The Cambrian News and Merionethshire Standard

LAN D (J O M M I 8 S ION. (Continued from Supplement). Mr David Morgan, Gilwern, Llanfihangel Creuddyn, owned by Captain Vaughan, said he occupied the farm without any agreement. Went to Mr F. R. Roberts, Aberystwyth, the agent, who agreed to let him have Rhosrhyd (300 acres, jE52 rent), provided he could find a suitable tenant for Gilwera. He did so, and was allowed to remove his corn from Gilwern to Rhosrhyd. He had to buy the Rhosrhyd sheep at 133 a head. He had to go on the following Monday to Mr Roberts to sign the agreement. Before moving into Rhoatyd, however, his son, a lad of 13, and two other lads, chased a rabbit from Gilwern farm into a Crosswood plantation, and the son was prosecuted and fined for it by the magistrates. Captain Vaughan, the owner of Gilwern and Rhosrhyd, was cousin of Lord Lisburne. On hearing that he (witness) was not to have Rhostyd, went to see Lord Lisburne, who said he did not want to see the Gilwern devil about the place. Mr F. R. Roberts, the agent of Captain Vaughan. said witness could not have the farm on any terms as his son had caught the rabbit. Went next morning again to see the Earl of Lisburne, and saw him on the bridge. At first his Lordship took no notice of him, but. afterward called him a damned thief, damned poacher. Tried to explain, but the Larl gave him hundreds of damns, and called him a bloody poacher, (Laughter). Witness said it was a shame for his-Lordship to use that language, and begged I to be allowed to speak, hut he again cursed and swore. Witness then said, Don't you think I am a dog I am a man, and you are only a man." (Laughter). Fortunately he was able to induce the tenant of Rhosrhyd to take the sheep off his hands, and he (witness) had to bring the corn back again from Rhos- rhyd to Gilwern. 0 In reply to questions, witness said he was still at Gilwern, but at an advanced rent. He could not say that he had the reputation of being a oa.cher. Dr Rhya-Is it a habit of his Lordship to curse and swear at tenants ?—Yes, very often. (Laughter). You are quite sure it is not a kind of way of show- ing his aff -ction for you ?-No. (Renewed laughter). He was angry with you ?—Yes, in a bad temper. By Mr Seebolirri-If the ribbit had been caught a I yard inside his (witness's) land nothing would have been done but it was caught a yard inside the plantation. Mr F. R. Roberts, solicitor, agent for Captain Vaughan, replying to wituess, said that Rhosrhyd land contained good fish pools an i Lord Lisburne rented the fishing and shooting. Rhosrhyd tenant, through sick- ness, wanted witness to take the farm off his bauds and also asked him to try to induce the incoming tenant to take the sheep. B-lieved that David Morgan, Gilwern, had been a good farmer and, being already on thi estate, witness was anxious he should go to Rhosrhyd which was a larger farm and was considered a better farm because it had a good run for sheep. Arrangements were made for Morgan to go to Rhosrhyd. He was not to go (hwu to Aberystwyth on the Monday, as he stated, to Úgo the agreement but he was told that he would have to sign before entering in September. What he said abou^ carting the corn was perfectly correct. Soon after Morgan's sou, a lad of 13, in company with several others, were caught by Lord Lisburne's gamekeeper. They had gate nets in their possession. When Lord Lisburne came to hear of it he was naturally every unwilling that Morgan and his son should go to live on the banks of the fishing pool and so he asked his cou in, Captain Vaughan, not to let Morgan have the firm, and Captain Vaughan consented. Witness told Morgan he wAs sorry he could not have Rhosrhyd as it would be very unpleasant for him to go tli,-re after what had occurred adding that he was very lucky not to be sent away from Gilwern. He was nor sen", awiy, but was there still. In reply to questions, Mr Roberts said he knew nothing about tne language incident except what he had been told by Morgan. Thought it correct as to the distance the rabbit was in the plantation. Mr James Jones, Tyllwyd, a guardian of Aber- ystwyth Union, said he was brought up at Tancastell belonging to Nanteos Estate. The farm and out- buildings were now better than many in the district. The tenant did all the haulage and effected many improvements. Could not in 1862 get poles from the landlord to keep out the lead-polluted river, so made an embankment of stones, spent 1:84 in lime, and when he left the farm was as good as any in the county. Before 1868 he and others were called up to Nanteos and asked separately by Colonel Powell to vote for Mr Vaughan, the Conservative candidate. All promised except himself. He voted for Mr E. M. Richards, received notice to quit in consequents, left in September 1S69, and had to sue for the ;6700, the value or hay and htrav. In 1870 took Piercefield from Colonel Powell. There the lead-poluted river broke through the embankment and it cost £ 10 to repair it which sum he was to be repaid, but he did not get the money because the agent said it was no down on his book. The repair rec'aimed 20 acres and added 91,000 to the value of the farm. Before he went into Piercefield he wanted a clear understanding about elections when the agent sail "Damn the elections; you take the farm." (Laughter), Took the farm and afterward received three notices to quit. There was a procession in connection wish Mr T. E. Lloyd's visit to Aberystwyth. Witness's servant happened to be in Aberystwyth that day with a cart' and someone told Colonel Powel! that the servant man had drawn the cart across the road to hinder the procession. Received notice to quit, an-! Major Phelp, the agent, told witness thftt the reason was the story which had been carried to Colonel Powell. However, no tenant came forward for the farm and witness was allowed to stay on. He received another notice to quit and ultimatly left without compensation though he had spent a large fum of money on the farm. Lord Kenyon asked why witness went back to the same estate after he had been turned out for voting, and witness said he had an understanding before he went, that he was to have liberty in elections. The Powells, he added. were very kind landlords, and were still, but Colonel Powell did not take enough interest in the estate, bzit left everything to the agent. Witness's present landlord was Mr Lewis Pugh Pugh. Did not send in claim for compensation on leaving Piercefield, Left because had received three notices, and went to Tyllwyd, which was vacant. If Colonel Powell looked after his estate there would have been no disturbance. When witness's father took the first farm, it was considered as good as a lease to have a yearly tenancy ou che Nanteos Estate; but after Major Phelps came, some one every year had a notice to quit. Witntss, when he left Piercefield, had no legal claim, and so made no claim for compensation. Here, added witness good humouredly, is Mr Powell (the present owner of Nanteos), and he can bear me out, and here is Mr Vaughan Davies. He has got Tancastell with all the advantage of my improvements. (Laughter). Mr Vaughan Davies-And I had to pay for them. Mr James Jones-No rloubt. On being asked by Mr Richard Jones, witness said that Major Phelp gave him (witness) a first-class character when he left, and perhaps he repented of> what he did on letting him (witness) have Piercefield. On being asked what was the present condition of things, and if landlords were still too ready to listen to stories, witness believed that landlords still left too much to their agents. Landlords, as a rule, were very kind, but the third party bad his own interests to look after. Landlords did not mix with their tenants as much as they ought. He did not think landlords at the present time knew the condition of farmers, or they would not charge the rents they did charge. They did not mix with tenants, even at fairs, and as a rule, very few cou'd speak Welsh. You find a difficulty in approaching them ?—No, not I myself; I can approach anybody. (Laughter). Perhaps you are braver than the generality of farmers ?—Yes, and the landlords are very kind when we go to them. Continuing, witness, with the view of giving farmers greater independence, thought there should be a Land Court for the sitting tenant. He was willing when a farm became vacant for the land- lord to make the best terms he could. There was no use quibbling about it, farmers had been losing money for the past two or three years. By Mr Seebohm-Major Phelps went on the estate a few years before 1868 a comparatively poor man, and died a comparatively rich one. (Laughter). Very few of the old famlles remained on the estate. Rents had been raised for sale purposes, and tenants had been removed. Farmers who had bought were worse off in a pecuniary sense than if they were tenants with security of the tenure, and assurance that what they put into the land would be returned. By Dr Rhys-Had heard of the custom of culdwrn, or presents to agents, but had never given it himself, and it was a difficult thing to find out. The man who brought most corn to the mill was the best no doubt. Three agents were Welsh, but Major Phelps was I English, a3 was also Colonel Powell, though he belonged to an old Welsh family. David Edwards, the woodman, used to translate, and he told neither what the other actually said. (Laughter). It would be an advautage if landlords brought up their children to a knowledge of Welsh and a knowledge of farming. Colonel Williams, agent of the Gogerddan Estate, and his brother, agent of the Abermaide Estate, were Welsh-speiking and practical farmers. By Lord Kenyon-No Act of Parliament could make landlords mix with their tenants. Mr Richard Jones—But I suppose it is possible to make an Act of Parliament to prevent a tenant being capriciously disturbed ?-I should think so. I don't know. In reply to a question handed in, witness could not substantiate the allegation of culdwrn, but had heard of £100 having been paid. Witness-Who asked the question ? Lord Kenyon-Mr Vincent. Witness (leaving the box and lookingat Mr Vincent) —Oh. (Laughter.) Mr Tobit Evans again presented himself in the witness box when Lord Kenyon asked him if he had any further evidence to offer relative to the production of the original receipts for the millstones said to have been bought by a man named Morgan of Mr Jacob. Mr Evans replied that he had not tried to produce it he had had no time. Lord Kenyon-Well, sir, I think that is rather a curious way to treat us. Mr Evani;-I have seen the old man and he told me it was the same and I took his word. Did you try to find out whether any representatives of the man Jacob could substantiate the statement. No. They live in this neighbourhood. You brought a serious charge against Lord Carring- ton, the chairman of this Commission.—It can be sub- stantiated. Why not try to do so?-The people representing Jacob live here, 30 miles from where I live. You brought the evidence before us.—I brought the old man and he states still that that was the same as he received from Jacob. And you have had no further evidence ?-No I have not. Although we asked you to bring it ?—I was not aware of it. (The shorthand writer's notes were referred to and showed that Mr Tobit Evans was told the evidence should be substantiated and he replied Yes certainly." ^Mr Richard Jone3 then asked witness why he, living 15 miles away, should go far afield in order to bring evidence against Lord Carrington ?-Witness replied that the old man lived 4 miles away from where he (witness) now spent most of his time. Mr Richard Jones next reminded witness that he had said he had not heard of the case until a month ago though he said it created considerable scandal at bPendinS so rauch time at Lampeter, Mr SnnM TT Sald? lt seemed passing strange that he rJnlli1 fT ^ave ,heard of the case'before.—Witness replied that it might appear strange, buc it occurred otwosSy. W Uving ia Shr°Pshire, at In reply to Mr Vincent, witness afterward said it was his view that the Commission ceuld have called witnesses to substantiate or upset the story. It was the duty of the claimant to make his statement a.nd I then for Lord Carrington to enquire into it. Besideil, he (witness) had work of his ov.a which engaged his attention since the evidence was given at Lampeter. Toe Chairman said tlm L Jd Car ring too uaid if the story turned out to be true Morgan would give com- pensation at ouce. Mr Tobit Evins-Yes, I saw that statement, and was very glad to hear it. Lord K-iiyon-It will now be left to Lord Carringtoa to see whether the story is worth anything or no. Mr John Evans, Lla'ifair Shop, Lampeter, was then put forward by Mr Tobit Evai,,i, and said he was tenant on Lord Carriugton's estate in 1861. He wanted to convert a smi hy into a shop, and asked the landlord to build or grant a lease. Was refused, but told if he built he should have 940 towards the cost, and that neither he nor his ancestors should be molested as long as thr-y wished to hold the place. The total expense of building was E495 He was paid the f40 at the next rent audit. In 1868 the present Lord Carrington succeeded to the estate, and the estate was to be sold. Witness offered to be allowed to buy his shop by private contract, but was told the estate would be put up in one lot. It was sold to Mr Jones, Glandenys. His case was considered, and he afterward was told that though Lord Carrington was not bound to give anything, he forwarded a cheque for £50. Witness, however, considered as a matter of justice between man and man that he was entitled to £ 405. In reply to questions, witness admitted that his rent of £ 15 had not been raised, and that he had held the place up to the present. It was, however, through Mr Jones's kindness thst the rent had not been raised as he saw by the patticulars of sale that the place was described as being worth £ 24. Witness asking the Commissioners if they wanted any further explanation, Lord Kenyon replied, No, we thoroughly understand. You erected a very good house which you have had 33 years at 915 rent, and you have changed your landlord." (Laughter). Mr David Jones, manager of the Old Bank, Lam- peter, and agent of the Glandenys Estate, next gave evidence rebutting evidence given at Lampeter by Mr Daniel Jenkins. He gave a geneial denial of the statements made, but admitted there was a clause in the agreement about tenants grinding at Llanio Mill. That, however, was only for meal for the farm and was never enforced. Tenants were fairly well off, many possessed property of tneir own, and there was the greatest confidence between landlord and tenant and no disputes. The estate consisted of 2,176 acres, the average rent for arable being 14s. per acre and for pasture 2s. 6d. Permanent reductions had been made and abatements to the most necessitous amounting to £496. Favourites, as they had been called, had no abatements while Nonconformists had had abatements. There were, in fact, no religious tests on the estate, and no land had been taken away without compensa- tion. Preference had not been given to Churchmen as stated. Tne buildings were in a fair state of re- pair, and Mr Jones intended improving many places. The sum of £10,000 had been spent in building, re- pairs, and drainage since Mr Jones acquired the estate and interest had not been charged the tenants. Allowance had been made for haulage. Having altogether 7.700 acres and 4 miles of river, Mr Jones kept one keeper only. That keeper was a tenant farmer and in sympathy with other tenant farmers. Referring to alleged fear of attending meetings, wit- ness said that Llanfair was oue of the quietest places in the Principality, and because they would not re- spond to Mr Jenkins's election call they were to be stigmatised as cowards. Mr Jones had nothing to do with the chapel matter to which Mr Jenkins referred. He would not attempt to reply to other allegations which were the most venomous exaggerations any man could give expression to. In reply to questions, witness said that Wenallt was allowed to fall into ruin because the place was too wet to find a healthy site upon it. In respect of Nantymedd, one field had been taken away and another given. Both were on the banks of the TVify, and witness could see no difference between them. Notice to quit was given because the young lady was going to be married and with her mother were giving up farming. Mr Richard Jones-Was she going to be married ? —Yes. To a farmer ?-Not at that time-to a solicitor. (Laughter). What do you mean at that time ?-At the particular time she was engaged to a solicitor, but she has married a farmer who is tenant of Nantymedd. (Laughter). J In reply to further questions, witness said that Cae Sarah was taken from a tenant in Mr Williams's time, and denied that influence had been brought to bear on people because they had given lodging to Mr Jenkins. Witness said Mr Jenkins changed his lodging so often that he (witness) did not know where he lodged. Did not believe there was a single tenant on the estate who had received eight notices to Quit io 12 months. It was an old custom to grind at the mill continued on from Lord Carrington's time, though be did not know whether the clause was contained in his Lordship's agreements, The Chairman looked over the report of the condition of the estate when it was sold, and observed that the houses were described as dilapidated and the new ones badly built. Witness now said they were in good condition ?—Witnecs replied that they were in a fair state, and those which were not would be attended to. Mr Daniel Jenkins went into the box, and said he had given his eviienec at Lampeter, and, having heard the rebutting statement, had nothing to withdraw. Lord Kenyon-I don't know what you mean by that. You are welcome to your opinion, sir, of course. Mr David L'oyd, solicitor, Lampeter, said he had acted professionally for the Derry Ormond Estate for over 34 years. Mr Cotterell, the agent, was unwell, and unable to leave his house. He (witness) had gone carefully over the evidence of Mr Watkin Davies with Mr Inglis Jones, the present owner of the estate, and having examined the rent rolls and accouuta of pay- ments made for repairs on the estate during the last 12 years, and also from information supplied by Mr Jones and Mr Cotterell, was in a position to state that there had been no unwillingness to make repairs and improvements on the estate. On the contrary, during that time 910,069 17s 9d were expended on new 1_1'_ 't. Dunaings ana repairs, and no interest was charged on rents. No tenant had given up his holding owing to refusal to make repairs. There had been no request for leases. Mr Davies stated that the rents of Llettycyhi, Cilgwynucha, and Glandulas were raised. If so, they were raised before the farms were purchased by the present owner of the estate. The rent of Llettycybi was £ 32 when pur- chased in 1879 and afterward reduced to 1:27, and repairs at a cost of £ 75 were made. The rent of Cil- gwynucha, when bought in 1879, was JE75 and had since been reduced to £50 and £ 100 bad been spent in repair. When Glandulas was purchased in 1879,' the rent was zC90, and reduced to £70. In 1886 a general reduction of rent was made on the estate, not by an equal percentage but the rent of each holding was reduced to what was ccn-idered a fair rent, as much as 25 per cent being made in some case. A ten per cent reducion was made at the last 3 audits, but no allowance was made in respect of houses and cottages. No allowance was made Mr Davies as he was given larger new buildings at a cost of £ 350 without an in- creased rent. Cottages had gone dONn as no tenants could be procured for them. Being thatched they could not be kept up except at a loas owing to the dearness "of straw. Had known Bettws for over 45 years and never heard of any common. The tenants on the estate were not in any way interfered with in the exercise of rights under the Ground Game Act and it was their own fault if rabbits were allowed to in- crease. Compensation was given for game damage and there were no complaints of damage by trespass by gamekeepers. Replying to questions, Mr Lloyd said Mr Inglis Jones and Mr Cotterell could not speak Welsh, but though it might be a disadvantage he did not think it led to any difficulty. There were orders by the Sanitary Authority relating to cottages on the estate, but not to farms. As a matter of policy cottages were allowed to go down. No doubt more cottage3 would be an inducement to labourers to remain on the land. Mr Inglis Jones had latterly spent a lot of money in ornamenting his grounds by putting up a conservatory, and other landowners had done the same. The Chairman thought the landlord, in spendirg £ 10,000 in 22 years, had made a generous outlay upon the estate. In reply to the Chairman, witness believed cottage accommodation kept pace with the population. He did not think labourers went away because there was lack of c-ttages but because they found better employment elsewhere. Mr Wm. Davies, acting as solicitor of the Lampeter Central Committee, and having the conduct of evidence, explained that Mr Watkin Davies had no complaint to make personally, but represented 31 farmers. If he had had notice of rebutting evidence Mr Watkin Davies would have bt;en present to sub- stantiate it. The Chairman thought it he duty of the Commission when a peison wa-i attacked, to let him know so that he could give rebutting evidence. It, was not their I ir business to keep everybody informed. Mr Vincent asked through the Court what Mr Davies meant professionally by having the couduct of evidence irom the Lampeter district, to which Mr Davies replied that he meant assisting farmers to lbY their case before the Court. Mr Richard Jones thought that was a question that ought not to have been pur, but should have been ¡ ruled out of order. Dr Rhys Flaid the question was about as broad as long. Mr l'inec n t, in another question, asked if Mr Watkin Davies let Mr Inglia Jones know he was going to b, attacked, and the answer was given in the > negative. [ Mr David Richards, Goginan, Llanfihangel-y- creuddyn. gave evidence respecting that, holding on the Nallte03 Estate. He said his people gave JL280 to the out-going tenant, and so improved it that when it was sold in 1891 it realised 91,960 or f38 per acre, while Pwily, which was about double the size but had not t)en improved to t',e same extent, was sold for £2,300 or Z-20 per acre only. He contended that ti e owners had put E918 into their pockets which belonged to his people. Witness a'so gave evidence relative to restrictive clauses in agreements; and said that when his motberwent to Nanteos to ask to se3 what wan in an agreement, a copy of which she had no: received, the agent said Go away, you old scolpion." She then wrote to Mrs Powell complaining of Mr Lewis's conduct, and received no reply. Mr Vincent put in a series of questions relative to an anonymous leiter, but witness reiusfed to answer any. whereupon Lord Kenyon said "Of course we can draw our own conei usirJDS." Mr Morgan Richards, Blaencynon, gave evidence concerning small occupiers, of which he was one. They had to pay 30 to 50 per ct-nt. more rent than large farmers. Merchants and tradesmen rack-rented more than the old lauded proprietors, and he was afraid they even influenced the old landowners. His own landlord had allowed 10 per cent., and was much better than the majority, but it would he better for witness to be a labourer. On being asked why he took a farm, he said he did not take a farm. He took a wife and sue had the farm (Laughter). He believed the number of these who now made a prufit out of farming in the county could be counted on the fingers of one hand. Mr Richard Phillips, Erglodd, gave evidence con- cerning his taking of Blatnelettwrfach from Mr Vanghan Davies. He had a sub-tenant continued on from the previous tenant who left because the house fell down, which Mr Davies had promised to rebuild every time witness paid his rent. Mr Vaughan Davies replied that the farm was on the slopes of Plynlymon, that it was let as a sheep walk in connection with another farm, that he did not iutend renewing the house on account of the cost of building in that place, that the tenant rented from him at 2s. and let at 9s., and that the place was reuted cheaper than an adjoining farm without a house. In answer to questions, Mr Vaughan Davies admitted that he did not know the condition of the builaing but said the I tenant never comp.amed. He said he would see whIt an iron house would cost, but when he found it would cost £200, it was worth more than the place was worth. He admitted that a clause in the agreement, that if the property was sold before July in any year the tenant should leate before the following Michaelmas, should not he in, but said the property was in the hands of a solicitor to be sold and he inserted it. Mr R. Gardiner, agent of the Crosswood Estate, aid he had practical training on an estate of over £ 50,000 rental and when he left in 1868 for Crosawood the tenantry gave him an yddress and 9200. The Crosswood Estate counted of 40.000 acres with 132 farm holdings, 140 smail huldings, 69 cottages and garden3, 24 small lots and 44 leaseholds. Uplands averaged Is. to h. 6d. and lowlands 5s. to 6s. Difference in language had no adverse influence on the relation between landlord and tenant. There had been comparatively few changes on the estate since he had known it. Abatements to the amount of E7,127 had been made since 1885, and had been given indiscriminately to all agricultural tenauts. Speaking of compensation, witness said a schedule had been substituted for that of the Agricultural Holdings Act and was found to work well. Witness quoted a case where a man had a lease of a corner of a property which was to be sold. He asked to be allowed to buy the whole and made a bid of E300. W tness, however, advised that the man was offering £100 more than the place was worth and Lord Lisburne did not take the JE300, but sold for £200. Game was preserved. Thtre was no desire to adopt the Ground Game Act. Where rabbits were troublesome full liberty to kill was given by ferretting. There was considerable purchase by tenants in 1888 aud 1890. The mutual relations between landlord and tenant were friendly in all! circumstances. Only when bad times pressed upon a man were things found to be out of joint. Tne sum of E38,000, or from 15 to 20 per cent of the rental, had been spent in improvements in 25 years. There were some 20 old families on the estate who had been there from 200 years downwards. There was every desire to treat tenants with the greatest leniency. The arrears in 1868 when he became agent was EI-600. Now the total arrears was f57 only. The landlord gave land for chapels at a nominal rate. He kept sires for the improvement of stock and in various ways showed that he sympathized with the tenants in all their difficulties. In reply to questions, Mr Gardiner said he had been accustomed to 19-year leases. When he came to Crosswood, and found yearly tenancies, and asked tenants why they did not improve their farming they replied that if they did rents would be raised. He then devised a schedule of allowances in order to induce tenants to improve their farming. They, however, did not avail themselves of the schedule as much as he should like to eee them doing it. Was not pa.id by commission, and condemned the practice if it existed. Believed that the abatements, which had been made, met depression up to the present, but if the depression continued it would require considera- tion on the part of landlords and tenants. The opportunity of keeping a cow would not perhaps prevent labourers going into towns, but would make those who remained on the land more comfortable. The matter of the Welsh language caused no difficulty. An agent with his heart in the work found no difficulty at getting at the feelings of the tenant. An interpreter would not wilfully interpret wrongly unless he was a rogue, and the agent could not have been very sharp if he could not, in that casa quoted, had detected something wrong. When he first went on the estate he had a notice to the tenants sent to Aberystwyth to be put into proper Welsh, but when it was issued many came and asked to have it explained, (Laughter.) Possibly if it was put into colloquial Welsh it might have been better, but after that experiment had issued notices in English, and found no difficulty. Replying to questions about Pantygwial, witness said he always treated tenants courteously. The case was gone fully into, and con siderable dilapidation was put against compensation. As to the evidence given at Tregaron about the moiety, Lord Lisburne was owuer of a moiety of the whole farm. As to Jenkins, he got notice to quit for killing game. It was considered a bad case, and though he was a good tenant his Lordship decided he was to go. Witness was sorry for the man. As to the Rev Mr Davies, who gave evidence at Aberayron, he got notice, not for voting against the Conservative candidate, but for promising the Earl of Lisburne to remain quiet, and then breaking his promise. SECOND COURT. Mr Stephen Davies, Draenllwyn, Llangwj ryfon, free- holder, said his father occupied Llvvynfynwent on the Castle Hill Estate. Witness and three brothers were left co-executors under parent's will, and applied to remain ttnauts, but landlord refused to take more than two of them. John and witness had therefore to go out, and to accept two-thirds of the value of the crops, and the same thing was done when William left in 1892. By the agreements, game was reserved, and the Holdigns Act was excluded. Haulage was done for a great many buildings, and William left without compensation. Rents in the district were much too high, higher as a rule than they were 15 to 25 years ago, and farm produce 40 to 50 per cent less. The rent of Gwarcaeau was raised on the tenant's improvements. Trefaesisa and Trefaeaucha were sold by Nanteos, and bought by Mr Loxdale, who raised the rent on promising new hedges. In reply to questions, witness complained that one-third of the crops should be left to the incoming tenant or landlord without payment. The tenant had by agreement to keep the buildings in repair. His brother's leaving was not so much the fault of the landlord, as it was between the agent and the other brother. He received several letters saying if he did not leave, the agent (Mr Roberts) and the brother would make him leave. Objected to consolidation of faj-ms on the ground that it reduced produce. There was a craving for farms. When a farm was vacant the other day there were no fewer than 12 applicants for it. He wanted security of tenure through a Land Court. Did not know of children away from home assisting to pay parents' rent. Mr R. J. R. Loxdale, Castle Hill, gave evidence rebutting that of the lagt witness. He said that the troubles the witness had alluded to had reference to his mother's will. The decision come to was an arrangement of their own, and it had nothing to do with him (Mr Loxdale) or anyone connected with him. Mr Loxdale explained how the matter stood, and said that after a quarrel Evans came to him (Mr Loxdale) the next day, but he told him he could not interfere in any dispute. As regards repairs lie thought it was generally admitted that there was not an estate upon which so much had been done during the past twenty years as on the Castle Hill Estate. Taken roughly, the expenditure would amount to something like f800 to fl,000 on each farm. As to rents being high, he said the rents of two farms which cost £9,500 were £ 110 and £130. With reference to the agreement, he believed his late uncle informed him that it was drawn up after full discussion. Haulage for repairs was the custom on the estate, and up to the present had not been looked upon as a hardship. He had during each half-year allowed an abatement of 10 per cent. He was on the best of terms with his tenants, who on two occasions recently had made him presents. By Mr Griffiths—As to compensation, the revela- tions he had heard at the Commission had opened his eyes on many points and would lead to changes iu the management of his estate, one of which would 'oe the question of free haulage. (Hear, hear.) Major J. G. P. Hughes, Alltllwyd, Llanrhystyd, said his estate ia Cardiganshire comprised thirty hold-1 ings and 1,003 to 1,100 in acreage with a ren of about £ 1,000. He also held an estate in P«mbrV{rt >hi e. There were sevi-n fartrs on the Cardigans e tate. His father fixed the rents, and in depiess t.hey were re-arrange i. When complaints were 1Ut that rents were too high he employed a person value. The rentb were with the exception of one or t.vo cases below th-i valuation. There was necessity for a Land Cou-t. Farme:s suffered fr want of capital. Was not a game preserver and no trouble about game. In reply to questions, wi ness dtd not think a Land Court would affect a goo landlord, but would interfere with the relations be tweeu landlord and tenant.. Mr David Owen, Berthlwyd. said that from 1872 to 1887, he was tenant of Maeneleu on the Carrog Est-ate, having married the tenant. Was brought up a Calviu- istic Methodist, but Mr Sinnett would not let him have the farm on any account unless he went to Church. He went°to Church, but hid now returned to Chapeb having had enough of Church. Government should deliver p-opl,- from such oppression and allow them to worship where t iey pleased. When l ii body waS in Cnurch his heart wis in chapel. (Laughter.) Mr F. W. Morgan, Bi onllangw rda, said that corn- growing was unprofitable and price ot strck low. Labour was dear and ratrs increased. H^- had to p^y lOfd poor rate on the half year, 2Jd highway, -i 1 4 sinit-try, 7f 1 School B-.ard, and 2d other charges, It was a mis ake to drop the wheel tax. Farmers also had not a fair market. Foreign produce had an advan- tage over home produce. Foreign meat was sold sideby sidewith home meat and yet foreign contributed nothiug to taxation while the other had been heavily taxed. The monied classes, again did not pay their due share of local rates. They paid on the ra^" able value of their mansions, but should pay on the same principle as the income tax. Land tax and chief rent were a disgrce to the genera- tion, and were relics of feudal times. Farmers must either have fair trade or rents must be reduced to the level of rent of land in America. Comp. tition for land in Wales was so keen that it wasdifficult to get rents reduced, and farmers were more to be blamed than landlords for want of combination. There were no clubs or agrictiltural societies. He attended a meeting the otrier day. and che first thing he heard was the member for Merhme 11 making a (iis stablis-b. uier.t speech. Being a Churchman, witness thought it an unfortunate start for combination among farmers. (Laughteri. Security of tenure would result in farmers throwing more energy into the land. Mr John Morgan, a printer, gave evid ence of what he had gleamed from couvenaton with farmers aud ministers, and said he discovered that not much interest was taken in the Commission, (Laughter). Mr Gwilym Evans, Mr Vaughan Davis, and Dr Enoch Davies, who to,,k active pirt in the matter, were aspirants for Parliamentary and other honours. (Renewed laughter). He did not think there was a landlord in Cardiganshire who was not a good one. Witness admitted, in reply to a question, that farmers had a grievance in having their rents raised on their own improvements. He had no more objection to a L'nd Court than he had to a bounty Court. Abate- ments tempted farmers to farm badly in order to get abatements. Mr David Owen Edwards, Talybont, said when tenant of Sir Pryse Prvse's he had to pay 10s. per acre for 31 yea's, whilst a farmer of over 300 acres paid 5s only per acre for b.-tter land. All land was laken on lease at Is. per ye lr, but Captain Hughes, Talybont, was obliged to pay Sir Pryse Pryse fl 103. per year. For sixty years witness paid f90 for the house and land, and the house became the property of Sir Pryse. He called attention to the harsh treat- meut of the landlord in over-valuing peat land in the North Cardiganshire, which bad produced a great loss to farmers as the inhabitants were obliged to leave the district in consequence of want of work. Several works had been stopped. Witness pointed out several farms, the rents of which had been raised, and said that Thomas Dela'ioyde was evicted after he had spent flOO on the farm, aud another would have been treated in the same way, unless he paid an in- creased rent, without rec iving any compensation. He thought the oppressive and non-protected farmer should show to the Commission that justice was ad. ministered effectively between landlord and tenant, and if proper salvation did not come soon to the farmers their circumstances would oblige them to take an independent course in order to get their rights. A Land Court was wanted to administer justice, to give security of tenure and compensation for improvements, and that all the game should be the property of the tenants who fed them. Land was told at exctlsive rates. A piece of land which was only worth Is per yeir was sold for £10. He also referred to a piece of common land which he said Sir Pryse Pryse tried to take away from the people. As to landlords and liberty of conscience, witness said that John Davies, Braichgarw, received notice to quit that place from Sir Pryse's agent, who gave as the reason that Davies had been assisting people to pull down the enclosure 0" .be Evan Jones, Bwlcbyddwyallt, also received notice UK quit and it became the talk of the neighbourhood. The people of Talybont had tried to prevent Sir Pryse enclosing the Common, and they collected subscrip- tions in order to obtam drink after returning home from Talybont, and it was said that Evan Jones was at the head of the subscriptions with 10s. Some of his neighbours who were in favour of Sir Pryse there- upon told Sir Pryse. Evan Jones had not taken any- thing in drink, and when he had explained that Sir Pryse had been misled by the people, and how things had arisen, the place was restored to him. In reply to questions, witness said he was in favour of Farmers' Clubs because he thought farmers were the most servile persons in the country. Others had to suffer because of the infidelity and unfaithfulness of others. It was a pity to say so, but some would go in and take hold- ings behind farmers' backs. It would be an advantage for landlords to live at home, because they were far more humane than their agents. (Applause, which was suppressed by order of the Chairman). Witness added that he would like to see game all destroyed as things were carried on now. Being asked if it was the custom to revalue the land before it was sold, witness said "■ that the landowners were always with their eyes open and took advantage of eveiy opportunity, of course." (Laughter). Mr John Morris, Glancarrog, who had bought a farm when land was very dear, complained of the burden of tithes. His neighbourhood was a corn- growing one, and was therefore heavily tithed. Tithe should be spread over a wider area and properly adjusted. The tithe standard of Glancarrog, with 76 acres, in Llanrhystyd Mefenydd was JS7 14s., and JE1 in Llanddeiniol. Mr Richard Theophilus Evans, of Abertrinant, Llan- fihangel-y-Creuddyn, said that people thought that the present cry was only one of Liberals and Noncon- formists, but he assured the Commission it was also the cry of Conservatives and Churchmen. Wheat, barley, ani oats were about fifty per cent. less now than twenty years ago, while rents and taxes were higher. Labourers were unable to get a little land upon which to keep a cow. He objected to farms being consolidated, and said that Lord Lisburne had added eight farms to the Lodge Farm, and the labour employed thereon was less now than previously. Farmers were also in need of convenient out-buildings in which to fatten their stock instead of selling them to English farmers, who made profit on them. Some farmers had to let their cattle out for want of out- buildings. Another complaint he had was with respect to the 300 acres of land which Lord Lisburne kept for the purpose of preserving gime, when labourers had not three acres upon which to keep a cow. and great was the slaughter of neighbouring sheep dogs through poisoning and shooting. In one case a pig was poisoned with what was meant for a dog. Some apreements were a disgrace to gentlemen. Mr John Edwards, Tynygwndwn, gave evidence relative to Captain Hughes-Bonsall's estate. He said there were continual changes through tenants being unable to obtain reductions in rent, and of those who left were some good farmers. He thought there should be some fair system of protection in favour of compensation to tenants. Tenants had left without. being compensated. He made a claim before Mr Hughes-Bousall's time, but the then landlord would have nothing to do with it. He admitted the land- lord laid something out ou the farm, but witness laid out mucn more. One of the farmers left because he had to do the haulage. When he (witness) went into the farm he had to boy all the manure, hay, and straw, according to the agreement, but when he left he was told the agreement was of no value, and they were sold. Rents were too high on the estate. Mr Hughes-Bonsall, Glanvheidol, denied that the changes referred to by the previous witness were due to him, There had been numerous changes, un- fortunately, on three of his best farms, but on eight other farms tha same tenants had held them for a number of years. Religious matters had nothing to do with his telll)Ots-in fact, some of his best tenants were Nonconformists. Mr H. C. Fryer, clerk to the Cardiganshire County Council, said that owing to the depression farmers had to economise so that the land now produced much less than it did fifteen years ago, and it was likely to pro- duce less still. He advocated a well-devised system of public loans to bring more capital to the farm firstly, to owner, tor improvements, and secondly, to aspiring owners to enable them to purchase holdings. He referred to manorial rights and sheep walks, and said the Crown was the worst landlord in the country. (Laughter). This concluded the Kitting of the Commission in Cardiganshire, but it is understood that the missicners will again sit at Lampeter to go further into the question of the alleged payment of £200 for mill-stoaes to Mr Jacob of Aberystwyth.