have
resisted decree being got against you before Whitsunday if you had
entered appearance timeously.”
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 bought from Mr Pirie’s manager, and paid for
within the last three years. The sheriffofficers 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 a fire-place 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, all the cottages in Leckmelm are altogether superior to the
usual run of crofter’s 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.
--------
The meeting cordially
thanked Mr Mackenzie for his report. They also resolved that it should
be published, and that a copy be sent to Mr Fraser-Mackintosh, with a
request that a question be put to her Majesty’s Government with respect
to the matter. A committee was also appointed to consider the propriety
of establishing a Land Law Reform Association, and to report to an early
meeting. Mr John Macdonald, Exchange, Inverness, agreed to act as
Convener of the Committee. |
