§ MR. WEIRI beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether his attention has 538 been called to the recent eviction in North Uist, Inverness-shire, of Widow Christina Flora M'Leod, who was found by the sheriff's officer to be too ill to be removed, and who, while still ill, was subsequently evicted without having been visited by a medical officer; whether, when conveyed to the poorhouse at Lochmaddy, the officials there considered her condition was such that she should not have been removed; and whether he will have some inquiry made in regard to this action of the sheriff's officer?
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEThe hon. Member's assumption that the woman referred to was too ill to be removed is not borne out by the official reports received by the Secretary for Scotland. It appears to him that the Messenger at Arms acted quite properly on the occasion referred to, and he does not therefore see any reason for a special inquiry into the matter.
§ MR. WEIRI beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether, having regard to the fact that the landlord of the Island of North Uist is evicting the cottar population there without paying compensation under the terms of The Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886, steps will be taken to stay further evictions until the Land Court Commissioners are able to visit the island and decide upon the amount of compensation to be paid by the landlord for permanent improvements?
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEThe assumption in the hon. Member's question does not seem to be correct. The proceedings referred to have been taken against four cottars only, and three evictions out of the four have been meantime abandoned owing to the illness of the cottars themselves or some of their families. There is no reason to believe that the landlord is evicting these four cottars without paying them compensation in terms of the Crofters' Act, and I am not aware that any such claim had been made by any of them; but any good claim can, be recovered in the usual way if the landlord refuses to meet his legal obligations. The Crofters' Commission were in North Uist in April and October last, when they disposed of one application, which was the only one brought before them of the kind referred to by the hon. Member. Since April no applications for compensation have 539 reached the Commissioners from anyone in North Uist against whom proceedings of removal have been taken.