Country sports, the Game Laws and poaching
During the 19th century wealth in the countryside
still equated to the proprietorship of land and its use both for agriculture
and industrial purposes, such as mining and quarrying and the passage of
railways and canals. Land ownership was
in the hands of relatively few people and they enjoyed lavish lifestyles, both
in their grand country houses and their alternative city accommodation, frequently
in London. While in the countryside,
usually in the late summer and autumn, the big landowners typically enjoyed the
country sports of hunting, shooting and fishing, in the company of their
friends and those they wished to impress.
The rights of landowners to hunt and shoot were defined and protected by
the Game Laws, which basically reserved the right to kill wild animals to the
owner of the land on which they existed.
To enforce their rights, landowners employed gamekeepers to detect and
detain those offending against the Game Laws and to act as witnesses in any
subsequent prosecution. In order to
achieve a successful prosecution, it was only necessary to prove trespass with
the intention of taking game, for example by being accompanied by a dog, or
carrying a snare or a gun.
The Game Laws and their enforcement created widespread
resentment from the lower orders, farmers, cottars and labourers eking out a
living from the land. Depending on the
terms of their leases, tenants might even be prevented from shooting game,
including low-value game such as rabbits, which was damaging their crops. Poaching, the illegal taking of game, was
widespread, despite the risks involved and poachers, often seen as romantic
figures, asserting the natural desire of the lower orders to protect their
crops and to provide for their families.
Enlightened landowners frequently turned a blind eye to low level
poaching, the taking of ground game (rabbits and hares) if high-value game,
such as deer, grouse and pheasants, was not pursued.
In addition to farmers protecting their crops and the poor
feeding their dependants, there was another category of poacher, the
professional, the man who earned his living by taking and selling game
illegally. This type of poacher was both
skilful and persistent in its defiance of the landed proprietors, the law and
the law-enforcers. Although many
professional poachers did not employ violence against their pursuers, submitting
quietly to detention once apprehended, others had no compunction about using
violence to avoid capture, including the use of firearms. Stories of their triumphs were admired and
recounted not just by the lower classes but also by prominent writers,
especially those of a radical bent. In
Scotland, William McCombie Smith, the heavy athlete, sports records authority
and radical polemicist, who was schoolmaster for many years at the Blackwater
school, near Kirkmichael, Perthshire, wrote a book entitled “The Romance of
Poaching”, which took this standpoint on poaching. (See “William McCombie Smith (1847 – 1905) –
who was his biological father?” on this blogsite.) David Kinloch Michie (1820) fell into the
category of the heroic (and violent) professional poacher but, though the two
men undoubtedly knew each other, DK Michie does not appear to have been one of
the subjects upon which McCombie Smith’s book was based.
The Michies and the Kinlochs
David Kinloch Michie was born at Caputh, a village in
Perthshire, located about three miles south of the town of Dunkeld. He was the fourth son and seventh child of
John Michie (1773) and his wife Isabella Anderson. John Michie (1773) was the manager of the
lime kilns on the Gourdie estate of the Kinloch family and this appears to be
the origin of DK Michie’s second given name. “Kinloch” is a relatively
infrequent British surname, highly localised to Perthshire, Angus, Fife and the
counties of the Scottish central belt.
Both David Michie (1820) and his eldest brother, Charles (1807) received
this unusual appendage and may have been named respectively after Captain
Charles Kinloch and his brother, David Kinloch, both of whom died in 1828. Limestone deposits are rare in Scotland,
especially so north of the Forth and Clyde valleys. Where such deposits were found, lime kilns
were built for making quick lime for lime mortar manufacture and (in the 19th
century) burnt lime for application to agricultural land. The Gourdie site seems to have been in use
since the partial Roman invasion of Scotland (about AD 79 to AD 120), when a
fort was built locally using lime mortar.
David Kinloch Michie
“Donald Gow” and David Kinloch Michie – The 1904 “Weekly
News” article
Much of what we think we know about David Kinloch
Michie’s poaching activities is derived from an article, entitled “Famous
Scottish Poachers”, published in 1904 in the “Weekly News”, a DC Thomson of
Dundee newspaper, which has been in production continuously since 1855. It describes the activities of one Donald
Gow. But this was a pseudonym. “Donald Gow” is believed to have been David
Kinloch Michie and the evidence for this identification will be reviewed
below. But first the whole article is
reproduced below, in italics.
Famous Scottish
Poachers
We may as well inform the reader that
he will look in vain in the annals of Perthshire for the for accounts of any
poacher of the name of Donald Gow. It is
not, however, more than two years since the man we have thus designated died, a
respected member of the community of a town, where his youthful career was but
imperfectly known.
Furthermore, several members of his family occupy positions of
trust and importance. It is not our
desire to incur the displeasure of anyone, far less to cause them annoyance,
and for these reasons we prefer dealing with our subject under an assumed name,
though I doubt that a few intimately acquainted with the incidents we are about
to relate will be able to identify the person we have thus designated.
During the earlier decades of the last century there was no more
celebrated poacher in Perthshire than Donald Gow. In common with most Highland poachers of
repute, Donald was endowed with a large frame and no ordinary share of
strength. Of rash and passionate
disposition, the common populace believed that before he would submit to
capture, he would rather maim or murder his assailants. Oftener than once, when hardly pressed, he
had raised his gun and threatened to shoot his pursuers, but as this action had
invariably stopped pursuit, he had never actually fired upon anyone. Nevertheless, the determined tone and manner
of the man gave rise to the belief that unless his demands were complied with,
he would actually do so, a belief which after events proved to be only too
correct.
As a matter of fact, Gow's career as a poacher did not extend over
a great many years. He lacked the craft and cunning necessary to the successful
poacher, and depended too much upon high-handed action, terrorism, and
intimidation. But if his career was
short it was certainly stirring enough while it lasted. In his earlier poaching expeditions Donald
was frequently accompanied by his brother William, and, although an
incorrigible poacher, the latter was very different from Donald.
Of a quiet peace-loving disposition, William exercised a
considerable influence over his brother. When he encountered keepers, he was
always quite willing to move off their moor on to an adjoining one, and
frequently pledged himself not to shoot until he was over their boundary, a
pledge which he always rigorously respected, even although grouse rose thick
around him. By the bursting of a gun he
had several fingers blown off one hand.
When the accident occurred, he held up his maimed hand and significantly
exclaimed "Thank God, it's the left one". Premature death cut him down, and Donald was
deprived of the benefit of his brother's wise counsel and restraint.
After his brother's death Donald was on one occasion confronted by
a solitary keeper. The man, with more
zeal than prudence, rated the poacher in highly vituperative language. Gow several times warned him to moderate his
talk, and ultimately told him that unless he held his tongue, he would make him
carry his bag for the remainder of the day.
This only tended to still further incense the keeper and Donald throwing
down the game bag ordered him to pick it up and accompany him. The man refused to do this, but in the end,
he was only too glad to accede to Donald's request and had to submit to the
humiliation of acting as ghillie to a poacher on his own grounds, until
darkness closed in.
At another time Donald discovered that a companion of his was
passing the evening in a small public house. Wishing to be off on a poaching
expedition and fearing that the man might be under the influence of drink, talk
more than prudence dictated, he desired to get him out. He did not wish to enter the public house and
was rather at a loss how to attract his friend's attention.
Looking through the uncovered window he saw a long deal table
placed in front of it. On both sides of
this men sat drinking, while a candle, placed on top, supplied them with
light. Stepping back, he raised his gun,
aimed at the candle, and set a shot crashing through the window. In the confusion that followed he managed to
pick up his companion and was off to the hills before the startled company had
again resumed their interrupted potation.
Donald Gow once found himself in an inn in a small Perthshire
village, and while regaling himself there his presence became known to the
keepers. A hurried consultation resulted
in the determination to attempt his capture.
All the keepers in the immediate vicinity were summoned, and the
services of several villagers were also requisitioned.
As it was deemed prudent to await his exit a small crowd formed
just outside the inn door. Mine Host
informed Donald of what was transpiring outside, but the poacher apparently
received the news with indifference. He
remained indoors until he considered it necessary to depart. Reaching the threshold, he stopped for a
moment and surveyed the crowd before him.
Then, without uttering a word, he pulled the hammers of his gun to full
cock and strode resolutely forward. The
significance of his action was not lost upon witnesses. They dreaded that the first one that offered
opposition would receive the contents of the ready gun, and although well
enough aware that although one or two were placed “hors de combat”, a
sufficient number remained to overpower Donald, yet no one was willing to
voluntarily sacrifice life or limb.
The result was that as the poacher advanced a lane opened out
before him and he got clear sway without a hand being raised to arrest his
progress.
We now come to the more romantic period of Gow’s career. One December day, along with a companion,
Donald had been foraging among the Perthshire Grampians. Unknown to him a large posse of keepers had
located his whereabouts, and ere he was aware of their presence, they were
almost on him. It is possible that by
now the fact had dawned on him that his high-handed actions were likely to
bring about his downfall. At all events
he decided on flight, so off he and his companion set, closely followed by the
keepers.
They shaped their course into the valley, or strath, threaded by a
river, across which at a small hamlet stretched a bridge. Towards this they bent their course, but a
short distance off they discovered that the bridge was guarded against
them. On the higher hills snow had
previously fallen, and a recent thaw, combined with heavy rainfall, had swollen
the river into a raging flood. Their
position was now desperate – a guarded bridge and a swollen river in front of
them and an overwhelming force of pursuers behind.
Eschewing the bridge, Gow bent his steps to the river, and without
a moment’s hesitation, plunged into the foaming flood. Bathed in perspiration as he was, this sudden
immersion into the cold “snaw bree” chilled him to the very bone. Yet resolutely he forged forward, but strong
man though he was, so powerful was the current at mid-stream that it almost
lifted him off his feet. Nevertheless, he braved the danger and ultimately
gained the other side in safety.
But how fared it with his companion? The man reached the river a little behind
Donald, and he too, unhesitatingly plunged into the river. He was a powerful fellow but of low thick set
stature, and the water reaching proportionately higher upon him made his passage
infinitely more difficult and hazardous.
As he neared the middle of the stream his danger increased, and
soon he found that it was a matter of impossibility for him to cross. To return he also realised was beyond his
ability for such was the strength of the current that he feared if he lifted a
foot, he would be swept off downstream and drowned. In his extremity he shouted to Donald for
help. The latter had just gained the
other side when his friend found himself in such danger. Donald’s code of honour forbade him deserting
a comrade, fully realising the peril in which the man was placed, he again
re-entered the water and forced his way towards him. His timely and prompt assistance just saved
his friend, and both again found themselves on the wrong side of the river.
Meanwhile their pursuers, having noticed their intentions to ford
the stream, and in deeming discretion the better part of valour hurried on to
the bridge in order to take up pursuit on the other side. The latent daring in Gow’s spirit was now
fully aroused, and, determined to make good the passage of the stream at all
hazard, he stepped out for the bridge, closely followed by his companion. Here he found his erstwhile pursuers had
called a halt, and that their numbers were augmented by villagers and others,
among whom was a policeman. But,
although the bridge was fairly crowded with people, the daring poachers decided
to force a passage. Bracing themselves
for the supreme effort, and keeping close together, Gow clubbed his gun, and
the two rushed at the bridge. The resolute
manner of the poachers and the determination imprinted on Gow’s features showed
people that he was in no mood to be tampered with. Right and left they moved out of the
poachers’ course, and both cleared the bridge without any attempt being made to
lay a hand upon them.
There is, however, a vast difference between confronting a grimly
determined man and pursuing a flying fugitive.
No sooner had the poachers gained some little start than the hue and cry
was again raised, and the chase commenced.
Spent with previous exertions and hampered with water-logged clothes,
the speed of the poachers was very considerably lessened. Their pursuers therefore began to gain on
them rapidly. Gow, realising that he
would soon be overtaken, turned and shouted back that the people who followed
would be well advised, if they had any regard for their personal safety, to
come no further. The determined tones of
the man so affected some, that they at once gave up the chase. Others, however, held on, and among them was
the policeman.
A second time Gow turned, and now he swore that unless they
desisted, he would shoot one or more of them.
And here it may be remarked that during his passages of the river he had
contrived to keep his gun clear of the water.
The pursuers, realising that the quarry was now becoming more dangerous,
with one exception abandoned the chase.
This exception was the policeman.
What he thought he could do against two such men as Gow and his
companion is not very apparent. Perhaps
he thought to overcome them by the majesty of the law as embodied in his blue
uniform; if so, he was grievously mistaken.
Nevertheless, he continued the chase, and was now rapidly gaining ground
when a third time Gow turned and ordered him to stop. The policeman still came on.
“If you come one step past that white stone” thundered Gow, “I
will shoot you. I’m determined not to
run another yard” and he cocked both barrels.
The constable paid no heed.
The white stone in question was only a yard or two in front of him, and
past it he came; but not far. As he
passed the nominated mark Gow raised his gun and fired.
With a yell of pain, the policeman dropped to the ground, and Gow,
coolly uncocked the other barrel and placing the gun under his arm, walked off.
The wounded man, though pretty severely peppered, was not
seriously hurt, for the poacher had aimed at his legs. But the law was insulted, and descriptions of
Gow together with other warrants for his apprehension, were scattered over the
country.
Donald now realised that he was really in danger, and with
characteristic daring took a bold adventurous step. Shaving off his beard and altering his
appearance as much as he possibly could, he repaired to Aberdeen, and there
applied for admission into the police force.
He was a very promising applicant, and without delay the customary forms
were gone through, and Donald found himself a member of the Aberdeen County
Constabulary.
Just before taking up duty the Superintendent placed a paper in
his hand, at the same time saying:- “Here is a warrant for the apprehension of
a notorious Perthshire poacher and criminal, together with his
description. His apprehension means
promotion, and you seem as likely to effect his capture as anyone in the force,
should you happen to come across him. He
is supposed to have fled in the direction of Aberdeenshire, so you had better
keep your eyes open, and perhaps you may succeed in laying hands on him”.
Donald promised to give the matter his best attention, and it is
said he carried the mandate authorising his own arrest for eighteen months.
During his service in the police force Donald had frequently to
pass a certain shooting lodge. He was by
no means devoid of good looks, and his powerful physique, with a somewhat
stately and imposing personality, attracted the attention of the ladies and the
gentlemen there. Many frequently engaged
him in conversation, and it soon leaked out that he possessed no inconsiderable
knowledge of sport. It was not long
before Donald became a general favourite, and by the proprietrix of the lodge
and estate, a widowed lady of high rank, he was held in special esteem.
One day while passing the lodge Donald observed a party of
gentlemen engaged in a rifle shooting competition, a bevy of ladies surveying
the contest, and not infrequently chaffing the gentlemen on their poor display
of marksmanship. As Gow approached the
hostess beckoned to him “Can you shoot, policeman”? she asked. Donald admitted that he could shoot, but by
no means was an expert marksman. “Oh, do
try,” she returned “I’m sure you’ll shoot badly indeed, if you can’t beat some
of these scores made here to-day”.
Thus entreated Gow consented, and a rifle was handed to him. It was the first time he had handled the gun
since events of that memorable day, now ranked among the occurrences of the
past, and these must have passed vividly before his mind’s eye as his fingers
closed on the stops of the rifle. But
his eye had not lost its precision, nor had his hand his cunning, for not only
did he demonstrate that he could shoot but shot well.
“Why, the policeman will beat us all” at last, said one of the
gentlemen and such was indeed the case.
The competition over, the hostess invited Gow indoors to partake
of some refreshments. He had good reason
for believing that the lady regarded him with favour, and now she gave him
tangible evidence of this by proposing that he should quit the police force and
become her gamekeeper.
Donald rapidly reviewed the situation. The offence which he had committed still hung
like a millstone round his neck. This
lady he knew possessed very considerable influence. Would he therefore accept her proposal,
confide in her his secret, and try to enlist her services on his behalf? He felt confident she would, at least, not
betray him, so he made a clean breast of it, and told her all. The narration appealed to the romantic side
of the lady’s nature, and she promised to do all she could to free Gow from the
consequences of his rash act.
This she found to be less easy than she anticipated. The legal functionaries regarded Donald as
something worse than an ordinary poacher, and although a considerable time had
elapsed since the offence was committed, were still bent on vengeance. The lady however, persevered, and ultimately
succeeded in obtaining Gow’s pardon, it is said, by paying for him a heavy
fine. Donald therefore entered his
benefactress’s service as a gamekeeper, the profession which of all others he
had previously banned.
His romantic career was now over, and it is not our intention to
follow his vicissitudes further. In this
situation, and in every other which he subsequently occupied, he discharged his
duties faithfully and well, and when his death occurred, little more than a
year ago, at a ripe old age, he was one of the most inoffensive and respected
members of the community in which he resided.
An Analysis of the Weekly News article. Was “Donald Gow” a pseudonym for David
Kinloch Michie?
Obfuscation
The first issue to be addressed in evaluating
this article is that which was stated openly by its unknown creator. “We may as well inform the reader that he
will look in vain in the annals of Perthshire for accounts of any poacher of
the name of Donald Gow … .” “It is not
our desire to incur the displeasure of anyone, far less to cause them
annoyance, and for these reasons we prefer dealing with our subject under an
assumed name … .” The identity of the subject of the
piece has been given a false name. Other
facts have been deliberately omitted from the article too, such as the name of
the town where “Donald Gow” was “a respected member of the community
…” “where his youthful career was but imperfectly known” and the identity
of “the proprietrix of the lodge and estate, a widowed lady of high rank”
that “Donald Gow” is said to have encountered while he was on the run, concealed
by his employment as a policeman.
Further, no precise dates are given in the
article, though hints as to timescale and date are recorded. “It is not, however, more than two years
since the man we have thus designated died”, “Gow's career as a poacher did not
extend over a great many years”, “he carried the mandate authorising his own
arrest for eighteen months”. With
regard to brother “William”, “Premature death cut him down”.
Since the author of the article is trying to
give an accurate account of the events in “Donald Gow’s” life as a
poacher, it is likely that much of what is written is circumstantially correct,
or that the author believed it to be accurate.
However, it is pertinent to ask if any other simple facts were changed
in support of the creator’s stated aim of obfuscation? Three candidates for such change are the name
of “Donald Gow’s” brother and fellow poacher, “William”, the town to which he repaired after the
policeman was shot, “Aberdeen” and the police force that he then joined,
“Aberdeen County Constabulary”. In
the case of brother “William”, it will be shown that his name too is
probably false, increasing the likelihood that “Aberdeen” and “Aberdeenshire”
are also inventions intended to lay a false trail for those seeking “Donald
Gow’s” identity.
David Kinloch Michie – Outlawed poacher
These ideas can be tested by reference to
relevant facts concerning David Kinloch Michie, derived from independent
sources. On 21st December
1839, David Kinloch Michie, accompanied by fellow poacher, Kennedy, shot three
times at Alexander Macdonald,
gamekeeper of Kindrogan, Blairgowrie, Perthshire, John McIntosh, constable,
John Murray and James Stewart, farm servant, on or near the Hill of Balnabroich,
Kirkmichael, Perthshire. This is a very
similar, but not identical incident, to that described in the article, when a
policeman was peppered with shot in the legs.
David Kinloch Michie was charged about 1841 with wounding the Kindrogan
keeper.
There is also much circumstantial
evidence which is consistent with “Donald Gow” being a pseudonym for
David Kinloch Michie (1820). For
example, the date of his death of DKM (26th February 1903) within
two years of the year of publication of the article (1904). “It is not, however, more than two years since
the man we have thus designated died”. Also, “several members of his family occupy
positions of trust and importance” is consistent with the jobs taken on
by David Kinloch Michie’s sons. John
Michie (1853 – 1934) – Head Forester on the Balmoral estates; David Kinlich
Michie (1854 – 1950) – Managing Director, Walker and Sons Ltd, Engineers,
Ceylon; Henry Lumsden Michie (1857 – 1915) – Well-known game dog breeder;
Thomas Veitch Michie (1858 – 1930) – Farmer and dog breeder at Clunskea,
Pitlochrie, Perthshire.
“In his earlier poaching expeditions Donald was frequently
accompanied by his brother William and, although an incorrigible poacher, the
latter was very different from Donald.”
“Premature death cut him down, and Donald was deprived of the benefit of
his brother's wise counsel and restraint.”
David Kinloch Michie had an actual brother William who died in 1870 at the
age of 63 which, for the mid-19th century, could hardly be described
as a “premature death”. However,
if “William” was also a pseudonym, the article could have been referring
to his brother Charles Kinloch Michie, who died in 1840 at the age of 33. That
year fell within the established period (see below) of David Kinloch Michie’s
poaching career.
Following the charge of wounding, David Kinloch Michie, after being on
the run for several years, was arrested at the end of July 1845. An entry in the Dundee Advertiser of 5 August
contained a report of his detention. “Blairgowrie. Capture of an outlaw. Early on the morning of Monday sennight (seven
nights, ie a week ago), "Christie" our Rural Police Officer
apprehended David Michie an individual charged some four years ago with having
shot at and severely wounded the gamekeeper at Kindrogan. About the time mentioned Michie had been
engaged in a poaching excursion in the neighbourhood of Kirkmichael. He was discovered and hotly pursued by some
of the keepers who were watching the grounds.
After a long chase over hill and dale Michie saw that one of his
pursuers was fast making upon him and seeing no other chance of escape he is
said to have turned about and deliberately shot at the keeper. The affair caused a very great sensation at
the time. Michie was outlawed at the
following Perth Circuit and has since been skulking about occasionally making
hair-breadth escapes from the officers who were from time to time endeavouring
to apprehend him.”
David
Kinloch Michie is captured
David Kinloch Michie was brought to court
in October 1845, but the case was dismissed due to a lack of precision in the
charge as to where the wounding took place.
He was then re-committed to prison on a new warrant and was returned to
court in December 1845. This time he was
found guilty as charged and sentenced to seven years’ transportation. However, the Weekly News article makes no
mention of court appearances by “Donald Gow” and simply explains his
decision to abscond by, “Donald now realised that he was really in danger,
and with characteristic daring took a bold adventurous step. Shaving off his beard and altering his
appearance as much as he possibly could, he repaired to Aberdeen, and there
applied for admission into the police force.” Did David Kinloch Michie escape from
custody? It seems likely that he would
have been detained in prison to await transportation and there is no evidence
that he was transported, so it is possible, even likely, that he did abscond.
At least now it is possible to put some
dates to David Kinloch Michie’s activities.
His career as a poacher extended from at least 1839, when he was 19, to
1845, when he was 25. Perhaps he was a
poacher before 1839, but it is unlikely that his criminal career extended much
beyond six years. This is consistent
with the statement in the article that “Donald Gow’s” career as a
poacher “did not extend over a great many years”.
“Donald Gow” and the Police
It then follows that if “Donald Gow” was David Kinloch
Michie, he must have quickly joined a police force, possibly as soon as early
1846. His service then extended for “eighteen
months”, perhaps to mid- or late-1847.
But, if he joined a police force, was it the Aberdeenshire Force? It is plausible that the name of the force
was deliberately altered by the “Weekly News” article’s author, to deceive the
reader. However, taking account of the
locations of his subsequent jobs (see below), if he joined a force other than
Aberdeenshire, it is still likely that it was a force in the North-East of
Scotland. County police forces in
Scotland did not become mandatory until 1857, though burgh and some county
forces were created, or formed by merger, from 1840. Those north-east counties acquiring rural
police forces in 1840 were Aberdeenshire and Banffshire. Invernessshire, adjacent to the North East
counties, also gained a force in 1840.
Kincardineshire initiated its police force in 1841. Elgin Burgh and Nairnshire did not gain a
police force until 1850. Indeed, it is
possible that active recruitment to rural police forces from 1840 could have been
the stimulus to “Donald Gow’s” thinking about his own concealment. It seems likely that “Donald Gow” would
have joined up under an assumed name.
The Scottish Censuses are valuable in locating people and their
jobs and relationships. They were held
every 10 years from 1801 and the 1841 Census was the first to collect
statistics on individuals, rather than populations. David Kinloch Michie has not been found in
the 1841 Census, but at the time he was an outlaw and he is likely to have
avoided being included in the census return for any household. At the next census in 1851 (and subsequent
ones), he is identified, which probably implies that by the 1851 Census date
(30th March) he was no longer an outlaw and able to live freely
under his true identity. This, in turn,
implies that if “Donald Gow” and David Kinloch Michie were the same
person “Gow’s” police service and his interactions with “a widowed
lady of high rank” would have been initiated not earlier than January 1846
and his employment possibly by as early as the second half of 1847.
David Kinloch Michie’s illegitimate children
It has been established that David Kinloch
Michie’s poaching career extended from at least 1839 to 1845. Between 1839 and 1843, most of which time he
was a fugitive from justice, he fathered three illegitimate children by two
different mothers. These children, their
birth dates and places and their mothers’ names were:
1 June 1839, Blacklunans, Angus, Child
- Lilias Michie Stewart (mother - Ann Stewart);
14 September 1840, Lethendy and
Kinloch, Perthshire, Child - Adam Moncur Michie (mother - Ann Healy);
December 1843, Blacklunans, Angus, Child - Helen
Stewart (mother - Ann Stewart).
David Kinloch Michie seems not to have
wandered far from his home territory during his period as an outlaw. Presumably at this time he had a series of
safe houses where he was secure from detection.
Some further information on his illegitimate children has been
uncovered. Lilias Michie Stewart
subsequently married Peter Stratton in 1859 at Alyth, Angus and they had a
large family. Helen Stewart married
James Mitchell in 1878 at Perth and this couple produced at least one child.
David Kinloch Michie and Lady Augusta Katherine
Lennox
David Kinloch Michie married Ann Gilmore in
April 1852 at Byth, King Edward, Aberdeenshire, probably the home village of
her parents. The couple subsequently had
a family of five children, four boys followed by a solitary girl. The girl, who was born in March 1861, was
baptised Augusta Katherine Michie. These
were the given names of Lady Augusta Katherine Gordon-Lennox. She had been born in 1827 at Goodwood House,
Sussex to the 5th Duke of Richmond and his wife Lady Caroline
Paget. At that time the owner of Gordon
Castle, near Fochabers, Morayshire, the main country residence of the head of
the Gordon clan, was the 5th and last Duke of Gordon, but he died in
1836 without leaving an heir. Gordon
Castle then passed to the 5th Duke of Richmond, the son of the 5th
Duke of Gordon’s sister. At the time the
Duke of Richmond also acquired the addition of “Gordon”, to his surname, which
then became “Gordon-Lennox”. Gordon
Castle was one of the largest stately homes to have been built in Scotland,
reflecting the wealth and influence of the Gordon family. Thus, in 1836, Lady Augusta Katherine’s
surname changed from Lennox to “Gordon-Lennox”.
Until his death in 1860, the 5th
Duke of Richmond, with his wife and family, spent the shooting season every
year at Gordon Castle. This was
typically mid-August to sometime in November.
The Gordon-Lennoxes did not visit at other times of the year. Lady Augusta Katherine always accompanied her
parents for their sojourn in Scotland.
In 1851 she married His Serene Highness, Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimar
and Lady Augusta Katherine Gordon-Lennox then became Princess Edward of
Saxe-Weimar. It was a morganatic marriage, that is one between people of
unequal social rank where the titles of the higher do not pass automatically to
the children of the marriage. Lady
Augusta Katherine was deemed to be of lower aristocratic rank than her
husband. In 1885 Queen Victoria granted
her the right to share her husband’s princely title of “Her Serene Highness”,
but only in Britain! Saxe-Weimar was a
state which became incorporated into modern Germany on the formation of the
German empire in 1871. In the decade
following her marriage, Princess Edward still travelled to Gordon Castle in
August each year, usually in the company of her husband.
Gordon Castle in 1804
Later in life, for example in the entry in the
Scottish National Probate Index, it appears that David Kinloch Michie’s
daughter, Augusta Katherine, represented herself as “Augusta Katherine Gordon
Lennox Michie or Neilson”, that is, she added the pre-marriage surnames of Lady
Augusta Katherine Gordon-Lennox as extra given names. There must have been a close link between
David Kinloch Michie, his daughter and Princess Edward of Saxe-Weimar, nee Lady
Augusta Katherine Gordon-Lennox and it is tempting to identify her as the
patron of David Kinloch Michie, but the facts do not support this hypothesis.
Who was “Donald Gow’s” aristocratic sponsor?
The “Weekly News” article described “Donald
Gow’s” patron in the following terms.
“It was not long before Donald became a general favourite, and by the
proprietrix of the lodge and estate, a widowed lady of high rank, he was held
in special esteem.” Thus, there are
three key characteristics required of any candidate, 1. To be proprietrix of a
lodge and estate. 2. To be widowed. 3. To have high rank. These characteristics needed to be present
within the period, June 1847 to March 1851, when it is alleged “Donald Gow”
was induced to leave the police and become a gamekeeper. Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimar died in 1902 and
his wife followed him in 1904. Thus,
Lady Augusta Katherine was single throughout the critical period and was not a
widow until about forty years after that period ended. Further she was never the proprietrix of a
lodge and estate in Scotland, though she enjoyed high social status.
How can the adoption of Princess Edward of
Saxe-Weimar’s given names, Augusta and Katherine for his daughter by David
Kinloch Michie be explained? It is known
from the Scottish Census of 7 April 1861, taken shortly after his daughter’s
birth on 4 March, that David Kinloch Michie was employed as a gamekeeper on the
Gordon estates in North-East Scotland. Princess Edward had no children of her own, but
she is likely to have known and perhaps even become attached to John Michie’s
daughter during her annual shooting season visits to Gordon Castle. The naming of the baby girl after this
aristocratic lady may have been as a mark of respect on the part of David
Kinloch Michie, or could even have been at the request of Lady Augusta
Katherine herself. It has even been
suggested in family rumour that Princess Edward was the godmother of Augusta
Katherine Michie, which would confirm that Princess Edward took a close
personal interest in the child.
David Kinloch Michie and the Rothiemurcus
estate
Returning to the conversion of David Kinloch
Michie from fugitive poacher to gamekeeper, what is certainly known is that
this event had occurred by 30 March 1851 (Census date) at which time he was a
gamekeeper living at Inverdruie House, Rothiemurcus, in the Parish of Duthil,
Invernessshire. It is not presently
known how long he had been in this position, or if this was his first position
as a gamekeeper after his re-entry to civil society. However, it may have been his first
gamekeeping post and it is worth examining the ownership and occupation of the
Rothiemurcus estate in the period June 1847 to March 1851 for possible
aristocratic patron candidates.
The Rothiemurcus estate lies south of the
modern holiday resort of Aviemore. The
estate has been in the ownership of the Grant family since the 16th
century. Sir John Peter Grant (1774 –
1848) was the 9th Laird of Rothiemurcus and his main residence was
The Doune, which lies 2 ½ miles south of Aviemore and which overlooks the Spey
valley. Sir John Peter Grant married
Jane Ironside (1775 – 1852) in 1796. Sir
John Peter qualified as a barrister and struggled for a while to carve out a
legal career for himself in Edinburgh.
But he and his wife were financially incompetent, and Sir John Peter
was, in addition, a rather disagreeable person.
In 1827 he was appointed Puisne Judge in Bombay and his wife and family
travelled with him to India, dodging the bailiffs as they exited the
country! The management of the
Rothiemurcus estate and its debts of £60,000 were put in the hands of trustees.
In 1830 Sir John Peter Grant moved to Calcutta
where he worked as a barrister until 1833, at which time he was appointed
Puisne Judge in Bengal. However, in 1848
ill-health forced his retirement from the judiciary and the return of him and
his family to Britain. Sadly, he died on
board ship during that journey, leaving personal effects valued at less than
£450 to his name.
Was Lady Georgina Russell “Donald Gow’s
sponsor?
While the Grants were absent in India, The
Doune and its shootings were let to Lady Georgina Russell, wife of John, the 6th
Duke of Bedford. She was the younger
daughter of Alexander, the 4th Duke of Gordon and she was born in
1781 at Gordon Castle. She grew up in an
informal atmosphere and, like her mother, she was sociable, persuasive, active
in good works and in touch with the problems of the poor. Lady Georgina became the second wife of the
Duke of Bedford in 1804 and stepmother to the surviving children of his first
marriage, before producing her own family of 12 children over the next 20
years. However, in 1823 Lady Georgina
met the artist Edwin Landseer, who had been commissioned to paint her
portrait. She began an intense
relationship with him, and it is likely that Lady Georgina’s last child, born
in 1826 had been conceived with the artist the previous autumn in Scotland. She even became pregnant again at the age of
49, but the foetus miscarried. The Duke
of Bedford was aware of this relationship between Landseer and his wife, but he
tolerated it.
The Doune
In 1827 Lady Georgina Russell took a long
lease of The Doune, Rothiemurcus, retaining many of the Grants’ servants and
for the next 26 years, until her death in 1853, spent several months there each
year, usually during the summer and autumn.
She was generally joined by a whole bevvy of upper-class house guests,
including Edwin Landseer. The Duke of
Bedford occasionally travelled to The Doune but he was dogged by ill-health and
died there in 1839.
In 1848 Lady Jane Grant, the widow of Sir John
Peter arrived back in Scotland from India and wanted to return to The Doune but
Lady Georgina Russell, now the Dowager Duchess of Bedford, used her social
skills to persuade Lady Jane Grant to agree a different arrangement. She would have the use of The Doune for part
of the year but would live at Inverdruie House when Lady Georgina was in
residence at The Doune, typically for a period of about five months
annually. Lady Jane Grant died in 1852.
Thus, if “Donald Gow” and David Kinloch
Michie were the same person, the Rothiemurcus estate has revealed two
potential candidates for the patron of “Donald Gow”, Lady Jane Grant and Lady
Georgina Russell. Both were widows at
the crucial time (1847 – 1851), both were titled and thus had status and both,
in a sense, were proprietrix of a lodge and estate, albeit the same estate of
Rothiemurcus, one the owner, the other the lessee. But of the two, Lady Georgina Russell, the
Dowager Duchess of Bedford, stands out as the more obvious candidate for the
role of patron. She had guests who might
have challenged each other in a shooting competition, she had the informality
and common touch to engage with a passing policeman, she had the social skills
to give him confidence to reveal his criminal past and she had the social
contacts which would have been necessary to get “Donald Gow” pardoned.
Was “Donald Gow” a pseudonym for David Kinloch
Michie?
The independent circumstantial evidence
relating to David Kinloch Michie’s life is overwhelmingly supportive of this
notion. He was a violent poacher at the
right time, in the right general location in Perthshire and he subsequently
became a gamekeeper and a respected and law-abiding member of society (see
below). His elder brother, Charles, died
prematurely, DK Michie’s own death occurred within the time frame indicated by
the “Weekly News” article and his four sons assumed responsible positions in
life. County police forces in North East
Scotland had been created by the appropriate date for him to join, while hiding
from the law. In only one respect is
there a conflict between what is truly known about David Kinloch Michie and
what is related about “Donald Gow” in the “Weekly News” article. The details of “Donald Gow’s” violence
against his pursuers are similar but do not exactly correspond with Court
reports in the print media regarding David Kinloch Michie’s conduct, but this
hardly seems like a fatal objection.
Direct descendants of David Kinloch Michie certainly hold to the family
rumour that “Donald Gow” and David Kinloch Michie were one and the same person
and the newspaper cutting from which the above transcript of the “Weekly News”
article was derived came from the same source.
It is also interesting to note that the given names of “David Kinloch”
were also given to a son of DK Michie (1820), David Kinloch Michie (1854) and
to one of his nephews, David Kinloch Michie (1881). This gives the impression that the family
were memorialising the original bearer of the name, a man of some status, even
if that were to involve notoriety.
But, to have confidence in the accuracy of this speculative
analysis, it will be vital to uncover further independent evidence relating to
other aspects of the story. Did David
Kinloch Michie abscond from gaol, was he a one-time member of the
Invernessshire police, was Rothiemurcus his first gamekeeping job and did Lady
Georgina Russell employ him and engineer his pardon? Circumstantial evidence on its own is
tantalising but does not constitute proof that Lady Georgina was his patron. Though this evidence overwhelmingly supports
the identification of “Donald Gow” as David Kinloch Michie (1820), it
will be fascinating to discover what further details of “Donald Gow’s”
exploits, perhaps emerging from independent sources yet to be uncovered,
coincide with the life events of David Kinloch Michie.
David Kinloch Michie and gamekeeping
Lady Georgina Russell died in 1853. Coincidentally (or was it consequentially?)
that year David Kinloch Michie took up new employment as a gamekeeper at
Fetteresso and he was still gamekeeping in that same general area of
Kincardineshire in November of the following year. By January 1857 he had moved his place of
employment close to Inverurie, Aberdeenshire and the following year, 1858 he
had fetched up as a gamekeeper at Gordon Castle, Fochabers, Morayshire. David Kinloch Michie remained in the
employment of the Gordon estates, in the same capacity, until at least 7 April
1861, census day. David Kinloch Michie
had married Anne Gilmour in April 1852 and the couple had five children over
the next decade, John (1853), David Kinloch jun (1854), Henry Lumsden (1857),
Thomas Veitch (1858) and Augusta Katherine (1861), the last two children being
born while he was employed on the Gordon estates.
The move to Clunskea
It is not known when David Kinloch Michie’s employment with the
Gordon-Lennoxes ended, but by 1871 he had moved back to the area around
Pitlochry, Perthshire, specifically to the farm of Clunskea, Moulin. The nearby Strathardle Highland Gathering was
initiated in the same year and is still held annually at Kirkmichael, which
lies on the River Ardle. “Mr Michie” of
Clunskea was one of four founders of the event.
Further, at the 1871 Census (2 April), David Kinloch Michie was living
at Ashintully gamekeeper’s cottage, Kirkmichael. This appears to have been temporary
accommodation since his family, except for his son Henry Lumsden Michie, was
not with him. Curiously, his occupation
was given as hotel keeper at this date. DK Michie (1820) continued to farm at
Clunskea, which was owned by Mr Malcolm Stuart, as the tenant, and he was still
farming there in April 1881. The farm
consisted of 1500 acres but only 25 acres were arable, the rest presumably
being hill grazing for sheep. In 1890 DK
Michie was still the tenant, but his son Tom Michie (1858) was the occupier and
farmed the property.
The property of Redfield
In October 1882, David Kinloch Michie bought the property called
Redfield, “extending to about nine acres, with dwelling house and offices” at
the northern entrance to Montrose, Angus, about 60 miles from Pitlochry, at a
price of £1300 (about £151,000 in 2018 money by an RPI methodology). At least some of the Redfield land was arable,
since in 1891 John Michie (1853) wrote about the fruit trees he had planted
there “some years ago”. However, an
entry in John Michie’s diary in March 1884 indicates that Redfield was at least
partly a development project. At the end
of a stay at Balmoral, David Kinloch Michie and his son John travelled together
to Montrose. John Michie wrote as
follows. “Proceeded to Redfield and went
over the place, then to the Star Hotel where we had dinner, then to Mr Sim's
(Architect) office who is doing my father's business at Redfield.” Redfield
contained two houses at the time of purchase and in 1886 some repair work to
the masonry to the smaller building was carried out. “The smaller house to the south of the
railway has just been picked over on the walls and pointed and a new wash house
& coal cellar built; the masons are now finishing off by laying two steps
and a walk from the highway with cement concrete.” Between 1887 and 1901, “three feus have been
given off it on the south side of the railway and nice houses built on them.” After his father’s death in 1903, John Michie
inherited the Redfield property. He
leased 5 ½ acres, located “on the north side of the railway” for three years to
a Mr Batchelor so, it is likely that at least half the property was still in
agricultural use at the time. It appears
that David Kinloch Michie (1820) had seen the development potential of
Redfield, due to its position on the northern side of Montrose, when he bought
the site in 1882. He may also
have viewed Redfield as a project to pursue during his retirement and the
business nature of the Redfield project was emphasised by DK Michie’s
appointment of a Montrose solicitor to represent him. Redfield had living accommodation and David
Kinloch Michie and his wife Ann stayed at the property on some occasions. For example, in November 1886, John and Helen
Michie travelled to Montrose and stayed overnight with his father and mother at
Redfield, spending the evening at an amateur music concert in the Town Hall. However, Redfield did not become the settled home
of DK Michie and his wife, which was always maintained, after retirement from
farming, first at Clunskea and then, certainly by 1890, at Blairgowrie.
Redfield Cottage, Montrose
Tom Michie and dogs
Tom Michie (1858), who took over as farmer at Clunskea on his
father’s retirement, was also a noted breeder of gun dogs, including Pointers,
Collies and English and Irish Setters. He,
and other Michies in this lineage, were also noted Highland games heavy athletes. Perhaps it is no coincidence that “Donald
Gow” “was endowed with a large frame and no ordinary share of strength”? In retirement, David Kinloch Michie, possibly
encouraged by son Tom, bred Fox Terriers and at the Perth Dog Show in 1887 DK
Michie was commended for his animal “Rip”.
It will be noted that these were all breeds of working dogs.
David Kinloch Michie in retirement
There is a hint that David Kinloch Michie may have retired from
farming about February 1884. In that
month, then aged 64, he undertook a demanding winter walk from Clunskea cross-country
to Balmoral. He had spent much of his
adult life in the same hills, both as a farmer and as a poacher, so perhaps
this was not as risky a journey as it might at first seem. The final part of
his route took him along Glen Beg, which descends through the Ballochbuie
forest to the Danzig Shiel, son John’s home on the Balmoral estate. John was Head Forester there at the time,
having been appointed in 1880 and his father, DK Michie, stayed at the Danzig
Shiel for the next month. In February
there would have been no Royal residents at Balmoral and so, during his sojourn,
David Kinloch Michie was free to go fishing on the Balmoral estate reaches of
the Dee, where he caught at least two salmon. He was present for the christening on his
granddaughter, Beatrice Michie (born 25 November 1883), by Mr Campbell the
minister of Crathie church and he also viewed the Queen’s Aberdeen Angus herd
at Abergeldie. In March 1884, at the
end of his residence at Balmoral, David Kinloch Michie, together with John,
travelled by rail from Ballater to Montrose.
John Michie wrote as follows in his diary. “Proceeded to Redfield and went over the
place, then to the Star Hotel where we had dinner, … He (father) proceeded home
by Dundee and I returned here (Danzig) staying at Aberdeen.” Subsequently, Michie senior was a regular
visitor to the Danzig Shiel.
David
Kinloch Michie spent most of his retirement in Blairgowrie. Was this the town where “Donald Gow”
“died, a respected member of the community” …
“where his youthful career was but imperfectly known”? DK Michie was certainly involved in many
activities in and around Blairgowrie in the 1890s. In addition to his development project at
Redfield, Montrose, he was a supporter of the Blairgowrie Games and the
Strathardle Ploughing Match. In October
1893 at a meeting of the Blairgowrie Parochial Board he showed his willingness
to support their work financially. “The Inspector was instructed to make
inquiries as to the whereabouts of David Jack, sometime grocer Blairgowrie,
with the view of getting him to contribute to the support of his wife who was
in an asylum. The Committee agreed to
accept Mr DK Michie, Dunkeld Road as guarantor for the Inspector to the extent
of £200” (about £25,000 in 2018 money).
DK Michie’s next visit to Balmoral was at the end of March 1886,
though on this occasion he travelled by rail, returning to Clunskea after a two
week stay. By the date of the 1891
Census (5 April) David Kinloch Michie was living with his wife Ann at 5 Dunain
Cottages, Blairgowrie. He was described
as a retired farmer. Subsequently, DK
Michie visited Deeside in May 1891 and, in June of the following year, both John
Michie’s mother and father travelled by carriage over the Cairnwell and on to
Braemar and Balmoral for a two-week sojourn at the Danzig Shiel. Two years later, in May 1894, David Kinloch
Michie made another journey to Balmoral, this time by post-car, residing there
for two weeks.
The death of Ann Michie
In December
1890, DK Michie’s wife Ann, then aged 74, suffered a severe bout of bronchitis
and John Michie rushed over from Balmoral to see her in Blairgowrie. By the time he arrived, his mother had
recovered from her chest infection but was “weak and thin but on the whole in
excellent spirits”. However, John’s urgent
visit to his mother made the old lady think she was dying and that her son had
come to say “goodbye”. This response
worried John Michie, since “such a remark takes hold of one more
especially in her very weak state”. His
mother recovered and in June 1892, she and her husband paid a last, joint visit
to Deeside, living there for two weeks.
In September 1896 John Michie received a note from his father telling of
his mother being ill again, “… there is no perceptible change in mother's
condition except that she sleeps a good deal”.
Two days later a further letter gave the news that Ann Michie was sinking
and she “wore away” on Friday, 18 September, aged 80. The funeral took place the following Monday
at Blairgowrie.
The death of David Kinloch Michie
Following his wife’s death, DK Michie
continued to visit his son John on Deeside.
In late February 1897 he spent over a month there, during which visit
his 77th birthday (23 March) occurred. Son John noted. “He left today after staying fully a month
with us. I drove him to Ballater to catch
the 10.20 train. He intends staying
overnight in Aberdeen and proceeding to Montrose to put in a week or ten days
there in the hope that the sea air may remove a rheumatic stiffness which has
troubled him much ever since he came here.”
Clearly, Redfield was still occupying David Kinloch Michie’s
attention. Remarkably, in July of the
same year, he travelled again from Blairgowrie to Balmoral through Glenshee,
walking from the Spital of Glenshee to the shooting lodge in Glen Clunie, where
he was met by his son. Another visit
took place later the same year, in November and continued until just before
Christmas.
David Kinloch Michie spent a final
three-week stint at the Danzig Shiel in summer 1901, when he had reached the
age of 82. On 25 February 1903, son John received the news that his father was
ill, and he died in his sleep the following morning. John Michie immediately travelled to
Blairgowrie, where he and his brother Tom made the necessary funeral
arrangements. David Kinloch Michie was
buried with his wife at Blairgowrie.
Thus ended the life of a remarkable man, a life of extreme contrasts
from that of wild man in his teens and early twenties, a violent poacher and
outlaw who fathered three illegitimate children while on the run to that of a
reformed, upstanding (and married) citizen.
(It should be recalled that “Donald Gow” was described as a man “of
rash and passionate disposition”). DK
Michie played the role of gamekeeper for many years and must surely, given his temperament
and past, have been a formidable opponent for any poacher who ventured onto
land under his protection. His children
were all successful in life and he remained close to them, surely taking pride
in their personal achievements. They in
turn seemed to admire him and probably knew of the dramatic events of his early
adult years. Perhaps they admired him
because of his wild behaviour, rather than despite it? There is certainly a suggestion of inter-generational
memorialisation in the continued use of the name “David Kinloch Michie”. John Michie’s diaries, which contain many,
apparently mundane, details of his father’s life, never mention his past as a
poacher except, perhaps, on one occasion alluding to this history.
David Kinloch Michie – a man of
contrasts
During August of 1891 John Michie organised a family outing,
including “the old people” to the Loch of Clunie, four miles west of
Blairgowrie. There they crossed by boat
to the island, formerly a crannog, on which stood the ruined Clunie Castle,
thought to have been used by Kenneth McAlpin, the first King of Scotland. John Michie wrote in his diary, “The district round here being the
scene of my father's boyhood he was eminently in a position to describe it,
which he did minutely.” Was this an
oblique reference to a turbulent youth spent in these parts, taking game
illegally and dodging estate servants and police?
Having been for five years a fugitive from the law, it is worthy
of note that in later life David Kinloch Michie did not hesitate to seek legal
redress for transgressions against his own property. In 1876 he successfully sued his neighbour,
Alexander Cameron, for allowing a flock of sheep to stray on his pasture at
Clunskea. Later, in October 1896, at the
Quarterly Small Debt Court held at Blairgowrie, David, then living at Isla
Cottage, Blairgowrie, sued Messrs Burton and Mitchell, painters, for £1 1s 10d
paid for painting and paper hanging defectively executed. It is ironic that DK Michie should resort to
using the law to uphold his relatively minor rights when, as a young man, he
had had no compunction about outrageously breaking the law or leaving illegitimate
children littered around the Perthshire – Angus border! But he was a man of remarkable contrasts.
Don Fox
20200120donaldpfox@gmail.com
My thanks to Alison Innes, Alasdair Finlayson
and Rona Hollingsworth for access to information held on DK Michie.
