II. ‘Only a man in full sympathy with the crofters can represent them in Parliament’: the 1885 electionFootnote ¹³

The election of 1885 was the first in Sutherland in which the small tenants had the vote. The franchise reforms of the previous year had increased the electorate by 880% and for the first time since 1832, the election was to be contested.Footnote ¹⁴ For this reason, the 1885 election has been seen by historians as a key political turning point in the Highlands, and this article will reflect this.Footnote ¹⁵ The sitting (Whig) Liberal candidate, Lord Stafford, son and heir to the Third Duke of Sutherland, was challenged by Angus Sutherland, a native of the county, a leading light in the Glasgow Sutherlandshire Association and a radical Liberal. Born in 1848, Sutherland had grown up surrounded by the folklore of the clearances, and their perceived injustice stayed with him as a politician in later years. Despite being passionately opposed to the Sutherland estate's restructuring of the early nineteenth century, he might be regarded as a success story of that process.Footnote ¹⁶ Forced, or encouraged by lack of opportunity, he left Sutherland to train as a teacher and worked in Edinburgh and Glasgow, in the latter becoming involved in radical groups, such as Irish campaigning groups and the Sutherlandshire Association, which was established in 1885.Footnote ¹⁷ Sutherland, along with his deputy, John Macleod of Gartymore, had been instrumental in the foundation and administration of the Sutherlandshire Association, established to organise and campaign for land reform in the Highlands, which by 1890 had twenty-one local branches and 1540 members in the county.Footnote ¹⁸ Sutherland had further raised his profile by his efforts in preparing and encouraging crofter delegates in Sutherland for the Napier Commission, a royal commission appointed to investigate demands for land reform in the Highlands in 1883, as well as giving his own fiery statement.Footnote ¹⁹

In 1885, Sutherland stood as one of six ‘Crofter’ candidates for Highland seats, all backed by the Highland Land Law Reform Association and all single-issue campaigners who wanted to push through legislation to reform the land laws in the Highlands.Footnote ²⁰ Despite being a member of this loose ‘Crofters Party’, Sutherland was significantly more radical than some of his fellow candidates, such as Charles Fraser Mackintosh and Donald Macfarlane.Footnote ²¹ Unlike his more conservative colleagues, Sutherland was a radical on other issues, aside from land: he was heavily involved in campaigns for Irish Home Rule and believed that land nationalisation was the solution to the land question.Footnote ²² Sutherland also faced a unique challenge in his campaign to become MP in that his opponent, Lord Stafford, also set himself up as a ‘Crofter’ candidate, earning himself the popular sobriquet the ‘Radical Marquis’. That left the Sutherland electors with two radical candidates to choose from, both competing in how ‘advanced’ they could become to secure the votes of the newly enfranchised crofters.

Lord Stafford began cultivating his image as a champion of the crofters in late 1884, but it was really in 1885 that this conversion came to the fore as his election campaign intensified.Footnote ²³ Until 1884, Lord Stafford had not been a noted campaigner for the crofting tenantry on the estate he was one day to inherit, but the work of Angus Sutherland, Macleod of Gartymore and the Sutherlandshire Association had raised expectations to such a degree that Stafford recognised that he would have to radicalise in order to retain his seat.Footnote ²⁴ Many greeted this change of heart with either suspicion or derision, including some of his politically active relatives, such as his uncle, the Eighth Duke of Argyll. As Argyll complained to Evander McIver, a factor on the Sutherland Estate, ‘Lord Stafford has made the wildest and most ignorant promises and has done great harm’.Footnote ²⁵ Argyll, as an active member of the landlord lobby on the crofter question, may have felt that Stafford had betrayed his own class: the Third Duke's opinion on his son's radicalism is not known.Footnote ²⁶ Most of the suspicion and derision directed at Stafford came from the crofters, however, and supporters of Angus Sutherland, who accused him of cynically cashing in on crofters' issues to get re-elected. They also pointed out that he had done little to help the crofters in the eleven years he had already been their MP:

Some believed that Stafford, coming from a social sphere and background far above that of the crofters, could never fully comprehend their needs and doubted whether he would actually deliver on any of the radical promises he made.Footnote ²⁸

Angus Sutherland also received a measure of public criticism, mainly (and predictably) from the pro-property Scotsman:

This criticism stemmed from a hot debate over which candidate would have the most influence in Parliament: Stafford's supporters argued that it would be the candidate who had dukes for a father and three uncles and the income and influence to be a significant political figure.Footnote ³⁰ As MPs were unpaid, Sutherland would have to reassure the Sutherland electorate that he could afford to become their representative and be able to survive financially. In spite of this practical difficulty, some generated political currency out of Sutherland's humble roots and saw them as a positive attribute. One supporter wrote:

Some argued that the fact that anyone who was not heir to a dukedom was standing was in itself a moral victory, before the counting of votes had even begun.Footnote ³²

In contrast to nearly all previous contests, the 1885 election campaign was a vigorous affair.Footnote ³³ No accusations of corruption were made against Lord Stafford or the estate management during this election, and from what can be gathered here, that is a fair conclusion. Nonetheless, the estate management had an indirect bearing on the result.Footnote ³⁴ Additionally, the organisational difficulties presented by the Third Reform Act and the problem of outdated electoral registers might be termed ‘irregularities’ and may have worked in favour of Lord Stafford's candidature. In terms of simple practicalities, Lord Stafford certainly had the edge over Sutherland; he spent weeks visiting almost every township in the county, meeting his crofter constituents and listening to their grievances.Footnote ³⁵ Stafford was keen to correct as many of these as possible before the election, in order to win support and prove his radical credentials; he made numerous applications to the estate factors and Sir Arnold Kemball, the estate Commissioner, to have the various petty grievances of crofters seen to. This added a huge burden to their workload, although the individual requests were small. In a common demand, Donald MacKay of Clerkhill wrote to Stafford, ‘I intend to vote for you at the General Election. I have great need that some Reduction will be taken off my rent if you please and repeat my circumstances to Sir Arnold Campbell [sic] and to take this to consideration.’Footnote ³⁶ However effective this was in securing votes for Stafford, it caused trouble within the management, with Kemball eventually losing his temper, ‘The enclosed letter from Donald McLeod to Lord Stafford will show you the difficulty I must encounter in dealing with no less than 145 similar cases brought to my notice.’Footnote ³⁷

Some members of estate staff also feared Stafford's policy might have ugly long term consequences:

Stafford was careful, however, to distance himself publicly from the unpopular estate management, while using his influence within it to address the grievances of the crofters.Footnote ³⁹

As well as dealing with requests fed through from Stafford, the estate staff kept a close eye on all political activities in the county, reporting on meetings, speeches and petitions.Footnote ⁴⁰ Although they never intervened or attempted to stop political meetings, a ground officer would often attend to report back to Head Office, and their presence may have had some impact on proceedings. It is clear the estate management used its influence and expertise to aid Lord Stafford's campaign through practical help to the crofters and information gathering, but equally, it worked hard to avoid any accusations of actual corruption. The estate managed to cultivate a pervasive influence, without breaking any electioneering laws.

Immediately before the election day, the Highland press regarded the Sutherland election as too close to predict the result; it was Lord Stafford who won the election, however, by a majority of 643.Footnote ⁴¹ The response to this victory was predictably varied. The Scotsman crowed in triumph:

Angus Sutherland's supporters were furious and astonished in almost equal measure, particularly the Scottish Highlander, which had supported Sutherland's candidature. It remarked that ‘The result of the Sutherlandshire election is a disgrace to the men who invited Mr Angus Sutherland to fight their battle and then deserted him’.Footnote ⁴³ There was also criticism of the Sutherland electorate in contemporary Gaelic political poetry. In the poem, ‘I would sing the Heroes Praise,’ the poet John MacLean, Mulbuie, shamed the Sutherland electorate,

There was an extended debate in crofting circles and the press over why the crofters had chosen to vote for Stafford, especially as every other crofter candidate had been successful.Footnote ⁴⁵ Some commentators pointed to heavy pressure from the estate management that could be brought to bear on the Sutherland crofters and their continuing fear of ‘Castle Government.’Footnote ⁴⁶ One correspondent pointed out this reality in vivid terms,

Perhaps of more concrete importance, some of the most senior figures in the crofting community in Sutherland had placed their allegiance with Stafford and urged other voters to do the same. The most important of these were the Free Church clergy, who had been very active in the land agitation from the early 1880s, but who nevertheless backed Lord Stafford in the 1885 election, earning themselves a barrage of criticism.Footnote ⁴⁸ Why they did so is unclear, but it has been suggested that they were satisfied with Lord Stafford's campaign and refused to agree to a ruling made at a radical meeting that any candidate who was a landlord, or a relative of one, should be boycotted.Footnote ⁴⁹ Secondly, John MacKay of Hereford, a Sutherland native and wealthy railway contractor, who was one of the leading lights of the crofters' movement in Sutherland, published a letter urging the crofters to support the Marquis, which may also have had a significant impact on their decision.Footnote ⁵⁰ Many viewed MacKay, not Sutherland, as the natural leader for the Sutherland crofters; he was financially secure and did not support the divisive radical causes, particularly Irish Home Rule, of which Angus Sutherland was a known champion.Footnote ⁵¹ It was this difference over support for Irish Home Rule, along with the arrogance and wider radicalism of Sutherland and Macleod of Gartymore that convinced MacKay to back Stafford.Footnote ⁵²

Undoubtedly, the estate management also had a bearing on the result. With such a radically enlarged electorate it was impossible for the estate to intimidate or influence crofters directly but it is likely that the social hold the estate had over their tenantry contributed to Stafford's victory. It is clear that although the estate did not openly bully the crofters into voting for Stafford, they were happy to use encouragement in the form of rent reductions and the donation of building materials to collect votes. Naturally, the estate management was pleased with the result. Kemball believed that the victory could mark the start of a new era of improved relations between landlord and tenant, and reminded his factors to keep the peace with the crofters no matter which way they had voted:

This command casts a shadow over the behaviour of the estate in the election; that such a document had to be issued at all provokes questions regarding the estate's integrity, although no instances of preferential treatment to crofters who supported Stafford have come to light, or any punishment of crofters who did not.Footnote ⁵⁴

After the fall of Gladstone's Liberal government in 1886, there was another election, and this time, Stafford resigned his seat rather than stand again. What his personal motives for this decision were, after such an active fight only a year before, are unknown. One possibility may have been that he was strongly opposed to Irish Home Rule and therefore in conflict with his party leader.Footnote ⁵⁵ Perhaps his defeat was too probable to risk standing and he wished to end his Parliamentary career more honourably than being beaten by a crofter's son.Footnote ⁵⁶ It may also have been due to family pressure. It was reported in the Scottish Highlander in the run-up to the 1886 election that the Sutherland family had asked John MacKay of Hereford, to stand against Angus Sutherland in 1886. As well as being a staunch and well-known crofter supporter, MacKay had supported Stafford in 1885 and was opposed to Irish Home Rule, all factors that may have placed him in the family's favour. As the Scottish Highlander, edited by Alexander Mackenzie, a friend of MacKay's, put it:

In the end, it was a Liberal Unionist, R. W. M. Fullerton, who stood against Angus Sutherland. Predictably, Fullerton lost heavily, leaving Sutherland with 71.5% of the vote.Footnote ⁵⁸ For this, the Sutherland crofters avoided another lashing from the Scottish Highlander, which had suggested that if Sutherland had failed to win again, ‘we should be disposed to think after all that they deserved all the misery inflicted upon them by the Lochs and Sellars’.Footnote ⁵⁹ During the 1886 session, the government passed a Crofters' Act. Angus Sutherland had little opportunity to influence this new Act, arriving in Parliament a year after his fellow Highland MPs, but he soon put his shoulder to the wheel in other ways.

The 1885 and 1886 elections were among the most closely fought and significant in the history of the county, for both the electors and the family and estate of Sutherland. The Third Reform Act achieved what the two previous Acts had failed to do in Sutherland and unpicked the ducal stranglehold on politics. The estate and family's initial response to this challenge was both robust and successful. Lord Stafford's victory in 1885 appeared to demonstrate that electoral reform did not always equate to radicalism. This victory was not to prove representative of the future of politics in the county, however, and 1886 marked the first convincing break in the ducal family's hold on politics in the constituency.

III. ‘Too much one-sided on democratic terms’: 1886–1894Footnote ⁶⁰

After the excitement and upheaval of the 1885 and 1886 elections in Sutherland, the political scene stabilised as Angus Sutherland MP consolidated his position, both as the crofters' champion and within the Liberal party hierarchy.Footnote ⁶¹ There was little common ground between Sutherland and the estate management, but it rapidly got used to its new MP, despite some strenuous personal opposition to both the man and his radical liberal political creed. As for Sutherland, he never made any steps towards friendship with the ducal house or its estate management, even when it was explicitly offered in 1889.Footnote ⁶² Any move towards reconciliation or cooperation would have damaged Sutherland's radical credentials and his standing in the eyes of the Sutherland crofters, who, from their evidence to both the Napier (1884) and Deer Forest (1895) Commissions, made clear that they blamed the Sutherland family and estate for their grievances. Attitudes had perhaps been hardened by the polarising atmosphere of the Crofters' War, especially after the publication of Mackenzie's History of the Highland Clearances, in which the Sutherland clearances featured prominently.Footnote ⁶³ It would have been bad politics for Sutherland to become friendly with the ducal family once he had been elected.

As MP, Sutherland was active on behalf of the crofters on the estate, as well as keeping up his ties with the Irish nationalist movement, first forged in Glasgow.Footnote ⁶⁴ In 1887, Sutherland toured the Highlands with the leading Irish radical Michael Davitt, giving speeches to the Sutherland crofters at Helmsdale and Lochinver. These speeches touched directly on their particular grievances: in Assynt, a major new phase of agitation at Clashmore had just erupted, giving Sutherland and Davitt the opportunity to highlight the deficiencies of the 1886 Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act in meeting the crofters' demands for land and to further attack the Sutherland estate management and the Scottish Office for their heavy-handed response to the situation.Footnote ⁶⁵

The estate blamed the Sutherlandshire Association and other ‘leaguers’ for encouraging the crofters' agitation, and would rather see Sutherland's right-hand man, John Macleod of Gartymore, behind bars than among their small tenants: ‘It seems to me so very sad that a lot of very fine people should be misled by these famous land leaguers. Is there no law by which such a man as Macleod of Gartymore could be taken up?’Footnote ⁶⁶ John Macleod of Gartymore came from humble roots, the son of a Helmsdale fishcurer. Born in 1863, his initial trade was in gold assaying, before he turned to radical politics.Footnote ⁶⁷ The Sutherlandshire Association, led by Sutherland and Macleod, continued to wield heavy influence over crofter opinion in Sutherland and, through meetings and establishment of local branches, retained much of its control in the wake of the 1886 Crofters Act.Footnote ⁶⁸

The biggest challenge Sutherland had to face during his tenure as MP was in 1892, when John MacKay of Hereford stood to contest the county seat on an Independent Radical ticket, although he was widely recognised as the Unionist candidate.Footnote ⁶⁹ This contest was a threat to Sutherland because MacKay was popular with the crofters and the press and a solid radical on the land question.Footnote ⁷⁰ The Third Duke, who was sympathetic to some degree of land reform, also supported MacKay.Footnote ⁷¹ The Sutherland estate management did as much as possible to influence its outcome:

While canvassing Sutherland, MacKay was assisted by the Sutherland factors, perhaps unaware that this was a sure way to turn the crofters against him and lead them to suspect he was in the Duke's pocket.Footnote ⁷³ Sutherland was also supported by a key local newspaper, the Highland News. In 1886, Sutherland and Macleod had managed to buy the title, with Macleod installed as editor, effectively giving them a free instrument of propaganda for the constituency.Footnote ⁷⁴ It reported in minute detail the speeches and voting records of both Angus Sutherland and his political enemies and produced long editorials on its views of government policy and the Sutherland estate.

Sutherland retained his seat with relative ease, winning 70.5% of the vote.Footnote ⁷⁵ His good voting record in the Commons, the organisational power of the Sutherlandshire Association and flagrant personal promotion in the Highland News, his tenure of six years and his continuing high profile in crofting matters were certainly key to this success. The factors resigned themselves to the fact that the county seat was unlikely to be won back by a candidate favourable to the estate. Even John MacKay of Hereford, although a Unionist, would still have been too radical on the land question for comfort.Footnote ⁷⁶ McIver had even more fundamental complaints and nearly twenty years after the passage of the 1872 Secret Ballot Act, he was still enraged, ‘Such is the effect of the secrecy of the ballot on unprincipled people! It leaves one in uncertainty what the result may be.’Footnote ⁷⁷ The sustained activity of the Sutherlandshire Association through John Macleod of Gartymore assured the continuing politicisation and confidence of the Sutherland crofters, even after Sutherland retired from his seat in 1894 to become Chairman of the Scottish Fishery Board.Footnote ⁷⁸

IV. ‘How are the Mighty Fallen!’ 1894–1910Footnote ⁷⁹

After Angus Sutherland's resignation from the Sutherland county seat, his erstwhile assistant, advisor and propagandist, John Macleod of Gartymore, replaced him in an unopposed election. These were the glory years of the Angus Sutherland political machine and the Sutherlandshire Association; their grip on the county seat seemed invincible.Footnote ⁸⁰ Macleod of Gartymore campaigned on behalf of the crofters and edited his newspaper tirelessly. As one report put it, ‘Gartymore has done more yeoman service for the Highlands and the Liberal Party in and out of Parliament in a year than Leveson Gower [his opponent in the 1900 election] will do in a century’.Footnote ⁸¹ Macleod had worked hard from humble beginnings in the 1880s, had helped to mould the influential Sutherlandshire Association and had done much of the leg work for the better-known Angus Sutherland.Footnote ⁸² His reward seemed to be a safe seat, but this illusion was broken by the ‘khaki’ election of October 1900.

Macleod's opponent was Mr Leveson-Gower, a Liberal Unionist candidate and a cousin of the Fourth Duke of Sutherland. He had been educated at Eton and Oxford, had travelled extensively and was a noted debater in his university days.Footnote ⁸³ He was immediately branded by the Highland News as a, ‘very suitable gentleman for representing the interests of the House of Dunrobin in Parliament.’Footnote ⁸⁴ It also made specific comparisons with the 1885 election and solemnly reminded its readers about the poor voting and attendance record of the Fourth Duke when he had been MP for the county as Lord Stafford.Footnote ⁸⁵ But despite this negative publicity and the apparent strength of the Sutherlandshire Association, it was Leveson-Gower who won in 1900, with a respectable margin of 472 votes.Footnote ⁸⁶ One letter writer wailed:

How did Leveson-Gower win in Sutherland? Firstly, the election across Britain had seen a landslide victory for the Conservatives and Liberal Unionists, even in Scotland, for they were the parties linked to the booming economic conditions and imperialist sentiment that were associated with the Boer War.Footnote ⁸⁸ It was support for this war that had helped win the election for the Tories and perhaps for Leveson-Gower in Sutherland also. Many Sutherland men were away fighting, in regular regiments or Lord Lovat's Scouts, a regiment that gathered together stalkers and ghillies from the Highlands for their shooting skills, making the war popular in the county, as it was in the country.Footnote ⁸⁹ Macleod of Gartymore, along with his radical Crofter MP colleague Dr G. B. Clark, had taken an early and openly ‘pro-Boer’ stance from 1899.Footnote ⁹⁰ It was this controversial stance that probably lost him his seat; the Liberal party generally was deeply divided over the war, but it would not be until 1901–2 that criticism of the war was more generally accepted.Footnote ⁹¹ Despite the fact that Leveson-Gower was widely seen as the ‘landlord’ candidate, he was still voted in on the strength of feeling about the Boer War.Footnote ⁹² Secondly, it seems clear that despite his long standing reputation for hard work, after 1897 Macleod was not a frequent attender at the Commons, in contrast to Sutherland's good attendance record.Footnote ⁹³ He was ridiculed in the press for his absenteeism, which included a trip (ostensibly for health reasons) to Australia from March to September 1900.Footnote ⁹⁴ This absenteeism, combined with an unpopular stance on the Boer War and his close relationship with a number of notable radical Irish Nationalist MPs, cost Macleod his seat.Footnote ⁹⁵

Leveson-Gower's record in Parliament was not a dishonourable one; in 1901 he drafted a new Crofters Bill, aimed principally at improving the lot of crofter-fishermen. It was sent to the Sutherland estate for suggestions and approval, which it did not receive. One factor concluded: ‘I see no need whatever for such a Bill and it is in no way necessary to this County, and if passed would only create difficulty and trouble’.Footnote ⁹⁶ Leveson-Gower faced worse from some of his crofter constituents, however, who would never forgive him for his ties to the ducal family. A correspondent of the Highland News remarked:

Leveson-Gower did not remain long in this uncomfortable position, however. In 1906 another general election was called and the Fourth Duke was concerned enough by the evident change of mood of the county electorate that he wrote to Donald MacLean, the Dunrobin factor, ‘I . . . trust that they [the Liberals] will not be successful in Sutherland, and rely on your discretion in not taking any estate action that may lose us votes.’Footnote ⁹⁸ This request demonstrates that the Duke evidently still believed in the power of the estate to influence politics in Sutherland, perhaps not such an unreasonable assumption after five years of a Leveson-Gower as MP. The election was nevertheless lost to a Liberal despite the estate's best efforts to keep on the good side of the crofting electorate.Footnote ⁹⁹ In line with the Liberal landslide across Britain, the Sutherland electorate chose Alpheus Cleophas Morton, an architect educated in Canada, and an important figure in London's financial and charitable circles.Footnote ¹⁰⁰ The Fifth Duke later labelled him the ‘carpet-bagger from Clapham.’Footnote ¹⁰¹ Morton had been MP for Peterborough from 1889 to 1895, and was a member of the Common Council of the City of London and the Thames Conservancy Board.Footnote ¹⁰² As far as it is possible to ascertain, he had no Sutherland or Highland connections, but despite this he received the support of the crofting press. He was described in one newspaper as, ‘a shrewd and successful man of affairs, carrying great influence in commercial circles in the great Metropolis, Mr Morton has been for many years a prominent and active friend of the Highland crofters.’Footnote ¹⁰³ Morton was an active MP on behalf of the crofters, frequently corresponding on their behalf with the Congested Districts Board, the principal government agency in the Highlands, and supporting the Small Landholders Bill along its tortuous passage through Parliament.Footnote ¹⁰⁴

Despite the support of the crofters, the press and the general feeling against the Tories in Britain in these years, Morton would have to defend his seat against vigorous campaigns in the two general elections of 1910, both led by young landowners with real hopes of winning against the carpet-bagging Londoner. In the first election, in January 1910, it was Cameron of Lochiel who stood in Sutherland for the Conservative interest, enthusiastically backed by the ducal family.Footnote ¹⁰⁵ Lochiel started campaigning early in 1908 and the Duke roused the estate staff to support him and report on his reception. Taylor, sub-factor on the west coast, was not sanguine:

Colonel John Morrison was concerned about voters in his north coast management too, ‘[It] is still very Radical and they are difficult to move’.Footnote ¹⁰⁷ The auguries were not good for Lochiel, despite the real effort put into his campaign.Footnote ¹⁰⁸

There was worse to come for Lochiel, although the blow was not from his enemies in the press or among crofter activists; it came, unwittingly, from the Fourth Duke. In late December 1909, the Duke penned an open letter to his estate staff laying out his views on the issues at stake in the forthcoming election, specifically attacking Lloyd George's ‘People's Budget’, which through its tax proposals, he regarded as nothing short of an assault on the rights of property, and highlighting his personal hobby horse, Tariff Reform.Footnote ¹⁰⁹ He feared:

This letter was forwarded to all employees of the estate and almost immediately leaked to the press, to devastating effect. The Duke had been given warning as to its possible impact: Morrison had pointed out that despite the Duke's emphasis on Tariff Reform, the people's, ‘great desire is “Land Reform,”’ and that with this in mind, the crofters were unlikely to take much away from the letter except the implicit threat.Footnote ¹¹¹ It was this that the newspapers picked up on, lampooning the Duke for ‘Budgetitis,’ and sarcastically pointing out, ‘What is the good of being a Duke and a landowner if you are not permitted to dictate to your estate hands what their political opinions ought to be, and how they must vote, and how they must suffer if they refuse to obey?’Footnote ¹¹² By his ill-advised intervention, the Duke had ensured Morton's return as MP.Footnote ¹¹³ This letter also buried once and for all the Duke's ‘Radical’ sobriquet; of course, he had long since ceased to support radical Liberalism, or even Liberal Unionism, but the politics of Lloyd George and his ‘People's Budget’ brought out his reactionary and paranoid streak. His efforts were to little avail, however; after the publication of his letter, the Duke became an object of political fun.Footnote ¹¹⁴

Lochiel was beaten by 656 votes in an election that saw an 83.7% turnout, a signal defeat for the young landowner.Footnote ¹¹⁵ As the Highland News triumphantly pointed out, ‘Lochiel is not a politician. We like the name, and we like the kilt, but common sense must have priority over these.’Footnote ¹¹⁶ The Sutherland estate management were bitterly disappointed, and blamed the poorer and more radicalised west and north coast electorate for the defeat:

This bitterness, as well as the tactics used in the campaign by the estate, were reminiscent of the 1885 election, and demonstrated just how much was riding on the outcome for the estate in the eyes of the Duke.Footnote ¹¹⁸

Electoral excitement for 1910 was not over, however, as another election was called for the December of that year, due to the contentious issue of House of Lords reform.Footnote ¹¹⁹ Lochiel, perhaps not surprisingly, bowed out as the Tory candidate and was replaced by Lord Stafford, the future Fifth Duke.Footnote ¹²⁰ The crofting press, buoyed up by Morton's recent victory, did not believe Stafford had a chance:

Although the Highland News was to be right in this prediction, the outcome of the December 1910 election campaign was not as certain as they assumed.

The estate put a huge effort into this campaign, and this was reflected in the result. The most active campaigner was Stafford's mother, the Duchess Millicent, who stuck by him on the campaign trail and was so popular that she often overshadowed her son, something the newspapers were quick to satirise, ‘Prosecuting with her accustomed energy the fight for Tory supremacy, the Duchess of Sutherland appeared at a meeting in Golspie . . . She was accompanied by her son, who is also taking an interest in the contest.’Footnote ¹²² Unfortunately, she seems to have been more popular than her son, who was a rather lacklustre speaker, ‘All the people are raving about the Duchess. I never heard her speak so well, she fairly thrilled the audience.’Footnote ¹²³ The Duchess was not the only weapon the estate had at its disposal; the Duke set aside the significant sum of £5,000 to be spent on crofter improvements, a programme named, ‘Lord Stafford's Works,’ as a bid to increase his popularity in the constituency.Footnote ¹²⁴ Typical annual expenditure on crofters' improvements by the estate was usually under £300.Footnote ¹²⁵ There was a clear link through this tactic to the 1885 election campaign, when the then Marquis had used estate funds to furnish crofters with improvements on their lots and dole out rent reductions. Additionally, Stafford's election agent in Sutherland, A. Macaulay, also the estate's lawyer in Golspie, called in favours from all the farmers and shooting tenants, by persuading them to travel to Sutherland to vote.Footnote ¹²⁶

Despite this activity, the voters were not convinced, perhaps because of the striking similarities between the 1910 contest and that of 1885. In 1910, the ducal family repeated the pattern of a young heir going through his ‘Radical’ phase; although standing as a Tory, Stafford did promise more land for the crofters. As he put it later, ‘I thought that as their M.P. I might be able to help the crofters and ghillies – a few of whom still harboured grievances about the so-called “evictions” – by acting as their mouthpiece.’Footnote ¹²⁷ The crofting press was not convinced: ‘the people of Sutherland still remember the election of 1885. They remember His Grace's promises. They remember that His Grace failed to keep the promises which he had made . . . The next contest will be different from the 1885 one.’Footnote ¹²⁸ Just as the Duke had ruined Lochiel's chances earlier in the year, the memory of his political career in the 1880s was being used as a reason to reject his heir at the polls.Footnote ¹²⁹ Also, Unionists generally in Britain had used the December election to focus on the constitutional fate of the House of Lords; an unpopular institution in Sutherland due to its repeated rejection of the Small Landholders Bill.Footnote ¹³⁰ The land issue remained one of primary importance in Sutherland, and Scotland as a whole, and the Unionist campaign had generally neglected this in favour of Tariff Reform and the Lords, to its cost.Footnote ¹³¹

The contest was close, however, a reflection of the work the estate had put into the campaign. Stafford lost, but only by 187 votes on an 84% turnout, cutting Morton's majority by over 400.Footnote ¹³² The Highland News was nevertheless triumphant, ‘As a man, the Marquis is, of course, a nonentity, but his position made him a formidable opponent to Mr Morton . . . The feudal screw was applied up to the torture point.’Footnote ¹³³ The Sutherland estate was disappointed, but not without hope, the factors being agreed that he would get in next time with more time to prepare, ‘With better organisation I am confident His Lordship would have been returned and that is the opinion of many notwithstanding the wretched vote on the north coast.’Footnote ¹³⁴ The Duchess was still in fighting spirit and ready for action, but found her son sadly lacking in political ardour, ‘Geordie [Lord Stafford] goes to east africa [sic] Febry to April. Please impress on him he should go direct to Sutherland on his return and stay at least three weeks amongst the people . . . Oh dear, this Empire is too easily got at!’Footnote ¹³⁵

The period from 1897 to 1913 was a tumultuous one for politics in Sutherland. National events contributed to this; the issues at stake in these elections were rarely directly connected with Sutherland or the Highlands. The Boer War tipped the balance in 1900, Lloyd George's divisive financial reforms and battle with the House of Lords were vital in 1906 and 1910 as well as Conservative divisions over Tariff Reform from 1903.Footnote ¹³⁶ There were unique conditions in Sutherland that made the contests additionally bitter, however; the fact that from 1900, every Liberal Unionist or Tory candidate was related to the Duke of Sutherland led to fraught electoral campaigns, and frequent comparisons were made with the election of 1885, still remembered with cynicism and bitterness. From 1906, however, the seat was in Liberal hands, and A. C. Morton saw off both Lochiel and Lord Stafford in 1910, a litmus test of how little direct political influence the Sutherland estate then had in the county. The Sutherland estate was now, politically at least, a shadow tiger.