to? They were threatening the incoming tenant, my lord. This is one of them. I should like it read [handing letter in]. That is a copy of it. lord. 66 13,617. Do you really wish this read?—I think so, my 13,618. William Owen, do not covet thy neighbour's house. It is a fearful state of things that such as this must be sent to a leader in the church of God. What a face you have, you devil!! to advise others." Who was this written to? It is an anonymous letter with a coffin at the end. I really should not like to read it? *—It was written to the 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 not signed, and there was a coffin at the base of it?—He was intimidated, my lord, to such an extent that he declined to go to the farm, and I think that fact ought to be known. He was intimidated to such an extent that he was afraid to 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 wants to know, 'Will you give the date of the conviction'-I take it that is the rabbit controversy ?-On the 26th of March, 1887. "13,621. Then Mr. J. R. Hughes asks: Were leases granted on small holdings previous to Captain Stewart's time, and have any of these leases fallen in during his 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 similar threatening letter was followed in Merionethshire by an act of arson involving the loss of a homestead and a number of animals. "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 original document. He expressed himself willing to swear that it was a true copy, whereupon the Chairman exclaimed, "We are not empowered to take evidence on oath, even from a clergyman." The tone in which the words were spoken raised a titter of laughter from the vulgar part of the audience. But Lord Carrington, on hearing the retort, "There is such a thing as talking to the gallery on these occasions," probably 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 the proceeding which excited the most profound indignation took place. Nine substantial farmers on Sir Watkin Wynn's and the Dowager Lady Wynn's estates gave evidence together at Llanfyllin. They agreed in stating that their relations with the landowners were pleasant and in objecting to a Land Court, and in contentment with their position. Even in examination-in-chief they did not escape leading questions from the Chairman, such as, "Do you hear any general conversation that the rents in this neighbourhood are too high or not?" which particular question drew the answer, "Some would 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 Rhyl, Q. 65,378 et seq. It amounts to this. Williams and his sisters were joint tenants of the farm. Williams was a persistent poacher; had repeatedly promised to amend, and repeatedly offended. Notice to quit was served Nov. 1885. In Nov. 1886 Williams did not quit. By arrangement with his agent he was allowed to remain, on signing the letter of apology already quoted, for a year as a tenant at will, &c. Mr. Allanson then produced a certificate of conviction under the Ground Game Act, dated 26 March, 1887-i.e., long after all the promises, and 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, and that there was no railway anywhere near. It is amusing to observe that, whereas the man's story before the Commission was that he had been arrested by the keepers trap in hand, Mr. Allanson was able to inform the Commissioners that his defence at the trial was, save the mark, an alibi. landowners had by that time forced themselves into accepting with philosophy the Commission's practice of pumping out of reluctant witnesses evidence and ideas which originated in the brain of the interrogating Commissioner. But what followed was unprecedented. These men, of good repute and credit in their district, stood surrounded by a great crowd of their fellow farmers. To them Mr. Brynmor Jones exhibited the following questions and the italics of the official minutes 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, which of course none of you could answer fully; but are we to take it that none of you have had to borrow money of recent years to pay the rent? I do not take it individually, but are we to take it from you all that none of you have had to borrow money to the rent within the last few years?pay (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 it collectively to you, gentlemen. Can any one of you say that you saved £50 on your farming in the year 1893 or 1894? If any one can, let him hold his hand up. (No response.) Not you lifts up his hand. Now I will put the same question, substituting £25 for £50. (No response)? —(Mr. Edward Jones.) It is a very difficult question.” one of Mr. Edward Jones probably intended to convey the fact which all must recognise, that he with others was unwilling 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." The interrupter was turned out of the room, of course, and the Chairman, forgetting previous events such as the crossexamination of Captain Stewart and of Colonel Sackville 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 the interrupter, who did but express the general view that this was an improper, unfeeling, and inquisitorial question; nor, we take it, will the public judgment be inclined to support Mr. Brynmor Jones. It needs hardly to be said that questions of this character, questions which would be perfectly justifiable if addressed to a witness who came forward in a police-court to prove an alibi in the case of a notorious evildoer, produced the effect, which probably was not intended, of deterring a very large number of witnesses from coming forward. For this statement the reader must be asked to accept the word of those who had the conduct of the case from the landowners' point of view; it can only be added that it is a solemn statement of absolute fact. Nor is this a light matter. The Commission's report might be of some value if it were founded in the main upon the evidence of practical men familiar with the conditions of agricultural life in Wales. It is not so founded, partly by reason of the indifference with which it was regarded by a large section of the farmers and partly by reason of the reluctance of men to submit themselves voluntarily to vulgar and impertinent cross-examination by a professional 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 Landowners state their Position-Definition of Essentials of a Land Court—the Irish Land Courts-Report of the Committee on the Irish Act of 1881-the Duke of Argyll's Exposure of the Act—Mr. Gladstone's "Original Righteousness" and subsequent Collapse-Theories of "Fair Rent" examined-Effects of Judicial Rent must be destruction of Friendly Feeling, to turn Landowner into mere Rent-charger, to check Improvement by Mutual Agreement, the Establishment of Saleable Tenantright, the Giving of part of Owner's Property to the sitling Tenant-the Evils of Free Sale-Irish examples—condemned by Mr. Thomas Ellis, M.P., and Mr. Bryn Roberts, M.P.— Further Effects of a Land Court are Reduction in Selling Price of Land-Impossibility of State Advances to Peasant Proprietors who are encumbered-Compensation alone necessary. THE foregoing chapters have established the proposition, never doubted for a moment by those who followed the Commission in its movements through the Principality, that the majority of the Royal Commissioners started upon their wanderings with a preconceived idea that it would be their duty to recommend the establishment of some institution in the nature of a Land Court. In this statement no imputation upon the Commissioners is involved. Men differ from one another in the point of view from which they approach the consideration of important questions. One class of mind is apt to believe that every change is for the better, and that, because a revolution in the relations of landowner and tenant has been introduced in Ireland and in parts of Scotland, it is in accordance with the natural fitness of things that the like |