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. On some estates it is the practice for the owner to do all repairs and improvements at his own cost; on others, on some of the Anglesey estates for example, he supplies materials only; sometimes the tenant is expected to do the haulage, sometimes he is not. Arithmetical comparison is therefore apt to be exceedingly misleading. Thus Mr. Walter Jones, in answer to the question whether there was uniformity of rents, a question inserted for some obscure reason, since a man is concerned only with his own liability, and not with that of his neighbour, said (10,327): "It is very unequal. Rent is much influenced by the question what the landlord is to do, and does, and what the tenant is to do and does. If the latter does everything, his rent is something plus what he pays to the owner. If the owner does everything the rent is something minus what the tenant pays him." The interval between these two positions is of course divided into numberless spaces. The same observation, that arithmetic, although itself infallible, must not be treated as an absolute guide, applies to the further question whether abatements or reductions are adequate or inadequate, a question which Mr. Griffiths was apt to put in this crude form: "Do you think now that 10 per cent. is a sufficient reduction for these hard times?" Mr. Grove, too, with that implicit faith in figures natural to a man whose life's work has been devoted to them, was prone to put the same question. But it was really meaningless and inconclusive, for the question whether a reduction is adequate or no depends entirely upon the moral quantity, so to speak, of the original obligation which is reduced, or upon other circumstances. This cannot be put better than in the form of a question which was put by landowners' counsel to a hostile Pembrokeshire witness-no such question was put in North Wales.

154

THE LAND QUESTION IN NORTH WALES.

Q. 31,036. "Would you not rather be on his (Sir Owen Scourfield's) estate without an abatement than on some estates 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 an owner has not done his duty, has not recognised adequately the needs of his tenants, when in fact that conclusion can be justified only, if at all, after careful inquiry into the exact circumstances of each particular case, and anxious consideration of the precise force of each one of them. Still, figures can do something, and it is claimed that the exact tables in the Appendix showing abatements, reductions, and the history of rental on a very large number of estates in North Wales do prove beyond question that North Wales landowners have shown warm and substantial sympathy for the tenant farmers during the period of depression. It is claimed that these figures, procured for the Commission with great labour, and deterrent as they are in appearance, form by far the most valuable part of the evidence offered to the Commission. Of their authenticity there is no doubt. They were one and all sent in to the late Mr. George Owen by landowners or agents. under their own hands. He testified also to the fact that no discretion had been used in the selection of them. No return which came to him was omitted; all, good, bad, or indifferent, were submitted to the Commission; and the result is one in which the landowners of North Wales, when they consider the vast acreage covered by the returns, and the record of money given back freely and willingly, may well feel honest pride. It goes without saying, of course, that this is not all the merit which may honestly be claimed for them. All these figures must be considered in connection with the account of money spent otherwise for the benefit of the tenants, and without increase of remuneration to the landowner, which is dealt with in another chapter.

CHAPTER VIII.

Alleged Insecurity of Tenure-Microscopic Evidence of Capricious. Eviction-1858 and 1868 too long ago-Accusations of Canvassing against Landowners and Agents-not proved, but why should they refrain?—The True Answer found in Tables of Hereditary Tenancy -Evidence in Detail from many Estates.

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

of the law of compensation for improvements. A man could hardly be heard to say that he dared not improve as he might if, in the event of a termination of the tenancy, he were assured of full compensation for all the advantage honestly 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, tenancy is insecure. The allegation divides itself under two heads(a) it is said that tenants feel insecure because their holdings may be brought into the market at any time; (b) it used to be said habitually, in the days when general statements could be made without being tested, that tenants were ejected from their holdings for capricious and political reasons. With the first head we need not be troubled now since it clearly comes under the question of compensation.

After an exhausting pilgrimage with the Commission through North Wales it is fortunately possible to write that not a single authenticated and unrebutted case of capricious eviction has been brought home to any landowner, small or great; and that the only two cases of anything which might be misconstrued into eviction for political reasons were that of a man, who is admitted to have received notice to quit, on Sir Watkin Williams Wynn's estate, because he absolutely refused to pay the tithe rent-charge, and that of another man on the Kinmel estate, who was caused to leave for the same

reason.

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

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

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 of agitation into these matters should have been so absolutely barren of modern results. Thus, if we take the most extreme witnesses of all-viz., Mr. Ifan T. Davies, Calvinistic Methodist Preacher (6800), Mr. Thomas Ellis, M.P. (16,910), Mr. Thomas Gee, Calvinistic Methodist Minister and newspaper proprietor, of Denbigh, and Mr. David Owen, solicitor, of Bangor (20,005), and Mr. Bryn Roberts, M.P., at Carnarvon, it is really nothing less than astounding to find that they are absolutely wanting in modern instances of the particular species of tyranny which they, or some of them, had declared in public to be practised so universally that all courage was actually ground out of the people's hearts. Yet no men could be better placed to obtain that information which the Commissioners would have accepted gladly enough. If the facts had existed, surely Mr. Ellis, Mr. Bryn Roberts, with his long experience and extensive practice as a solicitor in a rural district, Mr. David Owen, a man in like position, and Mr. Gee, of all men in the world, would surely have brought forward all that could be so brought. In truth there was nothing to bring forward, and the few specific cases in which an attempt was made to prove this grievance broke 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 landowners and agents forward until it rested upon a foundation of theory which was curiously novel. They asked often, for example, whether landowners and their agents canvassed voters at election times. The underlying suggestion clearly was that, for some inscrutable reason, men in their position were prohibited from the legitimate use of such influence as belonged to them. In an ideal world, perhaps, this might be the case,