DESPITE
their unquestioned abilities as mariners the Ness fishermen were unable to cope with the
awesome conditions that confronted them on that inhospitable winter's day. When the seas
finally subsided the entire crews of five local fishing boats had been lost as dozens of
families came to terms with the fact that their relatives and loved ones would not be
returning.
The men who crewed the
traditional, clinker built, Sgoth Nisich were ranked amongst the most skilful and
experienced in the country. Their open fishing boats were well suited to the lucrative but
highly dangerous long-line white-fishing that was being prosecuted up to 18 miles off the
Butt of Lewis. The sgoth were considered to be amongst the finest vessels of their
kind. Measuring about 35 feet in length they were fast and manoeuvrable. Despite
being solidly constructed and robust enough to work in all but the worst of seas, the
vessels were sufficiently light to be launched from the beaches at Skigersta, Port,
Eoropie and along the coast to Borve.
The men who drowned represented the entire
crews of five Sgoth Nisich. Described in a subsequent report as "the flower of the
place", the crewmen who lost their lives that day ranged in age between seventeen and
fifty two. In addition to the five boats that sank, a further two vessels had also
got into severe difficulties but found safety on mainland Sutherland, where they managed
to beach their vessels before seeking help. Unfortunately, one of the young fishermen who
made it to shore, seventeen year old John Murray from Swainbost, fell victim to the
conditions when he succumbed to exposure. He was buried in the village of Scourie before
the surviving crew members later made their way back to Port of Ness - where their
families had given up all hope of seeing them alive again. In total, 31 men lost
their lives in the storm.
The nature and extent of the tragedy
aroused enormous local and national sympathy as news of the catastrophe spread throughout
the country. In order to provide some material support for the families of the
drowned fishermen, a 'Central Committee' of prominent island citizens was elected in
Stomoway on 9 January 1863. The committee's members included: Sir James Matheson M.P., the
owner of the Lewis estate; his Estate Factor, Donald Munro; three clergymen; two doctors;
two bankers and five island merchants and fish-curers.
An immediate resolution of the select
group was the establishment of a Ness Widows and Orphans Fund. The response to the
appeal for contributions to the fund was both immediate and generous. A number of
Hebridean exiles and mainland based sympathisers were quick to offer their support.
Within a relatively short period of time nearly £1500 was raised. This was, by any
standards, a considerable amount of money at the time. In order to address the
specific needs of the families a 'District Committee' was also elected. It held its
inaugural meeting in February 1863 in the Free Church, Ness. The committees managed
to compile a list of families and relatives who they believed should benefit from the
fund; naming 24 widows, 71 orphans, and 31 other dependants, such as parents.
Over ten years later, in October 1874, an
Edinburgh based businessman named MacKinlay, who had Lewis connections, wrote to the
Central Committee expressing certain concerns about the Fund's management. One of his
principle anxieties was that, although many of the widows and relatives were living in
abject poverty, several hundred pounds of fund money apparently remained undistributed in
a Stornoway bank account. At about the same time MacKinlay also expressed some of
his misgivings to an acquaintance of his, William Donald Ryrie.
William Ryrie had been instrumental in
channelling about one quarter of the total amount donated to the Fund. The various
subscribers had represented a wide cross-section of society: from humble crofter and
fisher folk to the most privileged and influential in the land; including Queen Victoria
and Prince Albert, who had been the largest single contributors to the Fund.
Ryrie possibly felt that if there was any question of impropriety regarding
the Fund, he was duty-bound to look into the matter because of his active role in
promoting it. Consequently, he championed an investigation into the Fund's administration
that ultimately led to a brief but bitter exchange of correspondence between himself and
the Fund's senior administrator, Donald Munro - Lewis Estate Factor to Sir James Matheson
and arguably the most powerful man in Lewis at that time.
In a Crofters Commission report concerning
the period the Commissioners made the following observations: "The late Sir James
Matheson was a great man, a public benefactor, a resolute pioneer of progress, the
architect of his own colossal fortunes, most hospitable, and sometimes profusely
benevolent ........ Alas, there was another side to the picture. The policy of the Estate
was a tortuous, subtle, aggressive one in pursuit of territorial aggrandisement and
despotic power, so absolute and arbitrary as to be almost universally complained of."
Following some preliminary inquiries,
Ryrie was so outraged by the apparent mismanagement of the money that had been collected
for the Ness fishermen's families that, on 30 November 1874, he convened a meeting of fund
contributors in the City of London. On the basis of resolutions that were passed at that
meeting, Ryrie was instructed to compile a report on ".....the administration of the
charity called The Ness Widows and Orphans Fund".
On 27 February 1875, Ryrie published his
report. It offered a damning indictment of how the Widows Fund had been operated over the
previous decade. The main target of his criticism was Donald Munro. The report,
simply titled The Administration of The Ness Widows and Orphans Fund, highlighted two
principle concerns about the charity.
First of all, Ryrie suggested that Munro
had effectively taken over sole control of the Fund money and its distribution. As far as
the report author was concerned, Munro's social and legal status within Lewis meant that
his influence was such that no one could oppose him on any issue of importance. That
included the management of the Widows Fund. In arguing this point Ryrie cited the
many official roles that Munro occupied within the island at that time. These included:
"Factor, Procurator Fiscal, Writer, or Court Pleader, and Notary Public, Justice of
the Peace and Chief Magistrate of Stornoway, Deputy Chairman Harbour Trust, Collector Poor
Rates, Director of Gas Company, Director of water Company, Commissioner of Supply,
Commissioner under Income Tax, Baron Baillie of Lews, Chairman of the parochial Boards of
the four Lews parishes:- Stornoway, Barvas, Lochs and Uig,- Chairman of the Lews School
Boards for the above parishes, and the Commanding Officer of a Company of the Rosshire
Volunteer Artillery. "
Ryrie's second main criticism of Munro was
that, as Matheson's Estate Factor, he had used the money in a manner that was not strictly
in accordance with the principles of the Fund, or in the best interests of the bereaved
families. The main thrust of this allegation was that Munro's visits to Ness each
October (ostensibly to distribute Fund money to the widows and relatives) happened to
coincide with the time of the year that the Estate rents were normally due. Consequently,
as Ryric argued, "...payments, when laid down on the table by the factor, or by his
order, were swept back into the rent-bag, the moment after the widows and orphans, or
their representative, had put their hands to the pen." Ryrie was clearly
appalled at Munro's dual role as both the giver and taker of the families money: "The
evidence of the widows, and others on this point, indicates that the Fund came to be
viewed very much as a Rent Guarantee Fund."
In a letter to Munro, dated 15 December
1874, Ryrie wrote that in view of Munro being "....so prominently referred to in the
correspondence read to the meeting, [referring to the subscribers meeting in the City of
London on 30 November 1874] and looking especially to the accusations made....... you have
altogether evaded meeting the serious charges against you." Ryrie then issues,
on behalf of the Fund subscribers, an undisguised warning: "I think it right to be
explicit with you at this stage of the case, knowing, as I do, that there are several
subscribers who have taken up a strong feeling that there has been such a
maladministration of the charity as to make them resolved to spare no expense in having -
should it be necessary - the whole [matter] submitted to judicial investigation, in order
to be satisfied that the objects of the charity have been carried out, and that the
trustees, being members of the Central and Local Committees, have in managing the Fund,
exercised as much prudence and discretion as they are known to bestow upon their on
affairs." Munro would have been quite unaccustomed to such irreverent language,
accusations or threats of 'judicial investigation'.
In his letter, Ryrie also offers measured
criticism of Munro's fellow Trustees: "The dereliction of duty which you and the
other members of the Committee have committed is, as one instance, indicated by there
having been no examination or audit of the accounts for eleven and a half years; which is
not, I presume, the diligent way in which you and the other members of Committee carry on
your own proper businesses." Aware that concerned contributors were to
hold an Emergency Meeting in London on 30 November 1874, the Stomoway based Fund Trustees
hurriedly convened a meeting of the Central Committee. They met on 27 November - three
days before the contributors gathered in London and decided that the remaining money
should be immediately distributed to the families.
Consequently, Ryrie stated in his report
that: "....accordingly Mr Donald Munro, on the 30th of November, in a storm of wind
and snow, started for Ness with £597 in his bag, protected by two revolvers; having, as
an incident, been met on the way by a deputation of Swainbost Crofters, who were going to
the Castle to complain to Sir James Matheson of Mr Munro having unjustly deprived them of
their summer grazings."
By the time the final division of funds
had been made, seven of the dependants and two of the widows had died. Concerning
any similar initiative in the future, Ryrie was quick to add that he knew of a number of
people in Stomoway who would: "....be glad to give their time and trouble to every
work of beneficence; not that their deeds may be seen of men - but doing the work of God
in silence, and looking to future and better worlds for its reward."
William Donald Ryrie closed his report on
The Administration of the Ness Widows and Orphans Fund with the poignant fact that, in the
previous three months, two more local fishing boat crews had been lost to the sea.
The report was dated 27th February, 1875,
and like all correspondence written by W.D. Ryrie in respect of the Fund, the address
given was The Oriental Club, Hanover Square, London.
