By Peter Lawrie, ©1997

Want to chat about Scottish History? - Thinking of a holiday in Scotland? Stay Bed & Breakfast or self-catering at my home on the beautiful Firth of Tay.

Aches & pains, Migraine? - Try a Bioflow.

Dates.
The years 1868 to 1915 has been used since the Kildonan Poor Law returns cover this period.

Wages Index.
The Wages index was obtained from A.L.Bowley, “Wages in the UK in the Nineteenth Century”, published in 1900. In Table II of Appendix I., page 132-3, A table with a graph alongside of Agricultural labourers wages is given covering the years 1840 to 1891, with the index for 1891 taken as 100. The index relates to England only, so my first assumption is that they can be also used for agricultural labourers in Sutherland. Taking the figures given for 1866, 1870, 1874, 1877, 1880, 1883, 1886 and 1891 the intervening years were filled in by interpolation from the trend on the graph. As I wished to continue the series to 1915, I used the trend of the Prices index, lagging by one year. I realise that wages do not necessarily follow prices in this way but I have made this assumption lacking any other source at present.

Weekly Wages.
From the Report by the Board of Trade into “The Earnings and Hours of Labour of Workpeople in the UK”, Vol V - Agriculture, published by HMSO in 1910, a table of the wages of ordinary agricultural labourers in 1907 was used. The average weekly earning varied from 13/10 in Orkney and 14/2 in Caithness to a high of 21/4 in Clackmannan. The values for Sutherland were 12/2 (61p) for cash and 5/7 (28p) for payment in kind giving a total of 17/9 (89p). Banff and Aberdeen had higher payment in kind components with Cash components a few coppers lower. Apart from these four Sutherland had the lowest Cash payment. In total Orkney and Caithness paid considerably lower and four Highland counties slightly lower than Sutherland. Taking this 1907 figure and the index at 96, the corresponding figures for the rest of the table were calculated. By way of corroboration, this produced an annual income for an agricultural labourer in 1892 of £48.98 which compares with the £49 given by Bowley on page 56. Bowley also gives a daily rate in 1892 for labourers in Northern Scotland of 3/- (15p) which is close to the calculated value.

Prices Index.
The Index of Prices with 1900 taken as 100 was taken from the Board of Trade enquiry into “Working Class Rents and Retail Prices in Industrial Towns in 1912”, HMSO, 1913. The first problem is in the title as the data relates to industrial centres in England and Scotland. One table gives typical wage rates, rentals and basic foodstuffs in Perth. I noted that the prices tended to be higher by about 10-20% than the figures quoted by Rowntree for York in 1900. The index however had risen from 100 to 115 in that time so the cost of basic foods given by Rowntree are probably comparable. It may be a large assumption to take these values as typical for Sutherland but I have no data to confirm or contradict this. The Board of Trade index covers the period 1877 to 1912 so it was necessary to extrapolate for the missing years. For 1913 to 1915, I assumed inflation at 5 points per year. There was a 5 point jump between 1911 and 1912, and of course the start of the war probably caused a larger jump than this. Prior to 1877, for want of any other data, I have extrapolated from the wages index. This is a dubious assumption but might not be too far adrift.

Cost of Living
The starting point for prices has been taken from B Seebohm Rowntree’s “Poverty A Study of Town Life”, MacMillan 1902. The study relates to York, but as mentioned above the cost of food appears comparable to Perth in 1912 as inflated by the rise in the index. I also took the cost of Sundries, that is fuel, clothing etc from Rowntree. The figures for the table were then calculated from the index. The least comparable cost is rent. I have quite arbitrarily used a figure of 1/- (5p) per week or 26/- per year with no allowance for change in the index during the period. I am quite sure that this will not be accurate, however entries in the Kildonan Roll indicate that rents of between 20/- and 40/- were being paid by the Poor Board. The weekly and annual expenditure for one adult, two adults and two adults with two children were then calculated. For two adults I doubled the food and sundries but not the rents. For the children I took 80% of the adult rate for food and 50% of the adult rate for sundries. The surplus resulting from substracting the expenditure from the annual wage shows than two adults could survive above the primary poverty level on a labourers wage throughout the period. However, at no time was there a surplus when two children also had to be fed and clothed, with no supplementary income. In the worse case, in 1883, there was a deficit of almost 42%, and at best in 1899 the deficit was 5%. Rowntree states that his figures for food are less generous than the rations allowed in English Workhouses. Family sizes in Sutherland are more likely to be 4 or 5 rather than 2 children. However, no income from work by the wife or any of the children has been assumed, and in practise such additional income may have been likely. Also, most labourers in Kildonan would have at least some potato ground if not a croft to work. It may be that the figures in the Board of Trade report for earnings in kind took some account of this. Such a resource was much less likely in urban areas. Other food income may have been available from relatives with more land and less demand on it, or even from poaching!

The Poor.
Having extablished that an income of £40 to £50 per annum in Kildonan for a family of two adults and two children probably meant primary poverty and around £20 a year was needed for a single adult to live just above the poverty level, what does this say about widows with children living of Parochial board handouts of at most £12 per year? In the roll comments occasionally indicate that the rent has been paid, presumably it was not if no such indication is given. A Poor House inmate cost the Parochial board about £10 per annum. For out-relief weekly doles to paupers with no dependants of between 1/- and 4/- were being paid. I believe that many of the paupers were receiving supplements to their resources on the basis that at least 3/- per week was required for food alone. The highest weekly dole of 5/- might indicate a pauper who was incapable of obtaining any income for themselves.