User:ThoughtIdRetired/Sandbox/2

Planning notes:
(1) I feel that something based on Hunters coverage of the events described ("the year of the burnings") would be more useful to the article than the quotation of Macleod (obviously taking in other sources as required). Macleod seems to be so widely shunned by modern sources that this should be a guide for the article. (2) Given that the Sutherland clearances were the largest, even if spread over a number of years, this might warrant a separate section within the article. This could usefully cover the motives of the Countess of Sutherland/Lady Stafford and her advisors - the employment of and advice offered by Young and Sellar (and later, Loch) - the trial of Sellar (and the events that lead up to it) - later clearances (including the "year of the burnings") - then perhaps the retrospective views of people like Loch (who appeared to regret the scale of the clearance), contrasting with the unbending opinions of Sellar. (3) Removing the Sutherland clearances to a separate section would solve another problem with the article: the Sutherland clearances are currently discussed under the heading "Second phase of the Clearances". I am not sure where the article gets this "Second phase" concept from - but if it originates from Michael Lynch, then the Sutherland clearances are not really in the second phase. Lynch feels that the second phase is typified by famine, particularly as a result of potato blight. . This would alter the balance of the article - but I think the solution would be to include more material on: some example cases of clearances in the Western Isles; the impact of the Poor Law changes; the effect of the split in the protestant church during the time of the clearances and the interplay between the two events; impact of the works of Malthus and Adam Smith (probably someone else to add to that list); then a brief summary of the view in popular culture of the clearances, perhaps contrasting some of the myths with the mainstream historical view. All the above subject to what it actually looks like once fully researched, drafted and referenced.

Start of Section
The Sutherland Clearances occurred over the period 1807 to 1821. The Sutherland Estate (consisting of most of the county of Sutherland) came under the control of the Lord Stafford (also known as the Duke of Sutherland, on his marriage in 1785 to Lady Sutherland, the owner of the estate. Despite this legal responsibility, Lord Stafford allowed his wife to involve herself greatly in its management, to the extent that she could be considered the driving force behind the Sutherland clearances..

In 1803 Lord Stafford inherited from two very wealthy relatives - giving him the richest fortune in the kingdom. Much of this wealth was spent on the Sutherland estate, building roads and bridges, townships, harbours and coal mines. The contemporary term for this was "improvement". A major component of the plan was to move the tenants of the inland areas to settlements on the coast. Their farms in the straths and glens raised cattle and grew crops on the runrig system (essentially a medieval method of arable farming). These were to be replaced by extensive sheep farms, whose tenants could afford a much higher rent. The coastal lots provided to the cleared tenants only had a few acres of land, making it necessary to find other work to make a living. Fishing was encouraged and other households would rely on travelling to work as labourers elsewhere.

arrival of Sellar and Young. their backgrounds. their advice. their role.

Between 1803 and 1809, efforts to introduce change to the estate had progressed slowly. In June 1809, as Lady Sutherland was looking for stronger management, William Young and Patrick Sellar arrived on the packet from Moray. Young was an experienced Scottish agricultural improver; Sellar was a lawyer with some experience of improvement. They took a great interest in the opportunities in Sutherland and, in negotiating for the tenancy of a farm in Culmaily, provided a lot of free advice to estate on improvement. *** sort out date of hire*** In due course, they were taken on as joint factors for the estate. Young took responsibility for

Assynt and resistance

1814

trial of Sellar - lack of support - last minute provision of evidence to help in defence - ultimate termination of employment

later clearances, including year of the burnings. beginning of significant emigration.

retrospective views of Loch, Sellar and anyone else involved. ? quote about it was just social engineering, like moving poor people out of Glasgow

=Second Start=

The Sutherland Clearances
The Sutherland Estate was over half of the county of Sutherland and probably cleared more tenants than any other. Until 1803 it was as debt-encumbered as many other Highland estates, but in that year Lady Sutherland's husband, the Marquess of Stafford, inherited the vast fortune of the Duke of Bridgewater, and the estate now had the money for improvements. During Lady Sutherland's childhood (she had been an orphan from the age of one), the estate managers had displaced some tacksmen to increase rental income. They also made plans for new fishing villages but did not have the capital to put these into effect. Stafford was now happy to use his enormous wealth on the estate's improvement.

Despite the conventions of the day, Stafford delegated much of the overall control of the estate to his wife; she took an active interest in its management. As the major part of the Sutherland Clearances began, Lady Sutherland and her advisors were influenced by several things. First, the population was increasing. Second, the area was prone to famine; and it fell to the landlord to organise relief by buying meal and importing it into the area. The severity of these famines is debated, both among modern historians and also within the Sutherland Estate management soon after the clearances in 1845. The third driving force was the whole range of thinking on agricultural improvement. This took in economic ideas expressed by Adam Smith as well as those of many agriculturalists. For the Highlands, the main thrust of these theories was the much greater rental return to be obtained from sheep. Wool prices had increased faster than other commodities since the 1780s. This enabled sheep farmers to pay substantially higher rents than the current tenants. The existing tenants were to be moved to crofts along the coast.

Patrick Sellar
The first big sheep farm was let at Lairg in 1807, involving the removal of about 300 people. Many of these did not accept their new homes and emigrated, to the dissatisfaction of the estate management and Lady Sutherland. In 1809, William Young and Patrick Sellar arrived in Sutherland and made contact with the Sutherland family, becoming key advisors to the owners of the estate. They offered ambitious plans which matched the wish for rapid results. Lady Sutherland had already dismissed the estate's factor, David Campbell, in 1807 for lack of progress. His replacement, Cosmo Falconer left in June 1811 his position being undermined by the advice offered by Young and Sellar who took over in his place.

Young had a proven track record of agricultural improvement in Moray and Sellar was a lawyer educated at Edinburgh University; both were fully versed in the modern ideas of Adam Smith. They provided an extra level of ambition for the estate. New industries were added to the plans, to employ the resettled population. A coal mine was sunk at Brora, and fishing villages were built to exploit the herring shoals off the coast. Other ideas were tanning, flax, salt and brick manufacturing.

The first clearance under Sellar was in Assynt in 1812. Local tacksmen assisted and the process was conducted without unrest despite the unpopularity of events.

In 1813, Sellar's planned clearance of the Strath of Kildonan was resisted by an angry mob who drove prospective sheep farmers off the land they had come to view. The confrontation lasted more than six weeks and Sellar was unable to negotiate with the protestors. Ultimately, the army was called out and the estate made concessions such as paying very favourable prices for the cattle of those being cleared. This was assisted by landlords in surrounding districts taking in some of those displaced and an organised party emigrating to Canada. The whole process was a severe shock to Lady Sutherland and her advisers, who were, in the words of historian Eric Richards, "genuinely astonished at this response to plans which they regarded as wise and benevolent".

The 1814 clearance plans involved 430 families from Strathnaver and Brora about 2,000 people. Sellar had successfully bid for the lease of one of the new sheep farms that, as factor, it was his responsibility to clear. As well as this conflict of interest, Sellar had made an enemy of the local law officer, Robert Mackid, by catching him poaching on Sutherland's land (dealing with poaching was one of Sellar's duties). Young had the job of organising the crofts for the resettled evictees, but much of this work was behind schedule. Sellar therefore made concessions to some tenants, allowing them to stay a little longer thereby generating some confusion. The delays were starting to hurt Sellar as the new tenant. The sheep he had bought to stock the land were dying for lack of food.

On 13 June 1814, the eviction parties visited the house of William Chisholm. The normal practice was to prevent reoccupation of cleared houses by burning the roof timbers - without these the simply-built houses could not be reconstructed. Interpretations of events vary. Chisholm's elderly and bed-ridden mother-in-law was either in the house when it was set alight, but carried out on Sellar's instructions as soon as he realised what had happened alternatively she was carried to an outhouse shortly before the fire was lit. In either case, the old lady died six days later. Robert Mackid seized this opportunity to bring charges against Sellar for culpable homicide and arson. As the trial approached, the Sutherland estate was reluctant to assist Sellar in his defence, distancing themselves from their employee. He was acquitted of all charges at his trial in 1816. The estate were hugely relieved, taking this as a justification of their clearance activity. (Robert Mackid became a ruined man and had to leave the county, providing Sellar with a grovelling letter of apology and confession.)

Despite the acquittal, this event, and Sellar's role in it, was fixed in the popular view of the Sutherland Clearances. James Loch, the Stafford estate commissioner was now taking a greater interest in the Northern part of his employer's holdings; he thought Young's financial management was incompetent, and Sellar's actions among the people deeply concerning. Both Sellar and William Young soon left their management posts with the Sutherland estate (though Sellar remained as a major tenant). Loch, nevertheless, also subscribed to the theory that clearance was beneficial for the tenants as much as for the estate.

Lady Sutherland's displeasure with events was added to by critical reports in a minor London newspaper, the Military Register, from April 1815. These were soon carried in larger newspapers. They originated from Alexander Sutherland, who, with his brother John Sutherland of Sciberscross, were opponents of clearance. Alexander, after serving as a captain in the army had been thwarted in his hopes to take up leases on the Sutherland estate and now worked as a journalist in London. He was therefore well placed to cause trouble for the estate.

James Loch
The (effective) dismissal of Sellar placed him in the role of scapegoat, thereby preventing a proper critical analysis of the estate's policies. Clearances continued under the factorship of Frances Suther and the overall control of James Loch. Through 1816 and 1817, famine conditions affected most of the inland areas and the estate had to provide relief to those who were destitute. This altered policy on emigration: if tenants wanted to emigrate, the estate would not object, but there was still no active encouragement.

In 1818 the largest part of the clearance program was put into effect, lasting until 1820. Loch gave emphatic instructions intended to avoid another public relations disaster: rent arrears could be excused for those who co-operated, time was to be taken and rents for the new crofts were to be set as low as possible.

The process did not start well. The Reverend David Mackenzie of Kildonan wrote to Loch on behalf of the 220 families due to be cleared from his parish. He categorically challenged the basic premise of the clearance: that the people from an inland region could make a living on their new coastal crofts. Loch was adamant that the removals would go ahead regardless of objections. Yet, at the same time, Suther and the local ground officer of the estate were pointing out to Loch that few of the new crofts were of an acceptable quality. Some tenants were considering moving off the estate, either to Caithness or emigrating to America or the Cape of Good Hope, which Suther encouraged by writing off their rent arrears. More positively for those with eviction notices, cattle prices were high in 1818. Ultimately, that year's clearances passed without serious protest.

Over the next two years the scale of clearance increased: 425 families (about 2,000 people) in 1819 and 522 families in 1820. Loch was anxious to move quickly, whilst cattle prices were high and there was a good demand for leases of sheep farms. There was no violent resistance in 1819, but Suther, despite precise instructions to the contrary, used fire to destroy cleared houses. This came after a spell of dry weather, in which the turf and stone walls of the houses had dried out, so that even the turf in the walls ignited, adding to the blaze of the thatch and roof timbers. Multiplied over the large number of properties that were cleared, this made a horrific impression on those who observed it. The public relations disaster that Loch had wished to avoid now followed, with The Observer newspaper running the headline: "the Devastation of Sutherland". 1819 became known as "the year of the burnings" (bliadhna na losgaidh).

In the autumn of 1819, the Sutherland Estate management received reports of growing hostility to further clearances. The Sutherland family were sent anonymous threatening letters to their house in London. The Transatlantic Emigration Society provided a focus for resistance to the clearances planned in 1820, holding large meetings and conducting extensive correspondence with newspapers about the situation of Sutherland tenants. This publicity caused great concern to Loch, and the comment in the press increased as Whitsun 1820 approached. Lady Sutherland felt that her family was being particularly targeted by critics of the clearances, so she asked Loch to find out what neighbouring estates had done. The answer was that Lord Moray in Ross-shire had, on occasion, bought the cattle owned by evicted tenants, but otherwise had made no provision for them: they had simply been evicted with no compensation or alternative tenancies offered. The tenants of Munro of Novar were also simply evicted, with many of them emigrating. As the 1820 Sutherland clearances approached, there was notable rioting at Culrain on the Munro of Novar estate, protesting at their clearance plans. Loch worried that this would spread to the Sutherland tenants, but no violent physical resistance occurred, with those cleared demonstrating (in the words of Eric Richards) "sullen acquiescence". In June there was serious resistance to clearance in another nearby estate, at Gruids. Richards attributes the lack of violence in the Sutherland Estate to the resettlement arrangements in place there, stating: "In this sense the Sutherland estate was, despite its reputation, in strong and positive contrast to most other clearing proprietors."

1819 and 1820 represented the main clearance activity on the Sutherland Estate. The much smaller clearance in the spring of 1821 at Achness and Ascoilmore met with obstruction and the military had to be called in to carry out evictions by force. Complaints were made against the estate of cruelty and negligence, but an internal enquiry absolved the factor of any wrongdoing. However, it is highly likely that this conclusion glossed over the suffering experienced by those evicted.

Figures gathered by the estate give some information on where tenants, sub-tenants and squatters went after the evictions in 1819. For tenants, 68% became tenants elsewhere on the estate, 7% went to neighbouring estates, 21% to adjoining counties and 2% emigrated. The remaining 2% were unaccounted for. The sub-tenants and squatters were divided up into 73% resettled on the coast, 7% in neighbouring estates, 13% to nearby counties and 5% emigrated. Two per cent were unaccounted for. This survey does not pick up information on those who subsequently travelled elsewhere.

Loch issued instructions to Suther at the end of 1821 that brought the major clearance activity of the estate to an end. Some small-scale clearance activity continued for the next 20 years or so, but this was not part of the overall plan to resettle the population in coastal settlements and engage them in alternative industries.