Duke of Sutherland
Duke of Sutherland is a title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom which was created by William IV in 1833 for George Leveson-Gower, 2nd Marquess of Stafford. A series of marriages to heiresses by members of the Leveson-Gower family made the dukes of Sutherland one of the richest landowning families in the United Kingdom. The title remained in the Leveson-Gower family until the death of the 5th Duke of Sutherland in 1963, when it passed to the 5th Earl of Ellesmere from the Egerton family.
The subsidiary titles of the Duke of Sutherland are Marquess of Stafford, Earl Gower, Earl of Ellesmere, of Ellesmere in the County of Shropshire, Viscount Trentham, of Trentham in the County of Stafford, Viscount Brackley, of Brackley in the County of Northampton, and Baron Gower, of Stittenham in the County of York. The marquessate of Stafford, the earldom of Gower and the viscountcy of Trentham are in the Peerage of Great Britain, the dukedom, the earldom of Ellesmere and the viscountcy of Brackley in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, and the barony of Gower in the Peerage of England.
The Duke is also a Baronet, of Stittenham in the County of York, a title created in the Baronetage of England in 1620. Between 1839 and 1963 the Dukes also held the titles of Lord Strathnaver and Earl of Sutherland, both in the Peerage of Scotland. The Scottish titles came into the family through the marriage of the first Duke to Elizabeth Sutherland, 19th Countess of Sutherland.
Family history
was created a baronet, of Stittenham in the County of York, by James I of England in 1620. This title was in the Baronetage of England. His son Thomas, the second Baronet, married Frances, daughter of John Leveson. Their grandson William, the fourth Baronet, assumed the additional surname of Leveson. William married Lady Jane, daughter of John Granville, 1st Earl of Bath and sister of Grace Carteret, 1st Countess Granville. Their son John, the fifth Baronet, was raised to the Peerage of England as Baron Gower, of Stittenham in the County of York, in 1706. His son, the second Baron, served three times as Lord Privy Seal. In 1746 he was created Viscount Trentham, of Trentham in the County of Stafford, and Earl Gower. Both titles are in the Peerage of Great Britain.His eldest surviving son from his first marriage, Granville, the second Earl, was also a prominent politician. In 1786 he was created Marquess of Stafford in the Peerage of Great Britain. Lord Stafford married secondly Lady Louisa Egerton, daughter of Scroop Egerton, 1st Duke of Bridgewater. His son from his third marriage to Lady Susanna Stewart, Lord Granville Leveson-Gore, was created Earl Granville in 1833, a revival of the title created for his great-great-aunt in 1715.
Lord Stafford was succeeded by his eldest son from his second marriage, George. He married Elizabeth Sutherland, 19th Countess of Sutherland. In 1803 he succeeded to the vast estates of his maternal uncle Francis Egerton, 3rd Duke of Bridgewater. In 1833 he was created Duke of Sutherland in the Peerage of the United Kingdom for his support for the Reform Act 1832.
Clearances
The 1st Duke and Duchess of Sutherland remain controversial for their role in the Highland Clearances, when thousands of tenants were evicted and resettled in coastal villages. This allowed the vacated land to be used for extensive sheep farming, replacing the mixed farming carried out by the previous occupants. This was part of the Scottish Agricultural Revolution.The changes on the Sutherland estate was motivated by one major objective: to increase the rental income from the estate, as sheep farmers could afford much higher rents.
The future 1st Duke became the proprietor of the Sutherland Estate on his marriage to Lady Elizabeth Sutherland, the Countess of Sutherland, in 1785. Despite the conventions of the day, Lady Sutherland retained control of the management of the estate, rather than passing this responsibility to her husband.
The Sutherland Clearances did not start until the 19th century, mainly due to insufficient capital – a problem that was solved when, in 1803, George Leveson-Gower, the future 1st Duke inherited a huge fortune from the Duke of Bridgewater. The remaining delay was that many leases did not expire until 1807 or later, but plans were put together for the interior of the estate to be devoted to large sheep farms, with new settlements to be built for the displaced inhabitants. A tentative start was made to this with the letting of the first big sheep farm at Lairg in 1807, involving the removal of about 300 people. Many of these did not accept their new homes and emigrated, to the dissatisfaction of the estate management and Lady Sutherland.
Lady Sutherland was not happy with the estate factor and, in 1811, replaced him with William Young and Patrick Sellar. Young had a proven track record of agricultural improvement in Moray and Sellar was a lawyer educated at the University of Edinburgh; both were fully versed in the modern ideas of Adam Smith. They provided an extra level of ambition for the estate. New industries were added to the plans, to employ the resettled population. A coal mine was sunk at Brora, and fishing villages were built to exploit the herring shoals off the coast. Other ideas were tanning, flax, salt and brick manufacturing.
The next clearances were in Assynt in 1812, under the direction of Sellar, establishing large sheep farms and resettling the old tenants on the coast. Sellar had the assistance of the local tacksmen in this and the process was conducted without unrest – despite the unpopularity of events. However, in 1813, planned clearances in the Strath of Kildonan were accompanied by riots: an angry mob drove prospective sheep farmers out of the valley when they came to view the land, and a situation of confrontation existed for more than six weeks, with Sellar failing to successfully negotiate with the protesters. Ultimately, the army was called out and the estate made concessions such as paying very favourable prices for the cattle of those being cleared. This was assisted by landlords in surrounding districts taking in some of those displaced and an organised party emigrating to Canada. The whole process was a severe shock to Lady Sutherland and her advisers, who were, in the words of historian Eric Richards, "genuinely astonished at this response to plans which they regarded as wise and benevolent".
Further clearances were scheduled in Strathnaver starting at Whitsun, 1814. These were complicated by Sellar having successfully bid for the lease of one of the new sheep farms on land that it was now his responsibility, as factor, to clear. Sellar had also made an enemy of the local law officer, Robert Mackid, by catching him poaching on the Sutherlands' land. There was some confusion among the tenants as Sellar made concessions to some of them, allowing them to stay in their properties a little longer. Some tenants moved in advance of the date in their eviction notice – others stayed until the eviction parties arrived.
As was normal practice, the roof timbers of cleared houses were destroyed to prevent re-occupation after the eviction party had left. On 13 June 1814, this was done by burning in the case of Badinloskin, the house occupied by William Chisholm. Accounts vary, but it is possible that his elderly and bedridden mother-in-law was still in the house when it was set on fire. In James Hunter's understanding of events, Sellar ordered her to be immediately carried out as soon as he realised what was happening. The old lady died six days later. Eric Richards suggests that the old woman was carried to an outbuilding before the house was destroyed. Whatever the facts of the matter, Sellar was charged with culpable homicide and arson, in respect of this incident and others during this clearance. The charges were brought by Robert Mackid.
As the trial approached, the Sutherland estate was reluctant to assist Sellar in his defence, distancing themselves from their employee. He was acquitted of all charges at his trial in 1816. The estate were hugely relieved, taking this as a justification of their clearance activity.
Despite the acquittal, this event, and Sellar's role in it, was fixed in the popular view of the Sutherland Clearances. James Loch, the Stafford estate commissioner was now taking a greater interest in the Northern part of his employer's holdings; he thought Young's financial management was incompetent, and Sellar's actions among the people deeply concerning. Both Sellar and William Young soon left their management posts with the Sutherland estate. Loch, nevertheless, also subscribed to the theory that clearance was beneficial for the tenants as much as for the estate.
Lady Sutherland's displeasure with events was added to by critical reports in a minor London newspaper, the Military Register, from April 1815. These were soon carried in larger newspapers. They originated from Alexander Sutherland, who, with his brother John Sutherland of Sciberscross, were opponents of clearance. Alexander, after serving as a captain in the army had been thwarted in his hopes to take up leases on the Sutherland estate and now worked as a journalist in London. He was therefore well placed to cause trouble for the estate.
The dismissal of Sellar placed him in the role of scapegoat, thereby preventing a proper critical analysis of the estate's policies. Clearances continued under the factorship of Frances Suther and the overall control of James Loch. Through 1816 and 1817, famine conditions affected most of the inland areas and the estate had to provide relief to those who were destitute. This altered policy on emigration: if tenants wanted to emigrate, the estate would not object, but there was still no active encouragement.
In 1818 a large clearance program was put into effect, lasting until 1820. Loch gave emphatic instructions intended to avoid another public relations disaster: rent arrears could be excused for those who co-operated, time was to be taken and rents for the new crofts were to be set as low as possible.
The process did not start well. The Reverend David Mackenzie of Kildonan wrote to Loch on behalf of the 220 families due to be cleared from his parish. He challenged the basic premise of the clearance: that the people from an inland region could make a living on their new coastal crofts. Loch was adamant that the removals would go ahead regardless of objections. Yet, at the same time, Suther and the local ground officer of the estate were pointing out to Loch that few of the new crofts were of an acceptable quality. Some tenants were considering moving off the estate, either to Caithness or emigrating to America or the Cape of Good Hope, which Suther encouraged by writing off their rent arrears. More positively, cattle prices were high in 1818. Ultimately, that year's clearances passed without serious protest.
The next two years had much bigger clearances: 425 families in 1819 and 522 families in 1820. Loch was anxious to move quickly, whilst cattle prices were high and there was a good demand for leases of sheep farms. There was no resistance in 1819, but Suther, despite precise instructions to the contrary, used fire to destroy cleared houses.