An instance of the abuse to which the system is liable in the
hands of an unscrupulous tacksman, is afforded by the case of
Robert Mouat, who held, until two years ago, a tack of the estate
of Mr. Bruce of Simbister, in Sandwick parish. A number of
witnesses came forward to testify to the thraldom of the tenantry,
and the injustice which they had suffered under his rule. The
evidence against Mouat was certainly given with such freedom, I
might say with such an earnestness of hatred, as was not displayed
towards any merchant or tacksman who is still in the country.
After making allowance for exaggeration, it is certain that the state
of Coningsburgh during the seventeen years of his rule must have
been very distressing. Every tenant on the ground was bound to
sell to him not only his fish, but all the saleable produce of his
farm. Money could not be got from him, according to one witness,
either at settlement or during the season. The witness John
Halcrow, who is much less vehement in his language than some
others, says:
'13,089. Were they bound to deal with him for shop goods?-The
fishermen were. They were required to go to him with all their
produce, meal, ponies, and eggs, as well as with their fish.'
'13,090. But they were not bound to buy their goods from him?-
No; but they had to do so, because he received all their produce,
and they could not go anywhere else. They had no money.'
'13,091. Would he not give them money for their produce?-Yes,
for such as cattle he would. But it was very few of them who had
any money to get from him.'
'13,092. Why?-Because they were bound to fish for him, and he
received all their fish.'
'13,093. But if he received all their fish he would have to pay them
money for them?-It was very hard to get it from him.'
'13,094. Did he prefer to give them the price in goods?-Yes, if
they would take it.'
'13,095. And did they take it in goods?-Not very much.'
'13,096. Why?-Because they were not very good.'
'13,097. Then they would have money to get at the end of the year
if they did not take very much in goods?-Yes.'
'13,098. Did they get the money at the end of the year?-No. He
said he did not have it to give them.'
'13,099. Then they did not get their money at all?-In some cases
they got it.'
'13,100. But some of them did not get it?-Yes.'
'13,101. And some of them did not get goods either?-Yes; they
would not take his goods.'
'13,102· Then did they go without either money or goods?-Yes.'
'13,103. Was that often?-I have had to do it myself.'
'13,104. When was that?-In 1870. He said he had no money to
give me.'
'13,105. Was that at settlement?-Yes. He had the tack for two
years more at that time, and he gave me a receipt for the rent of
1871. Then he failed; and I had to pay my rent for 1871 over again
to Mr. William Irvine.'
And the witness produced documents to show that he had
actually paid rent in advance to Mouat in June 1871, which,
according to the law of Scotland, does not discharge the tenant;
and that he had afterwards paid it to Mr. Irvine, as factor for Mr.
Bruce. While it may be taken for granted that the condition of
tenants under Mr. Mouat was at no time enviable, some of the
statements about his conduct ought probably to be accepted as
literally true only with regard to the period of struggling
circumstances immediately preceding his bankruptcy.
[John Leask, 1284; Gavin Colvin, 1382; M. Malcolmson, 2978; W.
Manson, 3018; H. Sinclair, 5312; W. Irvine, 3948.]
[Page 10 rpt.]