Sheriff Walter Scott hears neither rhyme nor reason in fellow poet’s defence

Eminent author sat in judgement of contemporary and friend, James Hogg, the Ettrick Shepherd in a legal dispute, writes Andrew Stevenson

Two hundred years ago, two of Scotland’s most eminent men of literature met in court. One of them, James hogg, the self-styled et trick Shepherd, is best known for his novel The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner.

Hogg’s background was sheep farming in Selkirkshire, and his early life was one of hardship and toil. He developed a taste for writing, and liked to capitalise on his humble, rustic roots.

Hogg was lucky that both his shepherding and his literary careers were encouraged by the patron age of his contemporary, sir Walter Scott, whom he befriended through their common interest in Border balladry and folklore.

With more enthusiasm than veracity, a reference provided by Scott in 1806 praised Hogg as “a remarkably intelligent, clever fellow in the line of his business”. This was addressed to the highly influential and wealthy landowner the Duke of Buccleuch, who subsequently employed Hogg as sheep farm valuer. The following year, Hogg published a collection of poetry entitled The Mountain Bard which incorporated some of his memoirs. in fact, auto biographical material occurs a great deal in Hogg’s other writings.

Hogg was a more successful writer than farmer; his own pastoral business struggled and one of his many creditors, Walter Cunningham, decided to litigate.

In 1821, the Ettrick Shepherd found himself in Selkirk Sheriff Court. Ironically, the sheriff was Scott. In view of the personal connection between himself and the defender, one might have expected the sheriff to have recused himself from hearing the case. However, in Georgian Scotland, conflicts of interest, just like nepotism, were ingrained in public life. Scott himself had got the job due to strings pulled by his kinsman Charles Scott, the said Duke.

Cunningham v Hogg was a rather dull affair, a dispute about sheep and grazing costs. more interesting is another irony; the case illustrates the hazards facing an autobiographer who pleads amnesia. Litigators have always encountered witnesses who profess to have forgotten events or statements of which their recollection would be disadvantageous.

Cunningham asserted that in terms of a contract, in 1807 he was owed over £13. Hogg’s written Defence s were evasive and unpersuasive,stating that he ,“now at this distance of time remembers nothing, save that both were losers to a certain amount.” Nonetheless, he did confess to having made a paymentto cunningham several years later, allegedly settling the debt.

Cunningham’ s barbed retaliation was that Hogg ,“now re membersnothing and yet this is them an who writes his own life and seems to remember everything … But the Mountain Bard seems to have a very accommodating memory and can either remember or forget at pleasure.”

He then quoted admissions from those memoirs published in the very same year as the contract, which confirm that the author was experiencing business problems including a lack of capital to stock his farm. This financial difficulty was why he was grazing Cunningham’ s sheep. Playing on his adversary’ s credentials as poet, cunningham averred that“there is neither Rhyme nor Reason in the whole de fences ”. On 30 th May 1821, Sheriffscott awarded decree against the Mountain Bard, adding about £36 to Hogg’s overall indebtedness of about £1000.

Undaunted, the shepherd wrote to Scott the following year importuningfor cash and bemoaning his half-stocked farm. showing the loyaltyfor which he was renowned, as well as demonstrating remarkable patience, Scott continued to assist even after his own bankruptcy in 1826. Nevertheless, four years later the sheriff found himself with the distasteful task of having to sign a warrant of sale against Hogg in relation to huge arrears of rent owed to the Duke.

Andrew Stevenson is Secretary, Scottish Law Agents Society