Introduction:
The
background of this study is an analysis of the 1851 census for the 559
families in the Parishes of Loth and Kildonan in Sutherland. (CEBs:
parishes 52 and 54). The primary family (a) are four of the sons of
Alexander MacLeod and Janet Polson in Elderable, Kildonan, born between
1775 and 1799. (OPR, Kildonan and Sutherland Estate Rentals). In 1819,
during the Sutherland Clearances they were resettled in West Helmsdale,
a crofting township to the south-west of the new village of Helmsdale.
Alexander MacLeod had died before 1808 and it was noted from an estate
map the site of the crofts allocated to the Widow Polson, (later occupied
by Joseph) and to Angus (NLS: Map Library). Of the four sons, according
to the OPR, Angus married in 1807; William in 1819; Joseph in 1819 and
again in 1822 after the death of his first wife; and finally John in
1831, each obtaining a croft in West Helmsdale. These crofts were small,
1.5 to 3 acres each, with poor land on steep hillsides, deliberately
calculated to be inadequate for the maintenance of a family. The crofters
were intended to provide a pool of labour for the large-scale developments
planned by the Sutherland Estate. The cleared interior of the county
was organised into large sheep-farms, operated by imported shepherds
from the Scottish Borders and north-east England. Fishermen, Fish Processors
and Merchants were brought in from the fishing villages south of the
Moray firth to operate the fishery. (See Adam, 1972 and Richards, 1973,
1985).
This study examines the changes in the composition of the households
of members of the MacLeod family, based on the censuses of 1841 to 1891,
in the context of the evidence of family structures shown in the complete
1851 census for the two parishes treated as one. Despite the transition
from the pre-clearance agricultural self-sufficiency the family remained
in a home-based economy which depended on a diversity of external incomes.
To define “mutual benefit of the family members”: the most
obvious is the care of children by their parents, and eventually the
care of elderly parents by one or more of their children. In addition
to this non-conjugal kin may become part of a household either providing
a service or when unable to care for themselves, related kin in different
households located nearby may provide mutual assistance in times of
need or family members may travel away to work and provide income for
the support of their kin.
Family
Evidence:
An
abstract of the CEBs for the MacLeod families from 1841 to 1891 is at
Appendix 1. It is not possible to determine from the CEBs whether these
families remained in the same crofts between 1841 and 1891, however
it is probable that they did. The four brothers, despite the variation
in ages (John was 41, Angus 66) are all living in simple conjugal families
in 1841. Only two of Angus’s six children (born between 1808 and
1827) appear in the 1841 census. For the other three, all the children
recorded in the OPR appear in the census. Their crofts were all within
half a mile of each other, and it can be assumed would render mutual
assistance and support. There were many more kinship relations between
these families and their neighbours, in particular at least five Polson
families, who were cousins to the MacLeods also lived in West Helmsdale.
For clarity I shall subsequently refer to these MacLeods as A1, A2,
A3 and A4, and so marked on the appendix, with Alexander, the shoemaker
in Helmsdale, eldest son of Joseph, A4 and his first wife, designated
A41. By 1851, A1 had two, possibly three kin in his household, but a
13 year old son was in service with a relative in Helmsdale; A2’s
household included a second conjugal family unit, A21. In 1861, A2,
now headed by a widow, included a different second conjugal unit A22.
A3 was still in being, but two sons had married and set up new households
A31, in Marril (about a mile inland from Helmsdale) and A32 in Helmsdale.
In 1871, A1 had a resident grandson, A2 and A22 remained a single extended
household, A4 became a singleton widow and A3 had gone leaving three
separate conjugal households, A31, A32 and A33. It is very likely that
A33 occupied the croft of A3. In 1881 A1, still existed as a conjugal
household with the grandson now described as a boarder. A22, A31, A32,
A33 were simple households, (including a cousin in A33). A41 contained
a granddaughter, A4 remained a singleton widow. Finally in 1891, with
A1 and A4 gone, there remained only the simple conjugal households,
A22, A31, A32, A33 and A41. A4’s house was occupied by A42, a
widower son of A4 who was not recorded in 1861/71/81, and two relatives.
It is noteworthy that some of the other new conjugal units were also
formed by sons who had been absent from a previous census.
The total population of the chosen two parishes were classified as “locals”
and “incomers”, based initially on whether the place of
origin of the head of household was either Loth/Kildonan (LK) or otherwise
(not). Subsequently 24 surnames were chosen which accounted for almost
all the adult male population in 1745, (List of Fencible men aged between
16 and 60) and identified as “local” anyone bearing these
names. I have not discriminated between young heads of household and
older. Both methods have their drawbacks, there is insufficient space
to discuss this here, but they do show some interesting differences
in household structure between the immigrant and local populations.
In appendix 6, “locals” show a slightly lower proportion
of heads living with spouses, reflecting the higher likelihood of being
unmarried or being widow(er)ed. Looking at the adjoining crofting townships
of West Helmsdale and Gartymore, where the % of the population described
as “local”, is 96% and 95% respectively, it can be seen
that the ratio of all females to males is 82 and 63 males / 100 females,
respectively. Sex ratios were highly distorted by male migration, especially
in Sutherland, (Devine, p289) due to the absence of men, working away
from the parish due to lack of local opportunities. Among the crofter
community the small size of the croft with numbers strictly limited
by the Sutherland Estate, controlled the formation of new households.
It is quite significant, though, that the % of relations in “local”
household (12%) is almost double that of the “incomer” households
(6.8%). The much higher % of servants in incomer households (12.7% to
4.4%) is a result of their greater economic power, as larger farmers,
craftsmen and merchants were more likely to have resident employees.
It is reasonable to assume that some of the individuals classed as servants
and lodgers in crofter households may be disguised relatives.
The MacLeod families (1841-91) are analysed using the same composition
and structure tables calculated for 1851 for the whole parish, (appendix
2 and 3). From the Structure table, (appendices 2 and 6) these families
appear to have a below average number of kin for “locals”,
but it is very probable that the servants and lodgers are in fact kin,
which brings the % closer to the community average. (The “local”
community average is also distorted in this way). The number of children
and therefore mean family size is also higher. Looking at the Composition
tables (appendices 3 and 5), these families have a greater propensity
than the local average to form simple conjugal families and have fewer
co-resident, non-conjugal households (just one instance in 1891). Perhaps
this is because local families were more likely to have close kin living
in their own nearby houses, than the incomers. The controlling mechanism
in this group is the inability to support the entire family on the produce
of croft, even if more resident adults could increase the household
cash income, leading to younger children (especially girls) being boarded
out as servants, and mature children leaving the area. Some of these
adults returned in later years when the opportunity arose due to death.
There was also the difficulty in obtaining another croft - Hector in
Marril inherited his wife’s parent’s croft. The alternative
was to live in Helmsdale relying on a trade for support. A41 did this
until the coming of the railway and cheap manufactured shoes in 1870
destroyed the local shoemakers, leaving him, and others, in receipt
of poor out-relief (returns of out-relief of the poor) for some years.
(There were 24 shoemakers and 7 tailors in the two parishes in 1851
- CEBs). A32 did this more successfully and their shop premises are
occupied today by their descendants.
The main driving force of family structure is time and mortality, but
the secondary mechanism is the need to maintain a household which can
maximise its income-generating capability for the benefit of its members
at any particular time, within the constraint of the space available
for the family to live in (a two-roomed cottage). A familiar pattern
in the Highlands which survived well into the present century, has been
the remitting of cash by unmarried children working permanently away
from home, and also the practice of seasonal migration. Once the potatoes
were planted in the spring, (Day, p21) the migrants would travel in
search of work, (usually about the time of the census), returning in
the autumn. Day comments (p20) on the continuum of the crofter class,
between wholly farmers, on the larger holdings to wholly fishermen/
masons/ labourers etc. on the smallest. Typically younger women, employed
as gutters in the herring trade would follow the shoals, from Loch Fyne,
to Stornoway, to Wick, to Peterhead, although in some years there were
no herring and the loss of income to the fishing communities would have
an impact on the survival strategies of the families concerned. Other
work strategies included labour for the harvest on lowland farms, particularly
in the Lothians, and it is reported that many hundreds would walk two
hundred miles or more there and back again each year. A considerable
number of Sutherland stone-masons would work the summer in the South,
employed in the massive expansion of urban Scotland. Hugh Miller of
Cromarty, a founder of modern geology, (Miller, p250), began his career
as a stone-mason and wrote of his experiences on building work in Edinburgh
in the 1820s. In 1861 among the MacLeod families 4 heads of household
were stone-masons and the younger two of these were absent from the
1851 census. Another was a cooper employed in the fishing industry.
Early in the life-cycle of a family, the father would be the migrant,
leaving his wife with the young family; when old enough the children
would find local employment, and eventually replace the father as migrant
worker. Finally one of the middle aged male offspring would take over
the croft, perhaps with his widowed mother, and repeat the cycle. The
Census abstracts at appendix 1 show this pattern clearly with four simple
conjugal families in 1841 and five of the next generation in 1891. In
between can be found the more complex family forms.
Concluding
Remarks:
It
is difficult, at this distance in time, with just standard sources for
evidence to comment in detail in whether household structure was for
mutual benefit. The household structures certainly changed over time
as the needs of family and kin were met. Living at or only a little
above the subsistence level, ‘benefit’ comprises shelter,
food and clothing, care for children and eventually for elderly parents
and other kin. The life span of these four couples (average ages at
death 84 for the men and 81 for their wives; A41 reached 87 and his
wife 97) and the high survival rates of their children (of Heman’s
family A33, I can remember being taken to visit them in the same croft
house in the 1960s when 4 of them, all unmarried and in their 80s still
lived there) does suggest they got it right. I found all of the children
who were recorded in the OPR in the CEBs apart from three missing children
of Angus’s who were old enough to have left home by 1841, leaving
just one possible child death; all others in the CEBs reached their
teens at least. Though the life was hard, their family structures ensured
that it was not short! Only Barbara, widow of Joseph, appears to have
lived alone for a lengthy period (1868 to 1885), but she had two married
sons in Helmsdale and two other MacLeod families living within a few
hundred yards. Her son Hugh, who took over the croft, was present when
she died, (Registrar General Death Certificate) and took over the croft
afterwards.
List
of References:
Adam, R J “Sutherland Estate Management 1802-1816”, SHS,
1972
Day, J P, “Public Administration in Highlands & Islands of
Scotland”, London, 1918
Devine, T.M. “The Great Highland Famine”, John Donald, 1988
Finnegan & Drake, “From Family Tree to Family History”,
1994, chapter 2
Miller, H “My Schools and Schoolmasters”, Collins, nd
Richards, E, “Leviathan of Wealth”, Routledge, 1973
Richards, E, “History of the Highland Clearances”, Croom
Helm, 1985
Sutherland Estate Plans for Kildonan and Helmsdale, dated 1817-1819,
National Library of Scotland Map Library. MAP-193-88
List of Fencible Men aged between 16 and 60 drawn up by the ministers
of the parishes. Unpublished manuscripts held in Sutherland Papers at
National Library of Scotland. Dep 313/3260
Unpublished Estate Rentals and other Documents from the Sutherland Papers
at the National Library of Scotland.
CEBs, Census Enumeration Books for Loth (54) and Kildonan (52), 1841
to 1891
OPR, Old Parish Record for Loth (54), 1803-1854 and Kildonan (52), 1791-1854
Registrar-General for Scotland, Registers of Birth, Marriage and Death,
from 1855
Out-relief of the Poor for parish of Kildonan. Copy register held at
Registrar’s office in Brora.
