132 THE HIGHLAND CLEARANCES. 



should refrain from interfering with the shepherds, because the shep- 

 herds alone could serve the purpose of keeping the sheep out because of 

 the defective fencing. Upon this branch of the case I have no difficulty 

 in holding that it has been proved there was a combination and arrange- 

 ment among a body of crofters on Milovaig ground to drive the shepherds 

 away from keeping the march with Waterstein, and, I regret to say, 

 that they succeeded in their purpose. The steps that were taken, as 

 appears in the evidence, upon repeated occasions, were not acts of single 

 individuals ; but I think on at least two occasions, if not more, it is 

 proved that when meetings took place between the crofters and the 

 shepherds, and the factor to whom the crofters addressed themselves, 

 there was generally a body of twenty, thirty, and forty men at a time. 

 The evidence, I think, clearly shows and I really do not mean to go 

 into it in detail that the three of the complainers' shepherds were, in 

 dread of personal violence, compelled to desist from the performance of 

 their duty. I cannot imagine any more distinct or overt act in defiance 

 of the order of the Court than that which I have described in reference 

 to the treatment of those different shepherds. The only question that 

 remains it being clear that these are the facts of the case is whether 

 any possible defence can be set up in reference to those proceedings. 

 It has been said on behalf of the respondents I do not know 

 whether it may represent anything beyond an explanation, or, 

 possibly, a kind of excuse that the complainers were them- 

 selves guilty of wrongful acts from time to time in allowing their 

 shepherds to drive the Borodale sheep down from the Waterstein grazing 

 upon Milovaig. At one part of the Dean of Faculty's address, I thought 

 he almost ventured to put that as a defence of this complaint, but I must 

 say, for my part, 1 cannot see how it possibly could be made a defence. 

 The Court having ordered that the respondents in this case should take 

 measures to prevent their sheep going on this ground, it would be no 

 justification of their disregard of that order that the complainers here 

 were doing something wrongful on their part. I could quite understand, 

 although I certainly could not justify, the Milovaig people saying, if 

 sheep are driven upon them which had no right to be there, they would 

 drive them back again, provided there were no interdict or injunction on 

 either side ; but in a case in which there was a direct order of the Court, 

 which the respondents were bound to obey, it would be no answer that 

 there were any illegal proceedings carried on against them. It was 

 equally open to them to resort to the law for protection. 



After a few further remarks his Lordship concluded My Lords, I do 

 not mean to detain your Lordships further ; I am of opinion, on the 



