Were the Improvements Successful?

Many of the new longer leases had clauses that required increasing rents payable during the lifetime of the lease after a honeymoon period of a few years. This was a stick rather than a carrot – the requirement was to produce more to be able to pay an increasing rent. Without an increase in productivity it would have been impossible to meet the objectives.

In the case of Monymusk from 1733 to 1773 rents increased threefold. Additionally there is evidence to show that on the Estate of the Earl of Marchmont in Berwickshire, between 1779 and 1819 rents on the rose also by three times (29).  In the Gordon Estates we see a situation where from 1747 – 1763 the Net Produce (after sales and expense of crops) did increase but this was probably more through acquisition than by better productivity.  We know for example that in 1758 / 59 the rents from Fochabers were included as the liferents (the right of a person during his or her life to use and enjoy property) were added in 1760 contributing over 2,200 pounds to the accounts.

Net Produce Total Gordon Estates 1747 - 1763

 17471748174917501751175217531754175517561757175817591760176117621763
Net Produce42194570471948245074544943344488546160385486489750016276758385187942
Liferent1051224024012247
Adjusted Net Produce42194570471948245074544943344488546160385486489750015225534361175695

By looking at one specific factory we can gain a better idea of the improvements.  The Lordship of Enzie, Barony of Fochabers, Coldhainem Ordenish Tugnet and Upper Coble Salmon is well documented from 1747 to 1763 and then later from 1781 – 1793 (by John Logie whose salary in 1782 was 30 pounds having risen from 21 pounds and 15 shillings in 1769).

Lordshsip of Enzie, Barony of Fochabers, Coldhainem Ordenish Tugnet and Upper Coble Salmon

 BereMealWheatPoultryHensCaponsLambsWeddarsSwineLinenPeatsCorn & StrawMoneyTotal
174845410364441934
174945410364491939
175045410364451935
175145410364451935
175245410394491942
175345410394501943
175443410124471893
175543410134541901
175645610134581927
175745610374581951
175844110374581936
175944110374581936
176044110374651943
176144110374671945
176244510424771964
176344510424801967
1764 - 1780No data
17814681114128967657795218467715953959
17824471092128967655775212457513423650
178347511221281187656785218467718814280
1784376711114136433225133322
1785335534111436473228333806
1786309721111335452629694093
1787291681111335452629734039
1788239435281411335452629633763
17893566063211335422229554035
17904222
17914296
17924298
17934107

The key elements to note here is the 112% increase in the rents taken comparing 1747 and 1793.  This is in line with the rent increases seen in Monymusk and Marchmont although it was still lacking.

There was an apparent decision to accept less goods and products between 1783 and 1784.   It meant that individual tenants became liable for the sale of their own goods which implies a need for external trading and it also coincides with the development of Fochabers and the general modernisation.  The new land in Fochabers is referred to as both New Grounds and New Yards apparently indiscriminately.

In addition there appears to have been a change in management style around this time. In 1782 James Ross the chief cashier died and the Duke himself took a much more hands on approach becoming his own cashier with the help of his clerk John Menzies. Clearly after a couple of years of dealing with capons and hens, he had had sufficient to warrant putting place the collections of rents as money.  Interestingly there was a decrease in the money element of the rent between 1782 and 1783 declining from 1,595 in 1781 to 1,342 in 1782 which may have been a trigger as the Duke had to pay out considerable sums in taxes as well as for the building work he was undertaking throughout his estates.  Another manifestation of this new order was also on the payments sides where in 1784 he introduced receipts by servants on printed forms in the shape of a cheque book, bound and with the word “receipts” stamped in gold on red leather on the front of the item (GD44/52/68).

The divesficiation of the rental income is highlighted by the importance of linen from 1781 and 1783 – this coming from the industry set up in Fochabers which had been reported as early as 1778 to have 50 looms working.   From these early “pre-money” years we see the introduction of sheep, pigs, poultry, corn, straw (these latter tow appearing in accounts for the first time in 1775 and referred to as Custom) and later on wheat.  The identification of wedders is potentially confusing as the term related to castrated male sheep but also to the payment of money “wedder money,”  for a wether (castrated ram) or sheep which had at an earlier date been paid in kind (Donaldson, John E., Caithness in the 18th Century. 1938 (Cai.)).

It cannot go without notice that there are no accounts available showing the overview of the area between 1763 and 1781 in the NAS – overall rents appear to be the stable in 1775 and 1776 the rents appear to be the same as those from 10 years before. It could simply be coincidence or that they had been handled in a different way.  What is clear is that there were conversions being made in the 1770’s.  At the front of some of the accounts books there are entries for the “Conversion for Victual Not Paid (Bolls)” where the conversion rate clearly changes and presumably matches market conditions.

YearMealBereCorn / Straw
177314/15/6
177415/18/4
177513/410/613/4
177611/10/7/6

If there were important rental arrears this would be an indication that the tenants could not keep up with the targeted rents. In the Gordon papers there are a number of arrears that can be seen in the early 1800’s but none more than a year old and in fact there are a similar amount of comments in the documentation from early in the 18th century. The significance is that rents had increased and that the tenants could cope.

Nonetheless the spending and presumed lack of matching income meant that the 4th Duke of Gordon ended up in financial difficulties. In 1759 he was recruited by Dundas as part of the Scottish political machine – enticed by the staggering debts that he had incurred. By 1805 he had divorced his wife but was unable to meet the alimony requirements agreed in the terms of the divorce.  This tends to suggest that his personal gain from the improvements was not so effective.  He did however end up marrying Jane Christie from Fochabers with whom he had four children by her –  she never moved into the Castle as she claimed his friends would never visit him there if she was living there. It is interesting to note that it was her sister Alice that was the housekeeper at the castle during this time.

We can also use the tax valuation of the parish as a means of seeing whether the taxable value had increased. Although the smaller divisions of the parish had changed the overall valuation in about 1747 of Speymouth was 1,217 (30) 10 11 and in 1802 had increased to 1,852 (31) 11 1 and increase of 52% which in accounting for inflation was 23% in around 55 years (0.4% per annum)

Rents per acre had increased as well in 1790 they were 10 / acre and in 1845 were 28 / acre. This is an increase of some 182% which accounting for inflation is 125% or 2.2% per annum.

The structure of the farms had changed radically by 1845:

Acreage17901845
200 +01
100 - 15004
60 - 10067
12 - 351516
less than 1050few

Population had increased minimally from 1347 in 1790 to 1475 in 1845 just 128 people or just 2 people more per year or over all 9.5%. For the whole Scotland the population grew from 1,608,420 in 1801 to 2,620,184 in 1841 a growth of 62.9% (32).

So here we see that more or less in the same time frame that taxable value had increased by 23%, rents by 125% but population by just 9,5%.

Was famine relieved?

There is documented evidence to suggest that the improvements in Speymouth did not resolve the overall problem of feeding the local population.

39-40. 1782 May 22. GD44/43/271

William Bell, Cocklarachy, to James Ross.

Set of grass at Huntly Lodge; country in distress for ‘meat’ to the cattle, which are in danger from cold and hunger; need to reserve grass for cattle taken from tenants who cannot pay their rent; fears that victual will be scarce as harvest will be late; asks what is the duchess’s determination with regard to Jamieson the planter at Huntly; she though it unnecessary to distribute lintseed that year.

The real test came in 1816. A violent volcanic eruption of Tambora, in the East Indies (Sumbawa island / modern-day Indonesia) in April of 1815, threw enormous amounts of dust & sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere, which spread around the globe, not only cutting out direct insolation, but leading to a distortion of the global wind circulation via stratospheric / high tropospheric temperature changes. In Europe, grain harvests were late, and in western areas of Britain and across Ireland, continuous rain / low temperatures led to total failure of crops with much distress (33.).

The massive dust cloud affected the climate all over the world and in the UK it was known as the Year without Summer. The harvests across Europe were poor. In Speymouth the Kirk Sessions record the fact that the Duke had to open his granary to give grain to the Kirk for distribution. Just over a century later than the famine that had hit the area the same story was repeated – even given the apparent improvements

On the ground the end of the 18th Century led to in all intents and purposes a population stagnation. A growth of just 2 souls a year means that people were leaving Speymouth – in fact they were leaving in their droves. The improvements in Speymouth did not attract people in, they did mean significant economic growth and this meant that people had find their fortunes elsewhere.

John and William Logie’s family stayed in Speymouth – although not everything was a successful for their children as it was for them. The 4th Duke of Gordon died in 1827 and presumably the relationship almost ended there.

John’s family needed up as either small farmers with holdings of small as 50 acres. His firsts son’s grandchildren were farm labourers. William’s family also stated in Speymouth and his eldest son was a farm labourer. His youngest son managed to eb a farmer of 100 acres but his grandchildren back to small holdings of just 10 acres.

Their brothers Robert, Alexander and James all faired better but by leaving Speymouth – in fact leaving the country fro Canada and India. This was the real diaspora – leave or simply survive.

It's only fair to share...Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *