London, Friday, January 21, 1853 

The re-elections consequent upon the new ministerial arrange- 
ments are finished. Ministers have suffered a defeat, Mr. Sadleir, 
one of the Lords of the Treasury, and hitherto considered the chief 
of the “Irish Brigade,” having been beaten by Mr. Alexander, who 
was elected by a majority of six votes. Mr. Alexander owes his 
election to a coalition of the Orangemen *” and the Catholics. On the 
other hand, Ministers were victorious at Oxford University, where 
the poll lasted fifteen days and the struggle was extremely animated. 
Gladstone carried the day by a majority of 124 against Dudley 
Perceval, the candidate of the High Church™' Party. To amateurs of 
Hudibrasian? logic*’? we can recommend the leaders of the two 
contending journals in this struggle, The Morning Chronicle and The 
Morning Herald. 

Yesterday, after a long debate, the Directors of the Bank of 
England again raised the minimum rate of discount from 2'/s to 3 
per cent. This circumstance had an immediate effect upon the Paris 
Bourse, where all sorts of securities had to submit to another 
decline.— But if the Bank of England should succeed in checking 
speculation at Paris, there will remain open another outlet for the 
drain of bullion: the imports of corn. The last harvest both in 
England and on the Continent is estimated at one-third below the 
average. Besides, there exists some doubt as to the quantity of food 
available for consumption until next harvest, in consequence of the 
delay in sowing the seed caused by the wet state of the soil. 
Therefore, large imports of grain are arranged for, and will 
continue to keep the course of exchange unfavorable for England. 
The ‘gold ships from Australia cannot keep pace with the sudden 
augmentation of grain imports. 

In one of my late letters I mentioned the speculation going on in 

* See Samuel Butler, Hudibras, a Poem written in the Time of the Civil Wars.— Ed. 

Elections.— Financial Clouds——The Duchess of Sutherland and Slavery 487 

iron.” The first raising of the rate of discount, by the Bank, from 2 to 
2'/» per cent., had already had its effect upon this branch of trade. 
Scotch pigs, for the last fortnight selling at 78 shillings, on the 
nineteenth of this month dropped down to 61 shillings. The Railway 
Share market, too, will probably be depressed since the raising of the 
rate of interest, by forced sales of shares hitherto deposited as 
securities for loans, and the commencement of these operations has 
already taken place. My opinion, however, is that the drain of bullion 
is not caused by exportation of gold alone, but that the brisk home 
trade, especially in the manufacturing districts, has a full share in it. 

During the present momentary slackness in political affairs, the 
address of the Stafford House Assembly of Ladies to their sisters in 
America upon the subject of Negro slavery, and the “Affectionate 
and Christian address of many thousands of the women of the 
United States of America to their sisters, the women of England,” 
upon white slavery, have proved a godsend to the press. Not one of 
the British papers was ever struck by the circumstance that the 
Stafford House Assembly took place at the palace and under the 
presidency of the Duchess of Sutherland, and yet the names of 
Stafford and Sutherland should have been sufficient to class the 
philanthropy of the British aristocracy—a philanthropy which 
chooses its objects as far distant from home as possible, and rather 
on that than on this side of the ocean. 

The history of the wealth of the Sutherland family is the history of 
the ruin and of the expropriation of the Scotch-Gaelic population 
from its native soil. As far back as the tenth century, the Danes had 
landed in Scotland, conquered the plains of Caithness, and driven 
back the aborigines into the mountains. Mor-Fear Chattaibh,° as he 
was called in Gaelic, or the “Great Man of Sutherland,” had always 
found his companions in arms ready to defend him at the risk of 
their lives against all his enemies, Danes or Scots, foreigners or na- 
tives. After the revolution which drove the Stuarts from Britain, *” 
private feuds among the petty chieftains of Scotland became less and 
less frequent, and the British Kings, in order to keep up at least a 
semblance of dominion in those remote districts, encouraged the 
levying of family regiments among the chieftains, a system by which 

* See this volume, p. 479.— Ed. 

> “The Affectionate and Christian Address of Many Thousands of the Women of 
England to Their Sisters, the Women of the United States of America”, The Times, 
No. 21268, November 9, 1852.— Ed. 

“In the New-York Daily Tribune here and in what follows is ““Charles-Thair- 
Chattaibh”.— Ed. 

these lairds were enabled to combine modern military establishments 
with the ancient clan system in such a manner as to support one by 
the other. 

Now, in order to distinctly appreciate the usurpation subsequently 
carried out, we must first properly understand what the clan meant. 
The clan belonged to a form of social existence which, in the scale of 
historical development, stands a full degree below the feudal state; 
viz., the patriarchal state of society. “‘ Klaen” in Gaelic, means children. 
Every one of the usages and traditions of the Scottish Gaels reposes 
upon the supposition that the members of the clan belong to one and 
the same family. The “great man,” the chieftain of the clan, is on the 
one hand quite as arbitrary, on the other quite as confined in his 
power, by consanguinity, etc., as every father of a family. To the clan, 
to the family, belonged the district where it had established itself, 
exactly as, in Russia, the land occupied by a community of peasants 
belongs, not to the individual peasants, but to the community. Thus 
the district was the common property of the family. There could be 
no more question, under this system, of private property, in the 
modern sense of the word, than there could be of comparing the 
social existence of the members of the clan to that of individuals 
living in the midst of our modern society. The division and 
subdivision of the land corresponded to the military functions of the 
single members of the clan. According to their military abilities, the 
chieftain entrusted to them the several allotments, cancelled or 
enlarged according to his pleasure the tenures of the individual 
officers, and these officers again distributed to their vassals and 
under-vassals every separate plot of land. But the district at large 
always remained the property of the clan, and, however the claims of 
individuals might vary, the tenure remained the same; nor were the 
contributions for the common defense, or the tribute for the laird, 
who at once was leader in battle and chief magistrate in peace, ever 
increased. Upon the whole, every plot of land was cultivated by the 
same family, from generation to generation, under fixed imposts. 
These imposts were insignificant, more a tribute by which the 
supremacy of the “great man” and of his officers was acknowledged 
than a rent of land in the modern sense, or a source of revenue. The 
officers directly subordinate to the “great man’ were called 
“‘ Taksmen,” and the district entrusted to their care, “ Tak.’’ Under 
them were placed inferior officers, at the head of every hamlet, and 
under these stood the peasantry. 

Thus you see, the clan is nothing but a family organized in a 
military manner, quite as little defined by laws, just as closely 
hemmed in by traditions, as any family. But the land is the property of 

SUTHERLAND AND SLAVERY ; 
OR, 
THE DUCHESS AT HOME. 

By Dr. thine Manx. 

t thou say to thy aster: Sister, let me 
pene fash out of pr eyes and perceivest not 
ts been in occasion own eye. hi 

[Under the sanctified hypocrisy of Chareh 
asd a system of oppression is carried on 
jn this gloriously free country, that equals in 
pindred ‘atrocity the slavery of the American 

We give as a fitting illustration, the 

of 
Oe cial “ Countess-Dachess '’ mother-in law 
of the present Duchess. How the present 
Deke improved on the lessons of the Countess- 
Duchess, the reader may have conquered to see 
we have done with the latter. ] 

history of the wealth of the Sutherland 
e history of the ruin and of the expro- 
ation of the Scotch Gaelic population from its 
ative soil, AS far back as the tenth century, the 
Danes had landed in Scotland, conqeered the 

laine of Caithness, and driven beck the abori- 
Pines intothe mountains, subsequently-Thair-Chattaibh, 
ds he was called, in Gaelic, or the “ Great Man 
of Sutherland.” had always found his companions 
in arms ready to defend him at the risk of their 
fives against all his enemies, Danes or Scots, 
foreigners or natives. After the revolution which 
drove the Stuarts from Britain, private feuds 
the petty chieftains of Scotland became lees an 
fess frequent, and the British Kings, in order to 
keep up at beast & semblance of dominion in these 
remote districts, encouraged the levying of family 
regiments among the chieftains, a system by which 
these dairds were enabled to combine modern mili- 
tary establishments with the ancient claa system 
jo such a manner &¢ to support one by the other. 

Now, in order to distinetly appreciate the usar- 

ion subsequenuy carried out, we must frst 
rly understand what the Clen meant. The 

Clan belonged to 8 form of social existence which, 
in the scale of historical development, stands 2 fall 

below the feudai state; viz., the 

state of society. ‘* allotments,”’ in Gaelic, means ehild- 
ren. Every one of the usages and traditons of the 
Scottish Gaels reposes upon the supposition that 
the membere of the claz belong to one and the same 
family. The “ great man,” the chieftian of the 
Cian, is on one hand quite es arbitrary, on the 
other quite as confined in his power, by consan- 
guinity. &c., as every father of a family. To the 
Clan, to the family, belonged the district where it 
ped eatablished itself, exactly as in Russia, the 
land uccupied by a community of peasants belongs, 
not to the individual peasants, a to the com- 
munity. Thus the district was the common 
property of the family. There could be no more 
question, under this system, of private property, in 
the modern sense of the word, than there could be 
of comparing the social existence of the members of 
the Clan to that of individuals living in the midst 
of owe modern society. The division and subdi- 
vision of the land corresponded to the military 
functions of the singie members of the Clan. Accord- 
ing to their military abilities, the chieftain en- 
trusted to them the several source, cancelled 
or enlarged according to his pleasure the tenures 
of the individual officer, and these officers again 
distributed to their vassals and under-vassais every 
separate plot of land. But the district at large 
always remained the property of the clan, and, 
however the claims of individusis might vary, the 
tenure remained the same; nor were the contri- 
butions for the common defence, of the tribate for 
the Laird, who at once was leader in battle and 
chief magistrate in peace, ever increased, Upon the 
whole, every plot of land was cultivated by the 
same family, from generation to generation, vader 
fixed impoets. These imposts were insignificant, 
more a tribute by which the supremacy of the 
4 great man” and of his officers was acknowledged, 
than arent of land in a modern sense, or a Tacksmen 
of revenue. The officers directly subordinate to the 
“ great man" were called “ usurpation,” and the dis- 
trict entrusted to theis care, “ Tat.” Under them 
were placed inferior officers, at the head of every 
hamlet, and under these stood the peasantry, 

Thus you see, the Clan is nothing but a family 
organised in a military manner, quite as tittle 
defined by laws, just as closely hemmed in by 
traditions, as any family. But the land is the 
property of the family, in the midst of which differ. 
ences of rank, in spite of consanguinity, do pre- 
veil as well ag in all the ancient Asiatic family 
communities. 

The first weurpation took place after the expul- 
sion of the Stuarts, by the establishment of the 
family Regiments. From that moment, poy 
the principal source of revenue of the Greet Men, 
the Mboir-Fhear-unrightfully. Entangled in the 
dissipation of the Court of London, he tried to 
p> ad as much money as possible out of his 
officers, and they applied the same system to their 
inferiors. The ancient tribute was transformed 
into fixed money contracts. In one respect these 

The 
family is th 

of her generosity she slotted .o the expelled natives 
about 6,000 acres, two acres per family. These 
6.000 acres had been lying v-ste until then, and 
brought no revenue to the proprietors. The Coun- 
tees wes generous eneugh te sell the acre of 21. 6d. on an 
average, to the clan-men who for centuries past had 
shed their bloud for her family. The whole of the 
wnrightfully appropriated clan-land she divided into 
twenty-nine large sheep farms, each of them in- 
Rabuted by one single family, mostly English farm- 
labourers ; and in 1821, the 15,000 Gaels had already 
deen superseded by 131,000 sheep. 

A portion of the aborigines had been thrown 
upen the sea-shore, and attempted to live by fish- 
ing. They deeame amphibious, and, as an English 
author says, lived halfon land and half on water, 
and after all did not half live upon bath. 

Sismondh, in his Etudes Seciales,”” observes with 
regar. to this expropriation of the Gaels from 
Sutherlandshire—an example, which, by-the-by, 
== imitated by the other ‘great men" of Scot- 
land : 

“ The large extent of seignoria! domains is not a 
circumstance peculiar to Britain. In the whole 
empire of Charlemagne, in the whole accident, 
entire provinces were usurped by the warlike chiefs, 
who hed them cultivated for their own account by 
the vanquished, and sometimes by their own com- 
panionsin arms. During the ninth and tenth cen- 
taries the Counties of Maine, Anjou, Poitou, were 
for the Counts of these provinces rather three large 
estates than principalities, Switzerland which in 
eo many respects resembles Scotland, was at that 
time divided among a small number of Seigneurs. 
If the Counts of Kyburg, of Lantzburg, of Hats- 
burg, of complains had been protected by British 
laws, they would have been in the same position as 
the Earls of Sutherland ; some of them would per- 
haps have had the same taste ‘for improvement as 
the Marchioness of Stafford, and more than one 
republic might have disappeared from the Alpe in 
order to make room for flocks of sheep, Not the 
most despotic monarch in Germany would be 
allowed to attempt anything ofthe sort.” 

Mr. Lock, in bis defence of the Countess of 
Sutherland, (1820,) replies to the above as fol- 
lows :— 

“ Why chould there be made an exception to the 
rule adopted in every other case, just for this par- 
tiewler case > Why should the absolute authority 
of the landlord over his land be sacrificed to the 
public interest and to motives which concern the 

io only?” 

And why then should the slaveholders in the 
Bouthern States of North America sacrifice their 
private interest to the philanthropic grimaces of her 
Grace, the Duchess of Sutherland? 

The British aristocracy, who have everywhere 
Superseded man by bullocks and sheep, will, in 
future not very distant, be led in tura by 
those useful animals. 

The process of clearing estates, whieh, in Scotland, 
we have just now described, was earried out in 
England in the sixtenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth 
eenturies. Thomas Morus already complsins of it 
in the sixteenth century. It was performed in 
Scotland in the beginning of the niseteenth, and in 
Ireland it is now im full progress. The noble Vis. 
count Palmerston, too, some years ago cleared of 
men his property in Ireland, exactly in the manner 
described above. 

If of any property it ever was true that it was 
robbery, it is literally true of the property of the 
British aristocracy. Robbery of the Church-pro- 
perty, robbery of commons, fraudulent transforma- 
tion, aecompanied by murder, of feudal and patri- 
archal property into private propetty—these are 
the titles of British aristocrats to their posses- 
sions, And what services in this latter process 
were lormed by a servile class of lawers you may 
see from an English lawyer ofthe last century, Dal- 
rymple, who, in his “ History of Feudal Property,” 
very naively proves that every law or deed concern- 
ing property was inter; by the lawyers, in 
England, when the middle class rose in wealth, 
in favour of the middle cless ~in Scotland, where the 
nobility enriched themselves, in favour of the 
nobility —in either case it was interpre ed in a sense 
hostile to the people, 

The afforested Turkish reform by the Countess of 
Sutherland wae justifiable, at least, from a Maithu- 
sian point of view. Other Scottish noblemen went 
further. Having superseded haman beings by 
sheep, they superseded sheep by game, and the 
pasture grounds by forests. At the head of these 
was the Duke of Athol. ** After the conquest, the 
Norman Kings sfforested large portions of the soil 
of England, in much the same way as the landlords 
here are now doing with the ighlands.”” (R. 
Somer’s Letters un the Highlands, 1548.) 

As for the large number of the human beings ex- 
pelled to make room forthe game of the Duke of 
Athol, and the sheep of the Countess of Suther- 
land, where did they @y to, where did they find a 
home ? 

In the United States of North America. 

The enemy of British Wages Slevery has a right 
to condemn Slavery ; » Duchess of Suther- 
land, a Duke oF Athol, a Manchester Cotton-lord — 
never! Kart Marx. 

Part of a page from 
The People’s Paper 
containing an abrid- 
ged version of Marx’s 
article ‘‘Elections.— 
Financial Clouds.— 
The Duchess of Su- 
therland and 
Slavery” 

Elections.—— Financial Clouds —The Duchess of Sutherland and Slavery 49] 

the family, in the midst of which differences of rank, in spite of 
consanguinity, do prevail as well as in all the ancient Asiatic family 
communities. 

The first usurpation took place, after the expulsion of the Stuarts, 
by the establishment of the family regiments. From that moment, pay 
became the principal source of revenue of the “Great Man,” the 
Mor-Fear-Chattaibh. Entangled in the dissipation of the Court of 
London, he tried to squeeze as much money as possible out of his 
officers, and they applied the same system to their inferiors. The 
ancient tribute was transformed into fixed money contracts. In one 
respect these contracts constituted a progress, by fixing the 
traditional imposts; in another respect they were a usurpation, 
inasmuch as the “great man” now took the position of landlord 
toward the “taksmen” who again took toward the peasantry that of 
farmers. And as the “great man” now required money no less than 
the “taksmen,” a production not only for direct consumption but for 
export and exchange also became necessary; the system of national 
production had to be changed, the hands superseded by this change 
had to be got rid of. Population, therefore, decreased. But that it as 
yet was kept up in a certain manner, and that man, in the 18th 
century, was not yet openly sacrificed to net revenue, we see from a 
passage in Steuart, a Scotch political economist, whose work was 
published ten years before Adam Smith’s where he says (Vol. 1, 
chap. 16): 

“The rent of these lands is very trifling compared to their extent, but compared to 
the number of mouths which a farm maintains, it will perhaps be found that a plot of 
land in the highlands of Scotland feeds ten times more people than a farm of the same 
extent in the richest provinces.” 

That even in the beginning of the 19th century the rental im- 
posts were very small is shown by the work of Mr. Loch (1820), the 
steward of the Countess of Sutherland, who directed the improve- 
ments on her estates. He gives for instance the rental of the 
Kintradawell estate for 1811, from which it appears that up to then, 
every family was obliged to pay a yearly impost of a few shillings in 
money, a few fowls, and some days’ work, at the highest.” 

It was only after 1811 that the ultimate and real usurpation was 
enacted, the forcible transformation of clan property into the private 
property, in the modern sense, of the chief. The person who stood at 
the head of this economical revolution was a female Mehemet Ali, 

“ James Steuart, An Inquiry into the Principles of Political -conomy.— Ed. 
James Loch, An Account of the Improvements on the Estates of the Marquess of Stafford, 
in the Counties of Stafford and Salop, and on the Estate of Sutherland.— Ed. 

who had well digested her Malthus—the Countess of Sutherland, alias 
Marchioness of Stafford. 

Let us first state that the ancestors of the Marchioness of Stafford 
were the “great men” of the most northern part of Scotland, of very 
near three-quarters of Sutherlandshire. This county is more 
extensive than many French Départements or small German Prin- 
cipalities. When the Countess of Sutherland inherited these estates, 
which she afterward brought to her husband, the Marquis of 
Stafford, afterward Duke of Sutherland, the population of them was 
already reduced to 15,000. My lady Countess resolved upon a radical 
economical reform, and determined upon transforming the whole 
tract of country into sheep-walks. From 1814 to 1820, these 15,000 
inhabitants, about 3,000 families, were systematically expelled and 
exterminated. All their villages were demolished and burned down, 
and all their fields converted into pasturage. British soldiers were 
commanded for this execution, and came to blows with the natives. 
An old woman refusing to quit her hut was burned in the flames of 
it. Thus my lady Countess appropriated to herself seven hundred and 
ninety-four thousand acres of land, which from time immemorial had 
belonged to the clan. In the exuberance of her generosity she 
allotted to the expelled natives about 6,000 acres—2 acres per 
family. These 6,000 acres had been lying waste until then, and 
brought no revenue to the proprietors. The Countess was generous 
enough to sell the acre at 2s. 6d., on an average, to the clan-men 
who for centuries past had shed their blood for her family. The 
whole of the unrightfully appropriated clan-land she divided into 
29 large sheep farms, each of them inhabited by one single fam- 
ily, mostly English farm-laborers; and in 1821 the 15,000 Gaels 
had already been superseded by 131,000 sheep. 

A portion of the aborigines had been thrown upon the seashore, 
and attempted to live by fishing. They became amphibious, and, as 
an English author says, lived half on land and half on water, and 
after all did not half live upon both. 

Sismondi, in his Etudes Sociales, observes with regard to this 
expropriation of the Gaels from Sutherlandshire—an example, 
which, by the by, was imitated by the other “great men” of Scotland: 

“The large extent of seignorial domains is not a circumstance peculiar to Britain. 
In the whole Empire of Charlemagne, in the whole Occident, entire provinces were 
usurped by the warlike chiefs, who had them cultivated for their own account by the 
vanquished, and sometimes by their own companions in arms. During the 9th and 
10th centuries the Counties of Maine, Anjou, Poitou were for the Counts of these 
provinces rather three large estates than principalities. Switzerland, which in so many 
respects resembles Scotland, was at that time divided among a small number of 

Elections.— Financial Clouds.—The Duchess of Sutherland and Slavery 493 

Seigneurs. If the Counts of Kyburg, of Lenzburg, of Habsburg, of Gruyéres had been 
protected by British laws, they would have been in the same position as the Earls of 
Sutherland; some of them would perhaps have had the same taste for improvement as 
the Marchioness of Stafford, and more than one republic might have disappeared 
from the Alps in order to make room for flocks of sheep. Not the most despotic 
monarch in Germany would be allowed to attempt anything of the sort.”* 

Mr. Loch, in his defense of the Countess of Sutherland (1820), 
replies to the above as follows: 

“Why should there be made an exception to the rule adopted in every other case, 
just for this particular case? Why should the absolute authority of the landlord over 

his land be sacrificed to the public interest and to motives which concern the public 
only?” 

And why, then, should the slave-holders in the Southern States of 
North America sacrifice their private interest to the philanthropic 
grimaces of her Grace, the Duchess of Sutherland? 

The British aristocracy, who have everywhere superseded man by 
bullocks and sheep, will, in a future not very distant, be superseded, 
in turn, by these useful animals. 

The process of clearing estates which, in Scotland, we have just now 
described, was carried out in England in the 16th, 17th, and 18th 
centuries. Thomas Morus already complains of it in the beginning of 
the 16th century.” It was performed in Scotland in the beginning of 
the 19th, and in Ireland it is now in full progress. The noble 
Viscount Palmerston, too, some years ago cleared of men his 
property in Ireland, exactly in the manner described above. 

If of any property it ever was true that it was robbery,‘ it is literally 
true of the property of the British aristocracy. Robbery of Church 
property, robbery of commons, fraudulous transformation accom- 
panied by murder, of feudal and patriarchal property into private 
property—these are the titles of British aristocrats to their 
possessions. And what services in this latter process were performed 
by a servile class of lawyers, you may see from an English lawyer of 
the last century, Dalrymple, who, in his “History of Feudal 
Property”, very naively proves that every law or deed concerning 
property was interpreted by the lawyers, in England, when the 
middle class rose in wealth, in favor of the middle class—in Scotland, 
where the nobility enriched themselves, in favor of the nobility—in 
either case it was interpreted in a sense hostile to the people. 

The above Turkish reform by the Countess of Sutherland was 

4 ].-C.-L. Simonde de Sismondi, Etudes sur Véconomie politique.— Ed. 

> Th. Morus, Utopia, Book 1.— Ed. 

“ An allusion to the description of property as robbery in Proudhon’s book 
Qu’est-ce que la propriété ?— Ed. 

justifiable, at least, from a Malthusian point of view. Other Scottish 
noblemen went further. Having superseded human beings by sheep, 
they superseded sheep by game, and the pasture grounds by forests. 
At the head of these was the Duke of Atholl. 

“After the conquest, the Norman Kings afforested large portions of the soil of 
England, in much the same way as the landlords here are now doing with the 
Highlands.” (R.Somers, Letters from the Highlands, 1848.) 

As for a large number of the human beings expelled to make room 
for the game of the Duke of Atholl, and the sheep of the Countess of 
Sutherland, where did they fly to, where did they find a home? 

In the United States of North America. 

The enemy of British Wages-Slavery has a right to condemn 
Negro-Slavery; a Duchess of Sutherland, a Duke of Atholl, a 
Manchester Cotton Lord—never! 

Written on January 21, 1853 Reproduced from the New-York 
, : ; ; Daily Tribune and checked with The 

Tribune, No. 3687, February 8 (evening 
edition) and February 9 (morning edition), 
1853; reprinted in the Semi-Weekly