iV }Co( nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;i

THE LAND QUESTION IN NORTH WALES

¦ev,

Instituut voor

Keltische taal—en letterkunde der Rijksuniversiteit te UtrecKi.

Printed hy Ballantyne, Hanson amp; Co.

At the Ballantyne Press

CONTENTS.

CHAPTEE I.

History of Welsh Land Question—Distinction of Welsh Case from Irish and Scotch Gases—Attempt to confuse Land Question with Church Questionnbsp;—Influence and Operations of Welsh’¦Vernacular Press—Lord Penrhyn’snbsp;Evidence from Welsh Press —“ Adfyfr’s ” “ Landlordism in Wales ”—nbsp;31r. T. E. Ellis, M.P., and Lord Penrhyn quot; .nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;, .nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;. Pp. 1-40

CHAPTER II.

Formation of North Wales Property Defence Association—its object—not hostile to Farmers—it asks for a Commission in April 1892—Mr. T. E.nbsp;Ellis’s Speech of 31ay 1892—His Indictment—3Ir. Gladstone's Observations upon it—31r. Chaplin’s Criticism—Mr. Gladstone's Snowdon Speechnbsp;—His Statistics—the Inaccuracy of Inferences drawn from them—thenbsp;Irrelevance of any Inference from themnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;....nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;41-54

CHAPTEE III.

The Commission appointed—its Constitution—Antecedents of Members — Majority of Badicah over Unionists—the Terms of Beference and theirnbsp;Meaning—Issue affects English and Scotch Lund also—Summary ofnbsp;Complaint against the Commission, its Methods and its Procedure

Pp. 55-61

vi nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;CONTENTS.

CHAPTER IV.

Procedure and Practice of the Commission—their Befusal to admit Counsel— Lord Penrhyn’s Offer—Pules as to preliminary Copies of Evidence—nbsp;“ Members of the Public ” permitted to exhibit Questions in Writing—nbsp;Secretary to communicate with Persons aggrieved—Opportunities ofnbsp;Pebuttal to be given—Examples of Breach of these Pules—and of theirnbsp;ineffective Character when Izept—Stringency of Procedure as to Pebu ttal—nbsp;the Allegation of Fear among the 'Tenantry—Mr. David Jones and Lordnbsp;Penrhyn and the Conduct of the Secretary of the Commission—the strangenbsp;Case of Parher at Newtown—the reckless Peception of irregular Evidencenbsp;—prohibition of elementary Tests of Evidence—the Commissionersnbsp;'‘revelled in Hearsay”—the Allegation of “fear'’ among Peasantry—itsnbsp;Manufacture.—wild Interpretation of Terms of Peferenee—an Omnibusnbsp;Commission ......... Pp- 62-89

CHAPTER V.

Majority of the Commission started 'with Prejudice in P'avour of a Land Court—Assertion justified by Selection of Questions—Treatment of Witnesses opposed to a Land Court—severe Cross-examination—Mr. Brynmornbsp;Jones, Q.C., M.P., and Colonel the Hon. W. E. Sachville West—Lordnbsp;Carrington and Captain Stewart—the “ Coffin letter ” rejected by Lordnbsp;Carrington—the Sequel in the Merionethshire Outrage—Lord Carringtonnbsp;and the Clergyman—Mr. Brynmor .Tones insults some Montgomeryshirenbsp;Farmers—the Commission fails to secure Evidence from Substantial andnbsp;Pepresentative Farmers ....... Bp. 90-111

CHAPTER VI.

Peport of the Majority of the Commission predicted—v:iU recommend something equivalent to a Jjand Court—North Wales Landowners state their Position—Definition of Essentials of a Jjand Court—the Irish Land Courts—nbsp;Peport of the Committee on the Irish Act of 1S81 —the Duke of .Argyll’snbsp;Exposure of the Act—Mr. Gladstone’s “ Original Piglitcousness ” andnbsp;subsequent Collapse Theories of “ 1 air Pent ” examineel—Effects ofnbsp;Judicial Pent must he destruction of L’riendly Feeling, to turn Landowner

CONTENTS. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;vii

into mere Bent-charger, to check Improvement hy Mutual Agreement, the Establishment of Saleable Tenantright, the Giving of part of Owner'snbsp;Froperty to the sitting Tenant—the Evils of Free Sale—Irish examples—nbsp;condemned by Mr. Thomas Ellis, M.P., and Mr. Bryn Boberts, M.P.—nbsp;Further Effects of a Land Court are Beduction in Selling Price of Land,nbsp;—Impossibility of State Advances to Peasant Proprietors who are encumbered— Compe'iisation alone necessary .nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;.... Pp. 112-139

CHAPTER VII.

The Agrarian Indictment—its Allegations (1) Exorbitant Bents and Inadequate Becognition of Depression, (2) Insecurity of Tenure, (3) Sectarian Preference in Choice of Tetumts, (4) Bent raised on Tenant’s Improvements, (5) over-stringent Agreements, (6) Game Damage, amp;c., (7) wrongfulnbsp;Enclosure of Commons, (8) Stoppage of Sale of” Goodwill”—some Evidence as to the said “ Goodwill.quot;

Evidence as to Baising of Bents—its Vagueness—the Errors made in such F/vidence—the Incapacity of the Witnesses—as to borrowhig Money to paynbsp;Bent—Leading Questions in Commission's Syllabus—Treatment of Witnesses who alleged Landowners to be considerate—Mr. Bichard Tones andnbsp;the Socratic Method—how Farms are valued—Standard lower in Walesnbsp;than in England—Danger of going by Abatements and Beductions simplynbsp;—an Impmrtant Appendix ...... Pp. 140-154

CHAPTER VIII.

Alleged Inseewrity of Tenure—Microscopic Evidence of Capricious Eviction— 1858 and 1868 too long ago—Accusations of Canvassing against Land-owners and Agents—not proved, but why should they refrain?—The Truenbsp;Answer found in Tables of Hereditary Tenancy—Evidence in Detailnbsp;from many Estates ........ Pp. 155-177

CHAPTER IX.

Sectarian Preference—Evidence of Mr. Bryn Boberts, M.P.~a ridiculous Letter—an unauthorised. Circular which was not circulated—Absence ofnbsp;Evidence—95 p.c. of tenantry Nonconformists.

Contracts out of Agricultural Holdings Act 1883—not proven—void if made—

viii nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;CONTENTS.

Contracts out of Cmtom of Country defended—Copies of Agreements easily to he obtained—Grievances as to “ /Services ” quite unreed—Grievances as to Game^ minor—Penal Glacises in Agreements . Pp. 178-191

CHAPTEE X.

Game Grievances—a silly Story—the Preferential Claim—Arguments for and against—Abolition involves a “ Forehand Bent”—Enclosures of Commonsnbsp;and Grown Wastes—purely Legal Questions on which, Landowners declined to give Evidence—the Case of Squatters—the Evidence of Mr. Saltnbsp;—Concerning the Raising of Rent—no Evidence talcen of Development ofnbsp;Country and Marlcets—Vagueness of Idea of Tenant’s Moral Bights innbsp;the Way of Compensation—Lord Carrington’s former estate in Cardiganshire— Weakness of Allegations that no Compensation had been paid—nbsp;Important Evidence of Expenditure in Improvements on many estates—nbsp;full Statistics ......... Pp. 192-229

CHAPTEE XI.

Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883, unfair to both Parties to the Contract— substituted Scales oj Compensation—the Act a Dead, Letter in Glamorganshire, where custom is better—the Act hilled the Development of less per feetnbsp;Custom elsewhere—Amendments of the Act, on just Principles, desired.

Bents of small Farms necessarily higher in Proportion than those of large— Case for North Wales Landowners summarised—they have established,nbsp;before a hostile Commission, the Bight to even Treatment with Englishnbsp;Landoumers—they ask justice ......nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;230-241

APPENDICES.

I. Correspondence with Mr. Gladstone.....Pp. 243-264

II. Figures and Statements as to Abatements, Reductions

. Pp. 265-313 . Pp. 314-320

THE LAND QUESTION IN NORTH WALES.

CHAPTEE I.

History of WeWi Land Question—Distinction of Welsh case from Irish and Scotch Cases—Attempt to confuse Land Question with Churchnbsp;Question—Influence and Operations of Welsh Vernacular Press—nbsp;Lord Penrhyn’s Evidence from Welsh Press—“Adfyfr’s ” “ Landlordism in Wales ”—Mr. T. H. Ellis, M.P., and Lord Penrhyn.

No treatise upon the subject into which the Welsh Land Commission was requested to inquire would be complete ornbsp;even intelligible without something in the way of a connectednbsp;account of the manner in which the Welsh Land Question, ifnbsp;question it he, came into being and of the progress of thenbsp;history of the Question. And first be it observed that thenbsp;history to be told in this case is not, as it would be if it werenbsp;necessary to deal with the like subject in relation to Ireland,,nbsp;or to the crofting areas of Scotland, distinguished by greatnbsp;length nor, for the consideration of the matter from a practical point of view, is it essential to indulge the passion fornbsp;antiquarian research. It is true that the Welsh Commissionnbsp;did from time to time digress into those antiquarian paths ;nbsp;and no doubt they will report the results of their inquiries; itnbsp;is also true that from each digression something in the naturenbsp;of profitable information was reaped; but the harvest went, in

A

THE LAND QUESTION

an unthresbecl condition and in the form of wheat sheaves with a large admixture of tares, to the general storehouse ofnbsp;knowledge. For practical purposes it was of no value savenbsp;from a negative point of view ; it was of no use save to shownbsp;in rather a vague way that the case of Wales is entirely distinct from that of Ireland or of the crofting areas of Scotland.nbsp;This is a matter of some importance, because it is clear fromnbsp;the fact that three revolutionary Acts, contradicting andnbsp;nullifying one another in some measure, have been passednbsp;in connection with Irish Land Tenure within the last thirty-five years, and that the Crofters Acts have also been in activenbsp;operation for some little time, that there is a large body ofnbsp;British citizens, more or less adequately represented in Parliament, who think that special circumstances may justifynbsp;legislation contrary to economic principle, reactionary innbsp;tendency and confiscatory in spirit. For our part we venturenbsp;to hold the contrary opinion and to believe that, great as arenbsp;the present evils which have arisen from the Irish Landnbsp;Acts, they are not to be compared with those which mustnbsp;inevitably follow from attempts to tinker at and improvenbsp;a system which is bound to produce increasing evils, since itnbsp;is an attempt to defy those laws governing human actionnbsp;which are, as sound economists know, essentially laws ofnbsp;nature. But it is idle to pretend to ignore the existence ofnbsp;persons, some of them earnest men and thoughtful, whonbsp;hold in complete sincerity an absolutely different theory.nbsp;Prudence and generalship, therefore, dictate that, withoutnbsp;surrendering for a moment the impregnable fortress ofnbsp;principle, we should meet our opponents first on their ownnbsp;ground.

Is there any similarity between the peaceful story of the advance of civilisation in Wales and the troubled historynbsp;of Ireland ? A glance at the annals of that unfortunatenbsp;island makes the answer to that question apparent at once.nbsp;Almost from the beginning of authentic history up to the

IN NORTH WALES. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;3

time of William III., the tide of battle, of conflict with invaders and of domestic warfare, of conquest and reconquest,nbsp;«bbed and flowed over her fertile soil. Time after time shenbsp;Was half devastated and half dejDopulated; time after timenbsp;groups of invading Englishmen were planted upon her, thenbsp;native owners being dispossessed to that end. So late as 1774nbsp;we find Arthur Young writing: ¹

“ The lineal descendants of the old families are now to be found all over the kingdom working as cottiers on thenbsp;lands that were once their own ... it is a fact that thenbsp;descendants of the old landowners regularly transmit bynbsp;testamentary deed the memorial of their right to thosenbsp;¦estates which once belonged to their families.”

A fatal policy of thwarting Irish manufactures in the interest of English manufactures tended to throw annbsp;inordinate portion of the population upon the land. Oldnbsp;customs, such as tanistry and gavelkind, died exceedinglynbsp;hard. New customs, such as the Ulster tenant-right, werenbsp;imported. The tribal idea survived long by the side ofnbsp;English law, which was imposed by force only. In short, thenbsp;development of civilisation was slow in Ireland. Each successive Parliament found her people backward, discontented,nbsp;prone to acts of violence, a century at least behind theirnbsp;fellow subjects. Such, in brief outline, are the factors, ornbsp;some of them, which have gone to make the Irish problem asnbsp;a whole; and such also are the facts which have inducednbsp;English statesmen to try the application of empirical remediesnbsp;to a social disease which has baffled their best efforts. It isnbsp;Worthy of note, by the way, that the Welsh Land Commission, while it declined to accept evidence from the counsel ofnbsp;the North Wales Property Defence Association with regard

1

“ Landholding and the Relation oE Landlord and Tenant,” Field. Calcutta: Thacker amp; Spink. 1883.

4 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;THE LAND QUESTION

to the operation of the Irish Land Acts, and was eventually satisfied to do without any such evidence, did accept evidencenbsp;on the operation of the Crofters Acts from Mr. Donaldnbsp;Macrae, the best-known of crofter advocates and from Sirnbsp;Colin Scott Moncrieff and others.

In the case of the crofting areas history tells a slightly different tale. That the Highlands also came comparativelynbsp;late under the influence of civilisation is true enough. Butnbsp;the main causes which brought about the Crofters Acts, wenbsp;will not say justified them, were the following. Firstly,nbsp;teste Lord Napier’s Commission, the tribal idea survived,nbsp;with some reality of living force, to a late period and, wellnbsp;into this century, the people had a hazy idea, based not uponnbsp;any fanciful theory of political equity, but upon local traditionnbsp;that they had a right to the land. Secondly, the tack system,nbsp;by which large tracts of land were leased to the relationsnbsp;and hangers-on of the proprietors, to be sublet in their turnnbsp;to minor tenants, was not, according to modern views,nbsp;conducive to sound estate management. The proprietor,nbsp;divorced from personal interest in the land, had certainly nO'nbsp;inducement to invest capital in it; the tacksmen could notnbsp;improve the land because for the most part they had little ornbsp;no money, and further, if they had possessed the means, wouldnbsp;have had little inducement to expend them in the improvement of the soil. Still, as the Duke of Argyll showed plainlynbsp;in the eloquent and convincing evidence which he gave before-the Welsh Land Commission, it was never fair to assume-that the whole of the building work done was effected bynbsp;the crofter tenants. What does seem tolerably clear is thatnbsp;the system of extensive sheep-runs introduced, probably withnbsp;much agricultural wisdom at the time, did tend to the detriment of the crofter tenants, who were, at the best of times,nbsp;miserably poor; and did tend to kindle a vague sense ofnbsp;grievance in their minds. The story of forcible trans|)lanta-tions of crofter populations, a story which has been used over

IN NORTH WALES.

and over again to stir up sentiment, Las doubtless some foundation in fact, but His Grace’s evidence shows clearlynbsp;that it has been greatly exaggerated.

Reverting for a moment to the case of Ireland, it may be added that absenteeism, albeit the stories concerning it mustnbsp;be taken cum grano, was an early fault of the Englishnbsp;landowners who replaced the native owners, and that it isnbsp;matter of common belief that the capital invested by them innbsp;the great industry of agriculture had but a very small pro-poi-tion to that invested by the tenants. On that belief, nonbsp;doubt. Parliament acted to some extent in passing the seriesnbsp;of Irish Land Acts. Recent investigations, made when thenbsp;steed had been stolen, so to speak, have shown clearly thatnbsp;the number of exceptions to the rule was very large, andnbsp;that the confiscation of the fruits of landowners’ investmentsnbsp;has been more considerable than was intended by Parliament.nbsp;In fact, the Irish landowners as a body did not marshal theirnbsp;solid army of facts and figures until it was too late. On thenbsp;other hand, the vast mass of impregnable statistics whichnbsp;Welsh landowners have placed before the Commission showsnbsp;that the fate of the Irish landowners has given them a timelynbsp;warning which has not been neglected.

Be the reasons what they may, it is an undeniable fact that whereas the Irish Land Question has been a burning questionnbsp;from time immemorial, the alleged Welsh Land Question is anbsp;plant of quite recent growth. Twenty years ago, nay, fifteennbsp;years ago, it was unheard of. Nor were the causes far tonbsp;seek. Since the conquest of Wales no part of the Unitednbsp;Kingdom has suffered less from the ravages of war than thenbsp;Principality. In no part of the kingdom has there been lessnbsp;impediment to the steady march of civilisation. The tribalnbsp;idea died very early. The native owners, as the rolls of sherilfsnbsp;for various counties prove by the endless series of Cymricnbsp;names, were never dispossessed. Colonel Cornwallis Westnbsp;drew the attention of the Commission at Ruthin to the great

THE LAND QUESTION

preponderance of Welsh names among the owners of property in the various counties of Wales enumerated in the return ofnbsp;1873; and he might have supplemented his argument bynbsp;showing that in almost all the cases where a large estate isnbsp;held by an owner bearing a Saxon or Scottish name the resultnbsp;has been brought about by the marriage of Englishman ornbsp;Scot to a Welsh heiress. Industry has never been thwarted.nbsp;On the contrary, it has been encouraged by the great land-owners. Lord Penrhyn and Mr. Assheton Smith do but follownbsp;the traditions of their predecessors in employing armies ofnbsp;men at the famous quarries. Sir Watkin Williams Wynnnbsp;and other great landowners have spared no effort to developnbsp;the mineral resources of Denbighshire, Flintshire, and Montgomeryshire, and it is their misfortune, not their fault, thatnbsp;the lead-mining industry has fallen into decay. In Southnbsp;Wales the whole prosperity of Cardiff is due to the enterprisenbsp;of the Bute estate in creating the great docks which, aidednbsp;by the coal behind in the hills, have turned a village into anbsp;city of 150,000 inhabitants within the period of the century.

English law has been administered to Welshmen equally with Englishmen from time immemorial. No vestige of thenbsp;old Welsh laws has been seen, except by virtue of antiquariannbsp;research, for many centuries. The law regulating the relationnbsp;of landlord and tenant has, for all practical purposes, beennbsp;identical in England and Wales for many centuries. Thenbsp;changes of tenancy in Wales have been far less numerous thannbsp;in any other part of the kingdom, due regard being taken fornbsp;the proportion of population. The relation of landowner andnbsp;tenant was, until the agitation was started a few years ago,nbsp;uniformly friendly, and is really as friendly as ever in thenbsp;overwhelming majority of cases now that the Commission hasnbsp;done its work.

It may be asked how it came about that the appearance of a Land Question was brought about in a community having, onnbsp;the whole, so happy a history as that which the Principality

IN NORTH WALES. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;7

can boast. The answer is to be found in the weighty words addressed to the Commission by Lord Penrhyn at Llangefni,nbsp;on the 14th of October, 1893 ; but before those words arenbsp;cited it is necessary to make a few observations summarisingnbsp;what is, for the most part, common knowledge, in order thatnbsp;the position may be clear.

It is well known that at the time when the Welsh dioceses were united to the province of Canterbury, through the effortsnbsp;of him whom ancient Welsh divines were wont to call “ thenbsp;accursed Awstin, the monk,” the Ancient British Church andnbsp;the Church of England became one. Such changes as thenbsp;lleformation involved were made in England and Walesnbsp;equally. Simultaneously with the accession of the presentnbsp;dynasty to the throne, and in pursuance, as the writer believes, of a mistaken idea that the Welsh could be absolutelynbsp;Anglicised, a practice of appointing English-speaking bishopsnbsp;to Welsh sees arose and produced exceeding bad results. Innbsp;any case (whether through the default of the clergy or notnbsp;matters little for the present purpose) Nonconformity begannbsp;to make strong headway at the beginning of the presentnbsp;century, and was not very long before it parted company withnbsp;the Church. It must be remembered, however, that the earlynbsp;fathers of Welsh Nonconformity, the men who brought aboutnbsp;a religious revival and started the Sunday-school system were,nbsp;almost to a man, ordained clergymen who desired nothing lessnbsp;than rupture from the Establishment. Then gradually Nonconformity became hostile to the Church, the said hostilitynbsp;originating, at any rate, among the ministers of Nonconformity, amongst whom are to be found in this day the mostnbsp;active Radical politicians and journalists in Wales. Theirnbsp;political influence in Wales, especially in the agricultural districts, is not at all inferior to that of the Roman Catholicnbsp;priests in Ireland ; they are the makers of members of Parliament. To men thus circumstanced the passage of Mr.nbsp;Gladstone’s Irish Church Bill opened a new horizon, and

THE LAND QUESTION

from that day to this they have agitated incessantly for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in Wales.

Now, though it is by no means true that all Welsh landowners are Churchmen, or that all Welsh tenants arenbsp;Nonconformists, it is probably true that the larger part of thenbsp;acreage of Wales is in the hands of Churchmen and that thenbsp;majority of the tenant-farmers are Nonconformists. Evidencenbsp;will be quoted in due course to show that the actual cases innbsp;which it has been alleged that a tenant has been at any disadvantage in dealing with his landlord by reason of his creednbsp;are so very indefinite and so remote in point of time as notnbsp;to be worth thinking about. But that is not the immediatenbsp;point.

Between 1880 and 1890 the agitation against the Church was at its height. It took the form, on paper, of the Antitithe League; it took the form in practice of organisednbsp;resistance to the payment of the tithe-rent-charge culminating in riots, some of them of a very serious character, atnbsp;Mochdre (Flintshire), Meifod (Montgomeryshire), Amlwchnbsp;and Bodfordd (Anglesey), and spread in an acute form tonbsp;the counties of Carnarvon, Cardigan, and Merioneth. Innbsp;fact the Welsh people, who are by nature as quiet and peace-loving a people as any in the world, were, during the decadenbsp;mentioned, in a state nearer to general lawlessness—for thenbsp;Kebecca riots were local—than during any other period of thenbsp;century. Against this spirit of lawlessness a number ofnbsp;individual landowners did undoubtedly set their faces; and itnbsp;is submitted that it was their duty as men of position so tonbsp;do, for although Mr. Justice Wills (a Nonconformist judge bynbsp;the way) did lay it down that a refusal to pay the tithenbsp;was a lawful protest, it is beyond question that such lawfulnbsp;protests against the payment of debts, which in their turnnbsp;were also lawful, ended in violent disturbance and werenbsp;un obstacle to husbandry. So much must be, to use thenbsp;word which will seem applicable from some points of view,

9

IN NORTH WALES.

aclmitted; from another point of view it may he said that so much must be protested. But, descending again for thenbsp;moment to the platform of the adversary, it is necessary tonbsp;add that there were not wanting occasions on which thenbsp;clergy, on their part, complained that the landowning classesnbsp;bad not stood by them as firmly as might have beennbsp;expected. W^here one party avers that a class has done toonbsp;much, and the other party declares that the same class hasnbsp;done too little, the chances are that the class accused hasnbsp;chosen the golden mean, only to find, as is the common rulenbsp;cf human experience, that the sterling character of the gold

is not recognised.

Be that as it may it is certain that until the anti-tithe agitation in Wales became acute, nothing whatsoever wasnbsp;heard about a Welsh Land Question; and certain it is alsonbsp;tliat, if there had been anything to hear, it would have beennbsp;made manifest in the columns of the vernacular Press.nbsp;Something no doubt had been said in 1859 when, it is beyondnbsp;cpiestion, there had been evictions for political reasons innbsp;Wales as there had been in Bngland. But if the memory ofnbsp;these evictions has not faded away, as Mr. Thomas Ellisnbsp;usserted firmly in his evidence that it had not, the fact stillnbsp;remains that his assertion dealt merely with a matter ofnbsp;opinion, while there is not a particle of doubt that the Ballotnbsp;Act and the Corrupt Practices Act have been passed as anbsp;¦matter of fact. Still less doubt is there that the tenantry ofnbsp;Wales, like all other intelligent persons, have always understood that the Act was effectual, and have acted on the know-¦iedge. In fact the whole of the indignation which arose fromnbsp;the evictions of 1859, exaggerated as the accounts of thosenbsp;evictions undoubtedly were, was dead and cold, and defied thenbsp;efforts of the most ardent resurrectionist. It was only innbsp;connection with the fact that the Church and the landownersnbsp;stood in some measure side by side, that the Land Question,nbsp;in an acute form, was really raised. It was raised in the

THE LAND QUESTION

vernacular press in the form of threats, repeated and violent, in which landowners were warned of the fate which theynbsp;would incur if they persisted in supporting the cause of thenbsp;Church. Such was the tone used that one must suppose thenbsp;conductors of the vernacular press to have forgotten a factnbsp;which, none the less, they can hardly deny; to wit, that evennbsp;landowners are citizens of the United Kingdom endowednbsp;inalienably with no less freedom of thought and action thannbsp;Nonconformist ministers, tradesmen, farmers and journalists..

Hence came it that Lord Penrhyn addressed to the Commission the words (Q. 2279 and onwards) to which reference has been made. Speaking as the chairman of a body ofnbsp;landowners practically representing the whole of Northnbsp;Wales, of a body which had resolved in 1886 “ that land-owners should meet their tenants fairly and liberally in thenbsp;existing depression of their business,” he said:

“ I next desire to lay before the Commission, in the most earnest manner and as being vital to the whole question,nbsp;facts which, in my opinion, prove that the agitation upon thenbsp;Welsh Land Question was unreal in origin, and had not itsnbsp;source in any genuine sense of grievance on the part of thenbsp;agricultural community. The said facts consist of articlesnbsp;and letters published in the Welsh vernacular press. Promnbsp;the foundation of this Association, and for some time prior tO'nbsp;that date, careful watch has been kept on the publications ofnbsp;the vernacular press and translations of articles and lettersnbsp;affecting the interests of landowners have been made for thenbsp;Association. The accuracy of such translations can benbsp;proved to all reasonable satisfaction and in the vast majoritynbsp;of instances the originals can be produced. The said translations have been submitted to Mr. J. E. Vincent, who isnbsp;present, and I now tender them to you, believing that theynbsp;will prove that this agitation was deliberately fomented bynbsp;journalistic sensational writings, with the object of creating-

IN NORTH WALES.

a feeling in the country which would tend to the advantage of the proprietors of the vernacular press, and to the detriment of the Church and landowners in Wales; for thisnbsp;purpose I rely on extracts which I shall quote briefly. Inbsp;shall, moreover, be able to show from those extracts that thenbsp;agitation on the land question for some time was a failure,nbsp;and that for years past landowners have been abused persistently and without regard to truth in the vernacular press,nbsp;that obsolete prejudices against England have been resuscitated, and that all manner of threats and contumely havenbsp;been poured on those tenants who might not be inclined tonbsp;join in the movement. I hand in the extracts believing thatnbsp;no argument of mine is necessary for explaining their obviousnbsp;meaning. I hand in also a list of the articles giving thenbsp;date of each, the paper in which it was published, with anbsp;few words indicating the nature of the article. I now, withnbsp;the permission of the Commission, propose to read some ofnbsp;the extracts referred to.”

His lordship then cited an extract from the Herald Cymraeg (Carnarvon) of May 26, 1886, notifying the factnbsp;that a meeting was to be held at Khyl in June, with the viewnbsp;to the establishment of “ a society similar to the Irishnbsp;League,” and “ earnestly requesting all farmers in the Principality to be present.” This was the first occasion, it isnbsp;believed, upon which a public endeavour was made to bribenbsp;the Welsh tenant with a promise of the legislation passednbsp;undeniably to the pecuniary benefit of the then sitting racenbsp;cf Irish tenants (although to the detriment of all succeedingnbsp;tenants), since it simply gave them, without considerationnbsp;paid, a portion of property which formerly belonged to theirnbsp;landlords.

The Rhyl meeting was not promising in advance, and it was found necessary {Qenedl, June 9, 1886) to invite the

THE LAND QUESTION

co-operation o£ the labouring classes, whom the agitators tempted in the following manner :

“ You, labourers and working men, do not keep like Dan in his ships while we are fighting our enemies, but come with

us, and you shall get a share of the spoils.....Within

less than three hundred years ago all the land belonged to the people, but by this time it has been usurped by a class ofnbsp;men who call themselves the lords of the land, which is hideousnbsp;unrighteousness.”

If it be hideous unrighteousness to enunciate a deliberate untruth, such as that contained in the italicised passage, annbsp;untruth for which there is not so much as a sand-grain ofnbsp;even apparent foundation, then it is to be feared the editornbsp;of this Genedl, who circulated this statement amongst thenbsp;monoglot Welsh, was hideously unrighteous.

The attempt to transplant Irish methods to Wales does not appear to have been followed with immediate success. Butnbsp;the sequel will show that the suggestion was not quite barrennbsp;of fruit; witness the recent and cruel outrage in Merionethshire. As early as the 29th September the Gwyliedydd hadnbsp;to announce that a meeting was to be held in Liverpool “ fornbsp;setting up a Welsh national movement on the plan of thenbsp;Irish.” How this scheme failed, how every scheme failednbsp;which emanated from the fertile brain of Mr. Thomas Gee,nbsp;proprietor of the Bctwernewspaper at Denbigh and “ministernbsp;of the Gospel,” shall be narrated in due course in the wordsnbsp;of Dr. Pan Jones, himself one of the most fiery agrariannbsp;agitators in Wales.

Meanwhile, to the diligent student of the Welsh Press_

and it was wise indeed of the North Wales landowners to be such students—the failure at that time of the attempt to createnbsp;a Land Question where none existed, and to convert a contentednbsp;body of tenantry into lawless and discontented persons, was

IN NORTH Wj^LES.

plainly visible. Obviously the agitators bad nothing to hope from their original scheme. Although agricultural depressionnbsp;(which, fortunately for Wales, has never been so intense asnbsp;that of corn-growing England, and has been^varied by occasional touches from the “ magic wand of prosperity ”) mightnbsp;have been expected to incline the farmers to listen to thenbsp;Voice of the grievance-monger, they remained [quiet, bearingnbsp;their misfortunes, of which their landlords took a generousnbsp;share, with such patience as they might.

In this crisis the persons responsible for the conduct of the Baner newspaper conceived an idea as iniquitons asnbsp;malicious.

Now the Baner is a weekly journal in the vernacular, much read in Wales. It is the property of Mr. Thomas Gee,nbsp;of Denbigh, a Calvinistic Methodist minister, who, when henbsp;gave evidence before the Commission at Denbigh, betrayed anbsp;remarkable desire to evade his proper responsibility fornbsp;articles which had appeared in his paper,fand appeared to benbsp;Unable to remember numerous extracts which seemed to outsiders to possess a character such as would certainly strikenbsp;the attention of a newspaper owner.

It was in this paper that the attempt to use religious prejudice as a weapon against landowners was made with a persistent venom which, to those who have the intelligence to perceive and the candour to confess the absolute distinctionnbsp;between the two questions, will carry its own condemnation.nbsp;The campaign began in November 1886 thus—the translations given being those used by Lord Penrhyn, all of whichnbsp;had been verified carefully. All the originals were handednbsp;m to the Commission.*

* Some apology is due to the purely English reader for the style of these translations and for the precise renderings of Welsh idioms quot;whichnbsp;they contain. Having regard, however, to the fact that these translationsnbsp;were all verified carefully for the purpose of being given in evidencenbsp;before the Commission, it has seemed proper to reproduce them preciselynbsp;in their original form. Where the result of fidelity has seemed likely tonbsp;tend to obscurity brief explanations are inserted in brackets and italics.

THE LAND QUESTION

From the “ Herald Cymraeg,” published at Carnarvon, May 2Qth, 1886.

“ It is understood that vigorous preparations are being made by the Committee of the Agricultural Society of thenbsp;counties of Denbigh and Flint with regard to the naeeting atnbsp;Ehyl. It is not finally settled whether it is to be on the 15thnbsp;or the 22nd of June, but this will be settled soon. Mr. Johnnbsp;Koberts, M.P.,Mr. Samuel Smith, M.P., and Mr. Thomas Gee,nbsp;and several of the foremost men in the land movement havenbsp;signified their readiness to accept the invitation given themnbsp;to come and take part in the proceedings. The chief objectnbsp;of this meeting is to sketch the means of establishing amongstnbsp;the farmers of North Wales a society like the Irish League,nbsp;and to plant branches of it in every county in North Wales.nbsp;All the farmers in the PrincijDality are earnestly requested tonbsp;be present, so that a prosperous and thorough beginning maynbsp;be made of the parent society.”

The “ Genedl,” June 2th, 1886.

“ You labourers and working men do not keep like Dan in the ships while we are fighting our enemies, but come with usnbsp;and you shall get a share of the spoil.

*****

“Within less than three hundred years ago all the land belonged to the people, but by this time it has been usurpednbsp;by a class of men who call themselves the lords of the land,nbsp;which is hideous unrighteousness.”

* * * * »

The “ Gtoyliedydd,” September 22th, 1886.

“ Arrangements are being made in Liverpool to hold a meeting for setting up a Welsh National movement on thenbsp;plan of the Irish one.”

IN NORTH WALES. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;ir,

In the Baner of November Srd, 1886, there are threats ¦against the landlords if they support the Church ; that is thenbsp;subject of this quotation:—

“ Neither can the landlords, at this time, afford to come between the farmers and the parsons in the present contest.nbsp;The land question is far from being in a satisfactory condition,nbsp;¦and undoubtedly they will have need of every help that isnbsp;within their reach tosettle itsatisfactorily. Andwewould advisenbsp;Ihem not to forget [i.e., obliterate] the relics of good feelingnbsp;that subsist between many of them and their tenants by this unnecessary intermeddling. Let it be remembered that the firstnbsp;¦cry which was raised in Ireland was ‘No tithe,’and then becausenbsp;of the meddlesome and molesting behaviour of the landownersnbsp;Was raised the shout ‘ No rent.’ Circumstances in Wales arenbsp;not greatly to be distinguished from what took place innbsp;Ireland, and if the latter shout should be raised in Wales theynbsp;£i-e., laTidotvners] will have no one to blame but themselves.”

The “ Baner,” November 24:tk, 1886.

“ The battle of the Welsh nation against landlordism is beginning in earnest. The feeling of fairness and justicenbsp;which the nation possesses has condemned the operation ofnbsp;Ibe system long since; but now, need and poverty andnbsp;misery have begun to put the verdict into operation. Thenbsp;days of soft and sweet words about the landlords are quicklynbsp;passing away. The farmers, the countrymen, and the villagers of Wales have been praising and showing respect to thenbsp;landlords with their lips, whilst they knew in their hearts theynbsp;Were thus paying a discontented tribute to the devourers ofnbsp;¦the marrow of their bones.

*****

“There has been a generation or two of Irish farmers trampled down by landlordism, hundreds of them and their

THE LAND QUESTION

families have been starved to death, and thousands have left their beloved land for America, with a curse in their heartsnbsp;for the system that trod them down.

“ The Welsh farmers are going through the same sufferings. But the farmers of Ireland awoke, and they have bruised the head of Irish landlordism. They sought, as thenbsp;Welsh farmers are seeking, for a reduction in their rents bynbsp;humble petitions to their landlords; but the burden of thenbsp;landlords’ song is warning the farmers against forming themselves into associations. But united and determined associations won the battle in Ireland. This alone will win innbsp;Wales. One of the chief duties of these associations, andnbsp;friends of the farmers, is to publish the villainous andnbsp;horrible acts of landlordism, in particular crushing downnbsp;families to poverty and wretchedness by exorbitant rents.nbsp;In this manner the Irish reformers worked upon Mr. Gladstone, and on the public conscience of Britain.”

The “ Baner,” December llth, 1886.

“We confess that the unfaithfulness of farmers to each other is a very exceptional thing in Ireland, More the pity,nbsp;in Wales this is a common evil. In the ‘ Emerald Isle,’ thenbsp;landlord’s oppression and ‘ boycotting ’ have wonderfullynbsp;cemented the tenants together; at the same time there arenbsp;a few examples to the contrary even there, and the Torynbsp;papers make a great stir about them as independent andnbsp;fearless people. Traitors and servile flatterers rather, likenbsp;their Welsh brothers.”

The “Baner,” December 22nd, 1886.

“ The landlords ought jJarticularly to beware of giving the slightest support to this measure.

“ Because if they do, if—to use the words of ‘ John Jones,

IN NORTH WALES. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;17

Bryniau lal,’ in one of his talented letters in the Baner— they insist upon making themselves shields to the clergy, letnbsp;them be informed that the fate of shields will be their lot.nbsp;The country is determined to insist upon having the tithenbsp;from the parsons for the sake of having it to lighten theirnbsp;own burdens.”

The “ Baner,” December ISth, 1886.

“ The object of this, of course, will be to give timely notice to owners of land that it is at their peril they agree to thenbsp;trick of the Ministry in letting themselves to be madenbsp;shields between their tenants and the parsons, for thenbsp;question that will arise then will be ‘ No rent ’ as well as ‘ Nonbsp;tithe.’ ”

The violence of the foregoing passages is unmistakable; the menace addressed to landowners is in no way disguised.nbsp;What Mr. Gee allowed to be printed in his paper was, innbsp;effect, this: If you who are landowners dare to support thenbsp;Establishment we, as newspaper proprietors, will encouragenbsp;the farmers to inaugurate a system of boycotting and a conspiracy not to pay rent.

Attention, also, may be called to such expressions as “ devourers of the marrow of their bones,” “ villainous andnbsp;horrible acts of landlordism.” It may be noted that thenbsp;extract of December 11th, 1886, also points clearly to the factnbsp;that the farmers refused to hear the voice of the charmer.

In 1887 there was a slight variation in the policy and a change of tune was tried. An Anti-tithe League was alreadynbsp;iQ existence; an attempt was made to change it into a Landnbsp;League, or rather to merge the two Leagues in one; andnbsp;inasmuch as neither League ever had any substantial existence except on paper the task was simple. For the rest thenbsp;extracts of 1887, which are appended, are noticeable chiefly

for violence of tone and for a naif confession, in the form of correspondence obviously solicited by the editor, if indeednbsp;it was not concocted in the newspaper office, that the circulation of the Baner was not all that its proprietor’s heartnbsp;could desire. It is also entertaining to observe, from thenbsp;extract of December 21st, that the same old League or Leagues,nbsp;under a new name, could collect for the support of agitationnbsp;during 1887, 1888, and 1889 no more than the sum ofnbsp;£82 13s. 2d. in all, of which £10 came from the pocket ofnbsp;Mr. Gee, and £10 from an unhappy Eadical parliamentarynbsp;candidate.

The Banerf July mh, 1887.

“This week we will only suggest the two following changes:—1. That the scope of the League be enlarged. Nownbsp;only the tithe is taken into account. But could not manynbsp;other important questions connected with the land be included, and that, too, without relinquishing anything as tonbsp;the tithe ? We believe it can be done. If so, would it notnbsp;be prudent henceforth to use this name and call it the Landnbsp;League instead of the above ? ”

The Baner,” August ISth, 1887.

“Notes:—Of one thing we are quite certain. If the Church and Tory landlords were to leave their tenants alone,nbsp;they would make short and unceremonious work of the tithe.nbsp;The landlords are fools enough to shield the clergy. Thenbsp;effect of this will be to change, or rather to extend, thenbsp;battlefield.”

“ They ought to have them for half their present rents. He that denies this, let him deny that the sun rises.’ Also

m NOETH WALES.

there is need for more unity amongst us as farmers. We ought to stand out for a general reduction in our farms. And if anynbsp;‘ Judas ’ happens to come to sight, he ought to be chased outnbsp;of the country.”

The “Baner,” September 10th, 1887.

“It is not right for us to publish as much as is known regarding the intention of establishing the above League innbsp;Wales, and we had not thought of making known the intention at all, till the Anti-tithe Society at its yearly meeting hadnbsp;declared its opinion that it was advisable for it to extend itsnbsp;Sphere, and take under its notice other questions besides thenbsp;tithe, and take, besides that, a more appropriate name for itsnbsp;new position.

* # * # »

“ After full and careful consideration, the following were nnanimously agreed upon :—

“ I. That it would be wise to change the name of the Association, and henceforth call it ‘The Welsh National League.’

“ II. That the operations of the Association should be extended so as to take in the following:—(a) the tithe; (b) the disestablishment and disendowmentnbsp;of the Church of England in Wales; (c) all thenbsp;important questions connected with the land.

* » * * #

“ Allow us to state that the movement would have taken place some months ago, except that the leaders of the move-Qient in the Vale of Clwyd were desirous of seeing if somenbsp;other towns were not ready to take the responsibility. It wasnbsp;expected that Carnarvon or Aberystwyth or some other largenbsp;town would have taken the lead, and the Liberals of thesenbsp;districts would have given every possible support and assistance to the League, wherever it made its home. But since

THE LAND QUESTION

there appeared no such sign it was determined to undertake the work in these districts, since it is high time to beginnbsp;operations.

“We will now leave the question by saying this; If the above proposals are approved of, the association will appear innbsp;a new guise, and will be much stronger, and will be known bynbsp;the name of ‘ The Welsh National League.’ We believe itnbsp;will receive the warm support of the nation everywhere.”

Tlte “Baner,” October \2th, 1887.

“ In a report of the Aberystwyth Liberal Conference, Dr. Pan Jones,* of Mostyn, in proposing a resolution (which wasnbsp;passed unanimously) that reform of the Welsh Land Laws wasnbsp;necessary, said that no reform would be sufficient unless it putnbsp;a stop for ever to the oppressive power now exercised by thenbsp;landowners. The landowners claimed all things in heavennbsp;and earth. The landlord system was insufferable in the extreme, as it made the tenant bow down before a trinity ofnbsp;robbers—the landowners, the agents, and the clergy. Thenbsp;blackest spot on the history of the country was the conductnbsp;of the landowners.”

The “Baner” October 2amp;th, 1887.

“ Allow a word to be said by one who would like to see all your fetters shattered, and to see you in the possession of allnbsp;your rights. I am afraid that many of you are quite contentnbsp;to remain in deep ignorance of the important questions whichnbsp;bear the closest relation to your comforts and your prosperity.nbsp;In other words, I am afraid that many of you do not see ornbsp;read the newspapers which advocate your rights. I do notnbsp;say this at a venture, but from knowledge. There are three

Dr. Pan Jones is a Congregational minister localised at Mostyn, in Flintshire. He is also the editor and proprietor of the Celt, in which thenbsp;theories of land nationalisation are advocated in strong language.

IN NORTH WALES.

national newspapers in the Welsh language which serve you with praiseworthy fidelity, namely, the Baner, Herald, andnbsp;Genedl ; and several Nonconformist newspapers, as thenbsp;Goleuad, Tyst aW Dydd, do the same. And yet—which isnbsp;almost incomprehensible to me—I know many of you intonbsp;whose houses not as much as one of these faithful servants isnbsp;received one day in a year. You complain of your burdensnbsp;and sigh for release from them, but yet ignore those who arenbsp;doing their best for your deliverance. Is that kind of you ?nbsp;Is it fair ? Their price is not in the way, because the highestnbsp;of them is only twopence a week—the price of a half pint ornbsp;half an ounce of tobacco. Believe me, it is you who lose bynbsp;it. It would not be so much in my sight to see the circulationnbsp;of the newspapers of the Principality increasing, as it wouldnbsp;to see you as a class increasing in knowledge of the greatnbsp;questions now before the country, and which are so closelynbsp;connected with your future. You will see what my object innbsp;this letter is. I admit that I cannot reach the eye nor the earnbsp;of the careless by it; but I trust to be able to increase thenbsp;zeal of those under whose notice this will come, to move othersnbsp;to follow their examples, because it is indispensable that therenbsp;should not be one farmhouse throughout the whole of Walesnbsp;into which one newspaper or other is not received and read.nbsp;—I am, amp;c.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;“ Horace.”

[The above letter was reprinted in the Baner for October 29th, 1887.]

The quot;Baner,” November 2nd, 1887.

“ Be ‘ Horace ’ and Welsh Farmers.

“ Will the letter of the above correspondent in your last number have a good effect upon Welsh farmers? Indeed, itnbsp;ought to have. It had a wonderful effect on me. I felt whennbsp;I read it that it was the request of a ^man whose heart was

THE LAND QUESTION

bleeding on account of the distressed state of the agricultural classes, and who wished them (the farmers) to know that, and tonbsp;recognise the labours of those who labour on their behalf, andnbsp;exei’t themselves to remove the burdens which oppress them,nbsp;and make them (the farmers) acquainted with the points discussed for them by societies and individuals. They can donbsp;this by reading the accounts of meetings which are publishednbsp;in our newspapers every week, as well as the strong articlesnbsp;published in their columns week after week. Six Welsh newspapers were named by‘Horace,’which the Welsh farmers wouldnbsp;do themselves a service by reading. Eemember, friends, thatnbsp;the day of your deliverance is not far off, but before thatnbsp;perhaps some of you will be called upon to state your opinionnbsp;on the position of things and the way in which you wouldnbsp;like to see them settled, as was lately the case in connectionnbsp;with the tithe inquiry. And such fools you would make ofnbsp;yourselves if you did not know the A B G of what j onnbsp;grumbled about. If you took ‘Horace’s’ advice and purchased one of the newspapers mentioned you would be enlightened on many subjects which are dark to you now.

“ Tsbeyd Llewelyn.”

The “ Baner,” November 2nd, 1887.

(This extract is one of the gems of Welsh journalism.)

“Some of the Welsh landowners are about the best men. who ever wore shoes. They are kind and affectionate, andnbsp;have shown their sympathy with their poor tenants in a substantial way. But it is surprising how few of these there are.nbsp;It is almost as difficult to get hold of a white rook in Wales,nbsp;or a white elephant in Bengal, as it is to find a kind landlord.nbsp;It is necessary for a man to walk scores of miles over hills andnbsp;vales, through the wilderness and the forests, past many anbsp;village and hamlet, before he will see the cheerful face of onenbsp;of these characters. A kind landlord ! He is a lamb amongst

IN NORTH WALES.

wolves, a Liberal amongst Tories, a John Howard amongst slaveholders, a kind John amongst bums and scamps. A kindnbsp;landlord ! Let every child lisp his name, every maid sing hisnbsp;praises, every philanthropist declare his praise, and every bardnbsp;make a crown of roses for him. The common idea of a landlord is a man who has the mouth of a hog, the teeth of a lion,nbsp;the nails of a bear, the hoofs of an ass, the sting of a serpent,nbsp;and the greed of the grave. The sailor knows vmll about thenbsp;sharks of the sea, and the farmers know well the sharks of thenbsp;land. The landowners of our country are, in general, cruel.nbsp;Unreasonable, unfeeling, and unpitying men. It does notnbsp;uiatter to them who gets drowned so long as they are allowednbsp;to be in the lifeboat; it does not matter to them who suffernbsp;the mortal pangs of poverty and hunger, if they have plentynbsp;of luxuries. Many of them have been about the most presumptuous thieves that have ever breathed. When a mannbsp;kills thousands of his fellow men he is called a hero, and hisnbsp;praises are sung by the bells and trumpets of the kingdom,nbsp;but when he kills one he has the privilege of shaking handsnbsp;with the hangman and of feeling the rope rather tightly roundnbsp;his neck.”

The “ Baner” December 21st, 1887.

(This article deals with the formation of the Land Trade and Labour League.)

“ Formation of Land Trade and Labour League. The League of those oppressed by the Tithe has determined tonbsp;widen the sphere of its operations, and consequently itnbsp;Was thought better to change its name as it appears above.nbsp;The objects of the League are: (1) A more just arrange-uient for determining the amount of tithe ; and to continue,nbsp;as before, to assist those oppressed by the tithe: (2) The disestablishment and disendowment of the Church of Englandnbsp;iu Wales, and the transfer of all its revenues to national pur-

poses; (3) Eeform in laws relating to land, building leases, royalties on collieries, mines, amp;c., in tbe Game Laws, Pishingnbsp;Laws, and in all other laws relating to land, that are notnbsp;beneficial to the prosperity of the country and its inhabitants ;nbsp;(4) To elect Members of Parliament who understand the needsnbsp;of the farmers, tradesmen, and workmen of the kingdom, andnbsp;to get assistance from the National Treasury to support them.nbsp;To carry out the objects of the League a large sum of moneynbsp;is necessary, and since the League considers the above questions of national importance, it appeals with every confidencenbsp;to all who approve of its objects, and urgently requests contributions to its funds, which may be sent direct to the treasurer, Mr. Thomas Gee, of Denbigh, or they may be paid atnbsp;any of the branches of the North and South Wales Bank,nbsp;Limited, or the National Provincial Bank, Limited, from wherenbsp;they will be forwarded to the account of the treasurer of thenbsp;League at Denbigh, and will be duly acknowledged. A copynbsp;of the constitution, rules, amp;c., of the League will be sent fornbsp;\^d. by the financial secretary.”

In 1888 the confessions of failure are such as almost to excite compassion; the reproaches addressed to the farmersnbsp;for their “ servility,” which was at least capable of interpretation as lack of interest in Mr. Gee’s scheme, become morenbsp;bitter-, and the passages amounting to invitation to crimenbsp;become more conspicuous. To them may be appended thenbsp;extracts from two copies of the Baner in 1889, and finallynbsp;the betrayal of the rottenness of the whole scheme by Dr.nbsp;Pan Jones, who, actuated by what motives we know not,nbsp;revealed the secrets of the successive leagues and their utternbsp;failure to attract the popular mind. £62 13s. 2d. in threenbsp;years—that is the enthusiastic desire of the Welsh farmernbsp;for the reform of the law of tenancy converted into pounds,nbsp;shillings and pence.

IN NORTH WALES.

The “ Baner,” April 25th, 1888.

“ How many landlords also are acting upon the same principle ? The majority of them (i.e., landlords') live in England, and the poor Welsh, through the sweat of their brows, arenbsp;collecting every halfpenny in the neighbourhood for them tonbsp;have the pleasure of spending them in England or on thenbsp;flontinent. 'Eemember that the above are facts and notnbsp;groundless dreams; our country is in a truly serious state,nbsp;and we ought to acknowledge gratefully the services of thenbsp;Liberal Press, and the Baner particularly, for bringing ournbsp;cause before the world.”

The “ Baner,quot; September 26th, 1888.

“ And we should also have a new land measure instead of the present disgraceful oppression, that is like a plague consuming the strength of our country, and instead of ournbsp;farmers being like slaves, being compelled to give more thannbsp;All their earnings to their landowners and those living onnbsp;delicacies, fatness, and splendour, in baronial palaces, quitenbsp;regardless of the sweat on the face of the sons of toil, andnbsp;the hard corns that are on the mighty hands of the childrennbsp;cf the soil.”

The “ Baner,quot; September 26th, 1888.

“ It is very little that I have read these last weeks on the Land League in the Baner. Surely not too much can benbsp;Written on the subject. ‘ Many a knock breaks the stone.’nbsp;I^uite true, but many a double knock is required to break thenbsp;prejudice of the farmers and shopkeepers also about thenbsp;League. They are as dull as moles. There are many of mynbsp;brethren the farmers spending sixpence or ninepence for

THE LAND QUESTION

tobacco, but a penny or two for a newspaper they consider too much. Poor fellows ! I know of some farmers theynbsp;must have two, three, or four to buy the Baner \i.e., combine in bodies of two, three, or four.'\ They are capitalnbsp;smokers for all that, and all ending in smoke. But if anbsp;good newspaper was bought, such paper would bring somenbsp;blessing with it, both to them and their children. And wenbsp;would have better hope for success to the League. Thenbsp;League is progressing in this neighbourhood, but not fastnbsp;enough. Those who believe in it should induce others to joinnbsp;them. If what I have heard concerning some farmers isnbsp;true, it is a great shame. Some run after a farm when thenbsp;tenant has given notice in order to get a reduction. Thenbsp;Irish in their rags are better people than us, as true as breadnbsp;is in a loaf. Shame to the grasshoppers, I say.”

The “ Baner,” October 10th, 1888.

“ Secondly, the agricultural class, of all classes, reads least newspapers. Perhaps the hard times, scarcity of money, andnbsp;want of time have a deal to do in this matter. Our farmersnbsp;will not spend a penny a week for a newspaper as they consider that waste, and it is looked upon as a penny givennbsp;away for nothing! When many a penny is spent by thenbsp;tin-workers and colliers of Glamorgan, Monmouth, and Carmarthen, and the quarrymen of Carnarvonshire and Merionethshire, and by the artisans of all kinds. But the poor farmer;nbsp;he does not feel that he can spare a penny a week ! Very fewnbsp;in comparison are received of any newspapers in the ruralnbsp;districts [i.e., very few newspapers are taken'l, to what couldnbsp;be and ought to be received.”

* * » » *

He continues to say; “ I believe the circulation of the two Baners is great from the fact that their influence is so considerable. The name of their able editor creates alarm through

IN NORTH WALES.

the foreign OhurcliA camp, and especially amongst its officers —the persons who get the fat of the tithe—getting hundredsnbsp;and thousands annually for doing almost nothing. Thirdly,nbsp;there is no class so unadventurous and cowardly as our farmers.nbsp;They bear everything from the agents that no one else wouldnbsp;do, so appropriate are those words of the prophet to thenbsp;farmers of Wales, ‘ As sheep to the slaughter they were led,nbsp;and as lambs in the presence of their shearers are dumb, sonbsp;they open not their mouths.’ ”

The “ Baner” February lOf/i, 1889.

“ A great number of persons believed that the aristocracy Was one of the essentials of life, and that if the aristocracynbsp;Was lost, peace also would be lost from the country, andnbsp;life certainly become a failure. While people were consolingnbsp;themselves with these reflections, the sick were getting worse.nbsp;Ait that time a letter tuould be occasionally sent from thenbsp;ofhce of Dr. Gee, Dr. E. Pan Jones, and Dr. M. D. Jones—nbsp;three old experienced doctors ivho have spent years in thenbsp;study of aristocracy. In those letters they called the attention of the people to the state of the aristocracy in Wales.nbsp;It teas little notice their letters received for years.''

The Banerf October I2th, 1889.

“There is a terrible feeling in the neighbourhood of Pihon

about P-. This farm is to let, and a good and respectable

man applied for it, with a reduction in the previous rent, but while negotiation was proceeding another well-known mannbsp;Came forward and offered four pounds more than the previousnbsp;rent for it. This latter is a prominent man in the parish,nbsp;hut it is considered an extremely shameful act to raise rentnbsp;against a neighbour. One farmer, the other night, regretted

THE LAND QUESTION

that this person was not in Ireland, that the Irish are more plucky than the Welsh when such foul play takes place.”—nbsp;This effusion is signed by “ Humphrey the Poacher.”

The “ Baner,” October QOth, 1889.

» ^{1 1} « ¹

“It is plain to every man who is possessed of any common sense, that if disestablishment and disendowment werenbsp;obtained, it would lighten to some extent the demandsnbsp;that are upon the tenants. But many of the landownersnbsp;must be too dull to see a thing so evident, and they are sonbsp;foolish as to be led by their ‘ tails ’ ¹ against their tenants—nbsp;the men who are doing their best towards supporting them.nbsp;The existence of an Established Church is at the root of all this.nbsp;The Established Church is a greater curse in Wales than isnbsp;known to any one. Hence arises the coolness and disagreement between the landowners and the tenants these years.nbsp;What is the reason but that for widows and others in somenbsp;counties getting notice to quit ? And it is said that blacklegsnbsp;from the neighbourhood have been so inhuman as to takenbsp;their homes from above their heads. Many things of thisnbsp;kind are carried on these years. Boycotting from all directions is carried on, and not the farmers only are boycotted,nbsp;but Nonconformists in general—tradesmen, artisans, andnbsp;workmen of all kinds and degrees. There is nothing too lownbsp;and inhuman for the Tories and parsons to do in the way ofnbsp;boycotting the Dissenters and the Liberals. It appears thatnbsp;the landlords (English mostly) and the parsons have leaguednbsp;together to stamp Dissent out of the country if they can. It

1

The expression “ tails ” requires a passing explanation. In full it is cynffonwT, and the word may be taken to express the extremity of loathingnbsp;and contempt. Literally it is based upon a shockingly bad translation ofnbsp;English, for strictly it means “ tail-bearer,quot; but the Welsh use it as if itnbsp;meant “tale-bearer.” Perhaps “toady” is its nearest equivalent innbsp;English.

IN NORTH WALES.

Diay be supposed that tbe great sin of the Welsh, in the opinion of that class, is going to the chapels.”

In the Baner of November 20th, 1889, is an article headed “ To arms ! To arms !! ”—

“ ‘ To arms! To arms!! ’ is the cry heard from afar, and if there be any foundation for what is published these days asnbsp;to the conduct of landowners and clergymen in Wales, nonbsp;doubt this cry will get louder and louder continually until itnbsp;resounds through the Principality and every other place wherenbsp;Dissenters are located. If it be found that circumstancesnbsp;call for the national newspapers of Wales to join in thenbsp;shout ‘ To arms! ’ we believe the nation will rise as onenbsp;man in obedience to the call and that all will be ready for thenbsp;battle.

* # * # #

And if the landowners and clergy are for boycotting care will he taken to pick up the glove at once, and fight the battle innbsp;earnest. There is mention made of behaving towards somenbsp;as if towards leprosy; perhaps the Welsh can show thenbsp;meaning of Mr. Gladstone’s words when he refers to a people’snbsp;right as to ‘ exclusive dealing ’—to deal with whom theynbsp;please.”

Finally, in an instructive article, which can only be accounted for by the saying “ When rogues fall out, amp;c.,” Dr. Pan Jones, the well-known land nationaliser, exposed thenbsp;¦whole affair in Y Celt, of February 27th, 1890. This articlenbsp;IS Written by Dr. E. Pan Jones, and is as follows :—

“ Probably no such wavering has been witnessed during the centuries of Christendom as took place in the history ofnbsp;the Baner during the last ten years, and still during these

THE LAND QUESTION

years of iuconsistency and instability, Mr. Gee will bave us believe that its education on all subjects is like that of annbsp;infallible oracle and everybody was expected to say ‘ Abreck ’nbsp;before it.”

“ Time, space, and words will not allow me to particularise on the wavering of the Baner in its various connections sincenbsp;the days of the American War, I shall merely confine myself tonbsp;its wavering with its recent political leagues.

“Mr. Gee’s League No. 1.—The first was the Denbighshire and Flintshire Farmers’ League, which was to bring the landlords into order, bring them to obey the law issued from Denbigh, and by fair promises he succeeded to enchant andnbsp;entice many of the Vale of Olwyd farmers to the belief thatnbsp;he was somebody. That League was to reduce rents, securenbsp;perpetual tenancy for farmers, and give them privileges compared with which the blessings of the Irish three F’s werenbsp;nothing better than child’s-play. These prospects were setnbsp;forth in colours more brilliant than those of the rainbow. Henbsp;describes those blessings as things which, if not actually attained, were available at any time. The meetings of the Leaguenbsp;were held alternately at Denbigh, Rhyl, and Holywell, to whichnbsp;none were allowed admission, except simple and credulousnbsp;farmers.

* * # # ^

“Mr. Gee’s League 2.—This was called Land League. It was admittted that the first had failed, and must be removednbsp;to make room for the second.

“ Mr. Gee’s League 3.—The Anti-tithe League. This League was not in the design at the beginning—this grew outnbsp;of the failure of previous Leagues, as D. Roberts says, and wenbsp;would never have heard of this had the others succeeded.

‘ Mr. Gee’s League 4.—Farmers, Tradesmen, and Work-

m NORTH WALES.

men’s League. They began to feel that it was impossible to proceed without the masses. It was asked at the meetingsnbsp;^t Denbigh and at Rhyl, whether the workmen were to havenbsp;fixity of tenure as well as the farmers, that his house andnbsp;garden were so important to the labourer as the farm is to thenbsp;farmer, that the farmers by employing machines, and by cultivating less of their lands, are able to do with less workmennbsp;than formerly, and in their greed for more land, that theynbsp;often push the workmen away, demolish their dwellings innbsp;order to have gardens to their tenements. No, nothing of thenbsp;kind. In view of these things, I desire simply to ask Mr. Gee,nbsp;or Mr. D. Roberts, who bears Mr. Gee’s shields, what part ornbsp;portion is there for tradesmen and workmen in the one or thenbsp;other of the Denbigh Leagues ? They are welcome to shoutnbsp;hurrah, to give their vote when an election comes, to buy thenbsp;Raner, and subscribe towards the expenses, but is there anynbsp;tendency in one of the Denbigh Leagues to afford a remedy tonbsp;any beside the farmers ?

“ Thus Mr. Gee has been throughout the years, hatching on leagues, baptising and burying them hatching on’: i.e.,nbsp;‘ hatching out.’] It is a pity to see the people, many of themnbsp;poor, kept in ceaseless agitation until after wearing out theirnbsp;strength pecuniarily and temporarily [i.e., until they havenbsp;'Worn out], and by then behold the League vanishing like smokenbsp;ander our hands, a new League again commencing, that againnbsp;vanishing, and so on until the people are like sheep withoutnbsp;a shepherd. Here they are now after ten years of wild goosenbsp;ohase, without having as much as a sparrow of blessingnbsp;gained. The pockets of the people have got considerablynbsp;fighter, but the Baner has sold well, and very likely has anbsp;quiet conscience.”

The BaTier was and is the more important paper: but its contemporaries were not left behind in the race. Thus a

THE LAND QUESTION

reference to the Herald Gymraeg of May 17th, 1887, shows an invitation to “ boycott ” “ landgrabbers.” The Genedl, innbsp;successive passages cited by Lord Penrhyn, sounds a trumpetnbsp;call to the “heedless” nation, urges the adoption of Irishnbsp;methods, rebukes the “ spiritless timid ones, ignorant, fearfulnbsp;—yes, and worse than all, traitorous ” and so forth.

Lord Penrhyn’s evidence was confined in the main to extracts showing conclusively the desperate efforts made by the Welsh Press to create a Land Question for its own purposes.nbsp;He did not go out of his way to select passages remarkable fornbsp;extravagance of language amounting almost to criminality, ofnbsp;which passages there is an abundant crop, and it were wrong tonbsp;leave the English reader to believe that the violent sentencesnbsp;which come incidentally in the course of articles selectednbsp;from another point of view could be taken as a fair samplenbsp;of what the Welsh Press can achieve in the way of ferocitynbsp;when, as they say on the Turf, it is extended. The Welshnbsp;journalist can do better than this by a long way; he cannbsp;indeed rival the mild Hindoo at his best; but even this littlenbsp;sample will probably satisfy the English reader and willnbsp;serve to give him some insight into the influences which arenbsp;at work in Wales.

Lord Penrhyn went on to say that in 1891 Y Werin, an exceedingly virulent journal, Y Genedl, and the North Wale»nbsp;Observer and Express (published in English) had passednbsp;into the hands of the Welsh National Press Company,nbsp;the articles of association being signed by the followingnbsp;persons:—Thomas E, Ellis, M.P., Samuel T. Evans, M.P.,nbsp;Alfred Thomas, M.P., William Abraham, M.P., D. Lloydnbsp;George, M.P., David Eandell, M.P., Evan Jones (who subsequently became M.P.), and that Mr. Stuart Rendel, M.P.nbsp;(now Lord Rendel) was a shareholder; and he concluded bynbsp;saying “ of the scurrilous personalities which, for the purposenbsp;of creating ill-feeling against landlords, have been made use ofnbsp;in these journals since they became the property of the new

IN NORTH WALES.

company, I will say no more at present than that, if I were to read the report of some of them to the Commission, I feelnbsp;sure that they would be pronounced to be as discreditable tonbsp;journalism as they are false in their statements.”

While attention is still fixed upon the peculiar methods and sinister policy of Welsh journalism it is interesting to note innbsp;the official minutes that attempts were made at the outset, evennbsp;by some of the Commissioners, to establish a theory that thenbsp;responsibility of the proprietor and editor of a newspaper wasnbsp;of different degree in the case of a letter or signed article andnbsp;in that of a leading article respectively. Mr. Gee himself tooknbsp;this line of defence when confronted by Lord Kenyon (whonbsp;certainly has inherited powers of cross-examining in polishednbsp;and effective style) with sundry other passages from thenbsp;Baner. But his defence was quite unsubstantial. True itnbsp;is, of course, that the uninvited correspondents of newspapers will, on occasion, commit themselves to expressions ofnbsp;Opinion which are simply brainless; true also that editorsnbsp;sometimes seek to protect themselves by disclaiming allnbsp;responsibility for “ opinions ” expressed by amateur correspondents. But in the first place we are not dealing here withnbsp;amateur correspondence, but, in the case of the series in thenbsp;Baner entitled “ The Eagle’s Nest,” with a systematic succession of long articles in epistolary form which, whether paidnbsp;for or not, must clearly have been planned between the editornbsp;and the contributor; and in the second place we are not dealing, exclusively at any rate, with merely silly expressions ofnbsp;opinion. To advise that such and such men be “ boycotted,”nbsp;nr “treated as lepers ” is, no doubt, to express an opinion thatnbsp;such treatment ought to be measured out to them. But it isnbsp;also something more ; it is a distinct invitation to ignorantnbsp;persons to commit that which the law of this country justlynbsp;recognises as a crime, as an offence against the social order.nbsp;To allow amateur correspondents to do this, as Mr. Gee did,nbsp;time after time, involved beyond question the acceptance of

c

THE LAND QUESTION

a moral responsibility quite equal to the legal responsibility which was undoubtedly incurred. Besides the defence turnednbsp;out to be worth little, if anything, even if its fundamentalnbsp;principle had been recognised ; for, while Mr. Gee was givingnbsp;his voluminous evidence, there was ample time to turn up thenbsp;files of the Baner newspaper, and the result of the investigation, which was duly placed in evidence before the Commissioners, was to show that the editorial articles exhibitednbsp;to Mr. Gee by Lord Kenyon and others, together withnbsp;those which Lord Penrhyn had placed upon the record ofnbsp;evidence, were about equal in number to those which, sonbsp;far as form of printing went, appeared to come from correspondents.

So much for the purely journalistic side of the agitation. It had also a political side which took visible form in thenbsp;shape of a pamphlet written at the request of and publishednbsp;by the South Wales Liberal Federation in 1887 or thereabouts. The author was one “ Adfyfr ”—at any rate such wasnbsp;his Bardic name—in common life he was called Hughes : andnbsp;Mr. Stuart Hendel, M.P. (now Lord Hendel), added annbsp;appendix. The appendix, which consisted of the merestnbsp;rhodomontade, need give us no more trouble than it gave tonbsp;its illustrious author.

“ Adfyfr’s ” pamphlet was characterised by almost criminal vehemence of language. On his very first page the authornbsp;wrote:

“It is useless and worse than useless to try and stifle the bitter cry of agricultural workers. If a remedy is not provided for its wrongs there must of necessity be reprisal.nbsp;How can there be peace where there is no peace ? Thenbsp;Welsh aspect of the Land Question cannot be dallied andnbsp;trifled with without danger. It is about the most urgentnbsp;question of the day, and unless it is equitably settled it 'willnbsp;also speedily become the one question of the night.”

IN NORTH WALES.

The italics, which were not inserted by “ Adfyfr,” mark a passage of striking violence and susceptible of but one interpretation. But apart from its vehemence the pamphlet wasnbsp;but a poor production. It disappointed even Mr. Stuartnbsp;Hendel, who played the part of godfather: for Mr. Hendelnbsp;no doubt looked for argument, and evidence, and figures, butnbsp;found them not; so he could say no more in ushering thenbsp;pamphlet into the world than “ I am glad to see that younbsp;bave brought to your aid that which is so often wiser thannbsp;learning and sounder than logic—real human sympathy.”

In fact, the pamphlet contained the largest possible admixtures of mere vulgar abuse with the most infinitesimalnbsp;amount of direct statement. Where specific cases were citednbsp;fhe names and the very localities were suppressed. Thusnbsp;“Adfyfr” begins an allegation of hardship in these words :

“ Ll-is situated on one of the largest estates in North

Wales.” A moment’s thought reminds us of Llanfair, Llanfair-is-gaer, Llandudno, Llandulas, Llanerchymedd, Llanfairyng-bornwy, Llanfair Caereinion, Llandygwinning, Llanbabo, Llangristiolas, Llanfibangel and so forth ad infinitum. Fornbsp;“ Llan,” means primarily “ enclosure,” and then “ churcb,” andnbsp;IS the commonest prefix to a place-name in the Welsh language^nbsp;Moreover, this particular letter “ Ll ” (for it is one letter innbsp;Welsh and not two) may stand in a place-name before everynbsp;I’owel, i.e., a, e, i, o, u, w, y, and each of the twenty-twonbsp;diphthongs in the Welsh language. Whether any cf thenbsp;seventeen triphthongs would carry it may be doubtful. Thenbsp;search, therefore, after the definite in Mr. Hughes’s compila-fion was complicated by considerable difficulties ; but it wasnbsp;pursued with great patience by the late Mr. George Owen,nbsp;'vith the result that, where the allegations could be localisednbsp;and where their reference to this or that individual could benbsp;followed, they were completely disproved. The results ofnbsp;Mr. Owen’s labours were published mh titulo “ Tenancy innbsp;Wales ” in 1889.

THE LAND QUESTION

“ Adfyfr ” also tried what could be effected by the introduction of religious prejudice; dilating at length upon the fact that a large number of chapel sites were held on long leasesnbsp;only. A reference to a table included in the appendix, andnbsp;extracted from the official evidence given before the Commission, will show that the vast majority of these sites werenbsp;and are held at purely nominal ground-rents. When it isnbsp;added, from information in the possession of the Association,nbsp;that the oldest chapel in Bangor was in 1889 a stable, andnbsp;that one chapel on the Dolwyddelen estate, having then atnbsp;least fifty years of a lease to run, had become an assembly-room, and that the vestry-room and house had been let asnbsp;ordinary cottages, it will be clear that, even with the utmostnbsp;generosity on the part of landlords, there is need for caution.nbsp;No sanctity attaches to these buildings. Thus the writer,nbsp;when holding an inquiry for the Charity Commission intonbsp;the affairs of the Corporation of Nevin (extinguished by thenbsp;Municipal Corporations Act of 1883), had to report upon thenbsp;feelings of the burgesses with regard to the use which mightnbsp;be made of an old and disused chapel which formed part ofnbsp;the corporate property. In reply to a question he was distinctly informed that it might be put to any secular use.nbsp;Indeed, it was proposed to convert it into a wash-house. Itnbsp;follows then that landowners might reasonably fight shy ofnbsp;granting for religious uses in perpetuum, and at cheap rates,nbsp;sites which might at any time be converted to purely secularnbsp;and commercial purposes. That they have not done so is,nbsp;perhaps, to the credit of their hearts rather than their heads;nbsp;find their thanks are indirectly due to “Adfyfr ” and to one ornbsp;two erratic witnesses before the Commission who gave themnbsp;the opportunity of stating their case. That probably was notnbsp;the intention of either “ Adfyfr ” or the witnesses.

Nor did the pamphlet and the vernacular newspaper satisfy the party of agitation. In the House of Commons where, innbsp;pursuit of the really desirable object that members should

IN NORTH WALES. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;87

speak tke truth without fear, a speaker enjoys absolute privilege from the law of defamation, Mr. Thomas Ellis, thenbsp;member for Merionethshire, and the most prominent andnbsp;accomplished of the agitators upon the Land Question,nbsp;deliberately made the following statement concerning the latenbsp;Lord Penrhyn :

“ In regard to the question of pasturage, too, the rights of the peasantry have been invaded. In his evidence Lordnbsp;Penrhyn admitted that considerable difficulty had arisen innbsp;his district, owing to the fact that the pasturage of thenbsp;tenants had been inclosed. In the assertion of their rightsnbsp;the tenants had taken down the fences, and what did Lordnbsp;Penrhyn do ? He used his power as Chairman of Quarternbsp;Sessions, if I remember rightly, to obtain a special posse ofnbsp;police for the district, and he levied a special rate to bring tonbsp;submission these farmers who asserted their rights.”

Now it has been pointed out to Mr. Ellis over and over figain, in public correspondence and otherwise, that this passage bristles with mis-statements, due let us hope to inadequatenbsp;information obtained by hearsay upon a subject of which henbsp;could have no personal knowledge. Notwithstanding this, andnbsp;although some of the facts upon which he had been misinformed, and had, therefore, misled the public, were easy ofnbsp;ascertainment, Mr. Ellis (Q. 17,084 and thereabouts) repeatednbsp;the substance of his accusation, withdrawing only the assertion that Lord Penrhyn had “ used his power as Chairman ofnbsp;Quarter Sessions ” (which he never was, as is hereafternbsp;shown) for the purpose alleged. Stimulated by a suggestivenbsp;question from Professor Rhys, one of the Commissioners,nbsp;this Member of Parliament then stigmatised the conductnbsp;of the late Lord Penrhyn as “ infamous ”; and thenbsp;audience, composed largely of those students of Bala Collegenbsp;who, having received a holiday in order that they might

THE LAND QUESTION

listen to the champion of liberty, had not chosen the better part of a day’s fishing, applauded; nor did the grave andnbsp;reverend Commissioners rebuke the outburst. Let us passnbsp;from this to the point at which the statements of Mr. Ellisnbsp;were examined and contradicted at Llangefni by Mr. Beavernbsp;Roberts who, having been solicitor to the landowners in thenbsp;parishes affected who caused the Enclosure Act to be passed,nbsp;had an advantage over Mr. Ellis in that he knew what henbsp;was talking about. He showed (Q. 23,016 et seq.), that thenbsp;late Lord Penrhyn, then Colonel Douglas Pennant, had notnbsp;been one of these landowners, had no connection with thenbsp;application for enclosure, had not been Chairman of Quarternbsp;Sessions, had not brought the matter before Quarter Sessions,nbsp;and so forth. He then used towards the assertions of Mr.nbsp;Ellis the same word “ infamous,” which Mr. Ellis had appliednbsp;to the conduct of Lord Penrhyn as described by him in termsnbsp;absolutely incorrect. And straightway Lord Carrington, whonbsp;was in the chair, requested Mr. Beaver Roberts to withdrawnbsp;the word “infamous,” which Mr. Ellis had used unrebukednbsp;amid the applause of the gallery, on the ground that thenbsp;Commission was very anxious that violent language shouldnbsp;be omitted.

The history of this particular charge, of the wholesale fashion in which it was disproved, of the manner in which thenbsp;Commission, acting instinctively, so to speak, and on the spurnbsp;of the moment, treated two identical expressions of opinionnbsp;is instructive. It shows the recklessness with which thenbsp;leaders of the party of agitation hurl at landowners statements capable of complete disproof in detail; and it tendsnbsp;farther to show in advance—the point belongs more particularly to a later period of this volume—the difficultiesnbsp;with which witnesses favourable to the existing laws andnbsp;system of lantl tenure had to contend in giving before thenbsp;Commission that testimony which they offered as of gracenbsp;and without any compulsion.

IN NORTH WALES.

A very flagrant case, also, in wliich an attempt was made, primarily by outside agitators and for purely or impurelynbsp;political purposes, to make a grievance out of an ordinarynbsp;transaction, was that of one David Evans of Cae Einion, whonbsp;gave evidence before the Commission (Q. 8589 et seq.). Thenbsp;flimsy character of the allegations made originally against thenbsp;landlord, Mr. Ellis Nanney, and his agent, Mr. W. B. C. Jones,nbsp;has however been so completely exposed in the public press,nbsp;the accusations have been so severely condemned by the Cambrian Nexus, a journal certainly not favourable to landowners,nbsp;and the whole of the miserable charge has been so thoroughlynbsp;dissipated by Mr. Walter Jones in an able and outspokennbsp;pamphlet entitled the “ Cae Einion Farce,” that the matternbsp;would not be worth referring to but for two facts.

Firstly, the main allegation, after the witness had gone through the stock story of grievances, was that the witnessnbsp;had received notice to quit either because he was a membernbsp;of the Welsh Land League, or for political reasons. Thisnbsp;main allegation was dragged out of the witness by somenbsp;questions (864L to 8643) of Mr. Commissioner Crifiiths andnbsp;by a series of eminently leading questions addressed to himnbsp;by Mr. Commissioner Brynmor Jones. A very few words fromnbsp;the agent, who was severely harried by the chairman fornbsp;expressing the opinion that friendship with a landlord andnbsp;membership of the Welsh Land League were things incom-])atible with one another, disposed of the whole story: andnbsp;the man must have known it would be disposed of. Mr.nbsp;Walter Jones produced a copy (Q. 8716) of a letter addressednbsp;by him to sixty tenants, of whom Mr. Evans was one, whonbsp;received notice to quit at the same time. That notice tO'nbsp;quit, as the letter explained, was given all round andnbsp;certainly with no political object (for several of the recipientsnbsp;were Conservatives). It was given simply in order to pavenbsp;the way for a new agreement under which the landlord wasnbsp;to pay the tithe instead of the tenant. Other circumstances-

THE LAND QUESTION IN NORTH WALES.

appear in the evidence, but they are immaterial to the present issue and to the present purpose, which is to show thatnbsp;the letter received by the tenant, in common with fifty-ninenbsp;others, not only made no mention of politics but also made itnbsp;as clear as daylight that the notice to quit was merely formalnbsp;and was merely the preliminary to a new agreement.

Finally be it said that the purpose of this chapter will liave been accomplished if it has succeeded in conveying evennbsp;a vague impression of some of the incidents which havenbsp;accompanied the rising of the Welsh Land Question, of thenbsp;various forces that have been at work, of the character of thenbsp;agitation, of the class of charge which is made against Welshnbsp;landowners, individually and generally, and of the quality ofnbsp;the evidence upon which such charges are founded. It willnbsp;be necessary, in the course of this task, to pay detailed attention to some of the charges made before the Commissionnbsp;itself. For the present nothing more is desired than to shownbsp;the influences which were brought to bear upon the publicnbsp;mind long before there was so much as a thought in thenbsp;minds of the party of agitation that a Commission was likelynbsp;to be appointed.

CHAPTER II.

Formation of North Wales Property Defence Association—its object— not hostile to Farmers—it asks for a Commission in April 1892—nbsp;Mr. T. E, Ellis's Speech of May 1892—His Indictment—Mr.nbsp;Gladstone’s Observations upon it—Mr. Chaplin's Criticism—Mr,nbsp;Gladstone's Snowdon Speech—His Statistics—the Inaccuracy ofnbsp;Inferences drawn from them—the Irrelevance of any Inferencenbsp;from them.

There comes a time when human power of enduring in silence, or something approaching to it, venomous insult andnbsp;continuous calumny, is strained to the breaking point. Thatnbsp;time came, in the case of the landowners of North Wales, ornbsp;at any rate of the more considerable members of that body,nbsp;in April 1892. Among the landowners of South Wales therenbsp;Was, at that time, no organisation; but the landowners ofnbsp;North Wales, who, by reason of the greater acuteness of thenbsp;tithe question and the greater influence of the vernacularnbsp;press in their districts, had been forced by circumstances tonbsp;stand in the forefront of the battle, were already formednbsp;into a defensive association, and had been so formed sincenbsp;1886. The object of the Association was defined withnbsp;admirable jDrecision in a circular issued after the originalnbsp;meeting in December of that year (Lord Penrhyn’s evidencenbsp;at Llangefni, 22,781), of which the material words arenbsp;appended:

“ The meeting expressed the utmost sympathy and good feeling towards the tenant farmer, and it was agreed thatnbsp;landowners should meet their tenants fairly and liberally in

THE LAND QUESTION

the existing depression of their business, and an opinion prevailed that, if allowed to arrange their own affairs, nonbsp;difficulties would arise. At the same time it was felt by allnbsp;that the incessant interference of outside agitators, oftennbsp;totally unconnected with any interest in land, and the opennbsp;encouragement given by a large portion of the Welsh pressnbsp;to schemes practically of confiscation, made imperative thenbsp;establishment of an organisation for mutual self-protection.

“ It was therefore resolved (with only two dissentients) to establish this Association, which it must be clearly understoodnbsp;is formed in no hostile spirit, nor as a combination againstnbsp;the tenant farmers in any shape or form.”

It may be observed that one of the questions in the official syllabus distinctly suggests the existence of a combination ofnbsp;the character repudiated by the italicised words : and thatnbsp;there is absolutely no evidence of the existence of such anbsp;body in Wales. Whence then came the idea underlying thenbsp;Question ?

It is enough to say that the Association received annually increasing support from the landowners of North Wales-independently of politics ; that it kept a close watch, as itnbsp;was entitled to, upon the progress of agitation; that itnbsp;promoted the feeling that the interests of landlord andnbsp;tenant were identical so far as opposition went to the movements of agitators who had their own axes to grind.

It was in April 1892, that the Association, stung by the scurrilous abuse to which its members were subject in the vernacular press and in Parliament, resolved to approach Lordnbsp;Salisbury’s Administration of that date with a request for thenbsp;appointment of a Royal Commission. The terms of the resolution in which the determination to court investigation wasnbsp;expressed were the following:

“ That this Association considers that the time has arrived for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire intO'

IN NORTH WALES.

the relations between landowners and tenants in Wales, in consequence of the grave charges brought forward, in thenbsp;press and in Parliament, against owners of land in thenbsp;Principality, and that the Government be requested to takenbsp;steps for the appointment of such a* Commission at thenbsp;earliest possible opportunity.”

Lord Salisbury’s Administration, however, had at that time nearly reached the limit of its tenure of power and, probablynbsp;for that reason, the request, which was made with all duenbsp;formality in accordance with the resolution, was not successful. The circumstances which led to the making of thenbsp;request were, in the first place, to be found in a righteousnbsp;resentment aeainst the foul abuse which filled the columns ofnbsp;the vernacular press, and in the second place in a just andnbsp;prudent apprehension that this abuse, unless its falsity werenbsp;demonstrated officially (which could not be done unless annbsp;official opportunity was granted), could hardly fail to producenbsp;an injurious and misleading effect upon persons compelled,nbsp;to a large extent, to draw their information concerningnbsp;the progress of events from the corrupt columns of thenbsp;vernacular press.

The causa proxinia, however, the match which lighted the fire, was no doubt the long speech made by Mr. Thomasnbsp;Ellis—a speech to which passing allusion was made in thenbsp;foregoing chapter—in the House of Commons on March 16,nbsp;1892 ; that is to say about a month before the resolutionnbsp;itself was passed. Inasmuch as Mr. Ellis objects to thenbsp;'Times report of that speech, which on primd facie groundsnbsp;may be taken to represent what he did say actually withnbsp;more merciless accuracy than the report in Hansard which,nbsp;having been revised by him (see marginal note in the Parliamentary Debates), no doubt represents what he wouldnbsp;like to have said, we will take Hansard as the basis of ournbsp;analysis of his oration. Its main points were these :

THE LAND QUESTION

(1) nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Mr. Ellis complained of the scantiness of the informationnbsp;at the disposal of Parliament on the ground that the Richmond Commission contained no Welsh member, called littlenbsp;Welsh evidence, and employed as Assistant Commissionernbsp;Mr. Doyle, who knew no Welsh and made no “pretence ornbsp;semblance of obtaining evidence from the tenantry.” Subsequent correspondence seems to have directed the attentionnbsp;of Mr. Ellis to Mr. Doyle’s report, a most elaborate andnbsp;valuable document, full of testimony to pains taken, andnbsp;replete with valuable suggestions, insomuch that Mr. Ellisnbsp;actually quoted, in his evidence before the Welsh Land Commission, the authority of the man of whose method of obtaining information he had said, in 1892, “ it cannot be said tonbsp;have afforded much assistance to the House.” But whethernbsp;Mr. Ellis was or was not unjust to the memory of Mr. Doylenbsp;really matters but little.

(2) nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Mr. Ellis observed that Colonel Cornwallis West andnbsp;Mr. Stuart Rendel, now Lord Rendel, had asked in 1888 fornbsp;a Commission of Inquiry, but that the “Government of Torynbsp;landlords” had refused to grant it. Well, they did thenbsp;same, when the Welsh landowners themselves asked for annbsp;inquiry in 1892 ; but it is certainly clear that the Welshnbsp;landowners courted inquiry at all times.

(3) nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;He went on to say that the relations between landlordnbsp;and tenant, in England and Wales respectively, differednbsp;because the Welsh landowners and their tenants differed innbsp;language, religion, and politics. There are really two propositions here, of which the first divides itself into threenbsp;sub-propositions, viz., that landowners and tenants differ onnbsp;these three points. The second asserts that these differencesnbsp;have a practical influence on the relation of landowner andnbsp;tenant. Of the three sub-propositions embodied in the firstnbsp;statement no one is absolutely true, but each contains a largernbsp;proportion of truth than of inaccuracy. The second and morenbsp;important assertion has no substantial foundation in fact.

IN NORTH WALES.

(4) nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;He went on to say that tenancy by agreement had takennbsp;the place of tenancy by custom in Wales. He omitted to saynbsp;that the same process of development has been going on innbsp;England, and that customs, having all the force of law, stillnbsp;prevail in parts of Wales. In Glamorganshire, for example,,nbsp;custom of a highly beneficial character has rendered thenbsp;Agricultural Holdings Acts of 1875 and 1883 a dead letternbsp;to the mutual benefit of both parties to the contract ofnbsp;tenancy. (See the Glamorganshire evidence passim.)

(5) nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;He alleged that the practice of permitting a tenancynbsp;to descend from father to son had fallen into disuse;nbsp;for contradiction of which see the Horth Wales evidencenbsp;in innumerable cases, many of them collected in thisnbsp;volume.

(6) nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;He alleged infatuated land-hunger.

(7) nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;He spoke, without specific reference, of a tenant whonbsp;had been compelled by his landlord to have a poaching dognbsp;shot; of which it is to be observed that a reference which isnbsp;not specific cannot be accepted for the simple reason that thenbsp;statement cannot be tested, and the character of the evidence-on which it is based cannot be known.

(8) nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;He made the accusation against the late Lord Penrhynnbsp;mentioned, and exploded, in the foregoing chapter.

(9) nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;He quoted, without specific reference and with profusenbsp;statements that the landlord in each case had spent nothingnbsp;for 100 years or thereabouts—Mr. Ellis was born in 1859nbsp;—anonymous cases in the “ Adfyfr ” style of rent raised onnbsp;tenants’ improvements. All the cases so quoted were absolutely vague, and can be tested in no known way.

(10) nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;He “ ventured to say that with regard to the vast massnbsp;of the permanent improvements on the agricultural land innbsp;Wales, including drainage, fencing, and those long and dismalnbsp;lines of stone walls to be seen in many parts of Wales, thenbsp;reclamation of waste and marsh manuring, chalking (this bynbsp;the way is nonsense, since there is no chalk in Wales) the-

THE LAND QUESTION

land, I say the mass—the overwhelming mass—is effected by the tenants in Wales.”

This sweeping assertion, an assertion which is not backed by a single specific instance in his speech, is the most important statement made by Mr. Ellis; it is really the mainnbsp;count in the indictment laid against Welsh landowners, andnbsp;it is the count which they claim to have disposed of absolutely and beyond all possibility of doubt by the voluminousnbsp;evidence given before the Welsh Land Commission.

(11) Mr. Ellis attempted to compare the rise and fall of rental in England and Wales respectively for a period ofnbsp;seventy-five years—namely, from the end of the Napoleonicnbsp;wars lip to the year 1890. The basis of the calculations innbsp;which Mr. Ellis revelled were the income-tax returns undernbsp;Schedule B. With this attempt at comparison and itsnbsp;irrelevance to the question before the House, it will be morenbsp;convenient to deal almost at once since the same argument,nbsp;in a far more business-like form, was used by Mr. Gladstonenbsp;in a subsequent speech.

Upon these allegations, added to an assertion that the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883 was a dismal failure, anbsp;fiery attack upon the penal clauses in agreements of tenancy,nbsp;and upon the Game Laws, Mr. Ellis asked the House tonbsp;sanction a Land Bill embodying the appointment of a Commission of three men empowered, Liter alia, to fix the conditions of tenure and to fix a “ fair rent ” at the applicationnbsp;of either party to the contract of tenancy. In fact, Mr. Ellisnbsp;desired to establish the three F’s.

The Bill was severely criticised in debate, and some of the remarks of Mr. Gladstone upon it are worthy of remembrance.

“The ground on which I am unable to vote for the Bill is that, in my opinion, the question raised by my hon. friend isnbsp;not ripe for a definitive solution such as is proposed by thenbsp;Bill now before Parliament.

“ The claims of the Welsh farmer cannot possibly depend on

IN NORTH WALES.

the question whether he is a Liberal and Nonconformist or a ¦Conservative and Churchman.”

Finally, and at great length, Mr. Gladstone declared that, greatly as he had been impressed by the speech which henbsp;heard, he could not feel that, in the absence of official inquiry,nbsp;it afforded sufficient ground for “ the adoption of measuresnbsp;fundamentally altering the relations of all land contracts innbsp;Wales.”

In fact, Mr. Gladstone then suggested the appointment of a Royal Commission. Mr. Abel Thomas (East Carmarthenshire) accepted, so to speak, Mr. Gladstone’s offer, speakingnbsp;on behalf of Welsh Radicals, adding: “We are not afraid ofnbsp;such an inquiry; and if it is not granted I hope the Housenbsp;will draw the inference that it is the other side who arenbsp;afraid of it.”

Colonel Cornwallis West (West Denbighshire) took up Mr. Ellis’s challenge warmly, made just complaint of the extravagant and indefinite character of his charges, avowed thenbsp;willingness and absolute desire of landowners to face an impartial inquiry, and spoke indignantly of the confiscatorynbsp;principle which was the underlying foundation of the Bill.nbsp;Various speeches followed, but the most important of themnbsp;Was that delivered by Mr. Chaplin, who spoke, undoubtedly,nbsp;Upon the basis of a knowledge of agriculture far superior tonbsp;that possessed by any other member who had attracted thenbsp;Speaker’s eye in the course of the debate.

Without pausing to consider the basis of the figures used by Mr. Ellis—members of the House of Commons, like othernbsp;tuen, are frequently misled by the bold statement that certainnbsp;statistics relate to certain facts, when in truth they do notnbsp;represent those facts—Mr. Chaplin went straight to thenbsp;point. Whether the percentage of increase was great ornbsp;small mattered, Mr. Chaplin as a practical agriculturist sawnbsp;clearly, little or nothing. “ The House must remember that

THE LAND QUESTION

where the great fall of rents has occurred in England, has-been in the great corn-growing districts of the country— in Lincolnshire, Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk, and in the-Eastern counties generally, which are chiefly devoted to corngrowing. . .nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;“ In Wales a comparatively small amount

of corn is grown, and it is quite sufficient to account for the difference in the character of the fall in rents.”

He went on to point out that the prevalence of small holdings in Wales, alleged truthfully by one at least of the supporters of the Bill, necessarily involved higher rentals than in districts where large holdings were customary, because ofnbsp;the extra expenditure on buildings. In conclusion, Mr.nbsp;Chaplain adjured “ members of this House, in whatevernbsp;quarter they may sit, to take their stand on sound and honestnbsp;principles and reject by a sufficient and, I hope, a significant-majority what I can only characterise as a mischievous, utterlynbsp;unprincipled and wholly uncalled-for measure.”

The House took Mr. Chaplin’s advice and an amendment that the Bill be read a second time “ six months hence ” wasnbsp;carried by 234 to 113.

A month or two later, in pursuance of the resolution of the North Wales Property Defence Association which has beennbsp;quoted—-a resolution passed before Mr. Ellis made his speechnbsp;—formal application for the appointment of a Eoyal Commission was made ; which by the way was a crushing answernbsp;to the unworthy taunt of the member of Parliament who hadnbsp;(vide supra) asked the House, if a Commission were notnbsp;appointed, to draw the inference that it was because “ the othernbsp;side ” were afraid. That the request was not successful was,nbsp;perhaps, to be regretted ; but in any case it was no fault ofnbsp;Welsh landlords.

In the autumn of that year, the hands which held the reins of power having been changed in the meanwhile, Mr.nbsp;Gladstone delivered his famous speech on the slopes ofnbsp;Snowdon. The speech, which naturally attracted a good deal

IN NORTH WALES.

of public attention, was very different in tone from that which he had made in the House of Commons. But that is a smallnbsp;matter. Men who know this world have learned to expectnbsp;in outdoor speeches of politicians anything rather thannbsp;moderation and impartiality of tone, and they are well awarenbsp;that many valuable if unostentatious things must be sacrificednbsp;if the passion for vote-catching is to be indulged to the topnbsp;of its bent. Upon that point, therefore, suffice it to say thatnbsp;if “ the voice that breathed o’er ” Snowdon—Eden wouldnbsp;hardly be the right word—was the voice of Gladstone, thenbsp;words were the words of Ellis. But after a while Mr. Gladstone escaped from Mr. Ellis and his leading-strings. Eor anbsp;comparison between the rise and fall of rents in England andnbsp;Wales respectively he had accepted, in the House of Commons,nbsp;the basis of returns under Schedule B relied upon by Mr.nbsp;Ellis. In the interval he appeared to have come to the conclusion that there was something rotten in that state ofnbsp;argument, and to have taken refuge in a special extract fromnbsp;the returns under Schedule A, under the heading “Lands.”nbsp;Of the two bases, that chosen by a speaker of Mr. Gladstone’snbsp;financial experience would prima facie be expected to be thenbsp;more trustworthy; and so in fact it was, but that it was notnbsp;entirely trustworthy, that conclusions based upon it dependednbsp;upon quite unwarrantable assumptions regarding unknownnbsp;quantities, was soon demonstrated in the course of a correspondence between Mr. Gladstone and the late Mr. Georgenbsp;Owen (then Secretary of the North Wales Property Defencenbsp;Association) which was published in the Times newspaper.

The particulars of that correspondence, which amounts to a precise summary of the argument against the inference whichnbsp;^r. Gladstone drew from statistics, the said argument andnbsp;correspondence having been given in evidence before thenbsp;Welsh Land Commission, will be found in the appendixnbsp;since, partly because, as Mr. Chaplin said, the inferences fromnbsp;statistics, if accurate, would be absolutely irrelevant, it is not

D

THE LAND QUESTION

deemed necessary to cumber the text with them. But it is interesting to note some points in the correspondence, including some serious admissions by Mr. Gladstone, and tonbsp;observe farther how closely an intelligent study of the figuresnbsp;supports the practical and straightforward points made, onnbsp;the spur of the moment, by Mr. Chaplin.

And first—to use a Baconian opening for a sentence— let us refer to Mr. Gladstone’s letter of October 17, 1892.nbsp;Asked to justify the figures which he had used in his Snowdonnbsp;speech, Mr. Gladstone answered, through his Secretary,nbsp;Mr. Murray, that

(1) nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Even after search he had been unable to find the figuresnbsp;supplied to him;

(2) nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;He had obtained a fresh return which did not tallynbsp;exactly with the figures which he had used before;

(3) nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;The case looked worse on the figures which he hadnbsp;obtained since than it had looked before and that “ he willnbsp;be very glad if any authentic arguments can be adduced tonbsp;give it a more favourable aspect.” (Note that in thisnbsp;Pharisaical observation the word “ authentic ” is used in anbsp;sense which is childishly erroneous.) Then comes a sentencenbsp;striking by reason of its admissions and of its assumptions :

“ He is, of course, aware that the income-tax figures do not exhibit the whole case, and especially that they do not takenbsp;into account the important class of cases in which freshnbsp;outlay of landlords’ capital without return has stood in placenbsp;of reduction of rent. But his purpose was to compare Walesnbsp;with England; and there is no reason to suppose that fromnbsp;this point of vieiu the incom.e-tax returns give less accuratenbsp;results in the one case than in the other”

Here it is clear that the “ authentic ” argument is in the handwriting of Mr. Murray; but the phraseology is Mr.nbsp;Gladstone’s own. First comes the admission, compelled by

IN NORTH WALES.

candour, that the income-tax figures do not, even from the shallow arithmetical standpoint, exhibit the whole case; that,nbsp;indeed, they do not exhibit that part of it concerning which,nbsp;Welsh landowners and their agents (in spite of the efforts ofnbsp;the majority of the Commissioners to check them on thenbsp;ground that they were covering ground already troddennbsp;whereas in fact they were giving evidence as to estates untouched by the Commission till then) gave an immensenbsp;amount of valuable, albeit tedious, evidence. Then, in anbsp;sentence casting every species of doubt upon the whole bodynbsp;of the figures, and without presuming for a moment to saynbsp;that they are accurate on either side, he proceeds to say thatnbsp;he has no reason to suppose one set to be less accurate thannbsp;the other. As a matter of fact, of course, Mr. Gladstonenbsp;knew perfectly well that neither set of figures was sufficientlynbsp;accurate to warrant a comparison; also he knew perfectlynbsp;well that the returns under Schedule A “ Lands, amp;c.,” mustnbsp;include sundry items other than agricultural rentals, thenbsp;said items being of unknown, unascertainable and variablenbsp;quantity.

A weaker argument, even if it had warranted the mere conclusion in arithmetic which was based upon it, was surelynbsp;never addressed to the public in the hope that it would acceptnbsp;without comprehending it. Its foundation was eminentlynbsp;unsafe. But Mr. Gladstone’s adversary, well knowing thatnbsp;in arguing before the casual public it is wise, where it is possible,nbsp;to turn and rend your enemy in an arena of his own choice,nbsp;took the pains to see how another view of Mr. Gladstone’snbsp;own figures would suit Mr. Gladstone’s position. In particular he had in his memory that quick answer of Mr. Chaplin’snbsp;that to compare pastoral Wales with corn-growing Englandnbsp;Was unjust even to puerility. So, accepting Schedule Anbsp;“ Lands,” as an index of rental for the moment (though henbsp;Well knew it to be a faulty index) he compared the rise andnbsp;fall of Schedule A “Lands” in four counties in England

THE LAND QUESTION

similar in character, from the agricultural point of view, and nearly equal in value, with the rise and fall in Wales. Thenbsp;result was striking, for the figures stood thus ;

Thus the decrease in the case of the four English counties was shown to be £135,745, and in the case of the Welshnbsp;counties £133,124; and the difference, having regard to thenbsp;greater value of the English counties at the outset, is notnbsp;worth speaking of. It is not recorded that, upon havingnbsp;these figures brought to his notice, Mr. Gladstone condemnednbsp;the landowners of these English counties of lack of sympathynbsp;and generosity to their tenants or pointed out to them thenbsp;noble example of their fellow landowners in Essex whose rents,nbsp;through no will of theirs, had fallen immensely more. Moreover, Mr. Gladstone’s adversary was able to show that in thenbsp;various survey districts dealing with the County of Essexnbsp;from the Inland Eevenue point of view, the rise and fall ofnbsp;returns was so irregular as to prove clearly the inadequacy ofnbsp;Inland Eevenue returns as an index of rental. Nor cannbsp;we do better than quote his figures and observations, tonbsp;which, although they have been repeated frequently for threenbsp;years at least, there is no answer yet forthcoming. Nor isnbsp;any, except in the form of vulgar abuse, likely to be made.nbsp;They stand thus ;—

53

These are figures of a very striking character, showing that, while the annual value of the lands in the county fell bynbsp;£386,537, the annual value of lands in that portion of thenbsp;county of Essex which is included in the Cambridge surveynbsp;district actually rose by all but £20,000. True, there maynbsp;have been special local causes at Cambridge, but special localnbsp;causes, which are numerous, go to make our point, which isnbsp;that many varying factors go to make the aggregate figures,nbsp;and that these figures do rise and fall for causes entirelynbsp;distinct from the rise and fall of agricultural rentals.

The full argument upon this question will be found in the appendix, but it is necessary to point out at this stage thatnbsp;the arithmetical aspect of the matter, partly, perhaps, becausenbsp;it took a form calculated to attract the popular fancy, hasnbsp;received far more attention than it deserves from the scientificnbsp;point of view. The real question is and was this : “ Is therenbsp;anything in the relation of landowner and tenant, or in thenbsp;relations of a substantial number of landowners and tenants,nbsp;in Wales so peculiar and exceptional as to call for and tonbsp;justify the application to the tenure of land in Wales anynbsp;legislative principles other than those which are used in England ? ” Such a question cannot be answered upon any suchnbsp;basis as that suggested by Mr. Ellis and adopted by Mr.

THE LAND QUESTION IN NOETH WALES.

Gladstone later with considerable, and in some cases prudent, reservations. In discussing such an issue a thousand questions must necessarily crop up, and the principal ones amongnbsp;them are these : “ Does systematic absenteeism prevail ? ”nbsp;“ Are the relations between landowner and tenant normallynbsp;friendly ? ” “ Are the conditions under which the farmer winsnbsp;his livelihood better or worse in the one country than in thenbsp;other, and, whether they be worse or better, is this result duenbsp;to human and preventible causes or to physical and inevitablenbsp;causes ? ” These and many other questions following fromnbsp;them are involved in the great problem which is in largenbsp;measure our subject-matter.

CHAPTER III.

The Commission appointed—its Constitution—Antecedents of Members —Majority of Radicals over Unionists—the Terms of Referencenbsp;and their Meaning—Issue affects English and Scotch Land also—nbsp;Summary of Complaint against the Commission, its Methods andnbsp;its Procedure.

Mb. Gladstone’s Snowdon speech contained, as was recognised on all hands in North Wales, a virtual promise for the appointment of a Royal Commission ; and the North Walesnbsp;Property Defence Association immediately set themselves tonbsp;work to prepare that careful and statistical evidence whichnbsp;they had every reason to expect that a Royal Commissionnbsp;would welcome with gratitude as essential to the discovery ofnbsp;truth. The landowners and supporters of the present systemnbsp;in South Wales, however, appeared inclined to let mattersnbsp;slide, and it was not until the announcement of the imjiend-ing appointment of a Commission had been made and thenbsp;names of the Commissioners had been published early in thenbsp;Parliamentary Session of 1893 that they began to take stepsnbsp;towards organisation with the view of placing their casenbsp;properly before the public. These facts were made knownnbsp;to the Commissioners at an early date; but, in the face ofnbsp;that knowledge, they elected to begin proceedings in Glamorganshire, where the landowners were confessedly unready, andnbsp;where the very idea of the existence of a Land Question wasnbsp;young.

But the course of events must not be anticipated. The Commission, as announced to the public, was thus constituted:

THE LAND QUESTION

Chairman, Lord (now Earl) Carrington; Lord Kenyon; Sir John T. Dillwyn Llewelyn ; E. Seebohm, Esq.; Professor (nownbsp;Principal) Ehys; Edwin Grove, Esq.; D. Brynmor Jones, Esq.,nbsp;Q.C., M.P.; Mr. Eichard Jones; Mr. J. Griffiths. Withoutnbsp;entering into personal reference where it can be avoided, it isnbsp;necessary to incur such odium as may be attached to inquirynbsp;into the antecedents of these gentlemen and into their qualifications for the grave and important task which lay beforenbsp;them. Lord Carrington was Lord Chamberlain; had beennbsp;Governor of New South Wales; was, as he had every rightnbsp;to be, a pronounced Eadical; was given to the discussion ofnbsp;social questions, from the sentimental point of view, withnbsp;Cardinal Manning; had possessed a considerable estate innbsp;South Wales, which he had sold; and was a large landownernbsp;in England. Inasmuch as he had sold his Welsh estatenbsp;immediately after he succeeded to it, he could not be regardednbsp;as having any special knowledge of Welsh affairs. Lordnbsp;Kenyon, who was less than thirty years of age, and, it maynbsp;be said without offence, quite unknown in public life, was anbsp;landowner on a considerable scale in Shropshire and in thenbsp;Hundred of Maelor, which is technically Welsh, but for allnbsp;practical purposes English. In politics he was a Conservative, and an opportunity may be taken here of saying that,nbsp;throughout the sittings of the Commission, he displayed anbsp;practical knowledge of estate management which was invaluable, and a power of eliciting the truth by tactful andnbsp;polite cross-examination which he may have inherited fromnbsp;his illustiious ancestor, who was Lord Chief Justice ofnbsp;England and Master of the Eolls at the end of the eighteenthnbsp;century. His effectual work as a Commissioner may, perhaps, have surprised those who appointed him. Sir Johnnbsp;Llewelyn was a large landowner in Glamorganshire, with anbsp;reputation for great administrative ability as Chairman ofnbsp;Quarter Sessions, and possessed of special knowledge upon anbsp;variety of subjects. In politics he was a Conservative, and

IN NOETH WALES.

had sought Parliamentary honours without success: since the appointment of the Commission he has entered Parliament.nbsp;Mr. F. Seebohm was the member of the Commission whonbsp;entered upon his duties with the highest public reputation.nbsp;He was a Liberal Unionist in politics and a banker at Hitchinnbsp;by profession; but his true fame was in the world of antiquarian letters. His English Village Community, publishednbsp;in 1883, is, and is likely to remain, the classical work on thenbsp;subject; and during the existence of the Commission wasnbsp;published by Messrs. Longmans his masterly book on Thenbsp;Tribal System in Wales. That Mr. Seebohm’s interestsnbsp;were purely antiquarian it were erroneous to assert, for henbsp;showed throughout the inquiry an acute zeal to realise thenbsp;conditions of rural life in Wales; but he would probably benbsp;the last man to claim practical acquaintance with the agricultural life of to-day in either England or Wales. The antecedents of Mr. Brynmor Jones, Q.O., M.P.—and to hisnbsp;antecedents we confine ourselves for the moment—may benbsp;told shortly. The son of a famous Nonconformist ministernbsp;in South Wales, he had gone to the Bar, and after a shorternbsp;career on the South Wales circuit than commonly precedesnbsp;official promotion, had been appointed a County Court Judge.nbsp;Relinquishing this office he had returned to the Bar, and hadnbsp;entered Parliament as member for the Stroud Division ofnbsp;Gloucestershire. During the life of the Commission he hasnbsp;migrated to Glamorganshire, and now sits in Parliament asnbsp;the Radical representative of a Welsh constituency. Of thenbsp;politics of Professor (now Principal) Rhys little was or isnbsp;known. He was, at the time of his appointment. Bursar ofnbsp;Jesus College, Oxford, which possesses considerable propertynbsp;in Wales, and his reputation as a Welsh antiquarian andnbsp;folklorist stood then, as it stands now, very high. Hisnbsp;scholarly knowledge of the Welsh language was, perhaps,nbsp;his principal qualification, and certainly it stood the Commission in good stead. Mr. Edwin Grove, Chairman of the

THE LAND QUESTION

Monmouthshire County Council, was an accountant and mart óf figures by occupation, a Radical in politics, and unacquainted with agricultural affairs. Mr. Richard Jones, anbsp;Montgomeryshire farmer, possessed little more than a parochial reputation when the Commission was appointed. Henbsp;was known to have been educated at Aherystwith College, tO'nbsp;he a fervent and active Radical in local politics, a strongnbsp;Nonconformist, and a friend of Mr. T. E. Ellis. Mr. Griffithsnbsp;was known as a sound farmer in Pembrokeshire, a judge ofnbsp;Castlemartin black cattle, a strong Nonconformist andnbsp;Radical.

The natural criticisms to be offered upon the Commission as it stood were these. It contained five Radicals at thenbsp;least, and perhaps six, to four or three Unionists as thenbsp;case might be. It could not boast among its members onenbsp;political economist of known repute. Its single representative of North Wales farmers came from the county of Montgomery, and was far better acquainted with the semi-Englishnbsp;agriculture and population of the Severn Valley than with thatnbsp;of North Wales proper. The important counties of Anglesey,nbsp;Carnarvon, Carmarthen, Cardigan, Brecon, Merioneth, Denbighnbsp;and Glamorgan were entirely unrepresented either by farmersnbsp;or landowners. Finally, taking the Commission as it stood, itnbsp;was noteworthy that one party in politics was represented bynbsp;a lawyer skilled in the arts of cross-examination, and that thenbsp;other side was not so represented.

The terms of reference directed the Commissioners “ to inquire into the conditions upon which land is held, occupied,nbsp;and cultivated in Wales and Monmouthshire; ” and the intention of the Legislature in formulating them was reasonablynbsp;plain, especially if regard was paid, as by reasonable men itnbsp;certainly ought to have been, to the preceding circumstances.nbsp;Requests for special legislation, analogous in character to thenbsp;Irish Land Acts and to the Crofters’ Acts, had been made bynbsp;the Radical member for a division of Carnarvonshire, and

m NORTH WALES.

by the spokesman of the Welsh Radical party in the House of Commons. Certain agrarian grievances were alleged; Mr.nbsp;Gladstone, then in Opposition, had answered that legislationnbsp;must be preceded by inquiry; Mr. Gladstone, as Primenbsp;Minister, had appointed this Commission to make inquiry.

It was plain, therefore, that the Commission was established to inquire not into the social, religious, literary and commercial life of Wales generally, but into the existing conditionsnbsp;of agricultural life. It is clear also that the Commission wasnbsp;not, like the Commission appointed when Mr. John Morleynbsp;was Irish Secretary, intended or desired to assume thatnbsp;certain legislative principles ought to be imported intonbsp;Wales from Ireland and the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, but that it was desired primarily to give in its reportnbsp;such a true picture of the actual state of things in agricultural Wales as would enable Parliament to reach a justnbsp;decision.

The issue was, and is, grave enough in all conscience, and sufficient both in comprehensiveness and importance to satisfynbsp;the curious ambition of any body of men. Nor was it onenbsp;upon the settlement of which Englishmen and Scotchmen,nbsp;whether landowners or tenants, could, or can, afford to looknbsp;with indifference. As, ever since the Crofters’ Acts camenbsp;into operation, the party of agitation has constantly beennbsp;working towards an extension of the area covered by them,nbsp;so it were childish to suppose that, if a Land Act were passednbsp;to govern the relation of landowner and tenant in Wales,nbsp;England could possibly escape. Whatsoever is done in Elint,nbsp;Denbigh and Montgomery shires must, for good or evil, benbsp;done in Cheshire and Shropshire also. If the relation ofnbsp;landlord and tenant is to be regulated by strict law, to thenbsp;exclusion of free contract—for this is the ultimate meaningnbsp;of all Land Acts—in the counties of Radnor, Brecknocknbsp;and Monmouth, the extension of the same system to Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Gloucestershire must be merely

60 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;THE LAND QUESTION

a question, and at best a very short question, of time. For the moment we do not discuss from the economical point ofnbsp;view the very problematical merits of such legislation andnbsp;its very obvious demerits.

We content ourselves with warning landowners and TENANTS AND THE WHOLE BODY OF ENGLISHMEN IN WHOM Anbsp;BELIEF IN HONEST PRINCIPLE AND IN FREEDOM OF CONTRACTnbsp;STILL SURVIVES THAT THIS QUESTION, WELSH AS IT IS IN OUTWARD FORM, IS ENTIRELY AND ABSOLUTELY NATIONAL. WhENnbsp;’THE TROUBLE FOR WALES COMES, AS IT SURELY WILL COME

HAVE FORGOTTEN THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS COMMISSION, WHEN THE REPORT OF THE MAJORITY IS ACCEPTED WITHOUT REFERENCEnbsp;TO THE IMMENSELY VOLUMINOUS AND INTRICATE EVIDENCE (OFnbsp;WHICH A LARGE PART IS QUITE IMMATERIAL FROM ANY SENSIBLEnbsp;POINT OF view), THEN IT IS AS SURE AS DEATH THAT THE FATEnbsp;OF ALL THE LAND IN ENGLAND, SCOTLAND AND WALES WILLnbsp;¦HANG IN THE BALANCE. WALES HAS BEEN PLACED IN THEnbsp;FOREFRONT OF THE BATTLE ; BUT HER FATE WILL BE THE FATEnbsp;OF THE REST OF THE COUNTRY.

And how did this Commission address itself to this serious problem ? Our complaints may be summarised in a preliminarynbsp;fashion, thus :—

1. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Well knowing, as everybody in Wales knew, that thenbsp;public sittings of the Commission, besides being used as thenbsp;occasion of giving valuable evidence as to the conditions ofnbsp;agricultural life in Wales, would be seized as an unrivallednbsp;opportunity for paying olf political grudges and for raisingnbsp;purely or impurely personal questions, they pursued suchnbsp;rules of procedure and followed such practices in the reception of so-called evidence as to encourage rather thannbsp;discourage the giving of evidence of this character and tonbsp;deprive the persons accused of adequate opportunity ofnbsp;clearing their characters.

2. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;They so interpreted the terms of reference as to lead to

IN NOETH WALES.

the impression that if the Government had said, “ Go to Wales and find out all about it from the days of Llewelynnbsp;till now,” they could not have accepted evidence covering anbsp;wider field or dealing with a greater variety of subjects.

3. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;A number of them, repeatedly and persistently, questioned witnesses, without prior regard to their intellectualnbsp;capacity, in such a manner as to leave the impression thatnbsp;they were rather itinerant missionaries to preach the virtuesnbsp;of a Land Court, than Commissioners appointed to inquirenbsp;into a grave problem on behalf of Her Majesty.

4. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;They did not treat witnesses, who came before them withnbsp;evidence contrary to the prejudices of the majority of thenbsp;Commissioners, with that fairness and politeness which suchnbsp;witnesses were entitled to expect.

These are all serious allegations requiring to be justified by chapter and verse, by statement of ascertained facts andnbsp;by reference to particular passages in the evidence. Theynbsp;go to the very root of things and, if proved, they go a longnbsp;way towards disposing of the report of the majority of thenbsp;Commissioners. Assuredly therefore they deserve a chapternbsp;to themselves.

CHAPTER IV.

Procedure and Practice of the Gommission—their Refusal to admit Counsel—Lord Penrhyns Offer—Buies as to preliminary Copies ofnbsp;Evidence—“ Members of the Public ” permitted to exhibit Questionsnbsp;in Writing—Secretary to communicate with Persons aggrieved—nbsp;Opportunities of Rebuttal to be given—Examples of Breach ofnbsp;these Rules—and of their ineffective Character when hept—nbsp;Stringency of Procedure as to Rebuttal—the Allegation of Fearnbsp;among the Tenantry—Mr. David Jones and Lord Penrhyn and thenbsp;Conduct of the Secretary of the Gommission—the strange Case ofnbsp;Parker at Newtown—the reckless Reception of irregular Evidencenbsp;—prohibition of elementary Tests of Evidence—the Commissionersnbsp;“ revelled in Hearsay ”—the Allegation of “fear ” among Peasantrynbsp;—its Manufacture—wild Interpretation of Terms of Reference—nbsp;an Omnibus Gommission.

In the preceding chapter, and towards the end of it, the complaints which the supporters of the existing system ofnbsp;Land Tenure conceive themselves entitled at the end of thenbsp;sittings of the Welsh Land Commission to bring against diversnbsp;members of that body, were set forth in outline. The purposenbsp;of the present chapter is to set them out in detail and, in sonbsp;setting them out, to justify them.

Let us speak, then, first upon the important matter of procedure. One of the earliest and best advised of thenbsp;acts of the Commissioners after their appointment was tonbsp;possess themselves, with the assistance of their secretary,nbsp;of a large number of publications, books, pamphlets,nbsp;extracts from newspapers and the like in which the Welshnbsp;Land Question and the agitation in respect of it werenbsp;discussed from various points of view. To those members

THE LAND QUESTION IN NORTH WALES.

of the Commission who had already followed the controversy upon the question in Wales, and to the secretary of the Commission, who was Welsh to the finger-tips, nonbsp;study of this literature was necessary. They cannot havenbsp;helped knowing that the tone of controversy was bitternbsp;and personal, beyond all precedent, while the strangers tonbsp;Wales, with their long task lying before them, might havenbsp;satisfied themselves by ten minutes reading, of “ Adfyfr’s ”nbsp;pamphlet or the answer to it, of Mr. Ellis’s speech in thenbsp;House of Commons, of the articles on the Welsh vernacularnbsp;Press which had appeared in the Times and in the Nationalnbsp;Review, of the strongly worded series of articles which hadnbsp;but recently appeared in the Western Mail, that in allnbsp;¦evidence in favour of change to be given before them anbsp;tone of philosophic tranquillity would be the last thing tonbsp;expect.

Nor did they go unwarned of the things which were to come. Over and over again they were pressed by Lordnbsp;Penrhyn and the North Wales Association to permit counselnbsp;to be heard on either side and to examine, or cross-examine,nbsp;witnesses. Nay, more, so anxious was Lord Penrhyn in thisnbsp;matter, so convinced that injustice would be done if propernbsp;opportunities for sifting the evidence by cross-examinationnbsp;were not given that, in a formal application to the Commissioners, he went to the length of offering to meet out of hisnbsp;own pocket, if necessity arose, the expense of counsel tonbsp;represent the party of agitation.

The Commissioners, however, with unanimity which was apparent rather than real, declined the offer and resolvednbsp;not to permit oral cross-examination by counsel. The groundsnbsp;for their attitude seem to have been these:

1. That the admission of counsel would have been virtually unprecedented. To which the answer is that it would notnbsp;have been quite unprecedented; witness the case of thenbsp;Mathew Commission in Ireland from which Mr. Carson

THE LAND QUESTION

retired. Moreover, many unusual proceedings may be valuable.

2. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;That the fear of cross-examination might have deterrednbsp;witnesses from coming forward. On this point it may benbsp;observed that the power of the Commission to check impropernbsp;cross-examination would have been absolute and, as will benbsp;shown to demonstration later, that the tone of cross-examination adopted by members of the Commission on manynbsp;occasions reached the limits of possibility in the way ofnbsp;harshness.

3. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;That the admission of counsel would have involvednbsp;excessive expenditure of time. The answer to this is a franknbsp;denial. Counsel with a plain issue before them would notnbsp;have dreamed of exhibiting questions on absolutely immaterial topics such as are mentioned later. Further, counselnbsp;acting upon instructions from their clients would certainlynbsp;not have wasted a tenth of the time which was expended bynbsp;Commissioners in that most fascinating but perilous of pastimes, cross-examination based on conjecture and not uponnbsp;knowledge of the facts.

It is not, however, denied that the Eoyal Commission was absolutely within its legal rights in arriving at a decision notnbsp;to sanction the appearance of counsel.

For the rest the Commission laid down the following rules of procedure:

(a) nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;That each witness should give notice of his intentionnbsp;to give evidence fourteen days in advance and should sendnbsp;a summary, or a full statement of his evidence, seven days innbsp;advance.

(b) nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;That any member of the public—and that after all isnbsp;a privilege which cannot be denied even to counsel—mightnbsp;hand up to the Commission in writing any question or questions which he desired to see administered to a witness, andnbsp;that such question, unless objected to by the Commission,nbsp;should be put.

IN NORTH WALES.

(c) nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;That it should be the duty of the secretary, when anynbsp;statement derogatory to the character of an absent man, ornbsp;his conduct, was made, to communicate at once with thenbsp;person accused.

(d) nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;That full opportunities of rebutting such accusationsnbsp;should be given.

Let us see how these rules worked. If the first of them had been observed, the secretary would have been able tonbsp;eliminate from statements of evidence that which was absolutely irrelevant. Also, wherever it was intended by anbsp;witness in his evidence in chief to impugn the character ornbsp;conduct of another person, notice might, and in commonnbsp;fairness ought to, have been given to that person. But, as anbsp;matter of fact, this rule was broken with impunity over andnbsp;over again; there is no sign, throughout the voluminousnbsp;evidence, of any desire to eliminate irrelevancy; notice wasnbsp;but rarely given of an impending attack to the proposednbsp;victim, and, in one case, through inadvertence it is believed,nbsp;landowners’ representatives were all but persuaded to avoidnbsp;a given sitting, at which highly controversial evidence wasnbsp;given, by the official statement that no controversial evidencenbsp;was expected, and that, if any such came to hand, noticenbsp;would be given.

A few instances, given from the writer’s personal knowledge, will serve to exemplify the freedom with which the rule was broken. At Chepstow witnesses were few and farnbsp;between, and, on the preceding evening, the list of witnessesnbsp;was exceedingly short. Of the witnesses who appeared onnbsp;the following day one was a person who hardly appeared tonbsp;possess even average intelligence. His name was not on thenbsp;list; he did not hand in, nor did he ever possess, a statementnbsp;of evidence. In fact he simply talked at random for an hournbsp;or more to the profit of the official shorthand writer and nonenbsp;besides. It may be said that he was harmless; but thenbsp;answer is that there was no ground for believing beforehand

E

THE LAND QUESTION

that he would be harmless, and beyond this, rules are presumably made so that they may be kept; not merely for the purpose of being broken recklessly and without cause. Nornbsp;was the habitual breach of the rule without its serious consequences. The worst instance, perhaps, comes from Southnbsp;Wales in connection with a controversy between one Bennbsp;Maddy, a rabbit-catcher, and Mr. R. Thurston Bassett,nbsp;Master of the Glamorganshire Foxhounds. In the originalnbsp;quarrel between them there are no features of interest ornbsp;importance; but one day, at a sitting held at Carmarthen, anbsp;serious state of things came up. Notice, it should be said,nbsp;had been sent to Mr. Bassett that it would be well for him tonbsp;be present, but at so late a date that, being in London at thenbsp;time, he had, as he telegraphed to the Commission, receivednbsp;the news in London on the day when it was imperative thatnbsp;he should be present at Carmarthen. Maddy, havingnbsp;handed in no statement in advance, proceeded to the table,nbsp;and, in the most rapid and circumstantial way, pourednbsp;out a statement, palpably founded on hearsay, whichnbsp;clearly involved an accusation against Mr. Bassett ofnbsp;misdemeanour in the shape of a flagrant breach of thenbsp;Witnesses Protection Act of 1892. Almost the whole ofnbsp;the accusation was, on the face of it, founded upon hearsay;nbsp;it was evidence at which a court of justice would not havenbsp;looked for a moment. That Mr. Bassett should rebut thatnbsp;day was clearly impossible; that he might have somethingnbsp;to say for himself was at least conceivable—and of thenbsp;manner in which he was treated when he did come forwardnbsp;to give his evidence in rebuttal, there will be something fornbsp;us to say later. Meanwhile it is noteworthy that, as soon asnbsp;Maddy’s evidence was over, evidence of which the worstnbsp;parts were elicited by ingenious cross-examination in thenbsp;form of leading questions from some of the Commissioners,nbsp;the Chairman announced in open court that the Commissionnbsp;would consider his statement and, if it seemed to present a

primd facie case for prosecution, would submit it to the Director of Public Prosecutions. This course was taken whilenbsp;the accused man was unheard, and the South Wales papers,nbsp;which are not more contemptuous of a sensation than anynbsp;others, were naturally full of the subject. What is more, thenbsp;case, with several others, was submitted to the Public Prosecutor who, in this case, as in the others, declined to proceednbsp;on the ground that there was no case.

The concession that a member of the public might exhibit questions in writing was something to be grateful for, and onnbsp;the whole there was not much ground for complaint of thenbsp;exercise by the Commissioners of their discretion to disallownbsp;such questions. But a moment’s I'eflection will serve to shownbsp;that this concession involved at best but a small mercy.nbsp;Necessity compelled counsel to frame his series of questionsnbsp;while the witness was being examined in chief, and as suchnbsp;examination consisted, in the case of a monoglot Welshnbsp;witness, of the reading of his statement by the interpreter,nbsp;time was precious. At Dolgelley, for example, the evidencenbsp;of some five witnesses was passed on to the minutes in thisnbsp;manner within the space of ten minutes : indeed, it is crediblynbsp;assei'ted that one man’s evidence got on to the notes withoutnbsp;ever having been given in open court at all. But even wherenbsp;there was plenty of time the process of cross-examination onnbsp;paper was of extraordinary difficulty and apt to be quitenbsp;ineffectual, and that for a plain reason. The preliminarynbsp;questions in cross-examination must, in the ordinary course,nbsp;go to make the foundation of those which are to follow.nbsp;Evasive, untrue, or meaningless answers to these preliminarynbsp;questions naturally and in very many cases rendered thenbsp;whole superstructure of questions absolutely ineffectual.nbsp;Meanwhile the Commissioners, being for the most partnbsp;necessarily ignorant of the circumstances surrounding individuals and their allegations, would cross-examine at haphazard with an effect sometimes of illustrating in amusing

THE LAND QUESTION

ways the danger, which no lawyer would risk willingly, of cross-examination under such conditions. Thus, in Montgomeryshire, a man came forward to complain that his landlord had sued him in the County Court for the paltry sum ofnbsp;£3 10s. There was of course no real grievance seeingnbsp;that the man owed the money. But the landlord was notnbsp;named, and Mr. Commissioner Richard Jones, eager to holdnbsp;up the tyrannous oppressor of the poor to public disdain,nbsp;rushed in with an inquiry as to the landlord’s name.nbsp;“Indeed, sir, it was Mr. Humphreys Owen, M.P.,” said thenbsp;man, and the audience shouted in Homeric laughter, for Mr.nbsp;Humphreys Owen was the local member and Mr. Commissioner Richard Jones was one of his most strenuousnbsp;supporters. The trap, which was simple enough, had beennbsp;laid deliberately ; and Mr. Jones walked into it, as he walkednbsp;into many others, with astonishing simplicity.

Rule (c) which had a specious appearance of consideration for the feelings of men, would have been more effectual if itnbsp;had been carried out consistently ; but even when this wasnbsp;done it was far from being satisfactory. It was the justnbsp;subject of complaint early in the history of the Commission that the secretary, never a robust man and greatlynbsp;overburdened with work at all times, did not send the prescribed notices as consistently as might have been desired.nbsp;He was perhaps not much to be blamed. He was aware thatnbsp;landowners’ representatives, both in North Wales and South,nbsp;made a practice of communicating with their clients whennbsp;they were attacked : but it is also true that he did not knownbsp;who those clients were individually, and that evidence involving a list of members of either Association was refused tonbsp;the Commission, more than once, by officials of both Associations. Again it must be remembered that the tone ofnbsp;allegations made against landowners was, in the general way,nbsp;so virulent that an ordinary man, hearing these allegationsnbsp;day after day, might well be forgiven if any accusation against

m NORTH WALES.

a landowner, short of murder, highway robbery or arson, seemed to him unworthy of notice. Be that as it maynbsp;many witnesses came forward to give rebutting evidence andnbsp;showed plainly that the newspapers had conveyed to themnbsp;the first intelligence that a false statement had been madenbsp;against them.

But the rule, even when followed, was unsatisfactory. The accused person received a printed form stating thatnbsp;evidence afEecting him had been given by A. B., and that anbsp;copy of the official shorthand note could be obtained on payment of the shorthand writer’s charges of 8d. per folio of 72nbsp;words. Having ordered and paid for a great number ofnbsp;these shorthand notes the writer ventures to say that theynbsp;cost the Associations of North and South Wales respectivelynbsp;at least £500 in the whole. This, of course, is independentnbsp;of the orders given by private individuals and of paymentsnbsp;made to shorthand writers employed privately. Now the statements involving accusations were, as a general rule, ramblingnbsp;and genealogical to start with, exuberantly verbose throughout, and protracted by questions in cross-examination onnbsp;more than one occasion from every individual member of thenbsp;Commission. It is submitted that to require a poor man,nbsp;and many landowners are very poor, to meet this considerablenbsp;expense as the preliminary to meeting an unknown chargenbsp;made against him in his absence and without notice given tonbsp;him, was in the last degree unjust. But it may be said thenbsp;accused man might have waited for the official minutes ofnbsp;the evidence which were issued, in his own good time, bynbsp;the Queen’s printer. The answer is that the Queen’s printernbsp;was very slow; thus, the writer was asked to revise in September 1895 the official proofs of evidence given by him innbsp;the spring of that year; and no self-respecting man, knowingnbsp;he had been accused of some unnamed offence against honournbsp;or morality, could be expected to care to leave his characternbsp;uncleared so long.

THE LAND QUESTION

And when the opportunity of rebuttal came the process was far from the ideal standard of perfection. The chancesnbsp;were quite twenty to one that the original accusation wasnbsp;made upon the basis of hearsay evidence by a man who was anbsp;stranger to the original dispute, if any dispute there hadnbsp;been. Such a man, in nine cases out of ten, could notnbsp;answer those questions in cross-examination which mightnbsp;have explained the whole matter. The typical case ofnbsp;rebuttal, was one in which the man who desired tonbsp;repel an accusation made against him was called upon tonbsp;give his evidence after a considerable period of time hadnbsp;elapsed since the original charge was formulated, and innbsp;a district far removed from that in which the country folknbsp;had heard his alleged offences against humanity described.nbsp;So the audiences of mountain farmers and peasants, notnbsp;given to reading the papers, who had listened to the casenbsp;for the prosecution and had discussed it one with another,nbsp;had no opportunity of listening to the case for the defence;nbsp;and, as the Welsh vernacular papers for the most partnbsp;omitted to publish any report of the long-delayed defence,nbsp;the original audiences for the most part went under the impression that no denial or explanation had ever been given.nbsp;This, however, was far from being the only drawback, for annbsp;obstinate neglect of the elementary rules of fairness, as thenbsp;examples given will show, characterised the practice of thenbsp;Commission in hearing rebutting evidence. Over and overnbsp;again Lord Carrington, as Chairman of the Commission,nbsp;attempted to confine rebutting evidence to sheer denial ofnbsp;the original charge, taken sentence by sentence, to the exclusion of all explanation. It needs hardly to be argued thatnbsp;such a rule was contrary to justice in its most obviousnbsp;aspect; indeed, for the moment it is necessary to do no morenbsp;than point out that, in nine cases out of ten, an explanationnbsp;of the reason why this act or that was done is absolutelynbsp;essential to the formation of judgment upon its quality and to a

IN NORTH WALES.

decision whether the original act was harsh, merciful, or just. So plain is this fact, indeed, that the general public may wellnbsp;hesitate to accept a mere statement that any body of men, letnbsp;alone a Royal Commission, ever endeavoured for a moment tonbsp;enforce a rule so monstrous and so absolutely repugnant tonbsp;every principle of justice. Prudence therefore dictates thenbsp;citation of the ipsissima verba of the Chairman. Captainnbsp;N. P. Stewart, the chief agent of the Vaynol estate (thenbsp;reference is Question 13,625) was engaged in rebutting thenbsp;evidence of sundry witnesses, when the Chairman addressednbsp;him thus;—

“ Captain Stewart, you must clearly understand this, that rebutting evidence cannot be long statements saying whatnbsp;has been done and what has not been done, or going into thenbsp;history of the people ; we must have it that this is wrong ornbsp;that is wrong, this is not true and so forth; we cannot havenbsp;a discursive statement going back into ancient history.”

Again (Q. 20,333 onwards), Mr. R. Hughes Pritchard, of Bangor, was engaged in rebutting evidence given by Mr.nbsp;David Owen, another solicitor of Bangor, to the effect thatnbsp;the tenant of a charity farm called Llysllew, had been treatednbsp;with great harshness by the trustees. The following dialoguenbsp;took place;—

“ Lord Carrington.—I understand that the Llysllew case has been tried in a court of law ?

“ Witness.—It has, my lord.

Lord Carrington.—We cannot go into the merits of the case ; but is there anything in this statement that you wishnbsp;to rebut ?

“ Witness.—Yes. A great deal.

“ Lord Carrington.—Will you be kind enough to confine yourself not to the general case, but to pointing out anything

THE LAND QUESTION

that you say is incorrect in the statement. We do not mean to go into the merits of the case. The case has been decided.”

Now in this case the Chairman had to deal with a strong man who gave the Commission clearly to understand that henbsp;would state his case properly or not at all. His answernbsp;amounted to a severe condemnation, based upon justice sonbsp;obvious that no impartial mind could doubt it, of the methodnbsp;which the Commission endeavoured to enforce. He said :—

“ I submit that Mr. David Owen has gone into the merits of the case, and it would be perfectly impossible for me innbsp;replying to him to confine myself simply to rebutting certainnbsp;small portions of what he has said. He has introduced a vastnbsp;amount of prejudice into this case. Besides making misstatements, he has made statements which are partially truenbsp;and partially untrue, and I claim on behalf of the trusteesnbsp;the right of replying generally and of stating the case fromnbsp;their point of view.”

Mr. Pritchard, in fact, refused to be browbeaten, and carried his point. But there were plenty of witnesses who, not possessing his experience in courts of law, were browbeatennbsp;and were prohibited from explaining and justifying acts whichnbsp;they could not deny simpliciter.

The injustice of such a rule of proceeding could no farther go. Take the common form of allegation, usually made bynbsp;some other person than the alleged victim, that a tenant hadnbsp;been evicted for political or sectarian reasons. The non-appearance of the tenant was invariably explained on thenbsp;ground that he was afraid to come forward, which was absurd,nbsp;seeing that, if the man had been evicted, he had nothing leftnbsp;to fear from his landlord, even supposing he ever would havenbsp;had anything to fear. Surely nothing could be more contrary to rudimentary justice than that, if the tenant had been

IN NORTH WALES.

turned out at all, the landlord should be prohibited from explaining the causes which led to the change of tenancy;nbsp;for in such cases a statement of surrounding circumstancesnbsp;may entirely alter the complexion of the original story,nbsp;although each individual statement in that story, standingnbsp;alone, may be true. Suppressio veri may, and for the mostnbsp;part does, amount to suggestio falsi.

But perhaps the most flagrant case of injustice in relation to rebutting evidence was that of Mr. Bassett which hasnbsp;already been mentioned. He had been accused by Maddynbsp;(Q. 42,209 et seq.) of using his influence to prevent Maddynbsp;from pursuing his employment because he, Maddy, had givennbsp;evidence. The material sentence evidence, which is appended,nbsp;was all hearsay.

“ Q. 42,209.—Groom (the keeper) told me that Mr. Bassett had sent him to ask Mr. Watts (a farmer) not to employ me.

“ Q. 42,210.—I was asked by Mr. Loughor (another farmer) to come to his farm to catch rabbits. Before I went I metnbsp;Mr. Loughor, and he told me that he had received a letternbsp;from Mr. Bassett asking him not to employ Ben Maddy,” andnbsp;so on.

Further statements were then made by Maddy against a Mr. Alexander, and the^Chairman, there and then, withoutnbsp;waiting to give Mr. Bassett an opportunity of answering anbsp;charge which, if true, would have involved him in a maximumnbsp;penalty of £100 or a maximum imprisonment of three months,nbsp;said: ‘‘ The Commissioners, having heard your statements,nbsp;will consider them carefully, and, if on consideration your allegations seem to present a primA facie casej will lay the matternbsp;before the Public Prosecutor.” In due time Mr. Bassett appeared to rebut at Brecon (50,724 onwards) bringing withnbsp;him all the persons to whom Maddy had attributed languagenbsp;which they denied that they had used. Mr. Bassett positively

THE LAND QUESTION

denied the alleged instruction to the keeper; he produced a letter of his own to Mr. Watts, the farmer, stating that he hadnbsp;no objection to his employing Maddy ; he showed that he hadnbsp;simply asked Mr. Loughor not to employ any rabbit-catchernbsp;until after the coverts had been shot. Then a Mr. Radcliffe,nbsp;who had presumed to employ another rabbit-catcher thannbsp;Maddy, stated that his adoption of this course had nothing tonbsp;do with Maddy’s evidence. Then Mr. Loughor was called,nbsp;denied that he had ever asked Maddy to catch rabbits, and,nbsp;in brief, denied the whole of Maddy’s story. The dissipationnbsp;of this absurd story, which never ought to have been admittednbsp;as evidence, cost Mr. Bassett between £50 and £60.

At this point it is desirable to interpolate two very flagrant cases in which the first rule of practice laid down by thenbsp;Commission seems to have either been disregarded or usednbsp;for sinister purposes.

In the first of them to be dealt with Lord Penrhyn was concerned. It occurred in the spring of 1895 and care hasnbsp;been taken to place the facts irrevocably upon the minutesnbsp;of the Commission. A sitting of the Commission in Londonnbsp;was impending and formal notice %vas sent to Mr. Georgenbsp;Owen that no controversial evidence teas expected and thatnbsp;if any such evidence teas sent in notice would he given tonbsp;him. A similar notice was sent to Mr. Vincent who, however, deemed it prudent, or at the worst harmless, to attend,nbsp;although no further notice had been received. He had hisnbsp;reward. The first witness called was Mr. David Jones, anbsp;solicitor of Llanrwst, who made against Lord Penrhyn, innbsp;relation to his purchase of part of Lord Ancaster’s Gwydyrnbsp;estate, a series of accusations into the details of which it isnbsp;needless to enter. Suffice it to say that Lord Carrington,nbsp;from the Chair, described them as being very serious charges,nbsp;and that Lord Penrhyn and his advisers deemed it necessarynbsp;to bring up to London later a body of witnesses who, it isnbsp;not too much to say, refuted the original allegations com-

IN NOETH WALES.

pletely and absolutely, and proved that Mr. Jones made an entirely false charge. The same witness (Mr. Jones) thennbsp;made a series of allegations, concerning the management ofnbsp;a Denbighshire estate, of so violently controversial a character^nbsp;that the Commission, having had their attention called tonbsp;the wording of the secretary’s notice, and after retiring fornbsp;consultation, ordered them to be expunged from the minutes.nbsp;That this error on the part of the secretary was due to inadvertence and not to any sinister motive I am assured; butnbsp;one who was compelled to practice before the Commission,nbsp;and in whom inadvertence would not have been pardoned,nbsp;may be excused for saying that the case is illustrative of thenbsp;difficulties with which he had to contend. Either the rulenbsp;of forwarding evidence beforehand was broken, which is notnbsp;likely since the evidence in question (apart from any matternbsp;affecting Lord Penrhyn) luas brought forward at the expressnbsp;request of the Commission; or the secretary made a statement as to the contents of a document which he had notnbsp;read; or he guessed the probable contents of a documentnbsp;which had not arrived at the office of the Commission.nbsp;In any event he broke his promise upon an important subject,nbsp;and, from the public point of view, such an act, even thoughnbsp;due to inadvertence, is a very serious and grave matter.nbsp;The work of a secretary to a Commission is tedious no doubtnbsp;but he undertakes it of his own free will and, from a man innbsp;such an official position as his, the public has a right tonbsp;expect and insist upon having scrupulous exactitude.

The second case is one with regard to which, after the fullest consideration possible, it is impossible to offer anynbsp;satisfactory explanation or to acquit persons unknown of anbsp;nefarious agreement to defame the character of a man whonbsp;was not only absent but in bad health. In these circumstances the wise course is for the writer, who was an eyewitness of and a listener at the scene, to state the bald factsnbsp;and to leave the task of explanation to supernatural charity.

THE LAKH QUESTION

The scene was the Commission’s Court at Newtown. Several persons, of whom the writer was one, asked at thenbsp;opening of the Court for the usual list of the names ofnbsp;witnesses for the day. The name Parker did not appear innbsp;that list. Early in the forenoon, however, a man, whonbsp;turned out to he Parker, entered the room precisely as hisnbsp;name was being called, and took his seat at the table. Thisnbsp;person then proceeded to give evidence of the gravest conceivable character against Sir Pryce Jones. The effect ofnbsp;the story was that Parker, being agent for an estate practically in Newtown, which was the property of an eccentricnbsp;owner residing at Reading, had been bribed repeatedly,nbsp;periodically and on a magnificent scale by Sir Pryce Jones.nbsp;The object of this bribery—Parker himself did not shrinknbsp;from the word when it was put to him bluntly—was statednbsp;to be that, in consideration of moneys received, Parker mightnbsp;induce his principal to grant to Sir Pryce Jones a long leasenbsp;of his Newtown property; and the alleged object of thisnbsp;proceeding was that Sir Pryce Jones might be placed in anbsp;position to exercise irresistible political pressure over thenbsp;numerous tenants.

Such was the statement: it belongs to that class of statement which is not worth a particle of notice without distinct and emphatic corroboration; it was simply the confession,nbsp;or purported to be the confession, of a thorough-pacednbsp;scoundrel, who introduced himself to the Commission asnbsp;a man who, having sold his master’s interests, was preparednbsp;to betray the man who bribed him. No notice was takennbsp;by Sir Pryce Jones of his calumniator; the Commission tonbsp;all appearance treated his statements with just scorn.

But why, seeing that at best his evidence related only to an urban neighbourhood, and might be taken as the fetidnbsp;scum remaining from the whirlpool of passion caused by anbsp;hard-fought election petition, was he brought forward ?nbsp;Why did not his name appear on the list of witnesses?

IN NORTH WALES.

How came it that his name was called out suddenly at the moment when he entered the door ? Finally, why was nonbsp;notice of this terrible accusation sent to the man whosenbsp;character would have suffered if Parker had been believed ?nbsp;Fortunately it is no part of our duty to answer any of thesenbsp;questions or to dissipate from the whole scene those cloudsnbsp;of suspicion in which it is wrapped. But that they oughtnbsp;to be answered by some person or persons is abundantly clear ;nbsp;for, on the face of it, the story is distinctly discreditable tonbsp;the Commission,

Let us leave this odious subject and proceed to state the principles which were followed in relation to the acceptancenbsp;and rejection of evidence. It cannot be denied, of course,nbsp;that a Eoyal Commission is entitled in this matter to be anbsp;law unto itself, even a new law every day. It may acceptnbsp;anything, even a statement in a newspaper paragraph, asnbsp;evidence one day and reject a deed the next day. Nor is itnbsp;pretended that a Royal Commission is bound by the ordinarynbsp;laws of evidence. On the other hand it is within the rightsnbsp;of any man to urge that when an investigating body persistently declines to apply to evidence the most elementary tests,nbsp;the conclusions based upon evidence so collected are at leastnbsp;as ojoen to doubt as the evidence itself. There is no sanctitynbsp;about the law of evidence. It has neither a divine nor, fornbsp;the most part, even a statutory origin. It merely representsnbsp;the conditions with which statements must comply, accordingnbsp;to the accumulated experience of generations, before theynbsp;can be accepted as true. It prefers the best attainablenbsp;evidence to the worst, direct evidence to hearsay, originalnbsp;documents to copies made by hand ; and, since in this booknbsp;at any rate we are under no obligation to place men on thenbsp;same plane with angels, there need be no hesitation in sayingnbsp;that the foundation of the law of evidence is the knowledgenbsp;that all men are liable to error, and that a large number ofnbsp;men are prone to deliberate falsehood.

THE LAND QUESTION

Let us see then how the Welsh Land Commissioners treated the law of evidence in the general way, although it must benbsp;admitted at the same time that they relapsed into strictness onnbsp;occasion. To begin with, and at a very early stage of thenbsp;proceedings, they not only discarded but prohibited the mostnbsp;elementary and necessary test of the truth of testimony; thatnbsp;is to say, they absolutely forbade any questions to be addressednbsp;either by a Commissioner or “ member of the public ” to anynbsp;witness concerning the manner in which his evidence hadnbsp;been prepared. This extraordinary rule was passed under thenbsp;following circumstances in South Wales during the first weeknbsp;of the active life of the Commission. A witness, not unfavourable to the existing law of tenure, had given his evidence.nbsp;He was, with great propriety, cross-examined as to the mannernbsp;in which his evidence had been prepared. Counsel, representing landowners as “ a member of the public,” nevernbsp;dreamed of objecting to the cross-examination. Why shouldnbsp;he have protested against the application of an obvious touchstone ? But he took the precaution of causing the questionsnbsp;put from the bench to be taken down in shorthand, and, whennbsp;the next witness on the other side came forward with anbsp;flowery and consecutive statement—the said witness being anbsp;man of humble circumstances and apparently indifferentnbsp;culture—these identical questions were administered to himnbsp;by a “ member of the public.” Sundry Commissioners, notnbsp;recognising the original authorship of these questions, protested. It seemed to them an outrage that a witness whomnbsp;they liked should be harried in so unfeeling a manner. Anbsp;note was then handed in, pointing out that these questions hadnbsp;emanated from the Bench, and were not a sinister inventionnbsp;of the enemy; moreover, it was pointed out, in forensic language, that sauce for the goose is sauce also for the gander.nbsp;Thereupon, after the adjournment, it was found that a rulenbsp;had been passed denying sauce to either bird. In fact, allnbsp;-questions as to the sources or preparation of evidence were

IN NORTH WALES.

absolutely forbidden. Now, seeing that it is impossible to conceive a more persuasive inducement to the wholesale fabrication of evidence, it becomes necessary to explain how thenbsp;evidence on our side was collected. Evidence does not collectnbsp;itself; that is certain. Somebody must see to its preparationnbsp;or it will never be ready. The whole of the evidence on ournbsp;side in North and South Wales was collected thus. Thenbsp;syllabus of the Commission, containing a large number ofnbsp;questions, was printed verbatim, but in an extended form, sonbsp;as to leave space for a witness to write his answer. A verynbsp;small number of additional questions was asked. They werenbsp;questions which were obviously relevant. In no single casenbsp;were the answers, which were in the handwriting of the witness, altered. Copies were taken for use before the Commission and no more. It is, however, a curious circumstancenbsp;that, on more than one occasion, individual Commissionersnbsp;failed to recognise that the main body of the questions emanated from the Commission itself, and objected to the greatnbsp;area which they covered. Landowners, however, were justifiednbsp;in acting on the belief that the Commission, having asked anbsp;number of questions, desired to have them answered: andnbsp;they did answer them in the manner described and no other.nbsp;To farmers the North Wales Association issued a simpler andnbsp;shorter form of questions, and as to the answers the samenbsp;practice was pursued. This can be proved by documentarynbsp;evidence now, if desired, and any lawyer will admit that anbsp;more innocent method of preparing evidence could not benbsp;devised. At the same time, it must be observed that there isnbsp;a coherence and splendour of style about much of the evidence given to the contrary effect by men in the position ofnbsp;very simple peasants which gives ground for suspicion.

Next, the Commission simply revelled in hearsay. This was excusable in some measure in the case of such witnessesnbsp;as the Rev. Ifan Davies, a young Congregational minister,nbsp;who [Q. 6800 onwards] made allegations as to alleged usurp-

TJÏE LAND QUESTION

ation of pieces of common in 1838 by Sir Watkin Williams Wynn and made statements as to seven alleged cases ofnbsp;political eviction in 1859. True it is that the value of bisnbsp;evidence as to the common question was but small; still itnbsp;directed the attention of the Wynnstay authorities to thenbsp;estate books, which were conclusive in the matter. True isnbsp;it also that 1859 is not so very long ago but that somenbsp;survivors of that date might be found to give better evidence, and it may be added that the statement of Mr. Thomasnbsp;Ellis, who was at the time Junior Lord of the Treasury,nbsp;on this topic did not possess the same power to convincenbsp;which would have belonged to a statement, concerning thenbsp;same subject-matter, if it had been made by his father. Butnbsp;in relation to hearsay evidence of this character there is nonbsp;reason for raising such grave objections as those which mustnbsp;be raised against other classes of hearsay evidence.

Of these classes of hearsay evidence there were two principal kinds. The first of these was the evidence of witnesses who appeared in the capacity of self-appointed delegates, so tonbsp;speak, not merely to give expression to the general opinion ofnbsp;farmers in a particular district, but also to state the individualnbsp;grievances of men who simply would not take the trouble tonbsp;come forward. A typical witness of this kind was Mr.nbsp;Thomas Davies, who gave evidence at Bala (7972 et seq.).nbsp;That the Commission had no objection to this kind of evidencenbsp;and, in fact invited it, is clear from the Chairman’s openingnbsp;words:

“ State as shortly and concisely as you can the principal points you wish to emphasise, and state your own case, andnbsp;then give the cases of the other tenants for whom yovj arenbsp;'privileged to speak.”

IN NORTH WALES.

evidence was admitted, the blue-book pages may be passed over until the vicarious part of the evidence is reached (8139).nbsp;In that there are several cases to which observations arenbsp;annexed showing the uselessness of the vicarious system.

(lt;x) Witness spoke of a farm named Penlan, said it had been let eight years ago to one Roberts on an understandingnbsp;that repairs would be effected. Roberts left after five years,nbsp;the house only having been repaired. Simon succeeded. Picturesque details followed as to state of barn roof.

Ohservations.—What sort of understanding ? Oral or written ? Between Roberts and whom ? What could Robertsnbsp;fear from giving evidence if he had relinquished the-tenancy ?

(b) nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Witness, in relation to two farms near Bala to the rentsnbsp;of which additions had been made in consequence of additionsnbsp;made to the area of the farms, added that the tenant ofnbsp;both farms had difficulty in paying their rents, that the tenantnbsp;of one paid no wages to his two sons and one daughter, andnbsp;had saved no money.

Ohservations.—Questions of some importance would clearly have been asked of the tenants themselves; but there was no ¦nbsp;use in questioning the delegate—perhaps a volunteer—on’nbsp;matters beyond his knowledge.

(c) nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Witness alleged a verbal understanding between tenantnbsp;and landlord, that landlord was to supply 1000 drain pipesnbsp;per annum as long as required, and a breach of such understanding after 1500 pipes had been supplied.

Observations.—Landlord might dispute the understanding, question manner of applying pipes, amp;c., ad libitum. Tenantnbsp;might have been questioned on this point; delegate knewnbsp;nothing about it.

(d) nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Witness described farm of Ysgubor gerig consisting ofnbsp;two parcels of 15 acres a mile apart, complained that therenbsp;were no buildings on upper part and that tenant, aged 60,nbsp;and wife, had to work farm themselves owing to inability to

THE LAND QUESTION

pay for labour. Complained also that rent had risen from £24 to £28 and then £35.

Observations. — Likely enough. It is idle to expect separate buildings for an exceptional farm divided like thisnbsp;one. The holding is clearly a peasant holding, the tenant ofnbsp;which could not be expected to be able to hire labour. Thenbsp;statements as to increase of rent are valueless without datesnbsp;even if correct.

Upon these valuable statements, two of which were minimised on the spot by some pertinent questions from Mr.nbsp;lioyd Price, the only landowner referred to in them whonbsp;was present, the Chairman publicly directed the secretary tonbsp;communicate with all the landlords concerned. Thus uponnbsp;a statement made by a stranger to the contract of tenancy,nbsp;by a man who was not in a position to give a complete accountnbsp;of the state of things, several gentlemen were asked eithernbsp;to put themselves to inconvenience to attend before thenbsp;Commission or to be content to lie under some sort ofnbsp;stigma.

It may be added that this kind of evidence, of which the above is merely a sample taken at haphazard, was all thenbsp;more valueless inasmuch as in many cases it has beennbsp;discovered to have been worse even than hearsay, as havingnbsp;been given without the knowledge or consent or even againstnbsp;the wishes of the tenants alleged to be aggrieved. But thenbsp;most objectionable kind of hearsay of all was that whichnbsp;was admitted frequently—and in the face of vigorous, repeatednbsp;but hopeless protest—upon serious questions involving men’snbsp;personal conduct and character. Of this it were impossiblenbsp;to conceive a more flagrant example than the statement ofnbsp;Maddy {vide supra) in which Mr. Thurston Bassett wasnbsp;accused of a crime which, if it had been brought home tonbsp;him, would have rendered him liable to three months’ hardnbsp;labour, a flne of £100 and to find Maddy a livelihood for thenbsp;term of his natural life.

IN NORTH WALES.

The excuse made for all this was the constant if indefinite assertion of witnesses that the best evidence was not attainable because the men who ought to come forward were afraid.nbsp;The history of the growth of this assertion is of somenbsp;interest. Long before the Commission was dreamed of, thenbsp;vernacular journals had denounced the Welsh people, particularly those amongst them who would not ally themselvesnbsp;to journalistic schemes of agitation originating in a desirenbsp;for newspaper profits, in superlative terms of contempt. Nonbsp;sooner was the Commission appointed than the same newspapers, with tedious and unending iteration, adjured thenbsp;tenantry to be of good courage, to come forward and benbsp;eloquent upon their grievances. But the adjuration wasnbsp;always accompanied by a significant warning that, thenbsp;Witnesses Protection Act 1892 notwithstanding, the giversnbsp;of straightforward testimony might suffer terrible things.nbsp;The fact of the matter is that the party of agitation, whonbsp;had been working in vain for years to promote discontentnbsp;and had persisted in inventing grievances in the abstract,nbsp;were nonplussed when a friendly and deluded Administrationnbsp;took them at their word and appointed a Commission which,nbsp;friendly as it was, could not be expected to report withoutnbsp;some concrete evidence upon which to base its conclusions.

And they knew, of that there is not the smallest doubt, that such evidence would be more than commonly hard tonbsp;find. The mass of their invective had been directed againstnbsp;the more considerable owners of property, and it was uponnbsp;them that they had lavished every abusive epithet and everynbsp;flowery expression that could be conceived. A sample ofnbsp;this habitual language will be found in the extracts quotednbsp;in Lord Penrhyn’s evidence {mpra).

But when the necessity for adducing substantial proof and of giving up scandalous rhetoric came to them, when theynbsp;became conscious of the fact that a Eoyal Commission couldnbsp;not reasonably be expected to accept as evidence comparisons

THE LAND QUESTION

between great landowners and unclean beasts or birds of prey, or vague and general scurrilities concerning landownersnbsp;as a body, they were placed in a position of some awkwardness. And this became the more plain to them when theynbsp;reflected that the large estates were, one and all, managed innbsp;a spirit of such generosity and toleration as no Act of thenbsp;Legislature could hope to enforce or would be likely tonbsp;attempt to impose. Among the smaller properties, albeitnbsp;some of them also were and are managed in a large-heartednbsp;and open-handed fashion, they might, perhaps, have foundnbsp;some appearance of grievance. At any rate they could havenbsp;shown that the tenants of the larger estates were, taken asnbsp;a body, in a better position than the tenants upon smallernbsp;estates. Nor is the reason far to seek. It is to be found innbsp;the simple fact that the owners of small estates, unless theynbsp;had incomes arising from other sources than land, simply couldnbsp;not afford to give away so large a proportion of their incomesnbsp;in abatements and reductions, or to make such great expenditure in repairs and improvements, as their more wealthynbsp;brethren. Moreover, the agitators had to face the fact thatnbsp;the great mass of the farming population, which had beennbsp;alleged to be in a state of seething discontent, was in factnbsp;quite tranquil, satisfied that the landowners had done whatnbsp;they could to meet the depression in agricultural prices, wellnbsp;aware that to that end great sacrifices had been made bynbsp;landowners. Lastly, if they had attacked the small land-owners, they well knew that in so doing they would run nonbsp;inconsiderable risk of offending men of their own politicalnbsp;and religious creeds.

Of direct evidence, therefore, they saw that little could be obtained. They perceived, and the sequel showed theirnbsp;judgment to be correct, that necessity would compel them tonbsp;rely largely upon the evidence of persons unfamiliar with thenbsp;incidents of agricultural life, who were strangers to thenbsp;meaning of a contract of tenancy, and unacquainted with the

m NORTH WALES.

facts embodied in the relation of landlord and tenant. A passing glance at the volumes of evidence shows that amongnbsp;the most voluble and positive of witnesses were Nonconformistnbsp;ministers of various denominations, solicitors fighting o’ernbsp;again battles which they had lost in the Law Courts (thenbsp;evidence of Mr. David Owen, solicitor, at Llangefni is typical),nbsp;tradesmen in towns and villages, journalists, printers, pro-tessional agitators, and the like. Now this was not a pleasingnbsp;prospect. There was reasonable cause to fear that the Commissioners might suggest that, as one would not ask an artistnbsp;to advise one concerning investments, or a chemist to act as anbsp;lawyer, so ministers, tradesmen, solicitors, and the like werenbsp;not the best judges of the value of land or the justice ofnbsp;conditions of tenancy. Hence came the necessity for imagining beforehand an excuse which might serve to induce thenbsp;Commissioners to accept evidence which, in the great majoritynbsp;of cases, it would be fulsome flattery to describe by thenbsp;epithet second-rate.

That this allegation was absolutely devoid of foundation in fact is, to speak plainly, perfectly well known in Wales.nbsp;Many witnesses, some of them spontaneously, others by waynbsp;of answer to leading or suggestive questions exhibited by thenbsp;Commissioners, averred that a general feeling of fear existed,nbsp;or as one witness, with no high opinion of the courage ofnbsp;humanity, said, “ That there was a kind of instinct of fear innbsp;a man.” None, until very late in the day (when the allegednbsp;cases of intimidation in South Wales were brought forwardnbsp;to be ridiculed by the Public Prosecutor), ventured to mentionnbsp;any specific cases, real or imaginary ; many, indeed, admittednbsp;that there was no cause or reason for any such fear. Othernbsp;witnesses, landowners, agents and farmers, persistentlynbsp;ridiculed the whole idea. But it was impossible not to perceive that the allegation, unflattering to the verge of insult asnbsp;it seemed to be so far as the Welsh people were concerned,nbsp;made a strong impression on many of the Commissioners.

THE LAND QUESTION

Questions leading to it were asked time after time ; the Chairman, on opening the proceedings of the Commission innbsp;a new county or district, made a practice of reading thenbsp;operative sentences of the Witnesses Protection Act, 1892,nbsp;aloud in a solemn voice, and of announcing, in a tone ofnbsp;severe resolution, the determination of the Commission to setnbsp;the law in motion whensoever occasion arose. Nay more,nbsp;individual Commissioners, many of them, went so far as tonbsp;ask numerous landowners and their agents whether theynbsp;had issued to the tenantry public invitations to tender evidence before the Commission. To have taken any such coursenbsp;would, it is submitted, have been an act on the part of thenbsp;landowning classes equally impolitic and arrogant. It wouldnbsp;have been an admission by them that the tenantry were in anbsp;state of fear; it would have been a false suggestion, becausenbsp;they were perfectly well aware that the tenantry were notnbsp;frightened at all and had no cause for fear; and, surely, itnbsp;would have been presumptuous and insulting to the lastnbsp;degree for one class of men to grant graciously and condescendingly to another class of men permission to do thatnbsp;which they had an absolute right to do of their own free will.

Be it here asserted formally and solemnly that this feeling of fear certainly did not exist, did not prevent witnesses fromnbsp;appearing before the Commission, that the assertion of it wasnbsp;simply an invention of the party of agitation and a cloak tonbsp;cover the absence of evidence. None the less, unless diversnbsp;of the Commissioners asked many questions for sheer love ofnbsp;mischievous amusement, it is certain that this alleged fearnbsp;will take a prominent place in the report of the majority ofnbsp;the Commissioners. But suppose for the moment that wenbsp;are wrong, and that men and women were deterred fromnbsp;describing their grievances. None the less the admissionnbsp;of hearsay evidence was, in a great number of cases, whollynbsp;inexcusable and not to be explained at all by the allegationnbsp;of an imaginary terror. Thus in the numerous cases where

IN NORTH WALES.

it was alleged that men or women still living had suffered hardship in a tenancy which had expired, where a landownernbsp;was accused of having resorted to what Mr. Thomas Ellis,nbsp;M.P., called, in his House of Commons speech, the ultimanbsp;ratio of eviction, it was clearly idle to say that the allegednbsp;victim was in fear of coming forward. If the story were truenbsp;nothing was left for him to dread. The landowner had donenbsp;his worst. In too many of these cases there is reason to-suspect that the witness was such a person as Lord Stanleynbsp;of Alderley had in his mind when (Q. 19,883) he said, bynbsp;way of reply to a question handed in by one of the audiencenbsp;to the Commission, “ This is not a tenant coming forward tonbsp;complain. It is some meddling outsider. What does henbsp;know about it ? ”

Still less could the alleged existence of fear, which is such a very easy thing to assert and so difficult a thing tonbsp;disprove, be used to explain the frequent admission of handmade copies of documents, of undated agreements (and thenbsp;date is very material having regard to the allegation ofnbsp;contracts out of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883), ofnbsp;verbal statements concerning the effect of written documents.nbsp;Be it observed that no person alleges that the Commissionnbsp;had not power to do all these things. But the persons whonbsp;are conscious in advance that, without due regard to thenbsp;evidence given in favour of the existing system, they will benbsp;condemned as certainly as they would have been if nonbsp;evidence had ever been taken, venture to say earnestly,nbsp;emphatically, and confidently that a very great part of the evidence on which the condemnation will be based is, on the facenbsp;of it, absolutely worthless. It is simply not in accordancenbsp;with the rules established by human experience for thenbsp;elementary testing of evidence. And they add that if, asnbsp;Mr. Commissioner Griffiths complained at Carnarvon, farmersnbsp;did not attend the meetings in any great niimbers, that factnbsp;was due not to any ignoble and irrational fear, but to lack

THE LAND QUESTION

of interest in the proceedings of the Commission which, albeit conducted occasionally with a spirited eye to thenbsp;gallery, were far from being exhilarating.

For the length at which this question of evidence has been ¦treated, no apology is offered; the importance of it is vital;nbsp;it goes to the root of the question whether the recommendations of the majority of the Commission are worthy of seriousnbsp;consideration or not. It is one thing to call a man a robbernbsp;and prove the charge to the satisfaction of reason; it is quitenbsp;another thing to base the accusation on a statement, whichnbsp;may be untrue in itself, that somebody else has said something to that effect which may, wilfully or ignorantly, benbsp;misrepresented in the repetition. It is to any conclusionsnbsp;based on this kind of evidence that the most strenuousnbsp;objection is raised.

The second point of objection raised against the Welsh Land Commission at the end of the preceding chapter wasnbsp;that it gave an immensely wide definition to the terms ofnbsp;reference, and thus wasted a great deal of public time andnbsp;money. It must be said at once that this is a publicnbsp;grievance rather than one of which Welshmen have annbsp;individual right to complain. If the Commission chose tonbsp;hear the opinions of Mr. Pritchard Morgan, M.P., on goldmining royalties, opinions which had nothing of noveltynbsp;in them, or to listen while a Druidical newspaper reporternbsp;discoursed on the precarious state of the Rockingstone, or tonbsp;encourage the reading of long essays purporting to embodynbsp;the history of mediteval or pre-mediseval Wales, no greatnbsp;harm was done. Only, we take leave to say, those subjectsnbsp;are omitted in this volume as being of no practical importance. Again, if the Commission was pleased to questionnbsp;Lord Penrhyn’s chief land agent as to his title to certainnbsp;lands, and to re-open the question between the .Duke ofnbsp;Beaufort and the Swansea Corporation as to the foreshore atnbsp;tSwansea, it mattered very little. For Lord Penrhyn’s agent

IN NORTH WALES.

firmly declined to make reply upon a matter whicli was as foreign to his duties as it was outside the scope of the Commission, and the Duke of Beaufort’s advisers were not to benbsp;drawn into arguing before a mixed Commission, containingnbsp;but one professional lawyer, a question which had beennbsp;settled once and for all by those very competent judges whonbsp;formed the Court of Exchequer fifty years ago. Nor, perhaps,nbsp;did it matter much that the Commissioners should bynbsp;question invite witnesses to describe and define the methodsnbsp;of religious instruction used at elementary schools, or thenbsp;statistics of illegitimacy in various districts. These thingsnbsp;were wanton waste of public money; that is all; and theynbsp;are mentioned here partly as illustrative of the intellectualnbsp;capacity and power of adhering to the main issues whichnbsp;characterised the body appointed to inquire into a greatnbsp;problem, and partly to reassure the general student of thenbsp;evidence. He may learn with pleasure that a good third ofnbsp;the thousands of pages is absolutely irrelevant; but enoughnbsp;remains to remind us of Macaulay’s criticism of Dr. Nares’snbsp;Burleigh of which, we shrewdly suspect, the report itself willnbsp;remind us also:

“ The title is as long as an ordinary preface; the prefatory matter would furnish out an ordinary book, and the booknbsp;contains as much reading as an ordinary library. We cannotnbsp;sum up the merits of the stupendous mass of paper which liesnbsp;before us better than by saying that it consists of about 2000nbsp;closely printed quarto pages, that it occupies 1500 inchesnbsp;cubic measure, and that it weighs 60 lbs. avoirdupois.”

CHAPTEE V.

Majority of the Gommisaion started with Prejudice in Favour of a Land Court—Assertion justified hy Selection of Questions—Treatment of Witnesses opposed to a Land Court—severe Cross-examination—Mr. Brynmor Jones, Q.G., M.P., and Colonel the Lion. W.nbsp;F. Sackville West—Lord Carrington and Captain Stewart—thenbsp;“ Coffin letter ” rejected hy Lord Carrington—the Sequel in thenbsp;Merionethshire Outrage—Lord Carrington and the Clergyman--Mr. Brynmor Jones insults some Montgomeryshire Farmers—thenbsp;Commission fails to secure Evidence from Substantial and Representative Farmers.

At the end. of the third chapter the four main complaints raised against the majority of the Welsh Land Commissionnbsp;were summarised. Two of these have been dealt with innbsp;detail in Chapter IV.; two remain for treatment.

The Commission was appointed, as the history of its appointment clearly shows, to inquire into facts rather than into opinions. Those who placed it in office apparently desirednbsp;that, as the result of investigation, a report should be laidnbsp;before Parliament, and that this report should contain a picture of “ the conditions under which land is held, occupiednbsp;and cultivated in Wales and Monmouthshire,” that is to say,nbsp;of plain facts. Prom this picture, if it were painted well andnbsp;faithfully. Parliament might, it was hoped, be able to form annbsp;opinion upon the question whether it was necessary to applynbsp;to this part of the United Kingdom legislation founded uponnbsp;the principles, similar in point of principle to (or, to speaknbsp;more accurately, in resolute disregard of economic principle),,nbsp;and differing in detail only from the Welsh Land Bills of

THE LAND QUESTION IN NOETH WALES,

Mr. Thomas Ellis, M.P., and Mr. J. Bryn Roberts, M.P., the recent Irish Land Acts, and the Crofters’ Acts. Our thirdnbsp;complaint against the majority of the members of the Welshnbsp;Land Commission is that they played undisguisedly the partnbsp;of missionaries of the gospel of a Land Court; that theynbsp;collected a number of expressions of oj^inion which werenbsp;valueless, since they were given on the spur of the momentnbsp;by persons who had given no thought to the subject, and bynbsp;persons who, were they never so honest, had not the equipmentnbsp;of education and intelligence which would give weight to theirnbsp;judgment on a problem so complex; that where witnesses expressed themselves favourable to a Land Court they were lednbsp;on by gentle and suggestive questions until they were in thenbsp;realm of matters to which they had never given a moment’snbsp;thought; that where witnesses expressed the contrary opinionnbsp;they were cross-examined with a severity which stood innbsp;marked contrast to the tone adopted towards those who, fromnbsp;the point of view of the majority of the Commissioners, prophesied smooth things.

By way of preliminary it must be observed that for the purposes of this chapter a Land Court must be understoodnbsp;to be any form of tribunal endowed by the Legislature withnbsp;the right of pronouncing, as between landowner and tenant,nbsp;compulsory judgment upon the question of rent, since allnbsp;other questions, whether of greater or less fixity of tenure, ornbsp;of compensation for improvements, or like matters, standnbsp;quite apart from this question. Much curiosity was shownnbsp;as to the precise meaning of the phrase “Land Court” atnbsp;various times. On this point it may be observed that thenbsp;phrase may never mean anything in Wales, and that if itnbsp;ever possesses a meaning it will be defined by the Legislature.nbsp;But it is quite clear that from the questions of various Commissioners that when they spoke of a Land Court they had innbsp;view, and the witnesses also had in view, some body whichnbsp;should possess the power to remove the question of rent from

THE LAND QUESTION

the domain of contract, and to fix the rent of this or that holding by external authority.

Of the merits or demerits of such an institution it is not necessary to speak at this point. Our complaint, after exhaustive analysis of the evidence and of the questions put bynbsp;various Commissioners, is that a majority of the Commissioners made it plain from the beginning that they were ofnbsp;¦opinion that such an institution would be for the benefit ofnbsp;the agricultural community.

To recapitulate the whole, or even a substantial fraction, of the suggestive and argumentative questions which soonnbsp;produced this impression on the minds of persons who followed the proceedings of the Commission would be a processnbsp;for which a long volume of close print would be necessary;nbsp;and at the best a selection of extracts in cold print couldnbsp;hardly give an idea of the vast difference of tone betweennbsp;questions addressed to witnesses favourable to a Land Courtnbsp;and those who ventured to express the contrary opinion.nbsp;We must rather ask the reader to have recourse to thenbsp;¦evidence itself in order to form his own judgment as to thenbsp;general tone of questions. Still it is desirable to give, evennbsp;in the course of this brief text, a few instances to justify thenbsp;statement that a majority of the Commissioners started uponnbsp;their investigation with a preconceived idea that a Land Courtnbsp;was to be recommended. The Commissioners included in thisnbsp;assertion are the Chairman (Lord Carrington), Mr. Brynmornbsp;Jones, Mr. Grove, Mr. Eichard Jones, and Mr. Griffiths.nbsp;Principal Ehys appeared for the most part to be hoveringnbsp;between two opinions; that is to say, he asked a greatnbsp;number of questions which seemed to tend towards thenbsp;establishment of a Land Court, but at Llangefni he protestednbsp;that his ideas on the Land Court question were “ hazy,” asnbsp;frankly as, at another sitting, he confessed his inability tonbsp;understand the laws of political economy. For the advocatesnbsp;•of a Land Court, whether they were competent to speak on

IN NOETH WALES.

the subject or not, things were made very easy. They had but to whisper the words “Land Court”*to induce membersnbsp;of the Commission virtually to give evidence and expressnbsp;opinions for them. The witness assented and no more. Thenbsp;opinions, a Commissioner’s opinions really, and not emanatingnbsp;from the brain of a witness, were duly recorded in thenbsp;minutes. Here is a case in point in which the witness wasnbsp;under examination by Lord Carrington. Inasmuch as itnbsp;came very early in the proceedings it may well be quoted,nbsp;for, although it was a South Wales case, the Chairmannbsp;carried with him into South Wales the same brain and thenbsp;same ideas which were with him in the North. The witness,nbsp;Captain Batcock, was a retired master mariner who hadnbsp;taken to farming ; in opinions he was what some personsnbsp;call an ardent Reformer, or what others call a rampantnbsp;Radical. It will bo observed that four words from the witness and about a hundred and eighty words from Lord Carrington go to make the evidence which was put into thisnbsp;witness’s mouth rather than extracted from him. Here isnbsp;the conversation, which is particularly noteworthy for thenbsp;fact that his lordship did not suggest to the witness any ofnbsp;the disadvantages of a Land Court from a tenant’s point ofnbsp;view, but simply asked him to assent to a rose-colourednbsp;dream.

“ 3764.....You told us you wished for a Land Court.

Now is it for this reason ? Would you like to see a Land Court established that you could refer to, if you thoughtnbsp;your rent was higher than it ought to be, and the landlordnbsp;thought it was a fair rent ? Is that what you mean ?

“ Witness:—Yes.

“3765. A sort of Court that you could refer to of practical men -who would decide, and whose decision would be final and legal, as to what rent you were to pay ?

“ Witness:—Yes.

THE LAND QUESTION

“3766. As for fixity of tenure, I suppose you mean that so long as you paict that rent and farmed in a husbandlikenbsp;manner, you should be secured in your holding, and able tonbsp;live on that holding so long as you carried on the conditions imposed you by that Court. Is that the sort of thing ?

“ Witness :—Yes.

“ 3767. And besides that you would wish the Court to adjudicate on any losses from game or losses from timberfelling that you might be subjected to and that the landlordnbsp;might decline to pay. You would refer those sort of questions to the Land Court as well ?

“ Witness;—Yes, my lord.

Of all the advocates of the Establishment of a Land Court. Mr. Commissioner Eichard Jones was the most frank and,nbsp;may we add, the most indiscreet. Here are some samplesnbsp;of questions addressed by him to witnesses in North Walesnbsp;from whom he expected pleasant answers.

“ Then you consider that a tenant is at the mercy of his landlord ? ”

“ Then because of that you ask for some important Tribunal to decide the question of rent as between landlordnbsp;and tenant ?”

“ Therefore in this case you are not able to contract with your landlord on equal terms ? ”

The questions which follow, addressed to Mr. T. E. Ellis, illustrate a delusion, common to Mr. Eichard Jones and Mr.nbsp;drove, that the objection to a Land Court would disappearnbsp;from men’s minds if, before appealing to the Court, landlordnbsp;and tenant were able to agree. For our part we are unablenbsp;to conceive any Court of which the jurisdiction would not benbsp;ousted by prior agreement between the proposed suitors andnbsp;the questions appear to be of a somewhat puerile character.nbsp;However, let the questions speak for themselves.

IN NORTH WALES.

“ 16,978. In respect of a Land Court, Mr. Ellis, would you suggest that a Land Court should come in between the landlord and tenant in the first instance, or should it be simply anbsp;Court of appeal for either party to go to in case of failure tonbsp;come to agreement ? ”

“ 16,979. I suppose you would suggest that the Court should not only decide questions of rent but questions ofnbsp;repairs ? The question has been repeatedly put by the representatives of the landlords to witnesses, ‘ In case a Landnbsp;Court was established, do you think the landlords wouldnbsp;ever spend anything on repairs ? ’ ”

“ 16,980. Again, under a Land Court would there be or should there be a statutory condition with respect to croppingnbsp;—that there should be more freedom of cropping ? ”

Such are samples of the persuasive manner in which witnesses favourable to the principle of a Land Court werenbsp;treated. They might easily be multiplied a hundred-fold fromnbsp;the lips of Mr. Brynmor Jones, Mr. Griffiths, and Mr. Grove.

In marked contrast hear the tone adopted towards witnesses who presumed to take the contrary views. Here are a few examples. Mr. D. Williams, an Anglesey farmer spokenbsp;thus:

“ 20,807. Should I be asked questions respecting a Land Court, whether I am for it, my reply is in the negative, as Inbsp;am firmly of opinion that it would create a wide gulf betweennbsp;landlord and tenant. If there should be a Court at all, itsnbsp;function should be to put a stop to this unreasonable grabbing for land. The majority of the landlords in my opinionnbsp;will always be ready to meet their tenants ; they are not thenbsp;class of people land-agitators wish to make them appear innbsp;the sight of the country. The tenants of every estate shouldnbsp;be loyal to each other, and unite together to put theirnbsp;grievances before their landlord. The result of this in my

THE LAND QUESTION

opinion will be far better for the welfare of the tenants than a Land Court.”

Upon this the wrath of Mr. Commissioner Eichard Jones was kindled so fiercely that he promptly proceeded to breaknbsp;the rule of the Commission prohibiting inquiry as to thenbsp;sources of evidence, of which rule it may be said that, strangenbsp;as it was, it ought to have been applied to all witnesses if itnbsp;was applied to any. Here are his questions and the answers.

“ 20,808. Are you giving evidence on your own account, or do you represent other people ?—On my own account. Inbsp;would not come on any other account, only myself.

“ 20,809. You have not been asked by any one ?—I am on my own account; of course I am in co. with the tenants,

“ 20,810. But you are not representing them in any sense. You have not been sent by the tenants ?—The tenants wishnbsp;me to speak on the agreement.

“20,811. Did you have a meeting of the tenants, and were yon sent as a deputation, so to speak, to appear before thenbsp;Commission ?—I was with the tenants.

“20,812. You had a meeting?—Yes, we had a meeting together.

“ 20,813. And you were appointed?—I was appointed.

“ 20,814. To give evidence ?—Yes.

“ 20,815. I do not know whether it is too much to ask you who composed your evidence ?—You do not think I havenbsp;been able to do it myself, I suppose. We were together.

“20,816. Who were together ?—I do not see that I can answer that—as tenants.”

Again, when Lord Penrhyn was giving evidence, Mr. Commissioner Griffiths argued in an interrogatory form innbsp;favour of a Land Court and made statements as to the effectnbsp;of the evidence on which comment is made in parentheses.

IN NORTH WALES.

“ 23,002. The evidence we have had before us from the labourers and farmers was that the present rents could not benbsp;maintained.” (This was incorrect, for there was evidencenbsp;both ways.)

“ 23,003. Then would it not be fair for the tenants and labourers as well as the landlords to have some Court tonbsp;settle those questions, some Court of Appeal ?

“ 23,004. Some Tribunal of Appeal, or Land Court or anything else ? ”

“ 23,005. They all urge that there should be some tribunal to appeal to.” (This again was utterly incorrect. Thenbsp;labourers had nothing to say in the matter, and among thenbsp;farmers who came forward, albeit it was but natural thatnbsp;those who were discontented should come forward in thenbsp;larger numbers, there was great difference of opinion on thenbsp;matter.)

But the farmers who opposed the views of the majority of the Commission met often such treatment as was not likely tonbsp;encourage others to follow in their footsteps, and in describing their fate it is inevitable that we should cross the linenbsp;which divides the allegation that the majority of the Commissioners started with a prejudice in favour of a Land Court,nbsp;from the allegation that they also showed prejudice againstnbsp;landowners and all witnesses favourable to the existing law.nbsp;The two topics should, therefore, be dealt with coincidently.

Mr. W. Humphreys of Aberkin, a tenant farmer (Q. 10,486 et seq.'), was such a witness. He alleged that some of thenbsp;tenantry were afraid of giving such evidence as might displeasenbsp;the preachers and, inter alia, that the establishment of anbsp;Land Court would destroy all good feeling between landownersnbsp;and tenants. Let us see how he was treated. First Mr.nbsp;Brynmor Jones (10,562) suggested, thereby breaking one ofnbsp;the few rules of practice known to the Commission, thatnbsp;Mr. Humphreys had been in collusion with Mr. George Owen,

G

THE LAND QUESTION

the late secretary of what Mr. Jones was pleased to describe as the “ so-called Property Defence Association.” Thatnbsp;insinuation having been disposed of, Mr. Brynmor Jonesnbsp;observed, “ it seemed to me that most of your evidencenbsp;consisted of conclusions and opinions.” Then (10,602) Mr.nbsp;Brynmor Jones proceeded to draw a vivid picture of thenbsp;powers of a landlord by comparison with those of a dissenting minister; although he knows, none better, how strong isnbsp;the influence of these persons. Then Air. Brynmor Jonesnbsp;harried him on the Land Court question. Next Mr. Eichardnbsp;Jones reminded him that he “depended on the liberality ofnbsp;the landlord,” asked him what the efEect of this was on himnbsp;and other farmers, “ so far as their independence was concerned,” suggested that he felt the necessity of “ conformingnbsp;to the whims of his landlord and not provoking his angernbsp;for fear of getting turned out,” and observed, “ I must saynbsp;I cannot understand your process of reasoning.” Afternbsp;him Mr. Griffiths proceeded to preach the gospel of a Landnbsp;Court thus:

“ 10,713. Take the case of a tenant and a landlord failing to agree about the rent They may be on the very bestnbsp;of terms (I have a case in my mind just now), on the samenbsp;side of politics and everything else, but the landlord thinksnbsp;the farm is let reasonably, and the tenant thinks the farm isnbsp;let at too high a rent. How would you suggest to settle thatnbsp;question ?—I think the tenant ought to take care, when henbsp;is taking the farm, not to promise too much rent for it.

“ 10,714. Then the tenant must go and leave the farm, if he thinks the landlord is asking too much for it ?—I thinknbsp;if he makes a bad bargain he ought to be responsible for it,nbsp;as he is for anything else.”

Now at that time the reputation of Mr. Humphreys of Aberkin, as a farmer, stood high, though in facing Mr.

IN NORTH WALES.

Brynmor Jones and Mr. Richard Jones, both of them strong Radicals, he stood at a disadvantage. He was anbsp;Conservative, and a forthcoming candidate for Parliament;nbsp;but it is at least conceivable that a Parliamentary candidatenbsp;should give truthful evidence and, as a voluntary witnessnbsp;before a Royal Commission, even a Conservative is entitlednbsp;to be spared the insult of offensive cross-examination.

This word “ offensive ” may be deemed strong, but it may be written without hesitation that the term represents precisely the feeling of the Welsh landowners generally towardsnbsp;Mr. Brynmor Jones. Nor can he say “ Oderint dum metuant,”nbsp;for in truth they have no cause to fear him. His method ofnbsp;cross-examination has indeed been described by the Baner,nbsp;Mr. Gee’s famous anti-landlord and anti-church paper, asnbsp;“ cutting laces out of the skins of landlords; ” but fromnbsp;the practical point of view it was a complete failure. Henbsp;irritated men beyond endurance, but he got nothing out ofnbsp;them; at Llanrwst, indeed, his cross-examination of Colonelnbsp;the Hon. W. B. Sackville West was so intolerable that itnbsp;became necessary to send up to the Commission an intimation that, unless Mr. Jones curbed himself, no further evidencenbsp;would be offered by landowners or their agents. But tonbsp;attempt to obtain information by exasperating questions isnbsp;always, and in this case the rule had no exception, inartisticnbsp;and ineffectual, and to speak plainly Mr. Brynmor Jonesnbsp;did not extort from indignant witnesses an amount of information nearly proportionate to the hearty dislike towardsnbsp;him which he roused in the minds of many hundreds ofnbsp;persons.

For a thoroughly instructive illustration of the method applied by the majority of the Commission to a witness ofnbsp;whom they did not approve, we may refer the reader to thenbsp;case of Captain Niel Patrick Stewart, Mr. Assheton Smith’snbsp;agent. The case is so full of information as to the difficultiesnbsp;with which landowners had to deal in facing the Commission

THE LAND QUESTION

as to be worth quotation at length. Captain Stewart was engaged in rebutting the evidence of one Thomas Williams,nbsp;of Parcia B,hos. The original allegations of Thomas Williamsnbsp;may be gathered from the dialogue, which shows in a verynbsp;striking way not only the harshness with which Captainnbsp;Stewart was treated while he met an accusation of somenbsp;seriousness, but also, apart from the mere allegation of personal grievance, the extremely loose fashion in which thenbsp;original witness was allowed to give evidence, which turnednbsp;out to be inaccurate, upon matters of which he was not innbsp;the least likely to have any knowledge.

“ Chairman.

“ 13,550. Now we will take the rebutting evidence¹ you wish to give. What portion of Thomas Williams’s evidencenbsp;do you wish to rebut ?—Every figure he has given is entirelynbsp;wrong, and entirely misleading.

“13,551. Where shall we begin?—At the beginning. He told you for one thing that he did not know why he was sentnbsp;out of his farm. As he declined to tell you, I had better donbsp;so. He was sent away because he was a most inveteratenbsp;poacher. He poached over and over again, and Mr. Asshetonnbsp;Smith forgave him over and over again, and the third time henbsp;forgave him Thomas Williams gave a most solemn declarationnbsp;he would not poach again. However, he did poach again, andnbsp;it was then we turned him out.

“ 13,552. The poaching case was after sunset, when he was taken up for catching a rabbit on the railway line ?—That wasnbsp;not this case at all. I do not think the case he was convictednbsp;for was on the railway line.

“ 13,553. That is what he told us. That he took a rabbit on the railway line, and two keepers jumped over the wall and

1

As a matter of fact the real rebutting evidence, which is given later, came from the mouth of Mr. I. B. Allanson, solicitor.

collared him ?—I forget the details; but I have the date of the conviction here.

“ 13,554. He took a rabbit on the limits of his own farm, he said, and two keepers jumped over the wall and took him intonbsp;custody ?—I cannot say anything with regard to the detailsnbsp;of the case, but he was convicted.

“ 13,555. But why did the keepers take him into custody ? —The case came before the magistrates at the time, and henbsp;was convicted.

“ Chairman.

“ 13,556. You do not rebut that ?—Do you mean about being on the railway ?

“ 13,557. You do not rebut that he on his own farm, on the railroad, took a rabbit out of the trap, and that two keepersnbsp;came over the wall, and took him into custody for that ?—Thenbsp;man was convicted before the magistrates, and I cannot saynbsp;more than that.

“ 13,558. We want to know what the case is. Do you rebut that part of his evidence ?—I should like to get a copy ofnbsp;the evidence before the magistrates’ clerk. I can give thenbsp;date of the conviction.

“ 13,559. Just notice the point and see if his statement is untrue. What he said was that he simply took the rabbitnbsp;from the trap within the limits of his own farm. The pointnbsp;we are making is this, that the action of the gamekeepers innbsp;seizing his person seems rather violent ?—I hardly see hownbsp;you can pass an opinion on the case without hearing thenbsp;evidence.

“ 13,560. What evidence ?—The evidence given by the keepers.

THE LAND QUESTION

“ 13,561. The question is, do you contradict the evidence given by him to us ?—I say the trap was first of all Mr.nbsp;Assheton Smith’s trap, and therefore he first of all stole thenbsp;trap to catch the rabbit.

“ 13,562. Was he seized ?—Yes.

“ 13,563. For what ?—Poaching. Surely they had a right to do that. It was not the first, second, or third time; henbsp;was found to be constantly poaching.

“ Chairman.

“ 13,564. Is it or is it not the fact? You seem to know that he was taken up by Mr. Assheton Smith’s keepers fornbsp;taking a rabbit out of a trap ?—It depends upon where thenbsp;trap was.

“ 13,565. I do not want you to answer if you do not know. You told me it was Mr. Assheton Smith’s trap, therefore younbsp;seem to know something about it. Was he, or not, taken upnbsp;by Mr. Assheton Smith’s keepers for taking a rabbit out ofnbsp;a trap on his own farm ?—He was taken up for poaching,nbsp;and convicted for it.

“ 13,566. You do not wish to say anything about Mr. Assheton Smith’s trap ?—No, I do not.

“13,567. You simply say he was taken up for poaching?— Yes, for repeated acts of poaching. When the Novembernbsp;term was out, and the time had expired, he refused to turnnbsp;out. There was a good deal of disagreeableness then, andnbsp;he pleaded very hard to be forgiven, and even then he wasnbsp;forgiven. He was forgiven, I ought to say, on his signing anbsp;letter of apology which was written out by me, and has beennbsp;put in evidence. He pleaded very hard to be allowed to gonbsp;on for another year, because the price of cattle was very lownbsp;at the time.

“ 13,568. What does your evidence rebut ?—I will rebut a lot of his figures now with regard to Parcia Rhos, that is his

IN NORTH WALES,

own farm. He says the rent was £36. That is wrong, the rent was £45 12s.

“ 13,569. Was the farm ever in his occupation at £36 ?—It might have been £36 one hundred years ago. I do not know.nbsp;This is a property we purchased in 1867.

“ 13,570. When was the rent raised to £44 15s. ?—It must have been before Mr. Assheton Smith purchased thenbsp;estate.

“13,571. When was that?—In 1867. Thomas Williams stated that the rent was £36 at first.

“ 13,572. But afterwards the rent was raised to £44 15s., and it was £45 in what year ?—When Mr. Assheton Smithnbsp;purchased the property in 1867 the rent was £45 12s.

“ 13,573. He says £44 15s.; there is not much difference about it. Then he goes on to deal with Vaynol; when thenbsp;estate was valued the rent was raised to £49 10s., he says;nbsp;do you rebut that ?—No.

“ 13,574. He says, ‘ Owing to the labour and perseverance of my parents and the children who were obliged to work fornbsp;their food and clothing until they reached the time for turning out in the world or getting married. I was bred andnbsp;born on the spot (and lived there) until the end of the yearnbsp;1887.’ You do not rebut that ?—We allowed him to go on.

“ 13,575. ‘I was turned out without a halfpenny of compensation.’ Do you rebut that ?—Yes.

“ 13,576. How much was he compensated?—He was compensated for game damages several times.

“ 13,577. Was he compensated when he was turned out?— Not for improvements.

“ 13,578. You do not rebut that ?—No, I say he was not entitled to improvements.

“ 13,579. He does not say he was. He says he was turned out without a halfpenny of compensation for any of the improvements made on the place?—I should like just to saynbsp;that he was not entitled to any compensation.

THE LAND QUESTION

“ Mr. Brynmor Jones. “13,580. He sent in Ms claim ?—Yes.

“ Chairman.

“ 13,581. He says he was turned out without a halfpenny for all the improvements he had made on the place. Younbsp;gave him no compensation ?—Ho, because he was not entitlednbsp;to any.

“ 13,582. He sent in an account for walls and drains ?—Yes, he did send it in.

“ 13,583. And he has not had anything to this day—that is right ?—Yes.

“ 13,584. He says, ‘ And in all probability I shall never get it ’ ?—No, I do not think he is likely to get it.

“ 13,585. ‘ As the agent has declined to answer my last two letters ’—do you deny that ?—Yes.

“ 13,586. You did reply V—Yes, I believe he never wrote me a letter which I did not answer.

“ 13,587. ‘ Also I was packed out of the estate office when I was there on business, and I can name or indicate thenbsp;person who turned me out, and he told me very kindly thatnbsp;the landlord would not see me at all, though he was at thenbsp;office at the time. I was obliged to sell my stock when thenbsp;price of stock was low, and I think that I lost about £150 bynbsp;that means ’ ?—I do not know what he lost.

“ 13,588. ‘ Compared with what I should have if I had been allowed to remain a year or two longer there ’ ?—I know henbsp;expressed his gratitude for being allowed to remain an additional year, and this is a letter he sent to Mr. Assheton Smithnbsp;on the subject, dated 20th December 1886. He was turnednbsp;out in 1887:

IN NORTH WALES.

‘Paecia Rhos, LLANDDBIKIOLBNj

‘ December 2Qth, 1886.

‘ Dear Sir,

‘ I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 17th instant.

‘ I beg to state that I am greatly obliged to Mr. Assheton Smith for his kindness and good wishes in this matter, andnbsp;to let me stay on for another year.

‘ I remain,

‘ Yours respectfully,

‘ Thos. Williams.’

“ 13,589. You let him stay on to that time ?—Yes. I ought to state further that his sisters had the offer of remaining innbsp;the farm after their brother had gone.

“ 13,590. Will you just remind us of that when we come to that. Then: ‘ I have often been acting as beater in thenbsp;shooting. I never received a penny of pay for that.’ I donbsp;not think we need go into that ?—Tenants are never employednbsp;as beaters, but sometimes for the love of sport they go out innbsp;the company of Mr. Assheton Smith, but they are nevernbsp;employed.

“ Professor Rhys.

“ 13,591. Would not a poacher be able to beat ?—He might if he was honest enough.

“ Chairman.

“ 13,592. Do you deny that he ever did beat ?—Oh, no ; he may have been out beating.

“ 13,593. Then there is nothing to deny. ‘ I was turned out of the place at the end of the year 1887.’ Do you deny that ?nbsp;—He was turned out certainly.

“ 13,594. And ‘ they declined to give me a reason, though I asked the agent.’

THE LAKH QUESTION

“ 13,595. You give the reason now ?¦—I give the reason now.

“13,596. But did you tell him that he was a poacher at the time ?—Yes, frequently. It was not one or two actsnbsp;at all.

“ 13,597. Then you gave him as a reason why you turned him out that he was a poacher ?—Yes.

“ 13,598. You say that?—Yes.

“ 13,599. ‘ The only thing he told me was that the landlord wanted the place. A new tenant went into the farm.’ Isnbsp;there anything, else?—He goes into figures with regard tonbsp;some other farms; take the Fachwen Farm.

“ 13,600. ‘ It consisted of one farm many years ago at a rent of £60.’ Is that right ?—No ; it is quite wrong.

“ 13,601. What is it ?—Instead of being £60, the rent when we purchased the property was £188.

“ 13,602. He says many years ago ?—If he means a thousand years ago, of course I cannot say.

“ 13,603. No, he says ‘ which consisted of one farm many years ago at a rent of £60.’ Have you any reason to doubtnbsp;that?—I think so, because in 1840 the rent was £188. Itnbsp;must have been a great many centuries ago, of which Thomasnbsp;Williams could know nothing, that the rent was £60.

“ 13,604. I suppose that is all hearsay. ‘ The place has been divided into small holdings for the quarrymen to build, andnbsp;they have small holdings on lease of 30 years.’ Is that right ?nbsp;—No, they have no lease, my lord.

“ 13,605. Small holdings on no lease you say. ‘ It is said that they pay from 5s. up to £3, according to the size of thenbsp;holding ? ’—No, I do not know any so low as 5s.

“13,606. A few shillings up to £3. Is that about right ?— Up to £5, some of them are.

“13,607. ‘But by this time it is supposed that the place pays about £400.’ Is that right?—No, that is wrong. Thenbsp;rent now received is £362 3s. Qd.

m NORTH WALES.

“ 13,608. Well, you say it is £362 3s. 6d. ?—When a man goes into figures, I like him to be accurate, my lord.

“ 13,609. Of course he had not got the book ?—But I would like to explain this, that Mr. Assheton Smith, after he purchased the property, expended money on it; he expendednbsp;£1573 5s. 8d., whereas Mr. Williams said the tenants did all.nbsp;He paid for the property £13,500.

“ 13,610. Never mind that. All I want is the rebutting evidence. I do not want to go into that. He says that thenbsp;place pays about £400 and you say it paid about £362 ?—nbsp;£362, and the rent at the time we bought it, instead of beingnbsp;£60, was £188.

“ 13,611. ‘ I know of other places where the rent has been doubled within the last three years.’ Is there anything elsenbsp;to rebut ?—I think there were some other farms.

“ 13,612. I hope I am not making any mistake, but I want you to have an opportunity of rebutting anything he says,nbsp;not as to statements of Mr. Assheton Smith himself, we hadnbsp;that in your evidence-in-chief. He says, ‘A great part ofnbsp;the estate of Vaynol is devastated by game.’ Is that true ?nbsp;—No, it is very untrue.

“ 13,613. Then ‘ farmers must have fixity of tenure.’ I suppose you would rebut that ? Also they should have arbitration or Land Court, compensation for improvements, andnbsp;the abolition of the Game Laws ?—Our agreements providenbsp;compensation. It is amply provided for.

“ 13,614. I do not think there is very much more in his evidence. May I ask you, is there anything else you want tonbsp;rebut ? There are some questions put in; the first is by Mr.nbsp;Williams: ‘When did Mr. Assheton Smith become proprietor of Parcia Rhos—before 1860?’—In 1867 he becamenbsp;proprietor.

“13,615. Mr. Vincent asks: ‘When Parcia Rhos became vacant, were threatening letters written ? ’—There were.

“ 13,616. What were they about—threatening letters who

THE LAND QUESTION

to ?—They were threatening the incoming tenant, my lord. This is one of them. I should like it read [handing letternbsp;iri]. That is a copy of it.

“ 13,617. Do you really wish this read?—I think so, my lord.

“ 13,618. ‘ William Owen, do not covet thy neighbour’s house. It is a fearful state of things that such as this mustnbsp;be sent to a leader in the church of God. What a face younbsp;have, you devil!! to advise others’ Who was this writtennbsp;to ? It is an anonymous letter with a cofin at the end. Inbsp;really should not like to read it ? *—It was written to thenbsp;incoming tenant, my lord.

“ 13,619. We will take it that the incoming tenant got an anonymous letter calling him a devil; the letter was notnbsp;signed, and there was a colEn at the base of it ?—He wasnbsp;intimidated, my lord, to such an extent that he declined tonbsp;go to the farm, and I think that fact ought to be known.nbsp;He was intimidated to such an extent that he was afraid tonbsp;take the farm, and he never did go there.

“ 13,620. He was intimidated to such an extent by this letter that he declined to take the farm. Mr. Vincent wantsnbsp;to know, ‘ Will you give the date of the conviction ’—I takenbsp;it that is the rabbit controversy?—On the 26th of March,nbsp;1887.

“ 13,621. Then Mr. J. E. Hughes asks: ‘ Were leases granted on small holdings previous to Captain Stewart’snbsp;time, and have any of these leases fallen in during hisnbsp;term ? ’—No.

“13,622. They were not granted before you came?—No, my lord. I am not aware of any leases being granted.

“ 13,623. There were no leases which have fallen in ?—No. Some leases in towns have fallen in.

* It was, no doubt, very wise in Lord Carrington’s estimation to make nothing of this threatening letter ; but it happens that, in 1896, a similarnbsp;threatening letter was followed in Merionethshire by an act of arsonnbsp;involving the loss of a homestead and a number of animals.

i

II I

IN NORTH WALES.

“ 13,624. But not in the estate ?—No, my lord.” *

Again the Rev. J. W. Wynne Jones appeared at Rhyl to rebut a charge and produced a copy instead of an originalnbsp;document. He expressed himself willing to swear that it wasnbsp;a true copy, whereupon the Chairman exclaimed, “We arenbsp;not empowered to take evidence on oath, even from a clergyman.” The tone in which the words were spoken raised anbsp;titter of laughter from the vulgar part of the audience. Butnbsp;Lord Carrington, on hearing the retort, “There is such anbsp;thing as talking to the gallery on these occasions,” probablynbsp;felt that he had met his match.

But it was in the wilds of Montgomeryshire that the most scandalous scene in the annals of the Commission and thenbsp;proceeding which excited the most profound indignation tooknbsp;place. Nine substantial farmers on Sir Watkin Wynn’s andnbsp;the Dowager Lady Wynn’s estates gave evidence together atnbsp;Llanfyllin. They agreed in stating that their relations withnbsp;the landowners were pleasant and in objecting to a Landnbsp;Court, and in contentment with their position. Even innbsp;examination-in-chief they did not escape leading questionsnbsp;from the Chairman, such as, “ Do you hear any general conversation that the rents in this neighbourhood are too high ornbsp;not ? ” which particular question drew the answer, “ Some wouldnbsp;complain if they had the whole of it for nothing.” But all

* The real rebutting evidence to the charge of Thos. Williams was given by Mr. Allanson at Ehyl, Q. 65,378 et seq. It amounts to this. Williamsnbsp;and his sisters were joint tenants of the farm. Williams was a persistentnbsp;poacher ; had repeatedly promised to amend, and repeatedly offended.nbsp;Notice to quit was served Nov. 1885. In Nov. 1886 Williams did not quit.nbsp;By arrangement with his agent he was allowed to remain, on signing thenbsp;letter of apology already quoted, for a year as a tenant at will, amp;c.nbsp;Mr. Allanson then produced a certificate of conviction under the Groundnbsp;Game Act, dated 26 March, 1887—s.e., long after all the promises, andnbsp;called attention to the fact that the trap was Mr. Assheton Smith’s property. He stated also that the man was not seized by the keepers, andnbsp;that there was no railway anywhere near. It is amusing to observe that,nbsp;whereas the man’s story before the Commission was that he had beennbsp;arrested by the keepers trap in hand, Mr. Allanson was able to inform thenbsp;Commissioners that his defence at the trial was, save the mark, an alibi.

THE LAND QUESTION

landowners had by that time forced themselves into accepting with philosophy the Commission’s practice of pumping outnbsp;of reluctant witnesses evidence and ideas which originatednbsp;in the brain of the interrogating Commissioner. But whatnbsp;followed was unprecedented. These men, of good repute andnbsp;credit in their district, stood surrounded by a great crowd ofnbsp;their fellow farmers. To them Mr. Brynmor Jones exhibitednbsp;the following questions and the italics of the official minutesnbsp;give a very clear idea of the dramatic character of the scene.

“ 67,632a. I did not quite gather what the answer was to a somewhat searching question put to you by Mr. Griffiths,nbsp;which of course none of you could answer fully; but are wenbsp;to take it that none of you have had to borrow money ofnbsp;recent years to pay the rent ? I do not take it individually,nbsp;but are we to take it from you all that none of you have hadnbsp;to borrow money to pay the rent within the last few years ?—nbsp;(Mr. Edward Jones.) I admit that I have.

“ 67,633. Now let me put to you another question. I will not put it to any one of you individually, but I will put itnbsp;collectively to you, gentlemen. Can any one of you say thatnbsp;you saved £50 on your farming in the year 1893 or 1894 ? Ifnbsp;any one can, let him hold his hand up. (No response.) Notnbsp;one of you lifts up his hand. Now I will put the samenbsp;question, substituting £25 for £50. (No response) ?—(Mr.nbsp;Edward Jones.) It is a very difficult question.”

Mr. Edward Jones probably intended to convey the fact which all must recognise, that he with others was unwillingnbsp;to make public the precise circumstances in which he stood.

One of the audience supplemented Mr. Edward Jones by calling out in a clear voice, “It is a very unfair question.”nbsp;The interrupter was turned out of the room, of course, andnbsp;the Chairman, forgetting previous events such as the cross-ex9,mination of Captain Stewart and of Colonel Sackville

IN NORTH WALES.

West, expatiated upon the desire of the Commission to show all possible courtesy to all persons. But the mass of gentlemen in the Court-room were certainly of one opinion with thenbsp;interrupter, who did but express the general view that thisnbsp;was an improper, unfeeling, and inquisitorial question; nor,nbsp;we take it, will the public judgment be inclined to supportnbsp;Mr. Brynmor Jones.

It needs hardly to be said that questions of this character, questions which would be perfectly justifiable if addressed tonbsp;a witness who came forward in a police-court to prove annbsp;alihi in the case of a notorious evildoer, produced the effect,nbsp;which probably was not intended, of deterring a very largenbsp;number of witnesses from coming forward. For this statement the reader must be asked to accept the word of thosenbsp;who had the conduct of the case from the landowners’ pointnbsp;of view ; it can only be added that it is a solemn statement ofnbsp;absolute fact. Nor is this a light matter. The Commission’snbsp;report might be of some value if it were founded in the mainnbsp;upon the evidence of practical men familiar with the conditions of agricultural life in Wales. It is not so founded,nbsp;partly by reason of the indifference with which it was regarded by a large section of the farmers and partly by reasonnbsp;of the reluctance of men to submit themselves voluntarily tonbsp;vulgar and impertinent cross-examination by a professionalnbsp;lawyer subject to no superior authority.

CHAPTER VI.

Report of the Majority of the Commission, predicted—will recommend something equivalent to a Land Court—North Wales Landownersnbsp;state their Position—Definition of Essentials of a Land Court—thenbsp;Irish Land Courts—Report of the Committee on the Irish Act ofnbsp;1881—the Duke of Argyll's Exposure of the Act—Mr. Gladstone’snbsp;“ Original Righteousness ” and subsequent Collapse—Theories ofnbsp;“Fair Rent” examined—Effects of Judicial Rent must be destructionnbsp;of Friendly Feeling, to turn Landowner into mere Rent-charger, tonbsp;check Improvement by Mutual Agreement, the Establishment ofnbsp;Saleable Tenant-right, the Giving of part of Owner’s Property to thenbsp;sitting Tenant—the Evils of Free Sale—Irish examples—condemned by Mr. Thomas Ellis, M.P., and Mr. Bryn Roberts, M.P.—nbsp;Further Effects of a Land Court are Reduction in Selling Price ofnbsp;La-nd—Impossibility of State Advances to Peasant Proprietors whonbsp;are encumbered—Compensation alone necessary.

The foregoing chapters have established the proposition, never doubted for a moment by those who followed thenbsp;Commission in its movements through the Principality, thatnbsp;the majority of the Royal Commissioners started upon theirnbsp;wanderings with a preconceived idea that it would be theirnbsp;duty to recommend the establishment of some institution innbsp;the nature of a Land Court. In this statement no imputation upon the Commissioners is involved. Men differ fromnbsp;one another in the point of view from which they approachnbsp;the consideration of important questions. One class of mindnbsp;is apt to believe that every change is for the better, and that,nbsp;because a revolution in the relations of landowner and tenantnbsp;has been introduced in Ireland and in parts of Scotland, it isnbsp;in accordance with the natural fitness of things that the like

THE LAND QUESTION IN NORTH WALES.

revolution should be introduced into the same relations in other parts of the country. Another class of intelligence,nbsp;which we venture to call the more rational and scientific ofnbsp;the two, prefers to judge past legislation by its results, sonbsp;far as they may be visible and capable of ascertainment, andnbsp;does not hesitate to apply to such legislation criticism basednbsp;upon the lessons of political experience and upon the principles ¦nbsp;of common honesty.

The vital portion of the report of the majority of the-Commission will, it is morally certain, be to the following effect : “We find in Wales and Monmouthshire that thenbsp;appetite known as land-hunger exists, that is to say, that,,nbsp;when a farm is vacant, men will enter into excessive andnbsp;infatuated competition for the tenancy and will offer rents ‘nbsp;far in excess of what is reasonable. We think, therefore,nbsp;that it is for the public benefit that some machinery shouldnbsp;be established which should prevent rents from being pushednbsp;by competition to so high a figure that it would be simplynbsp;impossible for tenant-farmers to make a livdng.” They willnbsp;say, also, albeit probably in language far more diffuse andnbsp;circuitous than is used here, that in the inception of thenbsp;contract of tenancy the two contracting parties do not standnbsp;upon an equal footing, since the landowner has the monopolynbsp;of an article, that is to say land, of which the supply isnbsp;limited, and that in these circumstances it is essential tonbsp;institute some authority which shall have power, at thenbsp;request of either party to the contract, to vary its terms andnbsp;fix what is known, for reasons that are unknown, as a “ fairnbsp;rent.”

This suggestion, we are well assured, will be made by at least five of the gentlemen who have been appointed tonbsp;inquire into the alleged Welsh Land Question. It is a verynbsp;grave proposal, involving the belief that the uniform tendency of civilisation towards individual ownership of landnbsp;and towards freedom of contract (a tendency which stated

H

THE LAND QUESTION

thus broadly cannot be denied with regard to the history of this country up to 1870 at any rate) is absolutely and fundamentally wrong.

What then is the attitude of landowners as a body—for the exceptions to the rule are barely worthy of considerationnbsp;and hardly enough, if we may permit ourselves to use annbsp;ancient paradox, to prove it — towards this suggestionnbsp;whether it be regarded as made generally or, in view ofnbsp;the evidence and statements described as evidence laidnbsp;before the Welsh Land Commission, as made in relation tonbsp;Wales and Monmouthshire only ?

What they say in answer to the second question is what they have said repeatedly in their evidence, what the manynbsp;thousands of Blue-book pages embodying the minutes of thenbsp;proceedings of the Welsh Land Commission go to prove, andnbsp;what the main part of this volume goes to justify. They say,nbsp;in fact, that even if it were assumed that the existence of a

number of cases of hardship and oppression would justify the establishment of what, for the moment, we will call anbsp;Land Court, an exhaustive inquiry by a body before whichnbsp;landowners had considerable difficulties to meet, has not onlynbsp;failed to prove the existence of such an exceptional state ofnbsp;things as might justify the proposed innovation, but has alsonbsp;resulted in proof to demonstration that such a state of thingsnbsp;does not exist. They claim to have proved that the tenantry ofnbsp;Wales are at least as comfortably situated, so far as their relations with their landlords go, as the tenantry of England or ofnbsp;Scotland, and that, so far as it is possible to arrive at a conclusion, the standard of valuation for purposes of rental, duenbsp;regard being taken for surrounding circumstances in eachnbsp;case, is not a whit higher in Wales than it is in England.nbsp;They claim confidently to have proved themselves, as a body,nbsp;to be neither worse nor better than their English brethren, andnbsp;to have established the proposition that although, by the accident of politics and by the ingenuity of politicians, they have

IN NORTH WALES.

been placed in the forefront of the battle, no case has been made out for the application of exceptional legislation tonbsp;Wales and Monmouthshire.

Their first attitude, however, is for the moment the more important; and it is essential that its precise lines should benbsp;borne in mind constantly when, in the remainder of thisnbsp;volume, we come to deal with general and specific allegationsnbsp;of grievance. Their case, in short, is this:

“ We deny the existence of the grievances which are ¦alleged ; we say the evidence, upon which the allegations arenbsp;based, is flimsy and unsubstantial beyond belief, and thatnbsp;of the allegations made an immense number have been absolutely disproved. Further, ^ve dsny that if the allegednbsp;grievances had been demonstrated to exist, the establishmentnbsp;of a Land Court ivould be in any way effectual to removenbsp;them. We say also that such a tribunal is essentially contrary to economic principle, and that its immediate effectsnbsp;would he prejudicial to the interests of all classes connectednbsp;xvith land from landowner to labourer. Lastly, we say thatnbsp;if the grievances did exist, they could be allayed or removednbsp;by methods infinitely less ruinous than those which thenbsp;Welsh Land Commission prognoses.”

That, speaking succinctly, is their case upon the general, as distinguished from the concrete, question ; but it is, of course,nbsp;not sufficient to state it in this bald form, and it is essentialnbsp;to define our idea of a Land Court (although the Commissioners never did so with any precision before questioningnbsp;witnesses) and then state the main objections to it. Afternbsp;study of the institutions of that nature already in existencenbsp;in Ireland and in Scotland, and after farther study of thenbsp;questions, which must be presumed to have been intelligent,nbsp;exhibited by Her Majesty’s Commissioners, we define thenbsp;expression Land Court as follows : “A Land Court is annbsp;institution consisting of one or more men, of which the

THE LAND QUESTION

essence is that it has authority, at the request of either landowner or tenant, to fix for a given period the annualnbsp;rent to be paid for any given farm or agricultural or pastoralnbsp;holding, which rent shall be called the ‘ fair rent.’ ” Itnbsp;need hardly be said that many statements were made by witnesses, and many questions were put by Commissioners, whichnbsp;pointed to far wider ideas than this as to the scope andnbsp;jurisdiction of a Land Court. It was suggested, for example,nbsp;that such a Court might try questions of compensation fornbsp;improvements between outgoing tenant and landlord; but,nbsp;inasmuch as these questions are already tried in the Countynbsp;Court by the application of existing laws to the facts provednbsp;in each case, it is manifest that to entrust this power to anbsp;Land Court would simply amount to assigning a new namenbsp;to a familiar process of law. It was suggested that a Landnbsp;Court might confer upon the tenantry fixity of tenure, thusnbsp;enabling the tenant to get rid of his landlord at will, but-prohibiting the landlord from getting rid of his tenant exceptnbsp;for certain specified reasons. But this suggestion was thoughtless, for, in any event, fixity of tenure could be nothing but anbsp;statutory right. If such a right were conferred by statute,nbsp;then, objectionable as the term Land Court must be bynbsp;virtue of its associations in recent history, it would notnbsp;really matter what name was given to the Court whichnbsp;administered the obnoxious law. Our objection, in that case,nbsp;would be primarily to the statute, and, so long as the tribunalnbsp;interpreted the statute fairly, we should have no right tonbsp;criticise those who administered the statute. For example,nbsp;the High Court of Justice administers the Bills of Sale Actnbsp;with results which are, to say the least of it, curious; butnbsp;nobody blames the High Court; everybody agrees with Lordnbsp;Esher’s pungent saying in the Court of Appeal; “ If Parliament enacts nonsense, judges have no choice but to administer nonsense.”

It may be said at first sight, “ Surely the objection to a

IN NORTH WALES.

Land Court to fix ‘ fair rents ’ is gone, because it, also, being established by Statute, would exist for the purpose ofnbsp;administering and interpreting certain definite principles.”nbsp;But this would be but an ignorant and sbort-sigbtednbsp;argument. Look at tbe Irish Acts. In them, indeed, it isnbsp;laid down that certain considerations, such as the amountsnbsp;expended by landowner and tenant respectively on improvements and buildings, shall be taken into account in fixingnbsp;the rent and that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,nbsp;certain improvements shall (nobody knows why) be assumednbsp;to be tenant’s improvements. But these directions arenbsp;merely incidental and the question what is, or is not, thenbsp;“fair rent” of this or that holding is left to be decidednbsp;eventually by the individual opinions of the Land Commissioners. No substantial principles are laid down for theirnbsp;guidance, still less is a definite direction of law placed beforenbsp;them for their interpretation ; for the simple reason that to laynbsp;down such principles or to formulate such definite directions,nbsp;passes the wit of man.

This is no expression of opinion emanating from the brain of a writer who does not desire for a moment to conceal thenbsp;fact that he is stating a case from one point of view, albeitnbsp;in the full consciousness that to overstate it would be a fatalnbsp;error of judgment. On the contrary it is but a paraphrasenbsp;of the report of a Committee of the House of Commons (andnbsp;that by no means a Committee favourable to landowners),nbsp;appointed to inquire into the operations of the Irish Landnbsp;Act of 1881. They reported in these words:

“The Act of 1881 .... laid down no principle or rule, or method of valuation to guide the Court in fixing thenbsp;amount of rent .... no subsequent Statute has touchednbsp;the subject of the principles of a fair rent—no mode ofnbsp;valuation has been prescribed by Parliament or otherwise—nbsp;consequently, of necessity, each individual administrator acts

“ Coming from such a body, this is indeed the witnessing of a good confession,” said the Duke of Argyll in the first,nbsp;published in the Times of November 29th, 1894, of a seriesnbsp;of masterly articles. And in this article His Grace adducednbsp;what may be called an historical argument of great value,nbsp;precisely applicable to the suggestion made in the case ofnbsp;Wales, an argument which can hardly be improved uponnbsp;and which is well worth stating in the words in which itnbsp;appeared originally:

“ At last, in the report of the Committee on the Irish Land Acts, we have some frank confessions on the practicalnbsp;working of a most wonderful experiment. Fourteen yearsnbsp;ago the Irish administration in Dublin persuaded the Primenbsp;Minister, who prevailed on Parliament, to try the plan ofnbsp;delegating to three private gentlemen the absolute power ofnbsp;regulating the price to be paid for the hire of land, with anbsp;few insignificant exceptions, over the whole of Ireland.nbsp;These gentlemen were to be bound by no rules. No principlenbsp;whatever of valuation was laid down for their guidance.nbsp;They were free to adopt any principle, or none at all. And,nbsp;if they did adopt any principle, they were free to conceal it.nbsp;So that even criticism might be balked. From their decisionsnbsp;on the question of value no appeal lay to any Court or anynbsp;authority whatever. They might, if they liked, raise rentsnbsp;to the highest competitive rates, or, on the other hand, theynbsp;might reduce them to mere nominal amounts. If there wasnbsp;any security at all against the error of over-estimating rents,nbsp;it lay entirely in a presumption that the whole spirit of thenbsp;experiment was avowedly in the interest of the tenant, and

I

IN NORTH WALES.

for tlie purpose, if possible, of bestowing fixity of tenure on every tenant indiscriminately, whether good, bad, or indifferent ; and this obviously could only be secured by fixingnbsp;’ rents so low that neither laziness, nor ignorance, nor want ofnbsp;capital could make it otherwise than easy to pay. Beyondnbsp;this necessary bias towards the lowest possible scale of rent—nbsp;a bias inseparable from the initial impulse with which thenbsp;Triumvirate were started on their way—they had nothingnbsp;whatever to guide them, and we, the public, had nothingnbsp;whatever to guide us in even guessing what their coursenbsp;would be. We had, indeed, the personal character of thenbsp;chosen Triumvirs, and they were all known to be at leastnbsp;respected and honest men. We had also the presumption,nbsp;that such men would almost unconsciously adopt the generalnbsp;principles of valuation which are known in every civilisednbsp;country in the world respecting the value of land, as well asnbsp;respecting the value of all other things. But even thisnbsp;presumption was rendered doubtful by one very awkward circumstance. As the Bill was drawn up by Mr. Gladstone, andnbsp;as he introduced it in the House of Commons, he had takennbsp;some care that this presumption in favour of acknowledgednbsp;rules and principles of valuation should be secured. He didnbsp;lay down in his Bill the only intelligible principle of allnbsp;valuations as the principle by which the Triumvirate shouldnbsp;be bound. He even made a great fuss about it in his introductory speech. He declared that the Government hadnbsp;thought it “ their duty ” to lay down a principle of valuationnbsp;for the guidance of the.new tribunal, and even twitted thenbsp;Conservative Opposition with a manifest reluctance to follownbsp;his virtuous example. What.was the use—what was evennbsp;the meaning—of telling three men to fix ‘ fair rents ’ allnbsp;over Ireland, unless Parliament gave them at least somenbsp;indication of what is meant by ‘ fair ’ ? Value is everywherenbsp;a fact—were they to be free to turn it into a pure fancy ?nbsp;Were the Triumvirs to be at liberty to set all known criteria

THE LAND QUESTION

aside? The Prime Ministei’did not think so. He foresaw the danger, and accordingly he considered it to be a duty tonbsp;insert in his Bill a statutory direction as to a rule by whichnbsp;the Triumvirs should be guided. Here is that direction:—nbsp;‘ A fair rent means such a rent as, in the opinion of thenbsp;Court after hearing the parties and considering all thenbsp;circumstances of the case, holding, and district, a solventnbsp;tenant would undertake to pay one year with another.’nbsp;This is clear. It indicates market values as at least the basisnbsp;of all decisions on the fairness of rents. In the nature ofnbsp;things there can be no other. There is a common notionnbsp;that what are called ‘ customary ’ values are in their ownnbsp;nature something quite different from market values. Butnbsp;this is quite eiToneous. What gives rise to custom ? Whatnbsp;fixes it—what modifies and changes it ? Push these questionsnbsp;and we shall find that xvhat other men will give for anything is the basis of all values, ivhether fixed by formal contract or by custom only. Mr. Gladstone’s definition, therefore, of what he meant by a ‘ fair ’ rent was equally unassailable in principle and indispensable in practice. Without it the Triumvirate would be absolutely without chartnbsp;or compass. The whole property of both landlord and tenantnbsp;would be left wholly at their mercy and discretion, withoutnbsp;check or limit of any kind.

“ Yet what happened ? The Government found the maintenance of this clause inconvenient, in the face of the Irish members whom they wished to conciliate. It was thereforenbsp;weakly abandoned in Committee. The words indicatingnbsp;market values as even the basis of computation for ‘ fair ’nbsp;rents were simply struck out. It is needless to say that thenbsp;abandonment of such a clause, after it had been introducednbsp;as an acknowledged duty, might be construed as more significant than if it had never been introduced at all. If thenbsp;Triumvirate, or any one of them, felt himself at all hamperednbsp;,in estimating values by the traditional principles of all time

IN NORTH WALES.

and all countries, he could remember the fact that the very idea of natural or market value had been deliberatelynbsp;excluded by Parliament, even as guiding him at all in thenbsp;exercise of his own arbitrary discretion. The result, therefore, was that the Triumvirate have been, and are, absolutenbsp;dictators on all rent values in Ireland. There is no Courtnbsp;which can, on this matter, call their conduct into question.nbsp;I have found it always difficult to get anybody to fully realisenbsp;this fact, or still more to see its sweep and operation. Butnbsp;there is no doubt whatever that it is a fact. It is corroborated by a striking part of the speech with which Mr. Justicenbsp;O’Hagan, the first chief Triumvir, opened his so-callednbsp;‘Court’ in 1881:—‘Neither shall we be tempted,’he said,nbsp;‘ to speak of what may be expected from the actual workingnbsp;of the tribunal. Words on that theme will be more seasonably spoken a twelvemonth hence—still more so a quarter ofnbsp;a century hence—than on this day. No doubt such a Courtnbsp;stands in a very different position from other Courts of long-established jurisdiction and settled methods—Courts whosenbsp;province is to decide on rights defined by law, and which arenbsp;guided by long lines of precedents and all the wisdom of pastnbsp;experience. We have been likened to navigators in unknownnbsp;seas, to those whom the poet describes as seeking their waynbsp;darkly, beneath the night, and through the shadow—“ Ibantnbsp;obscuri sola sub nocte per umbras ”

The history given is most instructive. It is illustrative of the “ original righteousness,” so to speak, of Mr. Gladstone,nbsp;and, at the same time, of the weak opportunism which, atnbsp;all times during his political career, enabled him to give upnbsp;and concede points which he felt to be vital and essential tonbsp;justice. His primary principle, that rents must be regulatednbsp;by values, or by competition among solvent tenants, wasnbsp;sound enough; but the Irish members, who had their verynbsp;Taison d’être as instruments for the plunder of landowners.

THE LAND QUESTION

naturally would liave none of his principle, indefinite as it was. Indefinite, we say, because the moment you abolishnbsp;competition by Act of Parliament, you render it more andnbsp;more difficult day after day and year after year to ascertainnbsp;what the results of competition would be. But the Irishnbsp;members were shrewd enough to see that, since the mostnbsp;ruinous incubus which a landowner can lay upon hisnbsp;shoulders is an insolvent tenant, and since even a landownernbsp;of purely commercial instincts will never pay attention tonbsp;the competition of any candidates for tenancy whom he does,nbsp;not believe, after making all inquiry possible, to be solvent,nbsp;the Bill, if carried in its original form, would not only givenbsp;nothing to their clients, but might even add to their obligations. For it is admitted on all hands, even by the advocatesnbsp;of a Land Court in Wales—who certainly will not admitnbsp;anything except an absolutely uncontestable fact, and sometimes deny even that—that in Wales as elsewhere thenbsp;standard of rental which competition among solvent tenantsnbsp;would establish is in very numerous cases tempered by wisenbsp;generosity as matters stand now. The restriction of competition in the case of vacant farms (for no attention is evernbsp;paid to competition for farms occupied by satisfactory tenants)nbsp;comes from the landowners themselves. Therefore, said thenbsp;Irish members to themselves, if we assent to a law enablingnbsp;and provoking every landowner to have his rents fixed bynbsp;the competition of the solvent, the result will be that fewnbsp;rents, if any, will be reduced while a great many will benbsp;increased.

In fact the Act, if it had been allowed to continue to. include Mr. Gladstone s original principle, could have workednbsp;no injustice for several years; but its introduction wouldnbsp;have been quite pointless and, in time, injurious ; indeed, itnbsp;must have become impossible to administer, because if, at onenbsp;and the same time, you put an end to the competition of thenbsp;solvent and declare that a Court shall follow the lines laid

IN NORTH WALES.

down by the competition of the solvent, you lay upon the Court the obligation of following in later years a principle ofnbsp;which you destroy by degrees every visible feature.

In short, whether the Legislature ordains that the lines to be established by competition of the solvent shall be followed,nbsp;or whether it is content to rely upon the opinions of individualnbsp;Commissioners or judges, it is clear that the result must, innbsp;the long run, be the same; that is to say, the rent must benbsp;fixed in the long run and, after the competition of the solventnbsp;has ceased to exist and can no longer be used as a guide, innbsp;accordance with human whims and fancies.

“ No doubt,” says the Duke, “ the tribunal has acted conscientiously. But so did the Inquisition. So did the Star-chamber.” But man is so constituted that he desires to be governed by a definite and ascertainable system of law andnbsp;not in accordance with the opinions of this man or that; andnbsp;such Courts as these, unworthy of the name really, will nevernbsp;be tolerated by the majority of men unless they are distinctlynbsp;favourable to the interests of the majority.

It will be said, however, that Courts following this happy-go-lucky principle or no-principle have “ done good.” This usually means that they have done what was expected ofnbsp;them by the time-serving legislators who established themnbsp;and have reduced rents. Certainly they have done so bothnbsp;in Ireland and in the crofting areas of Scotland. Lordnbsp;Carrington, indeed, did not fail to confront the Duke ofnbsp;Argyll, after he had come to the end of his thorough exposition of the fallacies of the Crofters Acts, with the suggestionnbsp;that his rents from crofts had been reduced compulsorily bynbsp;the Crofters Commission to the extent of some 30 per cent,.nbsp;The suggestion was made with studied and almost excessivenbsp;courtesy, considering that it could not fail to give pain tonbsp;His Grace. But the admission which the Duke was compellednbsp;to make helped Lord Carrington’s argument not a jot and fornbsp;two reasons. First, the British mind is not yet educated up

THE LAND QUESTION

to the idea that to take money forcibly out of one man’s pocket and put it into the purse of another is necessarily ornbsp;even probably to “ do good.” Next it remains to be considered whether the mischiefs which must necessarily follow,nbsp;.as we shall show presently, from the establishment of such anbsp;system, are not so serious as to counterpoise and cancel thenbsp;immediate pecuniary benefit which undoubtedly accrues tonbsp;the sitting tenant from the confiscation of part of his landlord’s property for his benefit.

One more puerile theory of “ fair rent ” must be disposed of before we proceed to enumerate these great mischiefsnbsp;which must follow inevitably upon the creation of the Courtnbsp;of Conscientious Confiscation. That theory may be describednbsp;as the “ live and thrive ” theory. Hundreds of questionsnbsp;were put by Commissioners and others, and hundreds of statements were made by witnesses, which showed clearly thatnbsp;the “ live and thrive ” doctrine was present in their minds.nbsp;Elaborate particulars of the ages of tenants suffering fromnbsp;alleged grievances, of the disadvantages from which theynbsp;suffered by possessing too many children, or not enough ofnbsp;them (a matter entirely beyond the proper control of landlords), of the disadvantages of early widowhood, of the lossesnbsp;•of cattle and so forth were given. These, no doubt, as thenbsp;evidence showed abundantly, are matters which landownersnbsp;do, in a very great number of cases, take into account. Butnbsp;certainly no Court could pay attention to them and no sanenbsp;Parliament could direct or permit a Court to have regard tonbsp;them. Even supposing a Legislature so infatuated as tonbsp;crystallise the “ live and thrive ” notion of rent into law, thenbsp;law would by no means take the form which the witnessesnbsp;belonging to the agitator class for the most part seem tonbsp;imagine. It would certainly not go on the principle that,nbsp;when a farmer has paid his expenses and keep, and maintainednbsp;his family (of indefinite dimensions), and put something awaynbsp;for a rainy day, the balance of the year’s receipts might be

IN NORTH WALES.

regarded as rent. In that whimsical time the skilful and sturdy bachelor would have to pay a higher rent than thenbsp;reckless married man, and the childless couple would benbsp;drawn upon more heavily than Mr. and Mrs. Quiverful; andnbsp;this, which is a survey of the concrete facts lying undernbsp;this vague exposition of the “ live and thrive ” theory, isnbsp;absurd. In this connection it is prudent to observe thenbsp;theory of rent held, or, at any rate, the practice followed, bynbsp;public authorities. The acquisition of land by public authorities to sub-let in small holdings is presumed to entail no lossnbsp;upon the ratepayers, who are practically the landlords, andnbsp;the land so obtained is supposed to be let “ not at somethingnbsp;which may be left out of the proceeds after various othernbsp;claims have been paid,” but “ at such a sum per annum asnbsp;will cover the payment made by the public authority and entailnbsp;no loss on the ratepayers.” No ratepayers would become responsible for repayment of the principal and interest under thenbsp;“ live and thrive ” rent idea, so why should a private individualnbsp;be expected to lend his capital on such absurd terms ?

But supposing the theory defined thus '‘the rent ought to be such a sum as upon an average of years a farmer ofnbsp;average skill and possessed of adequate capital ought tonbsp;he able to pay after making a reasonable profit for himselfnbsp;over and above his keep and expenses,” we should soon benbsp;driven to absurdities. For the first consequence must benbsp;that the rent of all the small tenements—very numerous innbsp;Wales—which are the labourer’s stepping-stones to largernbsp;farms, because by their means he can add to his income as anbsp;labourer, would be wiped away at one stroke; and, in anynbsp;event, landowner and tenant are far more likely than externalnbsp;authority to come to a right conclusion on a matter of thisnbsp;kind. For the rest this system, if it were worthy of thenbsp;name, would be open to all the objections of any compulsorynbsp;system of fixing rents. And these are the mischiefs which,nbsp;would follow of necessity :

THE LAND QUESTION

1. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;All friendliness of feeling between landowner andnbsp;tenant would be destroyed.

This is a forecast justified by experience, for it is a common saying in the law courts that no litigation is so ruinouslynbsp;obstinate as that which has relation to rights of way, or water,nbsp;or common, or anything connected with land; and the writer,nbsp;knowing Wales as well as most men living, or, to use thenbsp;pompous phrase of Mr. Thomas Ellis, M.P., having been “ anbsp;tolerably diligent student” of Welsh affairs, will venture tonbsp;say that subsequent reconciliation between litigants is almost,nbsp;if not absolutely, unknown.

It must be admitted, however, that this would be no argument in the eyes of the conductors of the Baner andnbsp;other vernacular papers; of Mr. Gladstone, who invented thenbsp;famous comparison between the classes and the masses; ofnbsp;Mr. Thomas Ellis, who went back to 1859 to inflame thenbsp;House, of Commons against the landowners, whom he allegednbsp;to have exercised “relentlessly their power of notice tonbsp;quit to keep up rents;” and proceeded to speak of thenbsp;“ignorance” and the “obstinacy” of these landownersnbsp;(who, such of them as are Welsh, enjoy for the most partnbsp;the same educational opportunities as their English fellows).nbsp;But we do not address ourselves to Mr. Ellis and Mr. Gee.nbsp;We appeal to men of reason and sense, who, knowing thenbsp;innumerable kindnesses done by tenant to landowner, as wellnbsp;as by landowner to tenant, appreciating the value of friendlynbsp;feeling between the two classes, and the peril of smoulderingnbsp;enmity, will not wilfully destroy that which tends unquestionably to the national good. And if it be asked whynbsp;this result must ensue, the answer is plain; it is that thesenbsp;men feel unanimously that State intei’ference with them innbsp;the management of property which they and their ancestorsnbsp;have collected, very often by purchase, in the course of manynbsp;centuries, would be an unpardonable wrong.

2. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;The landowner would become a mere rent-charger, who

¦would have no interest in residing upon or improving his •estate.

This forecast is denied by Mr. Gee, Mr. Ellis, and Mr. Bryn Roberts. Against their opinions we venture to setnbsp;those of virtually every landowner or agent who was examinednbsp;before the Commission on the subject. After all, the mennbsp;who are interested in land may be taken to be better judgesnbsp;of the feelings of the class to which tliey belong than outsiders and Members of Parliament who have their ownnbsp;schemes to puff. Against the gentlemen named, therefore,nbsp;we place in the balance great landowners like Mr. Wynne ofnbsp;Peniarth, Mr. Nanney, Mr. Price of Ehiwlas, Lord Stanleynbsp;of Alderley, Lord Penrhyn, Mr. E. Davies of Plas Dinam,nbsp;and Colonel Cornwallis West; and since the evidence for thenbsp;great estates was given mainly by agents of great experience,nbsp;such men as Colonel the Hon. W. E. Sackville West, Captainnbsp;N. P. Stewart, Mr. W. B. C. Jones, Mr. Prichard, Majornbsp;Birch, Captain Preston, Colonel Hughes of Ystrad, Mr. St.nbsp;John Charlton, Mr. Forrester Addie, Mr. Owen Slaneynbsp;Wynne, and many others besides might be cited in testimony. But, if it be desired to know how great landownersnbsp;would feel and in what spirit they would act if a Land Courtnbsp;were established, it is surely enough to quote the representatives of Lord Penrhyn, Mr. Assheton Smith, Mr. Ellis Nanney,nbsp;Sir George Meyrick, Mr. Cooke of Gwysanau, Sir Richardnbsp;Bulkeley, Lady Neave, Sir Watkin Williams Wynn, Mr.nbsp;Hughes of Kimmel, and Lord Powis; and to add to theirnbsp;testimony that of every landowner in North Wales who gavenbsp;•evidence on the matter. Perhaps it may be added here that,nbsp;while all landowners and agents might have expressed thenbsp;•case against a Land Court on this ground equally thoroughlynbsp;¦and logically, it was not to be desired that more than twonbsp;or three should go into the details of the argument, andnbsp;that of these, Mr. Edward Davies of Plas Dinam, fromnbsp;whom, as an ardent Liberal by tradition, the revolutionary

THE LAND QUESTION

party expected a good deal, and Colonel Cornwallis West, a Liberal Unionist, were among the most complete and convincing.

These men, then, know what they would do under given circumstances better than outsiders. That is to say theynbsp;would allow or request the Land Court to fix rents all round,nbsp;and they would put an absolute stop to all expenditure onnbsp;improvements and repairs. Thus, even if there were anbsp;considerable reduction in rents at starting, they would, asnbsp;reference to our later sketch of what the evidence given before the Commissioners shows that landowners have done fornbsp;the country, be financial gainers by the transaction. Andnbsp;their course would be in accordance with ordinary motives ofnbsp;human conduct, for, when all has been said, it is unreasonablenbsp;to expect a man to expend money in the improvement of anbsp;subject-matter, land to wit, when he well knows that he is tonbsp;be debarred by law from having so much as a voice in settlingnbsp;the price which is to be paid for the hire of that land afterwards, and that he is to be debarred from obtaining, atnbsp;a pinch, the price fixed by supply and demand or by thenbsp;higgling of the market.

Nor is this merely argument based upon study of human nature, or upon the statements made by landowners as to theirnbsp;probable action in the event of the establishment of such anbsp;Court, for there is evidence, given before the Commission as tonbsp;the history of Irish land, which serves as an instructivenbsp;guide. Such is the evidence of Mr. Preston, who has experience of the Irish Land Courts, and declared at Llangefninbsp;that they satisfied neither landowner nor tenant; and that,nbsp;in his opinion, landowners in Wales, under a Land Court,nbsp;would not be more likely than landowners in Ireland to spendnbsp;money on improvements and repairs. Why, indeed, judgednbsp;by the ordinary human standard, should they ?

It was in relation to this evidence of Captain Preston that Professor Rhys, on the 26th day of the sittings of the

m NORTH WALES.

•Commission, and asking tke twenty-one-thousand-eight-hundred-and-thirfcietli question—spoke thus :

“ Then, a question was put by Mr. Vincent just now as to a Land Court. I am very hazy about this Land Courtnbsp;question, I must confess, and I am very glad to hear anything I can about it. Supposing a Land Court were ever tonbsp;be established in Wales, must it go exactly on the lines ofnbsp;the Irish Land Court ?—I hope not.

“We have had it in evidence, I think, that the Crofters Commission would supply a better model in regard to landnbsp;tenure in Wales. Are you acquainted with the working ofnbsp;the Crofters Act ?—I cannot say that I am.”

So far the eminent antiquarian scholar seems to have been hazy indeed and, it may be added, the Crofters Commission hadnbsp;barely been mentioned before the Welsh Land Commission.nbsp;But there was plenty of evidence about it afterwards, evidencenbsp;from the Scotch Office, which appeared to be too weak fornbsp;the stomach of the Commissioners. This was supplementednbsp;later by that of the head of the Crofters Commission, who couldnbsp;Hot be expected to foul his own nest; by evidence from Mr.nbsp;B. Macrae, ex-elementary-schoolmaster in the Highlands andnbsp;now the professional, or quasi-professional, crofter’s friend ; bynbsp;evidence also from the Duke of Argyll, who differed absolutelynbsp;from these gentlemen. And the result was plain enough;nbsp;namely, that the difference between the two systems is onenbsp;of name and machinery only. Both have the same essentialnbsp;and objectionable feature, compulsory fixing of rent at thenbsp;request of either party, and both, for that reason, must andnbsp;do produce the same mischiefs.

3. Improvement by mutual agreement between landowner and tenant would become impossible, and “ improvementnbsp;leases,” under which the tenant obtains the land for a period

I

THE LAND QUESTION

at less than market price on condition of effecting certain improvements would come to an end.

About such improvement leases Professor Rhys seems also to have been hazy, for certainly he used words in thenbsp;form of a question which pointed to an opinion in his mindnbsp;that such leases partook of the nature of a landowner’s devicenbsp;to sweat the tenant. Like Mr. Richard Jones in anothernbsp;place we “ cannot follow his process of reasoning.” Suchnbsp;leases, which have been common in parts of Denbighshire, are,nbsp;It is submitted with confidence, beneficial alike to landowner,nbsp;tenant, and the general public, which is deeply interested innbsp;the improvement of the productive power of land.

4. The establishment of a Land Court involves as of necessity {see Colonel the Hon. W. E. Sackville West’s evidence at Carnarvon) the conferment by statute upon thenbsp;sitting tenant of fixity of tenure, and, as an inevitablenbsp;corollary, his obtaining the power of selling the right ofnbsp;occupation subject to the judicial rent. Thus the sellingnbsp;price of the freehold must be reduced.

Now it is contended, and will be proved in due course, that the Welsh tenantry in practice do possess all reasonablenbsp;fixity of tenure, and that, since the days before the Ballotnbsp;Act (concerning which days the evidence was misty and outnbsp;of date), no case of capricious eviction has been proved distinctly, although many have been alleged and absolutely disproved, not merely by verbal but also by documentarynbsp;evidence. It has been proved further that upon all the greatnbsp;estates, and it might easily be proved of hundreds of lessernbsp;properties, holdings do, as a matter of practice and grace,nbsp;continue to be held by successive members of the samenbsp;families from generation to generation.

But the establishment of a Land Court clearly involves the giving of fixity of tenure by law ; for, in the absence of suchnbsp;statutory fixity of tenure, the landowner might (it is not suggested that he would) give notice to the tenant who, by apply-

IN NOETH WALES.

ing to the Land Court, obtained a judicial rent less than the market rent. Now between a landowner’s position surroundednbsp;by a body of tenantry whom he desires to keep but of divers ofnbsp;whom he may, if he is advised that it will be to the benefitnbsp;of the community, rid himself and the neighbourhood, andnbsp;that of a landowner who is surrounded by a body of men ofnbsp;whom he cannot rid himself save for certain definite reasonsnbsp;which must be proved in a Court of Law, probably at greatnbsp;expense, there is a vast difference. And that difference maynbsp;be measured in money. In all classes of life there are, unfortunately, to be found surly and ill-conditioned personsnbsp;who may, none the less, be irreproachable from the commercial point of view. Can it be expected that the intendingnbsp;purchaser of an estate will give as much for land upon whichnbsp;he may find himself saddled with such a tenant as for landnbsp;with which he is free—subject to the condition that he shallnbsp;compensate an outgoing tenant adequately—to deal as henbsp;pleases ? It is this freedom, this latent power, if the phrasenbsp;be preferred, which contributes to give to land a higher pricenbsp;in the market than it could conceivably possess as an interest-bearing investment. To take it away, on the pretext that itnbsp;might be used cajiriciously, when in fact there is no evidencenbsp;that it has been so used in modern times, when it is clearnbsp;that the result must be a depreciation of the selling value ofnbsp;land would be the more foolish, as well as unjust, havingnbsp;regard to a pet scheme of the Commissioners, a morallynbsp;certain recommendation of theirs which will be dealt withnbsp;after a very few sentences have been written.

Lirst, however, it is desirable to show how “ free sale ” which is the inevitable corollary to “ fair rents ” as “ fixitynbsp;of tenure ” is the inseparable accident of a Land Court, mustnbsp;depreciate the selling value of laud. This can hardly be donenbsp;better than in the words of Colonel the Hon. W. E. Sackvillenbsp;West at Carnarvon—the interrogating Commissioner beingnbsp;Sir John Llewelyn.

THE LAND QUESTION

“ 12,200. Can you give the Court your opinion as to the effect of what we have heard of a proposed Land Court ?—nbsp;No, I have not been asked.

“ 12,201. Will you kindly tell us your opinion about what its effect might be?—As to whether it would be good ornbsp;not ?

“ 12,202. Yes.—Personally I believe it would be productive of more harm than good. It seems to me that a Land Courtnbsp;necessarily implies freedom of sale, and, of course, fixity ofnbsp;tenure. If a Land Court fixes the rent it is pretty certainnbsp;to be—it must be—below market value, what could be gotnbsp;by a competitive rent. It would be no use if it was not.nbsp;Then if that was arbitrarily fixed there would arise a valuenbsp;between the actual rent and the selling value of it, thenbsp;market value of it. Now who would that belong to ? If itnbsp;belonged to the tenant for making his improvements henbsp;ought to have power to sell it. If it did not it ought tonbsp;belong to the landlord. Therefore it implies the necessitynbsp;for giving the tenant power to sell that margin. Then if henbsp;sells that margin it comes to the same thing that I havenbsp;said before, that the next man has to pay the market valuenbsp;for his farm, counting the interest on the money which henbsp;has paid for that margin between the two. Fixity of tenurenbsp;would necessarily follow because the landlord could not havenbsp;the power to turn out the tenant who had had his rent fixednbsp;or else he would turn him out at once, possibly when thenbsp;judicial rent was fixed, and see if he could not agree withnbsp;another man to take it at a higher rent. Therefore I thinknbsp;a Land Court implies the whole. There is nothing betweennbsp;the two, between complete freedom of sale, complete fixitynbsp;of tenure, and taking, in fact, the whole thing out of thenbsp;hands of the landlord. Further than this, as to fixity ofnbsp;tenure, I have never heard it defined as to whether it isnbsp;fixity of tenure on both sides, that is to say, whether anbsp;tenant is to be at liberty to throw his land on his landlord’s

IN NORTH WALES.

hands at a most inconvenient time and demand compensation for the improvements which he has made without his consent,nbsp;or whether the landlord is to have the same fixity of tenurenbsp;and say: ‘ You shall not go now.’ ”

On this point Mr. Richard Jones harried Colonel West a httle, but made nothing of his enterprise, for the positionnbsp;is unassailable.

Now “ free sale ” has been proved so often to be productive of endless mischiefs in Ireland, to be simply a money bribe to the sitting tenant at the expense of the landowner,nbsp;and an intolerable encumbrance to every succeeding tenant,nbsp;that it is not necessary to give more than a couple of instancesnbsp;by way of proof. For one of them a debt is due to the researchesnbsp;of the Duke of Argyll into the Report already mentioned {Thenbsp;Times, December 4th, 1894). It may be summarised thus :nbsp;On October 10th, 1894, Connel Ryan applied to the Landnbsp;Tribunal at Limerick, Judge Adams presiding, for the fixingnbsp;of a “ fair rent ” for his holding of four acres seven perches,nbsp;which were rented at £3 5s. or less than 16s. per acre. Thenbsp;judge discovered that under the Act of 1881, Ryan had paidnbsp;£200, or more than sixty years' purchase, for the tenant-'gt;'ight. Yet the judge reduced his rent to £2 10s. A piece ofnbsp;more flagrantly Irish and illogical injustice it is impossible tonbsp;conceive. The landowner was mulcted of nearly a third ofnbsp;the property left to him by a confiscatory statute simplynbsp;because the tenant had given to his predecessor an absolutelynbsp;insane price for the projperty of which the Act had divestednbsp;the landowner.

An analogous and well authenticated case is extracted from the Irish Times.

“MARKET VALUE OF TENANTS’ HOLDINGS.

“ TO THE EDITOR OF THE Irish Times.

“ Sir,—After the remarkable evidence given to the Evicted

THE LAND QUESTION

Tenants Commission, it may interest some of your readers to learn that, notwithstanding the present temporary depressionnbsp;in the price of cattle and the rumour of a further compulsorynbsp;reduction of rents, the market value of the tenants’ interestnbsp;in their holdings is rather on the increase than otherwise.

“ Within the last month a small holding in County Leitrim, half-way between Mohill and Carrigallen, subject to a judicialnbsp;rent fixed in 1883 of £9 10s. was sold for £300, which, withnbsp;auctioneer’s fees and costs of conveyance, amounted to £330,nbsp;or nearly thirty-four times the rent.

“ In a still poorer locality, in same county, half-way between Carrigallen and Ballinamore, a miserable holding, subject tonbsp;£3 10s. rent (since reduced to £3), was sold last week for £50.nbsp;On neither holding were there any reclamations or improvements beyond the usual mud and straw cabins.

“ These prices are not exceptional. Holdings are changing hands every day at from 16 to 30 years’ purchase, calculatednbsp;on their rents, in County Leitrim, Roscommon, and Cavan,nbsp;and higher still in the better lands of other counties, and yetnbsp;we are told that 14 years’ purchase of the fee, to be paid bynbsp;very easy instalments, is too much to give the owners.—nbsp;Yours, amp;c.,nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;“ J. Gaenet Tatlow.

“ Cavan, 19th December, 1892.”

That yon cannot establish a Land Court without involving “ free sale ” as a corollary—for value cannot be destroyednbsp;though it may be transferred—is clear. Equally clear is thenbsp;substantial nature of the transference and its ruinous aftereffect. That is to say, if there be land-hunger, the temptation to take advantage of it is transferred from the ownernbsp;of an estate who, apart from his position and traditions, isnbsp;disposed by ordinary prudence to have regard to the injuriousnbsp;effects to his property which must follow on exorbitance, tonbsp;an outgoing tenant who has no reason for taking the slightestnbsp;interest in the future of the land which he has left for ever.

IN NORTH WALES.

No doubt it was some knowledge of what had occurred in Ireland, and what must happen everywhere, until there isnbsp;some radical change, not merely in the law of the land, butnbsp;in human nature, which induced Mr. Bryn Roberts, himselfnbsp;the backer of a Land Bill, to repudiate the principle of “ freenbsp;sale ” (Q. 13,266). Again, Mr. Thomas Ellis, M.P. (Q. 17,080),nbsp;being a little hard pressed, said that he had never introducednbsp;the principle of “ free sale ” into any Land Bill of his ownnbsp;devising, and said “ it would be unwise, especially if wenbsp;HAD A GOOD Land Bill, to set up in Wales the system ofnbsp;free sale, because it would be transferring the evils ofnbsp;competitive bents from the landowner to the tenant.”nbsp;By this none too lucid expression of dogmatic opinion, Mr.nbsp;Ellis probably meant that the outgoing tenant would he atnbsp;least as keenly desirous to exact the uttermost farthing fornbsp;the tenant-right, as the most needy landowner to obtain thenbsp;highest competition rent. This view might easily be putnbsp;more strongly in favour of the landlord ; but for the momentnbsp;that is not the point. The more important matter is thatnbsp;Mr. Ellis, whose political eye is keen enough for short distances, but of no value when long distances come under consideration, fails to see that any Act establishing a Court to fixnbsp;rents must as a necessary corollary create a right of “ freenbsp;sale ” also, and that this must happen whether the words freenbsp;sale are mentioned in the Act or not.

Now, as it is clear that every interference with the land-owner’s right to do as he pleases with land which he has bought on terms of freedom, impairs the selling price of land,nbsp;so it is abundantly manifest to any intelligent person thatnbsp;every shilling of additional value which accrues to the tenant-right is a shilling taken away from the selling price of thenbsp;freehold ; it is, in fact, a paring away of the freehold as farnbsp;as it goes. It follows that the Land Court system not onlynbsp;would take away part of the landowner’s property and give itnbsp;to the tenant (a matter which would not distress Mr. Ellis and

THE LAND QUESTION

his fellows greatly), but would also actually diminish the selling value of land in a substantial and serious fashion. This,nbsp;again, will appear to the agitators at first sight but a minornbsp;matter. But let them reflect upon the great care which thenbsp;Commissioners gave to the condition of the mortgaged freeholders of Cardiganshire and of some counties in North Wales.nbsp;Let them remember that the Commission made a special request to Mr. Morgan Eichardson to collect statistical evidencenbsp;on the matter, and that they are practically pledged tonbsp;recommend the advance of public moneys to these freeholders,nbsp;on the security of their holdings, upon such terms as willnbsp;enable them to redeem their property and pay a moderate ratenbsp;of interest. Let them reflect that Mr. Morgan Eichardson is anbsp;man of gi’eat experience in these matters, who receives and paysnbsp;(Q. 43,736) “ interest on something between a quarter and halfnbsp;a million of money which is invested on mortgage ” in thenbsp;neighbourhood of Cardigan. And this is what he had to saynbsp;on the matter:

“43,827. The following questions are handed up by Mr.. Vincent: Is it not your opinion that the establishment of anbsp;Land Court would tend to reduce the selling price of land ?—nbsp;Yes, to a certainty.

“ 43,828. If so, would it be safe for the State, which established a Land Court, to lend money to the mortgagednbsp;freeholder ?—Not after the Land Court was established. Inbsp;think you could lend, then, only a much smaller percentagenbsp;than four-fifths of the purchase-money.

“ 43,829. Have you not had cases in which arrangements for the advance of money on mortgage have been broken offnbsp;by reason of agitation ?—I have.”

This last answer, stating a fact of which Mr. St. John Charlton gave corroborative evidence, is one of some importance ; it means that the prominence given to the Welsh Land

IN NORTH WALES.

Question lias had its effect in making investors shy, and in impairing the credit of Welsh landowners. And that means that shrewd men of business like Mr. Morgan Richardson feel thatnbsp;such legislation as is proposed could not fail to diminish thenbsp;value of Welsh land in the market. It follows that since no mannbsp;will venture to argue that any diminution of the value of landnbsp;can be other than general, or that the largest owners can benbsp;despoiled without the smallest owners suffering in proportion,nbsp;the pet scheme of the Commissioners and the one recommendation of theirs which is likely to attract serious attentionnbsp;for the moment, is rendered impossible if a Land Court is tonbsp;be established.

Lastly, be it observed that, whereas the most substantial and apparently reasonable of the claims, made on behalf ofnbsp;tenants before the Commission, was for a readjustment ofnbsp;the law relating to compensation for unexhausted improvements, the establishment of judicial rents clearly renders itnbsp;impossible that such compensation should be given. Thenbsp;proper measure of compensation (apart for the moment ofnbsp;all questions as to the owner’s right to restrain changes)nbsp;is to be found in the answer to the question: “ Bynbsp;how much have the exertions and expenditure of thenbsp;tenant raised the competition rent of the holding ? ” Andnbsp;that is the object aimed at, imperfectly, by the Agricultural Holdings Acts. But, since a Land Court, essentiallynbsp;and ex hy'pothesi, does away with the competition rent, itnbsp;Would be idle to contend that a landowner, debarred from hisnbsp;right to accept that rent, could in any rational community benbsp;compelled to pay compensation on that basis. To make anbsp;man pay for the improvement in the selling or letting valuenbsp;of land, and at the same time to prohibit him from takingnbsp;advantage of the improvement which he has been compellednbsp;to buy, would be a proceeding contrary to the rudimentarynbsp;principles of justice.

That there is, without the introduction of anything so

THE LAND QUESTION

revolutionary as a Land Court, a remedy to be devised capable of meeting all substantial grievances, save thosenbsp;which are purely sentimental, shall be proved to demonstration in due course. But this chapter is too long already and,nbsp;now that the main objections on the ground of expediency—itnbsp;is useless in these days to argue on the basis of morality ornbsp;honesty—have been stated, it may well close by drawingnbsp;attention to a particular argument which the majoritynbsp;of the Commission is sure to use. It was foreshadowednbsp;by Lord Carrington in a question (64,285) addressednbsp;to Mr. Thomas Gee, in which his lordship suggestednbsp;that Major Birch, a very important witness since he hadnbsp;experience of England and Wales, had recommended a newnbsp;Agricultural Holdings Act for the whole of England andnbsp;Wales, to take the place of agreements, giving free cultivation and giving protection and compensation to tenants, andnbsp;protection to landlords to prevent their farms being run outnbsp;in an unhusbandlike manner, and that this was a very considerable advance in public opinion. (It must be clearly understood that Lord Carrington’s free renderingof Major Birch’snbsp;testimony is not accepted as accurate, although no doubt itnbsp;was intended to be faithful.) Mr. Gee was perfectly rightnbsp;in answering that Major Birch had not recommended anbsp;Land Court, but it is none the less worth while to look backnbsp;to see what Major Birch did in fact say. He said (62,722):nbsp;“ I do not think (the evidence given in these counties, Flintnbsp;and Denbigh) at all fairly representative .... many mennbsp;have come forward who know that their opinion is of no

practical value whatever.....They (the bigger farmers)

look upon the Commission rather as a Court of grievances than a Court of inquiry.” He agreed, indeed, that an Agricultural Holdings Act might be devised which would donbsp;away with the necessity for all agreements; but he wasnbsp;careful to add (62,812): “I do not want an Agriculturalnbsp;Holdings Act for Wales only; I want one for England and

IN NORTH WALES.

Wales.” Mr. Llewellyn Jones, who appeared for the party of discontent, again asked (62,826): “Are Welsh farmersnbsp;rented at a higher figure than English farmers ? ” and thenbsp;answer was: “ Lower as a rule.” And again he said (62,840):nbsp;“Comparing the English and Welsh estates which I manage,nbsp;I think it is natural that we should do more for the Welsh tenantnbsp;than we do for the English tenant.” Out of this witness it maynbsp;not seem likely that the majority of the Commission can makenbsp;much ; but subsequent questions showed clearly that some ofnbsp;them imagined themselves to have extracted from him somenbsp;admissions favourable to their cause, which are not to benbsp;found in the evidence ; and it may be that the general dictanbsp;on the question of compensation for improvements, and compensation to landowners for waste, may be twisted into anbsp;suggestion or recommendation of a special Court to trynbsp;disputes between landowner and tenant upon questions ofnbsp;this kind, which would be the thin end of that wedge ofnbsp;which the thick end is a Land Court. All comments by thenbsp;Commission on Major Birch’s evidence should therefore benbsp;compared scrupulously with the text of the evidence itself,nbsp;for even the chairman, vide his remarks on “ a considerablenbsp;advance of public opinion,” seemed to be under some misapprehension as to the words actually used by Major Birch.

CHAPTEE VII.

The Agrarian Indictment—its Allegations—(1) Exorhitant Bents and Inadequate Recognition of Depression, (2) Insecurity of Tenure,nbsp;(3) Sectarian Preference in Choice of Tenants, (4) Bent raised onnbsp;Tenant’s Improvements, (5) over-stringent Agreements, (6) Gamenbsp;Damage, dc., (7) wrongful Enclosure of Commons, (8) Stoppage ofnbsp;Sale of ‘‘ Goodwill ”—some Evidence as to the said “ Goodwill.”nbsp;Evidence as to Raising of Bents—its Vagueness—the Errors made innbsp;such Evidence—the Incapacity of the Witnesses—as to borrowingnbsp;Money to pay Bent—Leading Questions in Commission’s Syllabusnbsp;—Treatment of Witnesses who alleged Landowners to be consideratenbsp;—Mr. Richard Jones and the Socratic Method—how Farms arenbsp;valued—Standard lower in Wales than in England—Danger ofnbsp;going by Abatements and Reductions simply—an Important Appendix.

Enough has been written of the disadvantages, the injustices, the mutually contradictory features, and the generallynbsp;unscientific character of the system of tenure (if “dualnbsp;ownership ” be not the more correct phrase) which the partynbsp;of agitation desire to substitute for the law of contractnbsp;tempered by the Agricultural Holdings Acts, 1875 and 1883,nbsp;which at present regulates the relation of landowner andnbsp;tenant, so far as that relation is dependent on law only.

Let us now summarise the counts of the indictment upon which the party of agitation rest their claim for exceptionalnbsp;legislation of a revolutionary character and, while so summarising, let us distinguish those alleged grievances fornbsp;which the proposed legislation might, from the point ofnbsp;view of its advocates, be a remedy, from those upon which it

THE LAND QUESTION IN NOETH WALES.

is inconceivable tbat the suggested change could have any influence whatsoever. Having done this it will be convenientnbsp;to dispose at once of those points which are susceptible ofnbsp;brief and conclusive treatment and to proceed from them tonbsp;those which, on the surface at any rate, are of such seriousnbsp;importance as to demand careful analysis of the evidencenbsp;on either side.

The indictment alleges in effect:

(1) nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;A prevalence through Wales and Monmouthshire ofnbsp;excessive and exorbitant rents together with a failure on thenbsp;part of landowners in general to meet the recent depressionnbsp;in agriculture by adequate abatements or reductions. Thisnbsp;is a grave allegation, and one which must be treated atnbsp;length. Moreover, if it were true, it would point to thenbsp;existence of grievances which, in the opinion of a considerablenbsp;section of politicians, might be remedied by the establishmentnbsp;of a Land Court.

(2) nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Insecurity of tenure. This again is a serious allegation of grievance for which the legal fixity of tenure that, asnbsp;has been shown, follows upon the establishment of judicialnbsp;rents as a necessary corollary, might afford some remedy. Itnbsp;shall be met, we venture to say, convincingly; shall in fact benbsp;disproved.

(3) nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;A preference for Churchmen and Conservatives asnbsp;against Nonconformists and Radicals when farms becomenbsp;vacant. This allegation is of sufficient gravity to demandnbsp;special attention since, if such a preference existed, it wouldnbsp;certainly create bad feeling. But in any case the grievancenbsp;would not be one for which a Land Court could provide anynbsp;remedy, since the wildest witness did not suggest that thenbsp;selection of tenants should be left to the Land Court.

(4) nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;The raising of rent upon tenants’ improvements. Herenbsp;again the allegation is grave in its original form and requiresnbsp;careful treatment. While it is not denied that for this griev-

THE LAND QUESTION

ance, if it existed, a Land Court would be an obstacle of a sort, it is abundantly manifest that all possibility of grievancenbsp;would be removed by an improvement in tbe law of compensation to tenants for improvements and to owners for waste.nbsp;Such an improvement is apparently desired on all sides, albeitnbsp;the doctors differ greatly on points of detail, and, if it werenbsp;effected, would secure the desired result without involvingnbsp;any of the thousand mischiefs incident to a Land Court.

(5) nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;A tendency on the part of landowners to force uponnbsp;tenants excessively strict forms of agreement and to embodynbsp;in those agreements a clause purporting to exclude thenbsp;Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883. This also must benbsp;dealt with in some detail.

(6) nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Refusal to pay for damage done by game, excessivenbsp;preservation of game and a practice of terrorising thenbsp;tenantry into allowing the Ground Game Act to be a deadnbsp;letter. This will be dealt with shortly.

(7) nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Illegal enclosures of Commons and harsh treatmentnbsp;of squatters. Here again we are far away from the scopenbsp;over which a Land Court could operate; but the subject isnbsp;one which requires some little care in treatment.

(8) nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;The discontinuance of an ancient practice of permitting the sale of “ goodwill ” by outgoing tenants. This lastnbsp;allegation is susceptible of such brief discussion that it maynbsp;be dealt with at once. No “goodwill” in any acceptednbsp;sense of the term attaches to an agricultural holding in itselfnbsp;in the ordinary way, and in the exceptional cases in whichnbsp;there is anything like real goodwill the landowner cannotnbsp;prevent the outgoing tenant from selling it to the incomingnbsp;tenant. Such goodwill is a purely personal property. Fornbsp;example a farmer may have been in the habit of supplyingnbsp;milk, butter, eggs, meat and so forth to certain customers.nbsp;The list of such customers is in his hands; he can sell itnbsp;to whomsoever he pleases for such price as he can get. Itnbsp;is his property; and no landowner could deprive him of

IN NORTH AVALES.

it even if he desired so to do. On the other hand such advantages as attach to a farm from its position in relationnbsp;to a market town, or railway conveniences, are not in thenbsp;nature of goodwill but are simply circumstances which thenbsp;tenant has had no part in bringing to pass. They arenbsp;attached to the landowner’s property and many cases mightnbsp;be adduced in which the landowner has been, partially atnbsp;any rate, instrumental in bringing them into being by virtuenbsp;of his enterprise in developing a district.

By “ goodwill,” however, these persons mean, though they speak inaccurately, what amounts in effect to “tenant right ”nbsp;saleable subject to certain limits. And there is evidence onnbsp;the subject. Mr. Charles A. Jones at Dolgelley (8413) said:

“ I think the outgoing tenant makes the best arrangement he can with regard to the purchase of the stock and thenbsp;manure with the incoming tenant. It is generally a matternbsp;of arrangement. I say, if you can come to terms with thenbsp;outgoing tenant you can have the farm. There is nothing tonbsp;be paid for goodwill or anything of that sort, but it is desirable that the same sheep, for instance, should be keptnbsp;upon the same farm.”

Now where this process was accompanied, as was frequently the case in old times, by a preliminary introduction of thenbsp;new tenant by the old tenant to the landowner and hisnbsp;agent, there was manifestly room for the incomer to pay thenbsp;outgoer, not only for the value of the improvements, if any,nbsp;but also something extra for the introduction, if, eventually,nbsp;his nominee was admitted. Nor was this custom, or rathernbsp;occasional practice, confined to Merionethshire where thenbsp;sheep, which know their “walk” on the fenceless mountainnbsp;and will drive intruding sheep from their tract, have clearlynbsp;a value greater than they possess as mutton. There is evidence given by Mr. Bryn Roberts, M.P., at Carnarvon, to

THE LAND QUESTION

show that it prevailed on some parts of the Vaynol estate. It was, in fact, a practice which prevailed here and there innbsp;old times when agents were men, sometimes, of a verynbsp;different type to those who, for the most part, have thenbsp;management of estates now. But it was at best a surreptitious practice, injurious alike to landowner and to incomingnbsp;tenant, and really partaking of the nature of a fraud on thenbsp;landowner. The modern agents, clearly seeing the naturenbsp;and tendency of the transaction, have stamped it out firmlynbsp;and, seeing that every argument used by Mr. Ellis and Mr.nbsp;Bryn Roberts against open “ free sale ” tells directly againstnbsp;this secret and limited sale of tenant right, it is unnecessarynbsp;for us to urge that its disappearance from those districts innbsp;which it formerly prevailed, more or less, is an unalloyednbsp;benefit to landowner and tenant. The best of the modernnbsp;agents make a strict rule of never permitting an introductionnbsp;to them of a new tenant by the outgoer, because, in suchnbsp;cases, the mischievous proceeding is difficult to prevent;nbsp;witness the evidence of Colonel Sackville West in answer tonbsp;Mr. Brynmor Jones.

“ 12,215. Have any instances come under your notice in which a new tenant has paid anything to the outgoingnbsp;tenant ?—I have heard of such oases, but you cannot provenbsp;it, because it is generally done by putting an increased valuenbsp;on the stock.

“ 12,216. And any such things are rather concealed from you than otherwise, as agent, I suppose.—Invariably.”

Finally it is certainly a just observation that the growth of such a custom among tenantry is a curious and significantnbsp;commentary upon the assertions of agitators that the tenantsnbsp;are at the mercy of their landlords and dare not farm highlynbsp;or effect improvements lest the fruit of their labour shouldnbsp;be confiscated. In fact, it argues a confidence on their

IN NORTH WALES.

part, which we shall prove to have been well-founded, that no such advantage would or will be taken of them. None-the less the custom is mischievous, and agents and owners,,nbsp;particularly small owners, are well advised to be on their'nbsp;guard against it.

And now for the more serious allegation that rents are excessive and exorbitant. The evidence on this point takesnbsp;various forms. One typical form is to be found in Mr. Ellis’s-House of Commons speech. He instanced, omitting innbsp;characteristic fashion all particulars which might enable hisnbsp;statement to be tested or his outline of facts to be filled in, anbsp;farm in Anglesey taken on a lease for life in 1787 at 5s. pernbsp;acre. (The chances are that a premium was paid, but letnbsp;that pass.) Then at some date, which Mr. Ellis did notnbsp;think it worth while to mention, the son of the lessee succeeded, the rent being raised to 10s. and then to 16s. an acre.nbsp;Then, says Mr. Ellis (accurately, no doubt, so far as hisnbsp;knowledge went, but, as he would, of course, admit, speakingnbsp;upon matters as to which precise information must be difficultnbsp;to attain now), the tenant did all manner of improvements,,nbsp;and for ninety-seven years the landowner spent not a pennynbsp;piece. Finally, during the tenancy of the son’s widow, the-rent was raised to 23s. per acre. Now, from a practicalnbsp;point of view, this statement, even if we assume Mr. Ellis notnbsp;only to be absolutely accurate but to have ascertained thenbsp;whole of the facts (a very generous assumption this last), isnbsp;worth nothing at all now. Anglesey in 1787, that is to say,,nbsp;more than a century ago was, if not terra incognita, something very like it. Railways of course were not; there wasnbsp;not even a bridge to connect the island with the mainland.nbsp;Anglesey now has excellent roads; is intersected by twonbsp;lines of railway; and has easy communication with flourishing market towns on the mainland. The value of propertynbsp;has therefore improved, and the farmer’s life at 23s. an acrenbsp;rent may very likely be far more choiceworthy now than it

K

THE LAND QUESTION

was in 1787 at 5s, an acre. It may be said, that the “ increment ” in the value of the landowner’s property is unearned. That is true enough, but Socialism is not strong enough yetnbsp;to confiscate unearned increment; and in any case the storynbsp;requires filling out before it is worth anything. Here arenbsp;questions to be answered. Was a premium paid for thenbsp;original lease ? Was the rent fixed at 5s. on the first or at 10s.nbsp;on the second letting (which was cheap enough in all conscience), on the terms that the tenant should effect certainnbsp;improvements ? What is the evidence, which must all of itnbsp;be hearsay and part of it hearsay upon hearsay, of what thenbsp;tenant did and that the landowner spent nothing ? Generalnbsp;statements of this kind, in fact, are worth nothing for practical purposes, for the question, the only question worthnbsp;considering, is whether the rent of 23s. per acre is reasonablenbsp;now or not. That is a question which might be answerednbsp;after survey of the farm itself; for the rate is, as a matter ofnbsp;fact, not excessive for good land in Anglesey.

This example from Mr. Ellis is taken, not from his evidence, but from his speech in the House of Commons ; but it is a typical exhibition of the evidence which was laid beforenbsp;the Commission. It will be convenient, perhaps, to give anbsp;few examples of the allegations made, more often by strangersnbsp;and rarely by the persons concerned, in the course of thenbsp;North Wales evidence. (Q. 7847 forward): Mr. John Morrisnbsp;Jones, a tenant of Sir Watkin Williams Wynn, testified thatnbsp;his grandfather had held at £140 ; that his father succeedednbsp;in 1841; that in 1860 his rent had been raised to £155; thatnbsp;it had been reduced in 1866 to £140. Then came a minornbsp;difference as to the substitution of one parcel for another;nbsp;and he said that finally, in 1882, the rent had been raisednbsp;£40 on witness succeeding to the tenancy. He admitted thatnbsp;he had received some abatements of 10 per cent., and thatnbsp;his rent had recently been reduced by £50 per annum. Mr.nbsp;Thomas Davies (7973) gave a list of farms, with their gross

IN NORTH WALES.

¦estimated rental in 1869 and 1893 respectively, but admitted both abatements and reductions. Air. William Pngh (8438)nbsp;¦complained that his rent had been raised since 1853. Air.nbsp;David Evans complained that his rent had been raised fromnbsp;£28 to £37 10s. (It was afterwards explained that the firstnbsp;rent was subject to payment of tithe by tenant, and thenbsp;second to payment by landowner.) Mr. Thomas Ellis (8901)nbsp;observed that in 1850 his rent had been raised from £27 tonbsp;£28, and again, in 1862, to £32. In 1862 he had taken anbsp;second farm for £16 8s., the rent paid by the previous tenantnbsp;having been £13 ; and that in 1872, after he had reclaimednbsp;some waste land, his rent had been raised further. Air.nbsp;Eichard Eoberts (9341) gave a list of farms on which rentsnbsp;had been raised during the past fifty years.

This kind of extract from evidence might be continued almost ad infinitum. But the continuance would be wearisomenbsp;and meaningless. In very many cases witnesses were provednbsp;to be inaccurate in their figures ; in many others it was provednbsp;to demonstration that there were special and sufficient reasonsnbsp;to account for raising of rent. To adduce a large number ofnbsp;these cases tending to show that erroneous statements havenbsp;been made either wilfully or through ignorance, pardonablenbsp;or culpable, were an easy task. But its accomplishment wouldnbsp;serve only to cumber the text, and would not touch the mainnbsp;question, which is simply whether rents have been shown tonbsp;be excessive. Precisely the same observation applies to thenbsp;evidence, given loosely very often, that rents have been raisednbsp;generally, in this or that district, during the past fifty years.nbsp;It should be observed, however, that little as is the value to benbsp;attached to that evidence from a practical point of view, evennbsp;when it is given by a farmer, that little becomes beautifullynbsp;less when it is given by a tradesman or a Nonconformistnbsp;niinister. No imputation on either of these classes is involvednbsp;in this statement. The simple fact of the matter is that theynbsp;have no knowledge of the relations of landowner and tenant.

THE LAND QUESTION

and that their evidence is worth about as much as that of the bishops and clergy would have been if the landowners hadnbsp;put them forward as witnesses.

The real question is whether rents are excessive; whether they are so fixed that, upon an average of years, a farmer ofnbsp;average skill and business ability, equipped with adequatenbsp;capital at starting, cannot make a reasonable profit. Be itnbsp;observed here, and by way of preliminary, that landownersnbsp;have a right to insist that an incoming tenant shall possessnbsp;adequate capital, and that, in their own interests, as they havenbsp;testified time after time, they do take all possible steps tonbsp;ascertain that he is so endowed before he enters a farm. Thenbsp;matter, however, is one into which it is delicate and difficultnbsp;to inquire, and over which a landowner or his agent is easilynbsp;to be deceived. Hence it came out frequently in evidencenbsp;that tenants entered upon their holdings with the deliberatenbsp;intention of farming upon borrowed capital. It may perhapsnbsp;be open to question among reasonable men whether a man isnbsp;entitled to complain that his rent is excessive merely becausenbsp;after paying interest on borrowed capital (for which, in mostnbsp;cases, having no security to offer, he must pay at a high rate)nbsp;and after paying the expenses of farming and supportingnbsp;himself and his family, he finds his rent somewhat difficultnbsp;to pay.

Again it was frequently urged that rents must be excessive, and farmers must be hard driven, because, it was alleged, they had to borrow money to pay their rents. That thenbsp;evidence on this point was almost entirely hearsay is not tonbsp;be imputed for blame to the Commissioners. It was thenbsp;best evidence they could get, since no man was likely voluntarily to impair his credit by confessing that this was hisnbsp;own position. But the allegation is so old in point of timenbsp;that it becomes necessary to inquire into its real meaning.nbsp;It occurs in “ Adfyfr’s ” pamphlet; the columns of the vernacular press at the interesting period from 1886 to 1889 bristle

IN NORTH WALES.

witli it; it is to be found in Mr. Ellis’s speech in 1892, in which it is specifically stated that the lenders are the banks.nbsp;It is therefore clear, since the principles of banking do notnbsp;differ materially all tlie world over, that these borrowingsnbsp;are merely for purposes of temporary convenience. Anbsp;man with surplus stock to sell or produce to take to marketnbsp;thinks that he sees a better opportunity of selling to advantage three or four months ahead. In the interval he borrowsnbsp;from his banker who is not at all likely to lend to him unlessnbsp;he knows—and country bankers know a great deal of theirnbsp;neighbours and are thereby enabled to lend more freely andnbsp;more profitably than city bankers—that he is a substantialnbsp;man. It is a little difficult to see the proof of grindingnbsp;poverty in this fact, for fact it is in some measure, that mennbsp;borrow money for purposes of temporary convenience andnbsp;repay it afterwards.

It is not pretended of course that the cry “I’ents are too high,” was not frequently uttered before the Commissionersnbsp;by farmers and outsiders. Of the outsiders it were merenbsp;waste of time to take solemn notice. The opinion of anbsp;minister of religion, a grocer, a solicitor or a journalist isnbsp;Worth no more upon this question than the opinion of annbsp;artist or a shipbuilder. Still it is not denied that there werenbsp;numerous farmers (though the Commission did not succeed,nbsp;as Major Birch observed, in securing the evidence of representative farmers) who raised the cry. Human nature wouldnbsp;not have been true to itself if their evidence had taken anynbsp;other shape. Every man would like to obtain that whichnbsp;he desires at a less rate than he has to pay if it werenbsp;possible; and Welsh farmers were virtually asked to saynbsp;that their rents were excessive. Here, for example, are somenbsp;questions from the official syllabus which suggest the expectednbsp;answers pretty plainly. “ Could present rents be maintainednbsp;if wages were paid in respect of the children’s labour ? ”nbsp;“ What provision is made for them (children) on marriage or

THE LAND QUESTION

independent settlement in life ? ” nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;“ Are farms let to the

highest bidder ? ” This last proved a somewhat awkward question, for except in the most general form there was nonbsp;evidence at all that land was ever let to the highest bidder,nbsp;and, when the Commissioners pressed their theory by furthernbsp;questions, they were confronted with unwelcome answersnbsp;which occasionally caused them to'lose patience. Thus Mr.nbsp;Eichard Jones and Mr. 0. Griffiths, a Commissioner and anbsp;farmer of 70 acres respectively, held the following dialoguenbsp;at Llangefni (19,254, forward).

“ You say, Mr. Griffiths, that the interests of the farm eland the landlord are identical ?—I do.

“ So far as you as a tenant are concerned what is your interest, so far as the rent is concerned^—I do not quite-understand the question.

“ I will put it in this way; Is it not your interest to have-the rent as low as you can ?—It is.

“ What is the interest of the landlord so far as the rent iamp; concerned—to have as much as he can, is it not ?—Yes.

“ How can you say that the interests are identical ?—If the tenant will go back (i.e., if the tenant’s circuvistancesnbsp;groiu worse) the landlord will, because he depends on it.nbsp;That is what I mean—he depends on the tenant. Henbsp;depends on land through the tenant.

“ Is that your explanation ?—Yes, and in that way I think they are.

“ Do you think that your farm would let for more money ? — Yes, it would.

“ Do 3-0U feel that you are living on the generosity of your landlord?—We agree together very well.

“ Will you answer my question ? Do you feel that you are living on the generosity of your landlord if you thinknbsp;that your farm would command a higher rent ?—Well, I dogt;nbsp;to some extent—yes.

IN NORTH WALES.

not know ; I would prefer charity as well as justice.

“Would you rather have charity ?—Charity as well justice.”

Mr. Jones’s method was Soera tic, a relic no doubt of his education at Aherystwith; but we may safely leave thenbsp;reader to form his own opinion on the question whether thenbsp;Commissioner or the plain Anglesey farmer had the betternbsp;of the encounter.

This kind of thing happened time after time, and the viva voce evidence proved incontestably, not only that the lettingnbsp;of farms to the highest bidder was virtually unknown, butnbsp;that the tenants as a body were well aware that they heldnbsp;their farms at less than the market rent. It is introducednbsp;in full, merely to show the kind of reception which met mennbsp;who presumed to expi’ess themselves satisfied with their rentsnbsp;and unwilling to see any attempt made to establish judicialnbsp;machinery for the fixing of rents. There were, to theirnbsp;credit be it said, many score of such tenants, substantialnbsp;men who stood in no dread of landowner, preacher or politiciannbsp;who came forward with evidence of this character. Suchnbsp;men were the tenants of Sir Watkin mentioned earlier, whomnbsp;Mr. Brynmor Jones cross-examined. Another instance wasnbsp;Mr. Edward Roberts, a farmer on the Hafodunos Estatenbsp;(64,377), another Mr. John Jones (64,473) and large numbersnbsp;elsewhere. The encouragement offered to them by thenbsp;majority of the Commission was, to say the least of it, notnbsp;great, and there can be no doubt that they represent the vastnbsp;majority of the tenantry who, regarding the proceedings ofnbsp;the Commission with apathy and indifference, took no noticenbsp;of its passage through the county in which they resided.

The evidence therefore of farmers upon the question whether rents in Wales are excessive or not may be summed

THE LAND QUESTION

np by saying that a large number of tenants, having every encouragement offered to them, asserted that rents were excessive, while many others, not quite so numerous but certainly equally representative, expressed the opinion that,nbsp;hard as present times are, rents are not on the whole unfair.nbsp;Of this evidence the first section was given clearly in accord-.ance with interest, the second was given, so far as merenbsp;rent went, against interest; for the tenants were always encouraged to think, as in the case just quoted at length, thatnbsp;the proposed legislation would result in a general reductionnbsp;•of rents.

Very much more important really was the evidence as to 'the manner in which rent is really fixed. Let us take thenbsp;¦words of Mr. W. B. 0. Jones, as competent a man as is to benbsp;found in Wales, albeit, since he has all the courage of hisnbsp;•opinions, he did not please the majority of the Commissioners,nbsp;of whom, indeed, he got rather the better. “ I walked everynbsp;held with him (the tenant), walked the mountain with him,nbsp;and discussed matters with him, and my figures came out atnbsp;what they have been stated ” (8710). Again (10,377) : “ Thenbsp;rent is fixed by valuation on this estate by a practical valuernbsp;and a tenant farmer.” This is practically the universalnbsp;system whenever there is occasion to readjust the originalnbsp;rent, either because there is a change of tenancy or for othernbsp;reasons; but it is clear, none the less, that the valuer mustnbsp;have a mental regard for the market value, i.e., the rent whichnbsp;the farm would fetch if offered for competition among solventnbsp;•candidates for tenancy; although he needs not to be guidednbsp;absolutely by that and, in the interests of the estate, thenbsp;rent is kept below the competition rent.

Is the standard of valuation for purposes of rental higher or lower in Wales than in England? Major Birch, as wenbsp;have seen—and there is no higher authority—thinks that itnbsp;is lower, and that more is d^one for the Welsh tenant than fornbsp;the English. The question is, however, exceedingly difficult

IN NOETH WALES.

to answer even with regard to adjoining estates, as was well illustrated by Mr. Walter Jones. It must always be remembered that the rent is not the only incident of tenancy. Onnbsp;some estates it is the ]Dractice for the owner to do all repairsnbsp;and imjjrovements at his own cost; on others, on some of thenbsp;Anglesey estates for example, he supplies materials only;nbsp;sometimes the tenant is expected to do the haulage, sometimes he is not. Arithmetical comparison is therefore apt tonbsp;be exceedingly misleading. Thus Mr. Walter Jones, innbsp;answer to the question whether there was uniformity of rents,nbsp;a question inserted for some obscuz’e reason, since a man isnbsp;concerned only with his own liability, and not with that of hisnbsp;neighbour, said (10,327); “ It is very unequal. Rent isnbsp;much influenced by the question what the landlord is to do,nbsp;and does, and what the tenant is to do and does. If thenbsp;latter does everything, his rent is something pins what henbsp;pays to the owner. If the owner does everything the rent isnbsp;Something minus what the tenant pays him.” The intervalnbsp;between these two positions is of course divided into numberless spaces. The same observation, that arithmetic, althoughnbsp;itself infallible, must not be treated as an absolute guide,nbsp;applies to the further question whether abatements or reductions are adequate or inadequate, a question which Mr.nbsp;Griffiths was apt to put in this crude form: “ Do you thinknbsp;How that 10 per cent, is a sufficient reduction for these hardnbsp;times ? ” Mr. Grove, too, with that implicit faith in figuresnbsp;natural to a man whose life’s work has been devoted to them,nbsp;Was prone to put the same question. But it was I'eally meaningless and inconclusive, for the question whether a reductionnbsp;19 adequate or no depends entirely upon the moral quantity,nbsp;So to speak, of the original obligation which is reduced, ornbsp;npon other circumstances. This cannot be put better thannbsp;in the form of a question which was put by landowners’nbsp;counsel to a hostile Pembrokeshire witness—no such questionnbsp;was put in North Wales.

THE LAND QUESTION IN NOETH WALES.

Q. 31,036. “Would you not rather be on his (Sir Owen Scourfield’s) estate without an abatement than on some estatesnbsp;with a large abatement ?—A. Indeed I would.”

There is the whole thing in a nutshell; there is the danger of being misled by arithmetic into the conclusion that annbsp;owner has not done his dutj’', has not recognised adequatelynbsp;the needs of his tenants, when in fact that conclusion can benbsp;justified only, if at all, after careful inquiry into the exactnbsp;circumstances of each particular case, and anxious consideration of the precise force of each one of them. Still, figuresnbsp;can do something, and it is claimed that the exact tables in thenbsp;Appendix showing abatements, reductions, and the history ofnbsp;rental on a very large number of estates in North Wales donbsp;prove beyond question that North Wales landowners havenbsp;shown warm and substantial sympathy for the tenant farmersnbsp;during the period of depression. It is claimed that thesenbsp;figures, procured for the Commission with great labour, andnbsp;deterrent as they are in appearance, form by far the mostnbsp;valuable part of the evidence offered to the Commission. Ofnbsp;their authenticity there is no doubt. They were one and allnbsp;sent in to the late Mr. George Owen by landowners or agentsnbsp;under their own hands. He testified also to the fact that nonbsp;discretion had been used in the selection of them. No returnnbsp;which came to him was omitted; all, good, bad, or indifferent,nbsp;were submitted to the Commission ; and the result is one innbsp;which the landowners of North Wales, when they considernbsp;the vast acreage covered by the returns, and the record ofnbsp;money given back freely and willingly, may well feel honestnbsp;pride. It goes without saying, of course, that this is not allnbsp;the merit which may honestly be claimed for them. Allnbsp;these figures must be considered in connection with thenbsp;account of money spent otherwise for the benefit of thenbsp;tenants, and without increase of remuneration to the land-owner, which is dealt with in another chapter.

OHAPÏEE VIII.

Alleged Insecurity of Tenure—Microscopic Evidence of Gapricious Eviction—1858 and 1868 too long ago—Accusations of Canvassingnbsp;against Landowners and Agents—not proved, but why should theynbsp;refrain ?—The True Answer found in Tables of Hereditary Tenancynbsp;—Evidence in Detail from many Estates.

The next statement made by the persons who aver that things are nob as they should be, and that the law regulatingnbsp;the relation of landowner and tenant is based upon somenbsp;terribly wrong principle, is that tenure or tenancy is sonbsp;insecure, and that recognition of its insecurity is so general,nbsp;that farmers dare not farm to the best advantage lest theynbsp;should receive notices to quit, or their rents should be raisednbsp;upon their own improvements, or circumstances, foreseen ornbsp;unforeseen, should bring about a sale of the whole or part ofnbsp;the estate upon which their holdings are situate. Therefore,nbsp;it is said, they say, we must have fixity of tenure before wenbsp;can farm highly; and since fixity of tenure involves the settlingnbsp;of rents by external authority (for there is no sense in giving anbsp;man fixity of tenure if his rent may be raised indefinitely) theynbsp;are thus made in effect to claim a Land Court. Now this argument, that if tenure were legally more secure, cultivation mightnbsp;be better, is plausible enough to have influence upon manynbsp;minds. It may therefore be as well to point out that if there benbsp;any timidity of this kind, which is by no means admitted, annbsp;absolute remedy and cure for it is to be found, not in thenbsp;establishment of a Land Coui't and a statute conferring fixitynbsp;of tenure, with their attendant evils, but, in an amendment

THE LAND QUESTION

of the law of compensation for improvements. A man could hardly be heard to say that he dared not improve as he mightnbsp;if, in the event of a termination of the tenancy, he werenbsp;assured of full compensation for all the advantage honestlynbsp;added to the land by virtue of his exertions.

But let us look and see whether there is any foundation for the primary allegation that, as a matter of fact, tenancynbsp;is insecure. The allegation divides itself under two heads—nbsp;(a) it is said that tenants feel insecure because their holdingsnbsp;may be brought into the market at any time; (6) it used tonbsp;be said habitually, in the days when general statements couldnbsp;be made without being tested, that tenants were ejected fromnbsp;their holdings for capricious and political reasons. Withnbsp;the first head we need not be troubled now since it clearlynbsp;comes under the question of compensation.

After an exhausting pilgrimage with the Commission through North Wales¹ it is fortunately possible to write thatnbsp;not a single authenticated and unrebutted case of capriciousnbsp;eviction has been brought home to any landowner, small ornbsp;great; and that the only two cases of anything which mightnbsp;be misconstrued into eviction for political reasons were thatnbsp;of a man, who is admitted to have received notice to quit, onnbsp;Sir Watkin Williams Wynn’s estate, because he absolutelynbsp;refused to pay the tithe rent-charge, and that of another mannbsp;on the Kinmel estate, who was caused to leave for the samenbsp;reason.

Almost the whole of the evidence upon the point of politics relates back to the elections of 1858 and 1868 ; and, so far asnbsp;these elections go, it is proposed, in accordance with the principles laid down in an earlier chapter, to deal with the eventsnbsp;resulting from them in a very cursory manner by saying that,nbsp;in 1896 and with a Ballot Act and a Corrupt Practices Actnbsp;in force, it really matters nothing from the practical point

1

This has since been admitted by Mr. Brynmor Jones in the Commons.

m NOETH WALES.

of view what was done so long ago and under conditions so entirely different from those which are present now.

It is a singular thing, and one reflecting some credit on landowners as a body, that the researches of the party ofnbsp;agitation into these matters should have been so absolutelynbsp;barren of modern results. Thus, if we take the most extremenbsp;witnesses of all—viz., Mr. Ifan T. Davies, Oalvinisticnbsp;Methodist Preacher (6800), Mr. Thomas Ellis, M.P. (16,910),nbsp;Mr. Thomas Gee, Oalvinistic Methodist Minister and newspaper proprietor, of Denbigh, and Mr. David Owen, solicitor,nbsp;of Bangor (20,005), and Mr. Bryn Roberts, M.P., at Carnarvon, it is really nothing less than astounding to find thatnbsp;they are absolutely wanting in modern instances of the particular species of tyranny which they, or some of them, hadnbsp;declared in public to be practised so universally that allnbsp;courage was actually ground out of the people’s hearts. Yetnbsp;no men could be better placed to obtain that informationnbsp;which the Commissioners would have accepted gladly enough.nbsp;If the facts had existed, surely Mr. Ellis, Mr. Bryn Roberts,nbsp;with his long experience and extensive practice as a solicitornbsp;in a rural district, Mr. David Owen, a man in like position,nbsp;and Mr. Gee, of all men in the world, would surely havenbsp;brought forward all that could be so brought. In truth therenbsp;was nothing to bring forward, and the few specific cases innbsp;which an attempt was made to prove this grievance brokenbsp;down miserably. So weak, indeed, was the case for the prosecution in this respect, that the majority of the Commissioners were obliged to push their attack upon landownersnbsp;and agents forward until it rested upon a foundation of theorynbsp;which was curiously novel. They asked often, for example,nbsp;whether landowners and their agents canvassed voters atnbsp;election times. The underlying suggestion clearly was that,nbsp;for some inscrutable reason, men in their position were prohibited from the legitimate use of such influence as belongednbsp;to them. In an ideal world, perhaps, this might be the case.

THE LAND QUESTION

of the law of compensation for improvements. A man could hardly be heard to say that he dared not improve as he mightnbsp;if, in the event of a termination of the tenancy, he werenbsp;assured of full compensation for all the advantage honestlynbsp;added to the land by virtue of his exertions.

But let us look and see whether there is any foundation for the primary allegation that, as a matter of fact, tenancynbsp;is insecure. The allegation divides itself under two heads—nbsp;(a) it is said that tenants feel insecure because their holdingsnbsp;may be brought into the market at any time; (6) it used tonbsp;be said habitually, in the days when general statements couldnbsp;be made without being tested, that tenants were ejected fromnbsp;their holdings for capricious and political reasons. Withnbsp;the first head we need not be troubled now since it clearlynbsp;comes under the question of compensation.

After an exhausting pilgrimage with the Commission through North Wales¹ it is fortunately possible to write thatnbsp;not a single authenticated and nnrebutted case of capriciousnbsp;eviction has been brought home to any landowner, small ornbsp;great; and that the only two cases of anything which mightnbsp;be misconstrued into eviction for political reasons were thatnbsp;of a man, who is admitted to have received notice to quit, onnbsp;Sir Watkin Williams Wynn’s estate, because he absolutelynbsp;refused to pay the tithe rent-charge, and that of another mannbsp;on the Kinmel estate, who was caused to leave for the samenbsp;reason.

Almost the whole of the evidence upon the point of politics relates back to the elections of 1858 and 1868 j and, so far asnbsp;these elections go, it is proposed, in accordance with the principles laid down in an earlier chapter, to deal with the eventsnbsp;resulting from them in a very cursory manner by saying that,nbsp;in 1896 and with a Ballot Act and a Corrupt Practices Actnbsp;in force, it really matters nothing from the practical point

1

This has since been admitted by Mr. Brynmor Jones in the Commons.

IN NORTH WALES.

¦empliatically say you had never given a notice to quit (for a political reason)?” He answered, “Hot to the best of mynbsp;recollection.” On this point he was pressed by the Chairmannbsp;(Lord Carrington) several times ; but he declined to be morenbsp;definite, and there is no doubt that an unfavourable impressionnbsp;was produced. But the fact remains that in the case ofnbsp;David Jones, of Bryn Llefrith (as quoted in his evidence),nbsp;the alleged victim remained in his farm for the next ten ornbsp;•eleven years, and then left it to go to one he had jiurchased,nbsp;having been fully compensated for all the improvements henbsp;had made on the farm he left. It is common experience thatnbsp;a scrupulously exact witness is apt to be believed less freelynbsp;than a man who makes bold and comprehensive statementsnbsp;on matters about which he does not really feel certain. Againnbsp;(11,446) it was suggested that a Mr. William Owen hadnbsp;received notice to quit his holding on the Vaynol estate fornbsp;political reasons in 1868. As a matter of fact it wasnbsp;admitted by the witness that the reason assigned was anbsp;desire to make Mr. Owen’s holding a part of the home farm,nbsp;that it was so used for eleven months, and that the owner ofnbsp;the estate then negotiated an exchange with another tenant.nbsp;It needs hardly to be added that the agent who gave thenbsp;original notice was dead, so that he could not explain hisnbsp;motives.

These are poor cases indeed ; but they are among the best, are indeed almost the whole, of the specific cases. Againstnbsp;sorry stuff of this kind, against old tales raked up andnbsp;exaggerated, against flimsy suggestions of wrong done innbsp;recent times, suggestions denied on the spot, and in supportnbsp;of which not a rag of evidence was offered later, it werenbsp;really unnecessary to make any case. But a case is made,nbsp;in the evidence; and those who are patient enough to refernbsp;to it will find it in extenso. Some of it, however, may benbsp;recapitulated with advantage. Here is the testimony ofnbsp;Mr. Price of Bhiwlas :

“ Changes on my estate have been less frequent during the last ten years than the previous ten years. From 1873 tonbsp;1883 there have been forty-eight changes, whereas fromnbsp;1883 to 1893 only about thirty cases of removals, an averagenbsp;of three per annum. Thirteen removed to other farms, ofnbsp;whom eight went to bigger ones and some to smaller ones.

“ 8170. On the same estate ?—On the same estate. Seven gave up farming. I am only giving evidence regarding mynbsp;own estate.

“8171. But do you mean leaving your estate or moving from one farm on your estate to another farm on yournbsp;estate ?—No; moving from one farm on my estate to anbsp;bigger one—better ones. We look upon bigger farms asnbsp;better ones; perhaps it may not be right.

“8171a. Will you proceed with your instances?—Seven gave up farming altogether.”

The seven proved for the most part to have simply retired. Mr. Price also gave numerous instances in which outgoing ornbsp;deceased tenants had been succeeded by relatives. The Hon.nbsp;E. H. Eden, Lord Dudley’s agent, said : “ Very few changesnbsp;except from death.” Mr. Walter Jones said : “The changesnbsp;on the estate I have to manage are very rare.” This wasnbsp;the common form of the evidence; but occasional witnessesnbsp;went into significant detail.

Colonel the Hon. W. B. Sackville West spoke thus of the Penrhyn estate:

“ 12,097. There are about 167 farms which have been held by the same families for 50 years and upwards. In all casesnbsp;where there are near relations available on the avoidance of

IN NORTH WALES.

a farm the tenancy is given to them unless there are very strong reasons to the contrary. There are some tenants whonbsp;claim that their families have been on the Penrhyn estatenbsp;for upwards of 200 years.”

Captain Stewart produced the following remarkable list of hereditary succession in holdings by the same families :

“ The number of families in occupation over 50 years is 451 out of the 660 replies that I have received.”

Lord Stanley of Alderley gave an exact list which is worth reproducing.

Jones, Elias.

Jones, Griffith

Jones, Hugh Jones, John G.

Jones, John .

Jones, John .

Jones, Mary Jones, Eobert, Rev.nbsp;Jones, Thomasnbsp;Jones, Thomas (representative of late)nbsp;Jones, Williamnbsp;Lewis, H., Col.

Morris, Robert Morris, Williamnbsp;Owen, Dorothynbsp;Owen, Elizabethnbsp;Owen, E. R.

Owen, Griffith Owen, J. E. and W. W.nbsp;Owen, Richardnbsp;Owen, Brothersnbsp;Owen, Elizabethnbsp;Owen, Williamnbsp;Owen, John .

Parry, John .

Parry, John .

Parry, Margaret Pritchard, Rowlandnbsp;Roberts, Davidnbsp;Roberts, Hughnbsp;Roberts, John

Remarks.

Thomas Griffith (brother) established in business at Bangor as a grocer, amp;c,nbsp;Married daughter of late tenant.

Widow of late tenant.

Hugh H. Hughes (brother) went to Australia, amassed considerable wealth, and is now living at Holyhead.

(Three generations.)

(Traced back with rental to 1815.)

Owen James (who died in 1892) and his ancestors had been tenants at Turnpikenbsp;over 80 years.

(Three generations.)

Widow of late tenant.

John Williams (brother to Mrs. Jones) was a naval engineer. He is now pensioned,nbsp;and living in Liverpool.

No. of Holdings.

87

53

109

66

72

61

49

50 39nbsp;22'

21

46

6

12

7

9

13

2

2

1

1

9

6

1

7

751

Very striking also in this relation was the evidence of Colonel H. E, Hughes relating to the Wynnstay estates andnbsp;others connected with them. It ran thus :

IN NORTH WALES.

“ The custom of continuous family succession in tenancy has always been a predominant feature on this estate, in factnbsp;on the Welsh portion it is and has been an invariable imle tonbsp;accept a member of a deceased tenant’s family as his successor,

“ When there is a member of the family eligible to succeed, the preference is given to him or her ungrudgingly, and Inbsp;cannot record any case where the widow was not allowed tonbsp;succeed her deceased husband as tenant if she so wished, ornbsp;failing her, the son or other near relative.

“ This continuity of tenancy is more in evidence among the Welsh-speaking tenants, and there are some remarkablenbsp;instances of farms on this property continuing in the occupation of the same family for very long periods.

“The following are noteworthy instances of continuous family succession, vouchsafed for principally by the presentnbsp;respective occupiers, who take as much pi-ide in their heritage-as if they were fee simple owners of their holdings :

“ Welsh Estates.

THE LAND QUESTION

“ On the same estate in the parish of Trawsfyndd :—

“ The Jones family have been at Bryncelynog 400 years. “ The Eoberts family at Tyddyn Du . over oOO „

“ The Owen family at Tyddyn Mawr . nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;300nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;„

“ Average 333 years per family.

“ In Carno Parish the Breeze family have occupied Glan-banog for 150 years, and previous to that, lived on the estate at Oae Twpa, Llanbrynmair.

“ In Trefeglwys Parish :—

“ The Hughes family have been at Ehiwdy-

feity about...... 250 years.

“ The Owen family at Llwyn-y-gog about . 250 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;„

“ The Wigley family at Rhosgoch about . 200 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;„

“ Average 243 years.

“ In Garthbeibio Parish the Hughes family have lived at Dolymaen about 250 years, and the Vaughans at Hafody-beudy and Dolfrynog in Llanerfyl Parish, 300 years, comingnbsp;there from the Llwydiarth estate.

IN NORTH WALES.

“ The history of the Llwydiarth estate is of the same unique character:—

“The Jones family have heen at Blaenycwm from 150 to 200 years.

“ The Williams family at Cammen about 100 years.

“ The Jones family at Cammen Tawr from 150 to 200 years.

“ The Watkin family at Gwaellod Cammen from 150 to 200 years.

“ The Watkin family at Groes from 100 to 150 years.

“The Jones family at Llawrycwm from 150 to 200 years.

“ The Evans family at Tyn-y-coed about 200 years.

“ The Williams family at Dafarn Newydd about 200 years.

“ The Lloyd family at Brynmawr from 150 to 200 years.

“The Davies family at Braichywaen from 150 to 200 years.

“The Evans family at Cefncleisiog from 150 to 200 years.

“The Jones family at Coedleos about 150 years.

“ The Bees family at Maesglynnen from 300 to 400 years.

“ The Jones family at Cuddig from 150 to 200 years.

“The Watkin family at Erw Glanrafon about 100 years.

“ The Humphreys family at Eachwen Ganol about 100 years.

“ The Watkin family at Eachwen Isaf about 100 years.

“ The Jones family at Eronlas from 150 to 200 years.

“The Eoberts family at Llwynhir about 150 years.

“ The Davies family at Penyrwtra upwards of 200 years.

“ The Davies family Lletty Meirch upwards of 200 years.

174 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;THE LAND QUESTION

“ The Jones family at Mynydd-ddwlan Uchaf about 200 years.

“ The Jones family at Melin ddwr about 200 years.

“The Evans family at Pendugwm about 150 years.

“ The Jones family at Penisa’r Llan about 200 years.

“ The Jones family at Pantglas about 200 years.

“ The Jones family at Tyn y celyn mawr about 200 years.

“ The Parry family at Tyn y maes about 200 years.

“ The Lewis family at Tyn y rhos about 200 years.

“ On the Llangedwyn estate there is a long record of continuity of tenancy, the following families have been on their respective farms for generations, none for a period of lessnbsp;than three and many for seven generations:—

“ The Sides family at Pen y bryn.

“ The Morris family at Wernoleu,

“ The Thomas family at Highlands.

“ The Vaughan family at the Mount.

“ The Jones family at PenyfEridd.

“ The Davies family at Gartheryr.

“The Davies family at Banhadla.

“The Jones family at Oil bach,

“ The Hughes family at Tany-gors-goch.

“ The Buckley family at Tynymaes.

“ The Kynaston family at Prongoch.

“TheMills family at Penyddalfa.

“ The Davies family at Trefeiliw.

“ The Buckley family at Prondeg.

“ The Buckley family at Cefnisa.

“ The Jones family at Cefnllaniwrch.

“The Vaughan family at Cryniarth.

“ The Lewis family at Trebrys.

“ The Davies family at Tybrith.

“ The Buckley family at Glaniwrch.

The Owen family at Yr Aran,

“ The Vaughan family at Yr Aran.

The Price family at the Pron.

“ The Morris family at Pentre-gwyn-bach.

“ The Sides family at The Golfa.

“ The Jones family at Pentrecwm.

' The Lloyd family at Tregeiriog Mill.

' The Lewis family at Nantyrhiwlas.

' The Jones family at Blaenrhiwlas.

“ 1’he Williams family at Tynybwlch.

“ The Hughes family at Tynycelyn.

“ The Hughes family at Penyrallt.

The Williams family have been at Oli mawr about 200 years.

“ The Evans family at Tan-y-dderwen for 100 years.

' The Moreton family at Abercynlleth for 150 years.

“ The Morgan family at Ehydgaled for 100 years.

“ The Edwards family at Henblas for about 200 years.

“ The Evans family at Gian Tanat for 300 years.

“ The Edwards family at Caerfach about 200 years.

“ The Williams family at Efel Rhyd Mill about 200 years.

“ The Evans family at Trewern Isaf about 100 years.

“ The Pierce family at Frongoch 100 years.

“ The Jones family at Cwmegar 155 years.

“ The Foulkes family at Penllan 130 years.

“ The Jones family at Pen-y-graig Ucha 152 years.

“ The Jones family at Pentre Geiriog for 200 years. “The Hughes family at Pen-y-graig Uchaf for 200nbsp;years.

“ The Edwards family are at Sycharth for 400 years, and the Foulkes family are supposed to have occupiednbsp;Gartheryr for quite 1000 years.

THE LAND QUESTION

“ On tlie Llanforda Estate :—

“ The Thomas family have been at Pantyffynon 200 years.

“ The Edwards family at Penybryn 200 years.

“ The Evans family at Nant y gollen 200 years.

“ The Edwards family at Pentre gaer 200 years.

“ The Edwards family at Oynynion 200 years.

“The Jones family at Brongoll 250 years.

“The Davies family at Cleveland, 150 years, and the Roberts family have been at Rhydycroesau for fivenbsp;generations.

“ On the Wynn stay estate, there is comparatively little continuity of tenancy to record, as there is but once instancenbsp;of a family having occupied a farm for more than 100 years.

“Taking the property as a whole, especially of the Welsh estates, I venture to think this proves that where a longnbsp;succession of undivided ownership creates confidence in itsnbsp;long established practice and traditions (which are handednbsp;down, with such hereditary appreciation of their value, as onnbsp;these estates) the system is far better adapted to thenbsp;economical requirements of the community than any systemnbsp;involving joint ownership which can be devised.”

These are samples of the solid and substantial evidence which is offered to show that the allegation of frivolous andnbsp;capricious evictions, so easy to make in a general form, andnbsp;so difficult to rebut in that form ; so difficult to make in anbsp;definite form, and so exceedingly easy to rebut in that form,nbsp;is really not worth the paper it is written upon or the breathnbsp;in which it is uttered. It will be observed that the examplesnbsp;chosen and put forward in evidence most prominently camenbsp;frona the large estates. That course was adopted designedly,nbsp;not because it would not have been a simple matter to obtainnbsp;similar evidence from the smaller estates, but simply becausenbsp;it is on the larger estates, otherwise allowed to be well and

IN NORTH WALES.

generously managed, that capricious evictions are said to have taken place. The evidence cited clearly shows thatnbsp;upon these large estates tenancy is not only secure butnbsp;virtually hereditary, and the most signal proof and confessionnbsp;of this is to be found in the fact that the party of discontentnbsp;complained continually that in this case or in that the widownbsp;or the niece, or the cousin of a deceased tenant had not beennbsp;allowed to succeed to the holding as of right. When mennbsp;allege insecurity of tenure on the mere ground that thenbsp;landowner, in quite exceptional cases and for good reasonnbsp;assigned, has not followed a practice which has becomenbsp;matter of habit and of grace, although having no foundationnbsp;in law, and when in refutation plain facts of this kind arenbsp;brought forward, and none can be proved per contra, surelynbsp;the case of the accusers has perished altogether.

CHAPTER IX.

Sectarian Preference—Evidence of Mr. Bryn Boherts, M.P.—a ridiculous Letter—an unauthorised Circular which was not circulated— Absence of Evidence—95_p.c. of tenantry Nonconformists.

Contracts out of Agricultural Holdings Act 1883—not proven—void if made—Contracts out of Custom of Country defended—Copies ofnbsp;Agreements easily to he obtained—Grievances as to “Services”nbsp;quite unreal—Grievances as to Game, minor—Penal Glauses innbsp;A greements.

Two allegations, dealing with alleged sectarian preferences and alleged contracts ont of the Agricultural Holding Act ofnbsp;1883 and the evidence brought forward in support of them,nbsp;may be dealt with in this chapter. The first was made innbsp;“Adfyfr’s ” pamphlet and in Mr. Ellis’s speech in the House ofnbsp;Commons ; and expression was given to it, in that vague andnbsp;indefinite form dear to the Cymric heart, by Mr. Brynnbsp;Roberts, M.P., before the Commission at Carnarvon; andnbsp;Mr. Bryn Roberts’s words may be taken as a typical examplenbsp;of what was said by many witnesses, and denied by manynbsp;others.

“ Great complaint has also been felt—and that is in recent times—with respect to a preference which has been universally believed by the Nonconformists in that neighbourhoodnbsp;to have been given to Churchmen and Conservatives in thenbsp;case of applications for vacant houses and tenements. I donbsp;not think there ever has been any complaint of any Nonconformists being evicted on account of their Nonconformity, nornbsp;has there been usually, as far as I am aware (and I do not

THE LAND QUESTION IN NORTH WALES.

think there has been any at all), any complaint of, say, a Nonconformist’s son, living at home with his father, assistingnbsp;him, not being allowed to succeed his Nonconformist father.nbsp;But complaints have arisen in cases where they say thenbsp;houses or the tenements naturally become vacant by thenbsp;death of tenants who had no wives or sons living at home,nbsp;and therefore the estate authorities had to seek for tenantsnbsp;from among strangers. Chiefly, since the year 1880, principally after the election of that year, the feeling has beennbsp;universal in that district that it was hopeless for a Nonconformist to apply for a tenement or a house on the Yaynolnbsp;¦estate if there was a Churchman competing.”

This amounts to a statement that there had been a feeling that preference had been given to Churchmen, as opposed tonbsp;Nonconformists, when both were applicants for the samenbsp;tenancy. Now the statement that a rumour or a feeling hasnbsp;existed is, by its very nature, incapable of disproof. Thenbsp;most that can be done is to show that there has been nonbsp;ground for such a feeling or rumour. This Mr. Brynnbsp;Roberts himself did by admitting (13,161) that no suchnbsp;feeling or complaint exists now; and Captain Stewart, thenbsp;agent of the Vaynol estate, supplemented him by denyingnbsp;emphatically (13,395) that differences in language, creed, ornbsp;politics affected in any way the relation of landowner andnbsp;tenant. Moreover, the evidence of Mr. Bryn Roberts throwsnbsp;additional light upon the subject. He explained that thenbsp;monthly meeting of the Governing Body of the Calvinisticnbsp;Methodists was a perambulatoiy body. “When it visits anbsp;particular chapel it is the universal custom always to inquirenbsp;as to the success or otherwise of the cause in that particularnbsp;•chapel.” In this particular district the monthly meetingnbsp;seems to have discovered that Nonconformity was losingnbsp;ground. Ignoring absolutely the natural explanation of thenbsp;very slight change in matters of belief which may induce

THE LAND QUESTION

migration from Calvinistic Methodism to the Church, Mr. Eryn Eoberts promptly imputed mean motives to the converts. “ Weak people—people of slight principle, werenbsp;disposed to leave the chapel in the hope that when anynbsp;chance of advancement came they would have a betternbsp;opportunity of securing that advancement.” But conscientious change of view is the natural explanation, and whennbsp;account is taken of the unpopularity which a man must risknbsp;amongst his former associates upon a change of creed, and ofnbsp;the fact that Mr. Bryn Eoberts, who is in the very bestnbsp;position to obtain information, could not or would not give anbsp;specific instance in which change of creed had operated to anbsp;man’s advantage, it is reasonably clear that conscience was,nbsp;and is, the true spring of action in these changes of creed.

The allegation is, however, one which, by reason of its potent efficacy in stirring u]3 ill-feeling, is a favourite weaponnbsp;in the hands of the party of agitation, and they left no stonenbsp;unturned to impress it upon the minds of the Commissioners.nbsp;Thus, Mr. Bryn Eoberts produced this letter, printed in thenbsp;Conservative North Wales Chronicle of May 7th, 1887nbsp;(which, by the way, was disclaimed editorially at the time),nbsp;and Mr. Lloyd George, M.P., referred to the same letter in anbsp;question addressed to Lord Penrhyn at Llangefni. Here isnbsp;the letter:

“ It is rumoured that the desirable farm called Hafod (200 acres) in this parish is now vacant. It is to be hoped thatnbsp;Sir Eichard Bulkeley will this time give the preference to anbsp;Conservative and a thorough Churchman should one applynbsp;for the farm, otherwise the Church in the place will suffernbsp;considerably. Between emigration on the part of Churchmen, and the filling up of farms in the neighbourhood of latenbsp;by extreme Eadicals and chapel-going people, the Churchnbsp;has suffered considerably. For the past forty years dissentnbsp;has made its mark; and if due caution is not taken soon, it

IN NORTH WALES.

will be useless to ring the church bell. The future success of churches to a certain degree^ particularly in such a countynbsp;as Anglesey, depends upon the action of Conservative landlords. They are a power in the country.”

But Mr. Bryn Eoberts went on to say, in answer to Lord Kenyon:

“I do not think it has ever been a complaint on Sir Eichard’s estate at all; I think in the past, at any rate, not anbsp;single tenant on that estate felt he was under a disadvantagenbsp;by being a Nonconformist. I only mention it as showingnbsp;that among a large section of Churchmen that feeling hasnbsp;been very prevalent within the last twenty-five years—I donbsp;not think it existed before then, or thirty years at any rate.”

Now, as a matter of fact, the letter is, on the face of it, the expression of one man’s opinion, and Mr. Brynnbsp;Roberts expressly acquitted the landowner to whom it wasnbsp;virtually addressed of having been influenced by it in thenbsp;slightest degree. But, so far as the latter expresses anynbsp;opinion worthy of attention, it refers clearly to a belief thatnbsp;farms had been filled up of late with Radicals and Nonconformists and that Churchmanship was the reverse of annbsp;advantage to an applicant for a farm. If this was the casenbsp;(and the rough statistics accessible as to the proportionnbsp;between Nonconformist and Church tenants go some distancenbsp;to justify the theory), it would not be by any means contrarynbsp;to the rules of human experience. There is much humannbsp;nature in the old story of the schoolmaster who, being accusednbsp;of favouritism towards his son, administered an exemplarynbsp;thrashing to him on the spot; and the landowner who choosesnbsp;a Nonconformist for a tenant may at least be secure from thenbsp;abuse of the vernacular press for a week or two.

A second wild expedient to which the grievance-mongers were driven was the production of the following circular :

THE LAND QUESTION

“ To the Clergy, Landowners, and Tenants. When the-Church and all landed property are so severely and relentlessly attacked, and the spirit of Socialism is so rapidly spreading in the Principality, it has become highly necessarynbsp;for the clergy and the wealthier among the laity, to knownbsp;who are their true friends and loyal supporters, and to actnbsp;accordingly.

“ Landowners, in particular, should be on their guard as to the persons to whom they let their land, and should ascertain whether candidates for their farms are the friends ofnbsp;order and justice, or of anarchy and confiscation.

“ At the urgent request of several persons of influence, I have opened a Conservative Registry as a medium of communication between landowners wanting tenants, and tenantsnbsp;wanting farms; and with a view of carrying out the suggested scheme, I have to request:

“ (1) That incumbents inform me of any farm vacant, or about to become vacant, in their parishes.

“ (2) That all Churchmen and Conservatives be made acquainted with the existence of such an office.

“ (3) That Conservative landowners and their agents communicate with me whenever a tenant may be required.

“ I remain, yours faithfully.”

Note that the circular was unsigned and came under notice first when Mr. W. B. C. Jones was under cross-examination at Dolgelley. It had been mentioned in a pamphletnbsp;issued by the North Wales Property Defence Association, innbsp;terms which left no doubt that its publication had no connection with that body, who, as a fact, at that time believednbsp;it to be a forgery and “ a regular humbug ” (Mr. W. B. C.nbsp;Jones, 8817), and had discovered it in the columns of thenbsp;vernacular press. Note also the insinuation contained in anbsp;question put by Mr. Brynmor Jones, with a zeal distinctlynbsp;outrunning discretion.

IN NOETH WALES.

“ 8810. It appears in a document printed and published by the North Wales Property Defence Association ?—It isnbsp;printed and published by the North Wales Property Defencenbsp;Association; but the sentiments are not those of the Association. The expense of the printer’s ink and paper are-theirs.”

It is submitted that the question argued the use of anything rather than a judicial mind.

This circular was often referred to again ; at last it was run to earth; it was then discovered that a few copies of itnbsp;had been printed to the order of an irresponsible person atnbsp;Aberystwith who probably imagined that he could make anbsp;living out of the idea. There was no scintilla of evidence thatnbsp;it had affected or interested any human being besides thenbsp;author, and the ideas embodied in it were repudiated mostnbsp;emphatically by every landowner to whom they were submitted by the Commission.

The two documents that have been quoted appeared as often as a recurring decimal in the evidence of variousnbsp;persons, and the Commissioners were fond of harking backnbsp;to them. Nor is this matter to be regretted, for it does butnbsp;serve to show the weakness of the case against landowners.nbsp;In the face of a mountain of evidence that preference wasnbsp;most distinctly not shown to Churchmen, as compared to anbsp;mere molehill to the contrary, the party of agitation was-driven to rely upon two documents, issued without authoritynbsp;from any landowner, disavowed by every landowner undernbsp;whose notice they came, issued anonymously by irresponsiblenbsp;persons, and containing silly advice which nobody followed.nbsp;Surely evidence of this kind and the frequent use of it isnbsp;the very best proof that the case was either shockingly illnbsp;prepared, or rotten to the core.

The specific allegations made that a preference had been shown for Churchmen were so few in number, so vague, and

so emphatically denied (wherever there was any man alive or accessible to deny them) that they are unworthy of notice.nbsp;It is impossible to find one that was brought fairlj’- home innbsp;the whole of the North Wales evidence. But the real answernbsp;to the charge is to be found in the universal admission of thenbsp;party of agitation that Nonconformist tenants are in overwhelming preponderance—one witness placed it as high asnbsp;9-5 per cent.—for it is idle to talk of preference in the facenbsp;of such figures as these; in the universal declaration of land-owners and agents that the question of creed never enterednbsp;into their minds in choosing a tenant; in the careful analysesnbsp;of creeds of tenantry given by such witnesses as Colonelnbsp;Hughes, and in the long lists of chapel sites given outright,nbsp;or sold for nominal prices, or let for long terms at nominalnbsp;rents, handed in on behalf of numerous estates, which willnbsp;be found in the appendix. In short that accusation hasnbsp;been disposed of for ever; and no truthful person willnbsp;repeat it in the House of Commons, on the platform, or innbsp;the Press.

Let us now pass to quite a different point which may be treated quite shortly. The Commission are now in possessionnbsp;of probably the largest collection of forms of agreement fornbsp;agricultural tenancy that exists in the world ; agreements ofnbsp;which a large number are, naturally enough, since the law ofnbsp;landowner and tenant is identical in England and Wales, innbsp;common use in England and Wales. Indeed, the mostnbsp;stringent of them all is, odd as it may seem, a Scotch form,nbsp;abounding in legal expressions not intelligible to Englishnbsp;lawyers. The indictment against these agreements may benbsp;stated with the particular answer to each count on the spot;nbsp;the general answer to it shall follow.

The following are the accusations made against the framers of these agreements:

(1) It is said that, to quote Mr. Ellis in the House of ¦Commons, “ You could count on the fingers of one hand the

IN NORTH WALES.

number of landlords who did not contract themselves out of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875.”

The statement as it stands would doubtless be admitted by Mr. Ellis to be somewhat wildly figurative ; and he wouldnbsp;certainly be compelled to confess that he did not possess thenbsp;information which would enable him to make it with precision. But the real answer is that inasmuch as “ contracting out ” was expressly allowed by the Act itself, everybodynbsp;had a perfect right to avoid it if he chose. The matter wouldnbsp;not be worthy of mention but for the growth of a very modernnbsp;and unsound theory that there is some kind of new immoralitynbsp;in the avoidance of the operation of an Act of Parliament.nbsp;Judges have often pointed out that the phrase is inaccuratenbsp;and misleading. An instrument, for example, either comesnbsp;under the Bills of Sales Acts, or is exempt from them. If itnbsp;comes under them, it is either a bad or a good Bill of Sale ;nbsp;if it is exempt from them it is simply not a Bill of Salenbsp;at all, and not by any means an evasion of the Act.nbsp;So, when Parliament enacted the Agricultural Holdings Actnbsp;¦of 1875, with a “contracting cut” clause, it left free choicenbsp;in the matter, and to adopt the Act did not become annbsp;action of a virtuous character any more than to put it asidenbsp;became a vicious proceeding.

(2) It is said that landowners so frame their agreements of tenancy as to contract out of the Agricultural Holdingsnbsp;Act of 1883. This is a more serious matter because, exceptnbsp;as to length of notice, or as to an agreement for a scale ofnbsp;compensation at least equal to and to be substituted for thatnbsp;contained in the Act, the statute is universally obligatorynbsp;and not optional. Mr. Ellis did not venture to make innbsp;the House of Commons an allegation that agreements purported to contract out of this Act. He merely said, withnbsp;characteristic readiness to impute mean motive, “ the pit-falls of the Act were such that one landowner and one agentnbsp;after another managed to make that Act of no avail in the

THE LAND QUESTION

majority of cases.” This is really rather a childish observation. The object of Parliament was to provide machinery for settling, and enforcing upon landowner and tenant, thenbsp;respective rights of both parties on the determination of thenbsp;tenancy. That object was, it is urged by representatives ofnbsp;both parties, far from being attained. Still, there is the law.nbsp;Neither landowner nor agent, therefore, could take anynbsp;advantage which was not given in so many words to him bynbsp;Parliament. And, as for the matter of pitfalls, the Act is,nbsp;by comparison with other Acts, not particularly noteworthynbsp;for them. It is, indeed, unreasonable to attack landownersnbsp;or agents, ivJio cannot move under the Statute until a claimnbsp;is made by the outgoing tenant against them, because, whennbsp;such claim is made, they follow the directions of a statutenbsp;passed by a Government hostile to the landowning interestnbsp;and based upon the principle that landowners are not to benbsp;trusted to make fair contracts. There is no purpose, at thisnbsp;point, of defending the Act, which is indeed imperfect fromnbsp;many points of view, as will be shown presently : the objectnbsp;is rather to show that landowners cannot be blamed justlynbsp;if they allow their conduct at a given juncture to be regulatednbsp;by an obligatory statute formulated with the express intentionnbsp;of regulating their conduct at that juncture.

This, however, is not what Mr. Ellis and others complain about. They become indignant about what they call “ technicalities ”—so do many persons when the so-called “ technicalities ” do not happen to favour their side; but what theynbsp;really mean is that wasteful tenants get no advantage innbsp;money out of the Act, when a tenancy determines, becausenbsp;the making of a claim by them for the benefit, real or imaginary, which they have conferred upon the land, opens thenbsp;door for a counterclaim by the landowner in respect of thenbsp;damage they have done. They may rest assured that Parliament has not yet reached a frame of mind in which thisnbsp;principle will fail to receive the respect which has always been

IN NORTH WALES.

paid to it since ideas of fair and even justice began to dawn upon the human mind.

But in evidence the accusers went farther than Mr. Ellis had gone. Thus, Mr. David Owen (20,006), a solicitor, whonbsp;knows very well what the value of an oral statement as to anbsp;written document is, said, “ I know of agreements where bothnbsp;the custom and the Agricultural Holdings Act have been excluded.” He was, however, forced by Lord Kenyon to readnbsp;a portion of an agreement between Mr. 0. Hughes, of Nannernbsp;(a small landowner), and Mr. E. Jones, tenant of a holding ofnbsp;239 acres, which appeared to bear out his contention ; but itnbsp;appeared (20,056) that this document was not the originalnbsp;agreement, but a copy handed to the witness by the tenant.nbsp;Now, copies are of very little value in cases of this kind. Andnbsp;this was Mr. Owen’s ewe lamb—all he had to quote—a merenbsp;hand-made copy. Let us assume, however, that in this case,nbsp;and perhaps in two or three others, it was shown that thenbsp;written agreement of tenancy did either through ignorancenbsp;on the part of the draftsman, or designedly, purport tonbsp;exclude the statute which by law cannot be excluded, remembering always that phrases purporting to exclude the Act arenbsp;sometimes used, erroneously, with reference to a substitutednbsp;scale of compensation, which is the vital part of the Act.nbsp;Supposing, even, that a landowner tries to exclude the wholenbsp;Act, and tries to do so deliberately. What happens ? Henbsp;turns the whole instrument of tenancy into a piece of wastenbsp;paper; no harm is done to anybody as long as the tenancynbsp;enures ; and when the tenancy comes to an end, if he is likenbsp;ninety-nine Welshmen out of a hundred, the tenant goes to hisnbsp;lawyer, who laughs at the whole business, and recovers fornbsp;him precisely the amount of compensation under the Actnbsp;which he would have obtained if the clause purporting tonbsp;avoid the Act had not been inserted.

The strong man who can digest some four or live thousand lai’ge Blue-book pages of evidence, exclusive of the report,.

THE LAND QUESTION

will find scores of general allegations of contracting out of the Act of 188o ; but two or three is a generous number to allownbsp;-(for the whole of Wales) as having been thoroughly broughtnbsp;home. The rest resolve themselves into cases where thenbsp;twelve months’ notice is reduced to six, by mutual agreement and for mutual convenience, or to assertions unsupported by any documentary evidence, and therefore withoutnbsp;value, or to undated copies of alleged agreements (whichnbsp;are doubly valueless), or to cases of substituted scale ofnbsp;compensation. Now, avoidance of the notice clause and anbsp;substituted scale of compensation are permitted by the Act,nbsp;and to them it is impossible to offer even a Pharisaicalnbsp;objection.

(3) It is said that landowners contract out of the custom •of the country.

The answer is “Yes, frequently,” except in Glamorganshire, and the reason for the rule, and the exception, and the justification of both, are near to seek. They arenbsp;these. You may have compensation by custom, or compensation under the Act; but you cannot have both, becausenbsp;they are sure to overlap one another. Compensation bynbsp;¦custom is certainly the preferable method, for custom may benbsp;depended upon to advance with the needs of the times farnbsp;more rapidly and steadily than the law can be amended in anbsp;House of Commons subject to unforeseen vicissitudes. Thenbsp;•Glamorganshire custom had made this advance, before the Actnbsp;was passed, and the result is that the Act is a dead letter, tonbsp;the great delight of all persons concerned. Nobody takes anynbsp;notice of it, and nobody wishes to take notice of it. Elsewhere, custom being less advanced, the Act, by going a longnbsp;way to destroy freedom of contract, has entirely stopped thenbsp;development of those beneficial customs which grew out ofnbsp;contract. But that the tenant cannot have both is as clearnbsp;in the case of North Wales, where the Act is operative, as innbsp;.that of Glamorganshire, where the custom has caused it to be

IN NORTH WALES.

as though it had never been written. Such is the answer to this trifling allegation.

(4) nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;It is said that tenants cannot obtain, free of charge,nbsp;copies of their agreements; that they do not understandnbsp;them because they are not in Welsh; and that they signnbsp;them in blind ignorance of their contents.

The evidence goes a long way to disprove the first clause in this count, and to show that tenants will hardly accept the-copies when offered. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundrednbsp;it was proved that copies were both given and explained,nbsp;where necessary. Certainly there is no case on a considerable estate in which the tenant cannot see his agreementnbsp;at the agent’s office whenever he likes ; and equally certainly,nbsp;the suggestion that any Welshman ever signed a documentnbsp;without understanding it, will be discredited scornfully bynbsp;any man who knows the country and its people. For thenbsp;rest, the day when documents of contract are compelled to be-iu the Welsh language will be the dawn of the resuscitationnbsp;of the rather languid North Wales circuit. In fact, there is-no substance in this part of the complaint, and no more wordsnbsp;need be wasted on it.

(5) nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;It is said that the agreements impose irksome servicesnbsp;on the tenants, which services are a relic of feudal times andnbsp;tokens of tyranny, together with other nonsense.

These services, according to the evidence, consist of three-things. First, on some estates the agreement ordains that the tenant shall provide the landowner with a fat goose atnbsp;Christmas. The agreement is never enforced, is not oftennbsp;fulfilled, and, where it is fulfilled, it is as a pure matter ofnbsp;friendship.

Secondly, agreements sometimes provide that coal shall be carted, so many loads as the case may be, by the tenant fornbsp;the landowner. This clause is sometimes enforced; but, asnbsp;Mr. Walter Jones pointed out, it is naturally taken into-account in fixing the rent.

THE LAND QUESTION

Thirdly, tenants agree, and are sometimes asked, to maintain foxhound or harrier puppies sent out to walk, as is customary in England. No doubt it is true (see Mr. Seebohm’s Tribal Wales) that the old Welsh kings and princes hadnbsp;similar but much larger and more important rights. Thenbsp;practice may be an interesting survival; but there is no evidence that anybody makes any objection to it, and certainlynbsp;no M.P.H. would, in his own interests, force his puppies onnbsp;an unwilling farmer.

It is only too plain that these allegations of grievances are the creation of grievance-mongers; that they are not feltnbsp;and are unreal; that they are the proofs of the desperatenbsp;straits to which the party of discontent has been driven.

It may be amusing, while the subject of dogs is uppermost, to note that in Anglesey a complaint was made that Lordnbsp;Stanley of Alderley has a habit of shooting stray dogs. Therenbsp;is no denying it; his lordship admits it, and gaily professesnbsp;his willingness to take the consequences. “ I have constantlynbsp;peppered dogs at a distance,” he said. In fact, his lord-ship has the honour of having furnished the material for anbsp;leading case in the law relating to dog-shooting. However,nbsp;this is not merely a Cymric, but also a Cheshire grievance ;nbsp;and it was a Cheshire woman who had the law of him innbsp;respect of “ so very unladylike a dog that I did not believe itnbsp;was hers.”

(6) nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;It is said that agreements compel tenants to lendnbsp;their names for the prosecution of poachers.

This is in some measure true. There is no grievance, because the poaching fraternity know very well who the real prosecutor is. The writer, however, does not believe thatnbsp;the inclusion of this clause in- agreements is necessary in law.nbsp;Certainly, when opposed by shrewd lawyers, he has got convictions without it.

(7) nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Finally, it is said that the penal clauses in agreementsnbsp;are too severe—clauses prohibiting the breaking up of old

pastures, and so forth—and that the restrictions as to cultivation are so strict as to hamper cultivation.

The subject is one of some difficulty, and that not merely at first sight. True, it is universally admitted by farmernbsp;witnesses, and protested by landowners and agents, that goodnbsp;tenants are, as a matter of practice (and know themselves tonbsp;be) absolutely free to farm at their discretion; and that thenbsp;restrictions are, so far as they are concerned, absolutelynbsp;nugatory. But, hard-working, honest, and careful as thenbsp;majority of Welsh tenants are, the flock is not entirelynbsp;white; and there are certainly a very large number of gentlemen, whose experience gives their words weight, who holdnbsp;that the penal and restrictive clauses, of the enforcementnbsp;of which there is believed to be no evidence, and of thenbsp;neglect to enforce which there is abundant proof, havenbsp;a certain value for those who have to deal with bad tenants.nbsp;Even in Wales there is such a thing as “ farming to leave,”nbsp;and that particular form of vice is not one to be encouraged.

CHAPTER X.

Game Grievances—a silly Story—the Preferential Claim—Arguments-for and against—Abolition involves a “Forehand Pent”—Enclosures of Commons and Crown Wastes—'purely Legal Questions on whichnbsp;Landowners declined to give Evidence—the Case of Squatters—thenbsp;Evidence of Mr. Salt—Concerning the Raising of Rent—no Evidencenbsp;taken of Development of Coventry and Markets—Vagueness of Ideanbsp;of Tenant's Moral Rights in the Way of Compensation—Lordnbsp;Carrington’s former estate in Cardiganshire—Weakness of Allegations that no Compensation had been paid—Important Evidenceofnbsp;Expenditure in Improvements on many estcUes—full Statistics.

In this chapter it is proposed to deal, first, with allegations of grievance connected more or less closely with the preservationnbsp;of game ; secondly, with the evidence relating to the preferential claim; thirdly, with the question of enclosure ofnbsp;commons, and fourthly, with the allegation that rents havenbsp;been raised on tenants’ improvements. The first three pointsnbsp;may be dealt with very briefly; the last will be the mainnbsp;subject of the chapter since it brings in, as of necessity, thenbsp;survey of the vast mass of evidence placed before the Commission with regard to the investment of capital by landownersnbsp;in their estates, and the consideration from a rational point ofnbsp;view of the principles which ought to regulate the law of compensation to tenant and landowner in England and Walesnbsp;from a rational point of view.

The “great Game Question” is one of those subjects upon which the agitator can enlarge with vigorous eloquence on anbsp;platform when addressing a mob; it is a topic upon whichnbsp;Radical newspapers, particularly those which represent the

IN NORTH WALES.

proceedings at a “ hot corner ” as the mechanical massacre of the innocents, can easily indite furious articles. But when thenbsp;necessity for proof came in JSTorth Wales the agitators werenbsp;placed in some difficult3r. They alleged on occasion, no doubt,,nbsp;excessive preservation of game; but the few statistics whichnbsp;were available showed conclusively to those of the Commissioners who knew what the English standard of first-rate-shooting was (Lords Carrington and Kenyon, and Sir Johnnbsp;Llewelyn for example), that no really heavy head ofnbsp;pheasants is kept ujo even round the greatest mansions. Itnbsp;is not intended here to convey the impression that sport innbsp;North Wales is not good; but it is certainly the case that innbsp;that part of the Principality gentlemen are contented withnbsp;bags which would be reckoned small in England, and thenbsp;writer ventures to guess, with some confidence, that thenbsp;number of pheasants reared and brought to the gun in thenbsp;County of Norfolk alone in any one year is quite double thatnbsp;of those which suffer the like fate in the whole of Northnbsp;Wales. Concerning hares no grievance was alleged; it was-stated repeatedly and not seriously contested, that hares arenbsp;all but extinct in the country at large, although, of course,nbsp;there are some in the parks of noblemen and gentlemen. Ofnbsp;partridges nobody complains, and of the alleged grievancenbsp;concerning grouse—viz., that in their interests the propernbsp;burning of the heather was interfered with, was disposed ofnbsp;by Lord Kenyon in a couple of shrewd questions. Let usnbsp;endeavour then to classify the grievances under theirnbsp;headings:—

Game Laws.—A certain number of witnesses, few if any of whom were farmers, raised the old cry that the Game Lawsnbsp;Ought to be abolished. Among the farmers, however, therenbsp;Were a large number who had not the slightest objection tonbsp;winged game, who acknowledged the benefit which the Gamenbsp;Laws conferred upon them in the way of keeping off trespassers, and expressed the pleasure which they felt in seeing

N

THE LAND QUESTION

the landowner and his friends shooting over their holdings. Others, however, not a large number, expressed the opinionnbsp;that the game ought to be the property of the tenant.

They omitted to reflect that, in the absence of a reservation to the lessor, the game is already the tenant’s for which thenbsp;landowner pays, indirectly, by taking so much less rent thannbsp;he would take if the reservation were not made. Some also,nbsp;notably in the Vale of Olwyd, objected to the practice ofnbsp;‘letting shooting to strangers. For their instruction Mr. T. A.nbsp;Wynne Edwards produced at Denbigh some valuable statisticsnbsp;showing the pecuniary benefit which accrues to a districtnbsp;from shooting tenants, particularly those who make the saidnbsp;district their home.

It may, however, be said generally and without fear of contradiction, that the grievances on the head of the Game Laws generally were urged seldom, and in a factious rather than anbsp;¦serious spirit.

Beaters.—It was with some amazement that persons ¦familiar with Wales saw in the official syllabus two questionsnbsp;of which the first suggested that tenants were compelled tonbsp;act as beaters, while the second insinuated that beaters werenbsp;not paid for their services. The questions were either verynbsp;ignorant or very malicious. To the suggestion contained innbsp;the first of them no particle of evidence gave any support;nbsp;although, of course, it is true that the tenant of his own freenbsp;will does often accompany the shooting party over hisnbsp;holding, and would be much insulted if payment werenbsp;offered. The second suggestion was absolutely disprovednbsp;•everywhere. It would be interesting to learn from whatnbsp;fertile brain these suggestions of a purely imaginary grievancenbsp;emanated.

Ground Game Act.—It was said that the Act was a dead letter since the tenants dared not avail themselves of it.nbsp;This general statement was valueless, and specific evidencenbsp;of its truth was never forthcoming. Of the desperate efforts

IN NORTH WALES.

to prove this, the history of the evidence of Mr. John Roberts is an amusing instance. He said (9718) :

“ Although I have a right to the rabbits, yet I fear the consequence of making use of my rights. I have arrangednbsp;with a man to catch the rabbits on a certain portion of mynbsp;farm, but in the meantime Lord Harlech’s keepers appeared,nbsp;and commenced ferreting wholesale. When I remonstrated,nbsp;I received a threatening letter from Lord Harlech, intimating that if I interfered with them he would see mynbsp;landlord about it.”

Note first that the two initial sentences flatly contradict one another. On the following day Mr. Roberts camenbsp;forward again saying that Mr. Lawford, Lord Harlech’snbsp;agent, had offered him £1 a year for the privilege of shooting the rabbits (9986), a proceeding alleged by Mr. Brynmornbsp;Jones to have been “ unlawful under the Ground Game Act.”nbsp;This was an inaccurate expression for, even assuming that anbsp;sale by a tenant of his rights under the Ground Game Actnbsp;to a person other than his landlord is a void contract—anbsp;very doubtful assumption—there is nothing unlawful ornbsp;objectionable in such a sale and purchase. Then Mr. Robertsnbsp;'(9994) produced the following letter from Lord Harlechnbsp;which, seeing the word “ illegal ” referred solely to thenbsp;treatment of two keepers by Mr. Roberts, was distinctly notnbsp;threatening but the reverse :

“ Brogyntyn, Oswestry,

“ October öth, 1892.

“ Sir,—I have had a report from my keeper, Edwards, as Well as that from you respecting the occurrence on the racecourse last Monday. You seem to be quite ignorant of thenbsp;iaw as to a tenant’s rights to ground game, and your be-Laviour was extremely illegal, and you rendered yourself

THE LAND QUESTION

liable to punishment. However, I am quite disposed to believe your conduct was through ignorance of the law. Inbsp;exercise my rights to the game and rabbits there from Mr.nbsp;Pope, who derives his right from your landlord, Mr. Poole.nbsp;Your best course will be to see Mr. Pope at Hafod-y-bryn,nbsp;who, being not only a sportsman but a lawyer, will be ablenbsp;to inform you what a tenant’s rights respecting groundnbsp;game are, and if you stick to them there will be no occasionnbsp;for difference between you and me. The sooner you seenbsp;Mr. Pope the better.

¦ Yours faithfully,

“ Haelech.

“ To Mr. John Roberts,

“ Oefntrefnfawr.’'

Then Mr. Lawford came forward to say that Lord Harlech claimed no more than a concurrent right to the rabbits andnbsp;that Mr. Roberts harboured them, to the damage of Lordnbsp;Harlech’s adjoining property, in order that he might let thenbsp;shooting. (Why it is right in a tenant to let shooting tonbsp;one man and wrong for him to let it to another, it is notnbsp;easy to see.) Then Mr. Roberts came forward (10,004) tonbsp;say that he claimed an exclusive right, that Mr. Lawford hadnbsp;never paid the £1 and that Mr. Lawford had no cause fornbsp;complaining of his harbouring rabbits since “ there were nonbsp;rabbits there.” Yet he had said (9718): “I should notnbsp;complain so much if Lord Harlech simply walked over mynbsp;farm for sporting purposes, but he catches the rabbits innbsp;cart-loads and sends them away to supply the Englishnbsp;markets, thus making profit on what I consider my own. Inbsp;would as soon see him taking away a flock of my sheep andnbsp;selling them to a butcher.” The Commissioners asked himnbsp;no questions as to this flat and obvious contradiction.nbsp;Finally, at a later sitting, Mr. Lawford came forward and,nbsp;impressed no doubt by the new doctrine, enunciated by Lord

m NORTH WALES.

Carrington and Mr. Brynmor Jones, that it is “ unlawful ” to enter into a void contract, said he might have been wrongnbsp;in what he did—there was of course absolutely no moralnbsp;obliquity in his action—and produced the receipt for £1nbsp;from Mr. Roberts.

A pretty petty story, it will be said, but, apart from the errors and contradictions of his own evidence into which Mr.nbsp;Roberts fell, themselves illustrative of the kind of evidencenbsp;on which serious allegations are based, it shows precisely thenbsp;amount of misunderstanding that exists concerning thenbsp;Ground Game Act. The Act, in truth, is in active operation all over Wales; but the malcontents claim more thannbsp;it gives them; they demand an exclusive right to thenbsp;rabbits, and a right to set traps where they please. At thenbsp;same time (62,604 and thereabouts) a long dispute betweennbsp;Mr. Vaughan, a tenant farmer, and Mr. W. D. W. Griffithsnbsp;of Garn, clearly shows that they are only too ready to demand also, and quite inconsistently, compensation for damagenbsp;done by rabbits which they will not permit the landlord ornbsp;shooting tenant and their keepers to destroy. They desire,nbsp;in fact, to eat the whole cake and keep it; and that is annbsp;impossibility.

Compensation for Damage done by Game.—A great quantity of evidence, far too long to be recapitulated here, was adduced on this point. In the great majority of cases it reduced itself to an assertion that the compensation given hadnbsp;been inadequate. That is to say, men asked for more thannbsp;they expected to get, and got less than they asked, and werenbsp;indignant accordingly. Much evidence of compensation givennbsp;Was adduced ; but the question whether it was sufficient ornbsp;insufficient is one on which opinions naturally differed. Itnbsp;day be pointed out, however, that the ordinary law providesnbsp;a remedy for damage resulting from the preservation of annbsp;excessive head of game. The best example, perhaps, of anbsp;monstrously excessive claim was that of a man who claimed a

THE LAND QUESTION

large sum, £50 or £80 it is believed, for damage done to a field of five or six acres by game, and finally defined the said gamenbsp;as %üild ducks!

Let us pass to the question of the preferential claim for rent, a question common to England and Wales, concerning whichnbsp;a large volume of evidence has also been given before the Royalnbsp;Commission on Agricultural Depression, of which Mr. Shawnbsp;Lefevre is, or was, chairman. It would be erroneous to saynbsp;that the questions administered by the Commissioners generallynbsp;showed any strong feeling on the matter. For our part, wenbsp;defend the system in the interest of the tenant on variousnbsp;grounds, and are unable to perceive that it works any seriousnbsp;mischief to creditors other than the landowner, and maintainnbsp;that its abolition would place the tenantry of the country facenbsp;to face with a serious difficulty. The complaint against it isnbsp;raised principally by tradesmen who feel some natural annoyance when, upon the failure of a farmer, twelve months’ rentnbsp;(if due) must be paid out of his assets before their claims arenbsp;considered. The manure-merchant, corn-merchant, and others,nbsp;however, are in the first place perfectly well aware of the existence of the preferential claim when they give credit to a farmer;nbsp;and they cannot plead that they are compelled to give credit.nbsp;Contra, the landowner is virtually compelled to allow the tenantnbsp;the use of his land on credit from day to day for a period, benbsp;it three months, six, or twelve, before his rent becomes due.nbsp;Again, the preferential claim enables the landowner to fix thenbsp;rent audits, which are suited to the convenience of his tenants,nbsp;at dates, as the evidence shows abundantly, considerably laternbsp;than those at which the rent is due. Further, as severalnbsp;agents showed, the existence of the system has frequentlynbsp;enabled landowners to give a helping hand to a farmer in difficulties, thus enabling him to have the benefit of breathingnbsp;time, which has saved him from utter collapse and the necessity of beginning the world over again. In the absence ofnbsp;such a system it would be necessary, at the very least, for rent

audits to be held on the days when the rent was due; and, as-may be judged from the evidence of Mr. Henry Curr, who was Lord Ancaster’s agent, a worse thing might befall the tenantry^nbsp;The law of hypothec, which comes to much the same thing asnbsp;the preferential claim, was abolished in Scotland at the request, to a great extent, of the tenant farmers. They wish-now that they had never proffered any such request, inasmuchnbsp;as, said Mr. Curr, in a dry way, “landowners now require anbsp;forehand rent.” Since human nature varies but little, it maynbsp;be assumed, with some justice, that landowners in Wales—nbsp;and in England, too—for the question is not a whit morenbsp;Welsh than English—would, under like circumstances, follownbsp;the example of their Scottish brethren. The inconvenience to-farmers would be manifest, for few things could be morenbsp;awkward than to be called upon to pay six months’ rent in:nbsp;advance on entering upon a tenancy, when there are numerous-other expenses to meet. One argument in favour of the-abolition of the system, that of unfairness to other creditors,nbsp;has been dealt with already; the other, often exhibited in annbsp;interrogative form by Mr. Richard Jones, was that the securitynbsp;conferred upon landowners by the system was an inducementnbsp;to them to accept impecunious tenants recklessly. Even fromnbsp;the point of view of those who are disposed to reckon the-morality of landowners at the lowest point, the argument wasnbsp;not intelligent; for Mr. Richard Jones must know very weltnbsp;that an impecunious tenant is an evil to be avoided atnbsp;any cost.

Into the assertions of alleged wrongful enclosure of commons or Crown waste, which were made with some freedom, it is notnbsp;proposed to enter here, for the simple reason that the answersnbsp;to them were not for the most part given in any detail before thenbsp;Commissioners. Each one of the enclosures stood upon itsnbsp;own merits, and depended upon its own particular set of circumstances, and each one of them necessarily involved a question of title which, in most cases, could not have been threshed.

THE LAND QUESTION

out without considerable expense. Nor were the witnesses who appeared before the Commission equipped, any morenbsp;than eight out of the nine Commissioners, with that specialnbsp;knowledge which could enable them to speak with authority,nbsp;and without great risk, on questions of title. Landownersnbsp;were, therefore, advised not to offer evidence to the Commissioners, or to answer questions upon questions of this character, on the ground that such topics were clearly foreign tonbsp;the scope of the Commission’s inquiry, and that the constitution of the Commission was not such as to justify the beliefnbsp;that it had been intended to spend its energies in that direction. It should be added that the whole of the positive evidencenbsp;on the other side was of the vaguest character, and that thenbsp;word “common,” as used in Wales, signifies virtually any uninclosed waste, or anything that may ever have been uninclosed waste. Any really illegal enclosure can of course benbsp;done away with at the suit of persons aggrieved.

As to “ squatters ” the case is slightly different. It must, for all practical purposes, be admitted that early in thisnbsp;century, or before, it was not unusual for squatters to buildnbsp;huts and make small enclosures on crown or manorialnbsp;wastes, and occupy them for some time at any rate, freenbsp;of rent. They were of course trespassers and wrongdoers from the beginning, but they had some excuse innbsp;a tradition that the man who could erect what was callednbsp;“ Caban-un-nos ”—that is to say, could build between sunset and sunrise a hut sufficiently substantial for smoke tonbsp;rise through the chimney—acquired a title. The most partnbsp;of these little dwellings were built in inaccessible and remotenbsp;places, where they were apt to escape notice. When theynbsp;came under notice it became necessary, lest the lord of thenbsp;manor should lose his title, to obtain acknowledgments fornbsp;them, and in after years, some of these acknowledgmentsnbsp;became tangible rents. In almost every case, however, on thenbsp;• estates of Sir Watkin Wynn and Lord Powis, with regard to

IN NORTH WALES.