The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-05-10 00:00:00

THE SCOTCH CROFTERS.

On Friday in last week the Duke of Argyll headed
a deputation representative of Scotch landed proprie-
tors which waited on the Lord Advocate of Scotland
for the purpose of explaining to him their position
with regard to the crofters and the late Crofters'
Commission.
The duke, in his introductory remarks, said that a
paragraph had recently been published headed,
"Penalty for giving evidence before the Crofters'
Commission," containing a direct charge against
several West Highland proprietors of proceedings by
eviction and other measures against certain crofters
on account of their having given evidence before the
Commission. In his opinion any such act on the part
of a proprietor would be most unjust and unpatriotic,
although it was perfectly true that many crofters had
stated things which were not strictly correct against their
proprietors, under great excitement and the manipu-
lation of external agitators. This charge, made with-
out any investigation of the facts, was brought against,
amongst others, Lady Gordon Cathcart, whose liberal
and generous management of her estate was well
known through the whole of Scotland, as well as
against other proprietors who had a similar reputa-
tion, and were incapable of doing the acts imputed to
them. Under these circumstances, to erase the pre-
judice which might have been created in the public
mind against proprietors by these statements, and
which might also have proved a source of difficulty to
the Executive Government, he had suggested to the
landlords interested that it was their duty to come
forward and give as public a contradiction as possible
to the whole story.
Sir Reginald Cathcart having stated that the
accusations made against the proprietors were as
groundless as they were unjustifiable, Mr. Peacock
Edwards, Lady Cathcart's representative, said that
when he read the paragraph in question, he was
perfectly astonished, as he, at the instance of Lady
Cathcßrt, had given most explicit instructions that no
person was to be in any way prejudiced for what he
might have done before the Crofters' Commission.
Inquiries showed that the statement was entirely
untrue, for not one of those four persons had given
evidence, nor had any other relatives and friends.
The proceedings against the four men named arose
from disturbances which had occurred on the estate
after the establishment of a branch of the Highland
Land Law Association at Stoneybridge. The men
mentioned, including Donald Mcßae, the leading
complainer, admitted they were evicted inconsequence
of having taken forcible possession of land in the
occupation of another tenant, and for other acts in
violation of the conditions of tenancy.
The Lord Advocate asked if all these men were in
arrear with their rent, to which Mr. Edwards replied
that they all were so, but able to pay.
In conclusion Mr. Edwards said he represented
also other proprietors, and wished in their names also
to deny the truth of the charges brought against
them.
The V.actor for Lord Macdonald and other gentle-
men ,n Skye denied that notices of eviction were ever
served on tenants unless they were a year or more in
arrear with their rent.
After a few remarks from another member of the
deputstion, the Lord Advocate thanked the speakers
for the information they had given him, and the busi-
ness terminated.