Duke of Portland Wins Again

The Duke and Duchess of Portland at Badbea

Langwell Lairds Past and Present – Is it the Dawn of a New Day?

Written by Alexander Gunn aka A Native of Badbea. Printed in the Northern Ensign 26 June 1894 Part E

To the Editor of the Northern Ensign

Continued from previous blog..

“Amongst other good acts of the Duke, I saw that he had given a park to the Swiney crofters. Mr Turner's name was mentioned in connection with this, but if the credit is his, he must have changed his mind since he expressed his views to me on one occasion on board the Wick steamer about crofters and crofting. Mr Turner's evidence before the Deer Forest Commission showed very plainly what his feelings were towards the crofters on the estate: and were the Duke to take a favourable view of my surmises, I imagine he would not have a very cordial helper in his factor.”

Winifred, Duchess of Portland

“Of course the people will say this is nothing but building castles in the air. Well, be it so. The Deer Forest Commissioners are to give a report, and were they to propose any change on the Berriedale estate, I think it very likely this is where they would recommend land to be given to the crofters, or rather a crofter township to be set up in Auchincraig etc. It would disturb the Duke's deer less than in any other part of his estate, and would be easier yielded by the Duke. Of course were the Upper Borgue to be cultivated it would do little in disturbing the deer: but I shall not speculate any more in that direction. I don't expect to see the views I have set forth acted upon, but who knows but others may. In the course of years greater wonders have taken place.”

I am, etc,  A Native of Badbea.

My Comments:

Mr Turner was the factor for the Duke of Portland. A factor in Scotland was a manager who dealt with a variety of property matters from collecting rents to property repair and maintenance. They were supposed to act in accordance with the owner's wishes but as can be seen from the Duke’s comments, his factor Mr Turner, had a great deal of influence and opportunity to advise the Duke.

Looking back to the time when he first came into his noble heritage, the Duke made a touching reference at the Welbeck Tenants’ Show, in 1906, to the death of his agent, Mr F. J. Turner, who for 48 years was in the service of the fifth Duke and himself. 

“When I first came to Welbeck, now twenty-seven years ago,” said the Duke, “I was a mere boy, very ignorant of the ways of the world, and more ignorant still, if it were possible, of business habits and of the management of a great estate. I shudder to think what might have been my fate, and the sad fate of those dependant upon me, if Mr Turner and others, who guided my footsteps had been different from what they proved themselves to be. It was in his power to make or mar the happiness and prosperity, not only of myself, but also of many of those who live in this district and who farm my land.”  Source: http://www.nottshistory.org.uk/portland1907/portland8.htm

Alexander Gunn must have had a chance meeting on the Wick steamer with Mr Turner and of course took the opportunity to raise issues of crofters.

Re Swiney - I could not find a record of the Duke giving a park to the Swiney crofters.  The Duke of Portland had purchased the estate of Swiney from John Gordon in1877. In the early 1890s there were public meetings and much discussion in the newspaper about the need for a road from Swiney to Osclay. It was said the largely attended Swiney school had no road passing near it from any direction. There was discussion with Mr Turner about what contribution the Duke of Portland would make. It seems that in the end the Duke “did not feel called upon to subscribe to the road” and thought the road should be paid for by rates. The Duke said he would build a good footpath from Achavanich to the Swiney school with a new bridge at the Reisgill burn. That is quite a long footpath – between 7 and 8 miles - and for those travelling by foot it would have been very welcome. Tenders were called in March 1896 to build the road. In 1899 Mr Turner gave details of the number of crofters on the Duke’s estates of Lybster and Swiney. He gave the population of the district as 231 tenants paying rent from 100 pounds down.

Road from Swiney to Achavanich. Osclay is near the blue circle.

The frustration of unjust land distribution just went on and on for crofters and Alexander Gunn took every opportunity to speak publicly about it. He was always hopeful and always made good suggestions to improve the conditions of the crofters while respecting the land practices of the estate proprietors. Sadly, his dreams never came true.

The two maps here with coloured areas were produced in the report by the Deer Commission.

The map above is a detail of the Latheron map showing the tiny bit of marginal land – pink – owned by the Duke of Portland that was recommended for possible use by the Langwell crofters. It is exactly the area of marginal, infertile, rocky land that the poor Badbea crofters had struggled to survive on for decades. How ridiculous was that. Although Gunn seems to think that given support and proper tenure it was workable. I wonder if the Duke and Duchess had either read the report or knew what was in it and that was the reason they went to have a look at the Achnacraig land and pathway. .

This map shows more of the Latheron area. The next bit of land (26) coloured yellow, then more pink (27, 28, 29) belonged to Edwyn Sinclair of Freswick and then at the top of the main map is land from the Ulbster estate.

Key to the maps

Alexander Gunn stated in his opening paragraph of this letter “Wonders will never cease” and “Is this the dawn of a new day?” a real live Duke and Duchess paid a visit to Badbea.

Gunn then ends this letter with some wishful suggestions for a fairer distribution of the Langwell land, which unfortunately, as we have noted previously, never happened.

A wander round this inhospitable landscape today will show the crofters eventually gave up the struggle.  

The following article, also relevant to the Caithness Deer Forest Parks, is from the website of the Hebridean Connections

https://www.hebrideanconnections.com/subjects/58366

Background to the Deer Forest Royal Commission of Inquiry, 1892, by Angus “Ease” Macleod Calbost and Marybank

Around 1800 there was no objection to the people taking a stag at any time, but in 1832 the Day Trespass Act was passed and any person found trespassing in pursuit of deer could be fined.

 In the 1840s deer shoots and deer forests were greatly popularized when Queen Victoria and Prince Albert visited the Highlands and took part in the shooting of deer. The Queen’s interest and example in deer hunting in the Highlands encouraged both female as well as male members of the aristocracy to participate in this blood sport.

Demand for Highland deer forests continued for the rest of the 19^th century, as did the rent charged by the land owners. There was no way the crofters could compete with the rents the aristocracy were prepared to pay for sporting parks. In the circumstances there was a steady increase in the number of deer parks in the Highlands, particularly in the second half of the 19^th century when profits from sheep farming declined and the former sheep farms were converted into deer forests.

A total of 73 deer forests existed in the Highlands in the early 1870s and according to Napier that number had increased in 1884 to 110, covering an area of almost 2,000,000 acres. The Parliamentary return for 1891 shows that there were 130 deer forests covering 2,472,133 acres. By the 20^th century 34% of the land of the crofting counties were under deer forests and that trend continued until the first world war at least. On the last occasion the figures were published in 1957 there were 2.8 million acres of land devoted to deer forests.

The truth is that the natural resources of the Highlands and Islands, including the land, were always developed in a haphazard manner, with little consideration for the welfare of the native population. The Park Deer Raid of 1887 had a profound effect on public opinion at that time, and even the Establishment duly noted the social instability, which could be produced by that form of land use. However nothing was done to alleviate the plight of the crofting community.

Four years later the widespread land-raiding of 1891 also failed to bring about any significant change for a fairer distribution of the available land resources. However, it seems the anguished cries of the crofting population penetrated, to some extent, to the establishment, because on the 6^th December 1892, the fourth Gladstone Ministry, which gained power that year, set up a Royal Commission of Enquiry to look at the unchecked expansion of the deer parks in the Highlands and Islands, and earmarking deer forests which might be suitable for small-holdings. That Commission is usually referred to as the Deer Forest Commission, or the Brand Commission, so named after its Chairman, David Brand, Sheriff of Argyll.

The remit of the Deer Forest Commission, Highlands and Islands, was as follows:

“Whereas we have deemed it expedient that a Commission should forthwith issue to enquire whether any, and if any, what land in the Counties of Argyll, Ross and Cromarty, Inverness, Sutherland, Caithness, Orkney and Shetland, now occupied for the purpose of deer forest, grouse moor, or any sporting purpose, or for grazing, not in the occupation of crofters or small tenants, is capable of being cultivated to profit or otherwise advantageously occupied by crofters or small tenants.”

The Highland and Island crofting population welcomed the Deer Forest Commission, and the people of Park, in Lochs were delighted, as they felt that their hour had come at last. No one, they felt, could deny that there was suitable land for new crofts in the Park Deer Forest. After all, a whole area of Park Deer Forest was occupied by hundreds and hundreds of crofters until they were evicted earlier in that century.

The Report of The Royal Commission, Highlands and Islands, 1892, scheduled the deer forest land under three categories, and each category was identified by a colour scheme, thus: category 1 – yellow, was land that was suitable for new holdings, category 2 – pink, was land which could be advantageously occupied as extensions of grazings by neighbouring crofters, category 3 – brown, was land considered suitable for occupation as moderately sized holdings or farms, at rents exceeding the statutory limit of 30 yearly. In other words, land holdings larger than crofts, for which there was no demand by crofters.

The crofters failed to appreciate that the remit of the Deer Forest Commission only asked them to schedule, or identify, the available land. They were not asked to create new land holdings. Therefore it was necessary to appoint some other authority in order to create new landholdings and distribute them, before the landless cottars could benefit from the exercise. There was therefore plenty of scope for the landowners’ lobby to exert their influence and ensure that the Highland and Island deer forests came to no harm. …

The Deer Park Forest survived unscathed after the Royal Commission, and the landless cottars were left as before in overcrowded barns and temporary homes on their friends’ lands. The Deer Forest Commission was a political manoeuvre, and at the end of the millennium the Park Deer Forest is still intact as one unit extending to 44,000 acres of sterilized land, while most of the local crofter population have by now given up the struggle.

Once again the landowners won the contest.