Steward’s Response

Description:Steward responded to Loch’s letter stating that the Webster family had ‘continually had difficulties to contend with’, adding ‘the times have been against them’.

Steward’s letter explains that the price of stock had been very high at the time which Thomas Webster purchased it. However, the prices had been ‘falling ever since’.

In his letter Steward describes Normacott Grange Farm as ‘the most inferior in point of soil & climate of any on the Estate’. He verifies Webster’s claim that the farm was in poor condition when they ‘entered upon it’.

Despite agreeing with certain points of Webster’s letter, Steward goes on to criticise their management of the farm which he writes was ‘not very pleasing to the eye’.

Although the farm was ‘in a state of greater repair’ than when the Webster’s had moved in, Steward describes parts of the land as ‘foul’, and their management of the farm having had ‘heavy drawbacks’. He adds that the farm had been left ‘in a rough & neglected condition’.

Steward also comments ‘the Father Thomas Webster has not been steady – he has been given to drinking – and he & his family do not agree – they do not work kindly together’.

Steward also disagrees with Webster’s ‘estimate of the value of their stock’, suggesting it is ‘too high’. Steward reminds Loch that he had found Thomas Webster to be ‘a suspicious looking person’ when he visited Normacott Grange Farm.

The rent agreement outlined by Webster in his letter to the Duke is also disputed. Steward states that the agreement was to spend one year’s rent ‘upon the farm’ provided that the family ‘would agree to pay in cash the remainder of the arrears, & the Rent, as it became due, regularly for the future’. Steward reports that the rent had been unpaid and adds ‘no doubt, they would have had more done for them than they have had, if they had gone steadily on in a satisfactory manner’.

The petition enclosed in Webster’s letter is also remarked upon by Steward. He writes ‘the names attached to the paper are nearly all entire strangers to us – none of them are tenants – nor I believe are any of them persons of weight or influence in the neighbourhood’.