INTRODUCTION. (continued 2)

But the very profits of such rapacity at once prompted and justified the resumption of a Grant so valuable and so abused. The Crown’s revenue from the Orkneys had risen progressively within a century, from Lord Sinclair’s Tack livduty of £366, to Oliver Sinclair’s of £2000, which also continued to be Lord Robert’s Feu-duty; but the Crown was too poor to give away such an appanage without a larger share of the profits, and James VI. on his majority, resolved to add to his revenue by resuming the Islands, and to his popularity by affecting to commiserate their misrule. By three Acts of Revocation, Annexation, and Dissolution (29th July 1587), he annexed the Bishopric to the Crown, resumed the Earldom, and re-granted it at a Duty of £4000 to his Chancellor Maitland and Justice-Clerk Bellenden, whom (16th December) he commissioned to inquire into the oppressions of “Lord Robert Stewart, lait Erle of Orknay.”

The result of their inquiry is not recorded, and it was probably dropped when it had served its purpose of cloaking the transfer of a lucrative grant from one courtier to another. There was probably as little sincerity of motive in the renunciation of it by the new Donataries, whose character forbids us to believe that they were sufferers from an honest system of fair dealing with the natives. Probably their two years’ experiment proved, that such a complex machinery of extortion could only be kept in working order by the master hand of Lord Robert, and to him, at a diminished duty of £2075, it was again committed by a new charter (1st April 1589), renewed to him and his heir (11th March, 1591–2), and ratified by Parliament, to Patrick, Master of Orkney (5th June) when Earl Robert had passed to his account—a master in the art of extortion under colour of law.

In a quarter of a century he had raised his revenue from the Crown estate from £6366, 10s. to £9016, and that of the Bishopric from £4381, 2s. 6d. to £9000, at conversions which doubled the total burden of Orkney, besides what he could extract from the scatholds, rocks, and seas of Zetland, and a large income from customs, tolls, wrecks, fines, grassums, and other sources, which could not safely or conveniently be entered in the rental. But this enormous increase of revenue bespoke no improvement of the wealth or resources of the Islands. Their whole legal burden at the Impignoration had been under £600, lvand the large balance of produce was the lawful property of the Odallers or tenants. This increase of rental, therefore, was but the stealthy transfer of this balance from the subject to the ruler, even to the point of confiscation, with a minimum of bare subsistence to the Ryot cultivator—skatts, males and duties, were aggravated in weight, measure and value, till the land could no longer produce enough to pay them, and exorbitant conversions were charged for each deficiency, till the accumulated debt gave pretext for seizure and eviction. The modern improver of the waste finds in every furrow the traces of an earlier tillage and the homes of a dense population; and contemporary rentals testify, that even while the Donatary was exulting in such universal appropriation, whole Districts, once tilled and enclosed, had been again abandoned to the rush, the heather, or the sand flood, overwhelmed by his new and intolerable burdens.

If any thing could have made more bitter the Orkneyan’s sense of oppression, it must have been the baseness of the oppressor. Unlike his brother Moray, whose public aims were lofty, and whose private life was decorous, Earl Robert crawled and wriggled through desperate mazes of legal difficulty, and through political storms which swept away contemporaries more daring or less cowardly—his highest aim to steal estates for his bastards, his boldest achievement to stress an Odaller. Both Earls were reputed sons of James V., but Moray’s mother was the dark proud lady of Lochleven—the dam of Lord Robert, after his birth, found a fitting mate in the Guidman of Cultmalindy, and in their son, Lawrence Bruce, we find the worthy brother and accomplice of Earl Robert, and with poetical justice, the victim of his successor. The structure of his fortunes, reared by the Earl—wrong upon wrong, iniquity upon iniquity—out of the ruins of hundreds, in twenty years of cool, cautious, calculating system, was overthrown as speedily by the spendthrift folly of a son worthy of such a father, the heir of all his vices, with superadded contrasts of his own—crafty but headstrong—mean but vain—rapacious but extravagant—luxurious but cruel to ferocity—an unjust judge, an imperious ruler, and a traitorous subject—a lvifaithless husband and a heartless parent; but relieving the darkness of his father’s memory by the deeper detestation of his own.

Earl Patrick succeeded to a fair inheritance, however heavily the malison of a plundered people might lie upon his father’s soul. Within the bounds of Orkney and Zetland the King was a name and not a power. As Justiciar and Admiral, Donatary of the Crown Duties, Skatts, Males, and Grassums, Tolls and Customs, Feuar of the Earldom, and Commendator of the Bishopric, the Earl was master of all by land or sea. To an income of about £56,000 (equal to the Royal Pension which nearly provoked a war between James of Scotland and the stingy vixen of England), he added the jointure of a wealthy bride, the widow of Sir Lewis Bellenden, his father’s enemy; but all was not sufficient for his expenditure. His new palace in Kirkwall, and Castle at Scalloway, were reared by the same cheap oppression as his father’s residences of Birsa and Dunrossness; but the lavish maintenance of four such establishments, his life of riot, his retinue, body guard and trumpeters, and other affectations of Sovereign state—his petty suits and petty wars, with damages and loss in both, and his desperate struggles to support or redeem his credit at the Scottish Court, plunged him into debts and difficulties inextricable unless he could find another fortune where his father had found it. There was not much to glean after the sweeping harvest of Earl Robert; but if necessity could invent few new forms of exaction, it could augment the old. His favourite adviser Harry Colville, the titular Parson of Orphir, had been hunted by wild justice to a savage death on the Noup of Nesting (1596), but the obsequious ingenuity of Dishington, the Sheriff and Commissary, might suggest new bargains of convenient dubiety, or discover some flaw or overlooked advantage in bygone transactions. Higher land males and grassums were demanded from tenants and tacksmen—Teinds were arbitrarily raised, or so collected, that all were glad to compound or redeem at his own terms—Burdens already commuted and paid under the general name of Feu-duties, were reimposed and superadded to the amount of composition—Owners lviiof Odal lands had incurred non-entry or purpresture—the native Odaller, in unwitting ignorance of casualties whose very names were new to him—Scottish purchasers, like Lawrence Bruce and his co-Supplicants, in blind trust of the Odal immunities which he had assisted to annul. The Earl threatened both with fines or confiscation; and if we smile to find Lawrence Bruce, in the disguise of an Odaller, pleading for Odal rights, in total ignorance of Odal terms or traditions, and complaining of falsehood, meanness, and tyranny so like his own, we can neither wonder nor regret that such a representation did not avert the fate which he deprecated. By a stringent exercise of his powers under the new ratification by Parliament (5th June 1592), the Earl brought into his mercy the Odallers, real and pretended; but fearing the consequences to himself of excessive depopulation, he consented to suspend the dreaded casualties, and renew the tenures by a mutual recognition as Superior and Vassal. The Uthell Buik of Orkney (16th March 1601–2) records every Odal land as “feuit to the Udallers paying their Scatts and Dewties according to the Rentale, with dew service usit and wount”—and how profitable these new bargains were to the Earl’s revenue, is shown by the important “Rentale pro Rege et Episcopo,” compiled about this time by Dishington.

By the subserviency of the Sheriff and his subordinate staff of Things (no longer composed of Odallers, but of Servants and Tenants), and by the abuse or perversion of the Law Book, the Justiciar had no difficulty in multiplying enactments, penalties and convictions for the most trivial causes or impossible crimes. If evidence was insufficient, and bodily torture had failed, confession was extorted by the agonies of the victim’s dearest objects of affection, and the judicial murder was consummated by gibbet, fire or water, on Thieves holm, or before the window of the Earl’s hall. Confiscation for his benefit was the object and consequence of every such conviction, and the Law Book when it had served, and could no longer serve his purpose, disappeared for ever. His droits and jurisdiction as Admiral were made equally profitable by means equally nefarious. lviiiAs Patron he appropriated all vacant benefices, or sold them to his dependents, and as Lord Paramount, he claimed the sole disposal of the commons, harbours, ferries and fisheries, even in the ocean, and every other right not feudally secured.

But by his assumption of a more than kingly prerogative of arbitrary and general Taxation, to the extent of 20,000 marks in 1594, and £40,000 in 1595–6, and by the addition of a third to every Standard of weight and measure, and consequently to every Teind and Duty, he touched the interests, and roused the active opposition of a class less patient and more powerful than the Odaller, whom he had learned to coerce or crush at pleasure—the larger Feuars of the Kirk lands, the old opponents of his father. Confident in their Island strongholds and in their Crown Charters, titulars of their own Teinds, with independent jurisdictions and other rights as well defined as his own, and less precarious, they opposed his usurpations, defied his power, retorted his injuries, and even protected his victims. One after another he had long waged against them a desultory war of law and violence. For the siege and capture of Noltland Castle, and imprisonment of the Laird of Monquhannie (1592), the Court of Session had punished him with escheit and heavy damages; and in defiance of his edicts against suing in any Court beyond the bounds of Orkney and Zetland, Mudy of Breckness, Bellenden of Evie, the Goodman of Eday, and even his own brothers, had carried to the Supreme Court similar complaints with similar results; and the Earl could only vent his rage upon the servants who had convoyed their masters beyond reach of his jurisdiction.

He had, however, influence to obtain another renewal of his grant (1st March 1601), with powers and rights even more extensive, and in spite of unanswerable evidence, Court favour had quashed at least one alarming Bill of Indictment against him (1606). But even the unjust Judges of Scotland were at last wearied by the continual coming of Complainers of every kind, nation and degree, and at this crisis of his fate, he provoked another powerful enemy to join in the combined attack which ended in his ruin.

lixEarl Patrick had enjoyed the temporalities of the Bishopric for many years undisturbed, but the appointment of James Law to the long vacant See (28th February 1605–6), alarmed him for his possession, and he hastened to secure it by new contracts with the Bishop, sanctioned by the King as a temporary arrangement till he should redeem the Bishopric by a rental of £3000 in England (17th November 1606). The Earl had never shown much regard to an obligation, and now overwhelmed with debts, and pressed by Creditors, he was unable, if willing, to fulfil his contract. By unpunctuality, evasion, and insolent refusals, he drove the Bishop to throw his great talents and commanding influence into the common cause of his many enemies, and Law’s rank and character necessarily placed him at their head. Even the Anglo-Scottish Court of James VI. could not resist the Bishop’s just claims, well supported charges, and representations of treason, misrule and inhuman oppression, and on 27th December 1608, Earl Patrick was summoned to Edinburgh, to compear on 2nd March “to answer to the Complaintis of the puir distressed people of Orknay.” It is possible that Bishop Law was sincere in his sympathy for the Earl’s victims; but his Rental of 1614 is as grasping as the worst of its predecessors, and his own day of unlimited power was marked by no redress or relaxation of the bonds of iniquity.

Earl Patrick’s subsequent fate, his long imprisonment, his base repudiation of the son who had risked and lost life and all to serve and save him, and his trials and execution for treason as a subject, not for tyranny as a ruler, have been too amply illustrated elsewhere to need notice here. The consequent forfeiture of the Earldom and annexation of all the lands and rights in the Islands—the excambion and redistribution of Orkney and Zetland into Earldom, Bishopric and Lordship, and the final abrogation of the native laws—might give interest to this Sketch, but would extend beyond its limits of time or subject. The demands of Denmark, and evasions of Scotland, relative to the redemption and restitution of the Islands, would also be a curious and cognate inquiry, lxwhich, with many others of this unexhausted theme, must be left for a future time and another hand. Each subsequent century has had its characteristic type of oppressors, wrongs and victims, feudal, fiscal or judicial. By no course of action, resistance or submission, could the Islanders escape from legalized extortion. They gave Montrose 2000 men and £40,000, and the Commonwealth exacted 300 Horse and £60,000 (1650). Again, they raised another Regiment and Contribution for Charles II. (1651); and he rewarded their loyalty and their sufferings by a further exaction of £182,000, in 1662, and then surrendered the Islands to the tender mercies of the Earl of Morton, the worst King Stork of all the Donataries.

Could Britain prove the abandonment of one exaction, the redress of one oppression, the restitution of one item of official plunder, she might treat the complaints of Orkney and Zetland as bygone and antiquated grievances. But she still enforces every exaction of Tulloch or the Stewarts by a Standard even higher and heavier than theirs—still imposes the double burden of British Cess and Norwegian Skatt with aggravations unknown in Norway—still extorts the last farthing of her claims, just or unjust, and pays her debts by a bankrupt’s composition, compelling a discharge in full—and still appropriates the usurped Church property of Orkney to secular and English uses, transferring its burdens to the other Heritors, and claiming for its last relics the inapplicable immunities of English Crown prerogative, first applied by the democratic Government of Cromwell. The Islands are still robbed of their native Laws, Things, and Jurisdictions, and subjected to foreign codes and courts—while Zetland has of late been mocked with a fractional voice in the British Parliament at the expense of the already nominal representation of Orkney. While Britain parades her maternal care and lavish liberality even to her distant dependencies, Orkney has been neglected by every public officer except the Tax-gatherer. Unaided by one penny of that public money which has enriched other Counties more fortunate or more favoured, Orkney has been left to struggle alone against its lximany difficulties, fiscal and physical. Twice has its right to the income of its own State Property been officially recognized; once by a Lease from George III., in trust for its public improvements (27th July 1775), and again by a Treasury Warrant for the same purpose, from George IV. (3rd March 1825)—but the first was diverted to the sole use of the Lessee; and the second was evaded by a shuffle of Government Offices, and repudiated on the lawyerly quibble that the British Commissioners of Woods and Forests are not bound by the obligations of the Scottish Exchequer. Instead of due protection in return for the taxation and duty of subjects, a County which contributed 5000 seamen to the British Navy, was denied one Gunboat to guard its own shores and harbours from the repeated insolence of privateers.

Conscious that Orkney was but a pawn which might some day be redeemed by the rightful owner, Scotland, like a temporary tenant, scourged the precarious holding with unfair cropping and stinted outlay; and Britain, her assignee, discovering its capacity to produce and to endure, has followed the same profitable precedent of chronic hard usage. Unthrifty greed has loaded the Land with unjust burdens and undue taxation, has impoverished the Owners with unexpected claims and vexatious lawsuits, has often forced back the cultivated acres into wilderness and driven the cultivator to strive in freer lands for leave to live. But no misrule has yet exhausted the fertility of the soil, or crushed the energy, or worn out the patience of a people still struggling against an evil destiny, but still amenable as ever even to the semblance of lawful authority. Even though Scotland may have reduced Orkney to “the skeleton of a departed country,” Britain has still found profit in gnawing the bones.

1