A_ A^ C/3 ^^^ o — ^^— — * X — = 30 — == 30 CD 5 = ^ 6 = 3 ^ OD 4 — ^^^ ^ 9, == > 1 = ^2^ f— ^^ —1 ^^S -< ' 1 D QUESTION SOUTH WALES J, E. J n 15 i\T THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES THE LAND QUESTION IN SOUTH WALES THE LAro QUESTION m SOUTH WALES A DEFENCE OF THE LANDOWNERS OF SOUTH WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE BY J^E. VINCENT BARRISTER- AT- LA W LANDOWNERS' ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE 8 PRINCES STREET, WESTMINSTER 1897 '» • • J -5 V*wl- AN£) /;/'0/^ 8DEC.W20 ^^y^j -^ 1 I t' .*. ••• • • « 14 • ' • ■ • • ' PREFACE. 60 ^ Curious misunderstandings having arisen concerning ^ the position from which I approached the Welsh Land g Question in a former work on behalf of the North "^ Wales Property Defence Association, it appears to be prudent to state that this volume purports to be a brief and necessarily incomplete defence of the Landowners ^ of South Wales and Monmouthshire against an indict- ^ ment contained in many scattered parts of a Report at consisting of 982 Blue-Book pages. o J. E. VINCENT. z 8 Princes Street, Westminster. April 26, 1897. ;i8:i66y CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. Welsh Land Commission Appointed— its Comtitution— Number of Sittings and Witnexses — Irreleoancies of Report — tlie Practical Question — Recog- nised bi/ Commissioners ami Disregarded — Jlethods of taki^ig Evidence — Political turn of the Inquiry — Calumny made Easy— Common Tests of Evidence Neglected — Essential Tests Prohibited — Unequal Ireatment of Witnesses Pp. 1-20 CHAPTER II. Difficulty of Distinguishing Unanimous Portions of Report from Sectional — Severe Criticism by Minority — Allegations of Fear and Intimidation — the Chairman' s Address to Witnesses — Evictions of 1858 and 1869 — Alleged Cases of Intimidation — Rejected by Public Prosecutor and Home Secretary — Still asserted by Commissioners — tJi^ Case of John Thomas Pp. 21-40 CHAPTER III. Condemnation of Agents — the Evidence Examined — all General and none Particular — Invidious Selections — the true Requirements in an Agent Pp. 41-53 CHAPTER IV. Welsh Case distinguished from Irish — No Absenteeism in Wales — Admitted by Commissioners — Expenditure on Improvements — Mr. Knox on the Margam Estate — the Influence of Improved Communications — Commis- viii CONTENTS. sioners admit great Improvement by Welsh Landowners — Impute Ignoble Causes — the Evidence on that point — Rent only a Moderate Interest on Landlord's Expenditure , Pp. 54-68- CHAPTER V. Bents and Land-hunger — no Derelict Farms — Plenty of Applicants — tlic Right Interpretation is that men think it worth while to apply — ' ' Rents paid withborrowed money " — Absurd Suggestion — the Danger of Statistics — must look at all the Incidents of each Tenancy — the Income Tax Argu- ment — its Misleading Tendency — Fines on Leases — why Rents ought to have Risen during the Century —a Magnificent Record {Appendix) — the Commissioners on Railway Influence — East Wales approximates in matter of Rental to Border Counties of England — Causes purely Economical Pp. 69-79 CHAPTER VI. No Case for Land Court — Hereditary Tenancies — Few Changes in Tenancy — Fixity of Tenure not the Right Remedy — Involves Judicial Rents and Saleable Tenant Right — Compensation for Improvements admitted to be necessary — the Glamorganshire Customs — the Intentions of the Govern' ment — England and Wales identical Pp. 80-89 CHAPTER VII. How the Commission loreclced the' Cause of the Freeholders — Swansea Corpora- tion and Duke of Beaufort — Cardiff and Lord Bute — regarded as Irrelevant — Questions of Title outside Competence and Scope of Com- mission .......... Pp. 90-94 APPENDIX. Showing Abatements, Reductions, and History of Rental . . Pp. 95-105 THE LAND QUESTION IN SOUTH WALES. CHAPTER I. By Royal Warrant, given under the hand of Mr. Asquith, the Home Secretary of the day, on the 27th of March 1893, the Royal Commission on Land in Wales and Monmouthshire was appointed " to inquire into the conditions and circumstances under which land in Wales and Monmouthshire is held, occupied, and cultivated, and to report thereon." Of the Commissioners honoured by her Majesty's trust it could not be urged that they were strangers to the country concerned in their inquiry. Lord Carrington, the Chairman, had not, it was true, kept the family estate in Cardiganshire which came to him by inheritance; it had, indeed, been sold almost simultaneously with his succession. But he was, no doubt, familiar with the traditions of that estate ; and, as the Com- mission grew older, he acquired by purchase from the Earl of Ancaster the mansion and demesne known as Gwydyr Castle, in North Wales, but not any considerable agricultural estate in connection with it. His lordship, however, would jDrobably be the last man to contend, as has been contended on his behalf, that either of these circumstances could justify him in A 2 THE LAND QUESTION claiming to speak with the authority of experience as a Welsh landowner. Lord Kenyon, descended from the great judge of that name, was and is a considerable landowner on the borders of England and North Wales. Mr. Brynmor Jones, an ex-county court judge and a member of the South Wales Division of the North and South Wales and Chester circuit, a man of pure Welsh descent, could claim close connection with, and much personal experience of , the Principality. Sir John Llewelyn was and is one of the best known landowners in South Wales ; Professor Rhys might be described as a very embodiment of the Cymric genius ; Mr. Griffiths and Mr. Richard Jones were substantial farmers in Pembrokeshire and Montgomeryshire respectively ; Mr. Edwin Grove was known and respected as Chairman of the Monmouthshire County Council and as one familiar with the statistics of great commercial enterprises. The one member of the Commis- sion who had no connection with the Principality was Mr. Seebohm ; but his reputation was such that his appoint- ment was a high compliment to the Principality, since in knowledge of the early history of agricultural communities of the United Kingdom he stood, and still stands, absolutely without a rival. There was, however, be it said with all courteous respect, ground upon which persons opposed, by conviction or from interest, to any revolutionary change in the existing law of landlord and tenant might cavil at the constitution of the Commission. For good or evil the line of political cleavage between the Unionist and the Liberal is tolerably clear and distinct, and common experience teaches us that, given the same set of facts, Tory and Radical will usually differ con- cerning the course of action which, in their respective opinions, is rendered necessary by those facts. Accordingly it is natural to examine the composition of a Royal Commission with a view to ascertain whether political parties were or were not equally, or nearly equally, represented upon it. Now, of IX SOUTH WALES. 3 the nine Commissioners in this case Lord Carrington was known as a man of advanced lladical opinions, Mr. Brynmor Jones was the representative of a Gladstonian constituency, Mr. Grove was a Radical Chairman of County Council, Mr. ]?ichard Jones was an active worker in the Radical cause, Mr. Griffiths was a strong Radical, and Professor Rhys a person of uncertain politics. These facts are not mentioned with any idea of casting discredit on the persons named, since honesty of conviction is the common property of both Radical and Tory, but simply because in connection with the Report, and particularly in connection with the recommendations, the political temperaments of its authors are facts which must be taken into consideration ; and these facts, in this particular case, show that the Commission was composed of two parts Radical to one part Unionist, The Commission thus constituted traversed Wales and Monmouthshire, held ninety-nine public sittings, of which nineteen only were in London, examined 1086 witnesses of various classes, held forty-five private sittings, and agreed upon its Report, so far as it was able to come to any agreement at all, in August of 1896. That Report was published in November of 1896, and it is with it that we have to deal. Our treatment of it, let it be said at once, is treatment measured out from the landowners' point of view, and this short work is the statement issued by the Landowners' Asso- ciation of South Wales and Monmouthshire of the outlines of their case as proved before the Commission. At the same time, they are fully conscious that nothing is to be gained by overstating a case or by straining facts unduly, and that, although severity of language will be unavoidable on occasion, vehemence of expression is not to be encouraged. The whole of the Report, however, comprises nearly a thousand pages, of large Blue-book size, and deals with a great variety of subjects of varying qualities and degrees of interest. A large portion of it deals with matters which, 4 THE LAND QUESTION except perhaps from the literary, or antiquarian, or historical, or scientific point of view, are in no sense controversial. We are not concerned to inquire into the accuracy or the in- accuracy of the pages relating to those interesting but slightly antique races, the Goidels and the Brythones ; it is a matter of no moment to us how much a Welsh beaver skin cost in the Middle Ages, or whether the ancient nobility of Wales did or did not divert themselves by treating swarms of bees as subjects of the chase. These and kindred topics may be interesting, in varying degrees, to men and women of varying tastes. But the question which lies before us is of a purely practical character. It is our conviction that, when Mr, Gladstone's administration appointed this Commis- sion, it was the intention of Mr. Gladstone's administration that the Commissioners should perform the commonplace, but quite sufficiently onerous task of examining into actual facts with which the Legislature might or might not be able to deal with effect. If this Commission elected to take a wider and more comprehensive view of the terms of reference, and to devote itself to unsystematic research into all kinds of subjects that is no concern of ours. The whole kingdom has to pay the cost, and the miscellany of a thousand jjages which is the result is in some measure pleasant in the reading, albeit in many respects inaccurate and incomplete. Our treatment of the Report is based upon the theory, which we have no doubt to be strictly correct, that this Commission was appointed to inquire into the conditions under which the class of men described as farmers, whether tenants from year to year, or tenants for a fixed period of years, or owners in fee-simple, carry on their industry and trade. We assume that the duty, and the whole duty, of the Commission was meant to consist in discovering, by hearing evidence from the persons interested, whether the conditions of the farmer's life were tolerable or grievous, and whether, if they were grievous, the hardships and difficulties were IN SOUTH WALES. 5 sucli that legislation, framed with due regard to the immut- able principles of true political science, could alleviate or remove them. For this assumption there are numerous and strong grounds. For, first, the task which it would have been necessary for these men, thus construing the terms of reference, to perform, was quite large enough to satisfy any men. To inquire whether, regard being paid to markets and seasons, the rents paid for farms were reasonable or un- reasonable ; to ascertain the character of agricultural depres- sion in Wales and Monmouthshire, to estimate the degrees of its severity and to investigate its fluctuations ; to consider whether the farming class exercised their energies to the best advantage and availed themselves of their opportunities to the full ; to see whether they were unjustly treated by land- owners or their agents ; to find out whether the law of compensation was adequate or inadequate ; to discover whether favouritism was practised in the choice of tenants ; to examine, in short, into the great question whether landlords did their duty by their estates and by their tenants — this, surely, was a duty sufficiently serious to satisfy the ambitions of any men. Moreover, the preceding history of the Agrarian agitation, the speeches of Mr. Thomas Ellis, M.P., in the House of Commons and elsewhere ; the Land Bills introduced by him and by Mr. Bryn Roberts, M.P., respectively ; the Snowdon Speech by Mr. Gladstone, which was the prelude to the appointment of the Commission, all went plainly to show that such was the object of its appointment. It was on that principle that the case for the landowners was shaped before the Commission from beginning to end. They felt that, so far as their relation to their agricultural tenants was con- cerned, they had been placed on their trial, and that it was their duty to give an account of their stewardship. And that duty, which involved quite enough of personal exertion and expense on their parts, they performed steadily, refusing to be drawn into discussions upon irrelevant topics or to 6 THE LAND QUESTION submit to the arbitrament of the Commission questions with which it had clearly not been intended that a mixed Com- mission should deal, and with which, to be plain, this particular Commission was not competent to deal. Herein is involved no discourtesy, but a plain statement of manifest fact ; for it is the simple truth that but one of the Commis- sioners, and he not a specialist in the law of Real Property, was competent to enter into those intricate questions of title concerning which the Commission received a considerable volume of rather unscientific evidence. It must be admitted that, from the outset, the Commission showed a stronger disposition to wander far afield than might have been expected. But it is now clear that the Commission itself was well aware that it was going beyond its task. " Without any doubt," wrote the Commissioners on the first page of their Report, " we arrived at the conclusion that it was the conditions and circumstances connected with the owner- ship and occupation of that land which, for want of a better term, we call agricultural land, to which we ought, princi- pally, to give our attention." It is suggested that the terms of reference could not have been construed better or more intelligently, and that the wandering inquiries of the men who saw their obvious duty thus plainly and instinctively are thereby the more difficult to explain. Be that as it may, the issues are, and were from the beginning, quite plain to Par- liament and the public, and, since it is to those issues, and to the methods pursued in collecting evidence upon them, that these pages are devoted, quite enough has been said by way of introduction. ■ Before proceeding to analysis of the Report, or the relevant portion of it, it is inevitable that a few words, as passionless as may be possible, should be devoted to the methods pursued by the Commissioners. Public objection has been made to- criticism of these methods, on the ground that it involves or implies personal attack upon the characters of individual IN SOUTH WALES. 7- Commissioners. But to repeat this objection is to mistake the basis of criticism. It is true, no doubt, that a substantial number of witnesses left the witness-seat with a feeling that they had been harassed and browbeaten in a fashion which was distinctly not fair ; it is true also that the strongest sup- porter of Mr. Brynmor Jones in the vernacular Press, that is to say the Bancr newspaper, owned by Mr. Thomas Gee, paid him rather an unhappy compliment by describing him as the man who " cut laces out of the skins " of landowners and their witnesses. Where occasion calls for it we shall characterise conduct of this kind without fear and without restraint, since a landowner or an agent is human and has his feelings, just the same as the most august of Royal Commissioners. But it is not desired to lay stress on that aspect of the conduct of the Commissioners, and it will be enough to say for the present that the Commission, which is noyf functus officio, so that each member of it has returned to his ordinary duties and occupa- tions, has left behind it a feeling that several of its members did not hesitate to use their position in an ungenerous and unjust manner, did wound to excess and without reason witnesses with whom they found themselves in disagreement upon matters of opinion, did so far forget themselves upon divers occasions as to fall before the ignoble temptation to play to the gallery. But, apart from the feeling of just resentment thus pro- duced in the minds of the victims, this really did not very much matter. What is a far more serious affair is- the fact, which shall presently be established, that the methods of examination — or non-examination — which were followed were such as to throw very reasonable suspicion upon the materials upon which the Commission was bound to form its judgment. The literature produced by the Commission may be divided into two main parts. There is the evidence, in several bulky volumes ; there is the Report. Now, from the scientific point' of view, the evidence is by far the more important. Let us 8 THE LAND QUESTION imagine a careful and industrious student of politics desirous of approaching this Welsh Land Question with an open mind. To the opinions and recommendations of individual Com- missioners as expressed in the Report he would naturally pay no attention until he had made careful inquiry into their intellectual powers, their experience, their character, and their predilections. In this particular case he would come to the conclusion that the judgment of Mr. Seebohm was — we say this with all respect to Sir John Llewelyn and Lord Kenyon and Lord Carrington, and without fear of being mis- understood by them — worth the judgment of all the other Commissioners put together. But he certainly would not accept as final the opinion even of Mr. Seebohm. He would reflect to himself that the Queen does not and cannot send out her trusty and well-beloved Commissioners that they may recommend this or that measure of reform to Parliament, but to discover, and so far as human frailty permits, to state im- partially and without favour at the end to Parliament, the precise and complete state of facts. He would feel that even the most unbiased man, acting with that scrupulous im- partiality which we have a right to look for in that part of this Report which is made up of summarised evidence, could hardly fail to be led into unconscious error. A little too much shadow here, a little too much light there, emphatic notice of one statement, casual treatment of another, have much influence in determining the general effect of the written statement, and they are errors that are almost unavoidable. Certainly, in the vital part of this Welsh Land Commis- sion's Report, the primary author of the phrases, whosoever he may have been, has not succeeded in avoiding these pitfalls. This, perhaps, is an expression which might be put into a more forcible form if strong criticism were desirable. Let it suffice to say that the draughtsman's efforts to show no bias have not been crowned with complete success. . IN SOUTH WALES. 9 In these circumstances the political student, or any man of ordinary common sense, can come to no other conclusion than that the evidence, and the evidence alone, is the true mine of information. There only can he expect to find the unvar- nished statement of grievance as it came from the mouth of the tenant, the plain statement of defence as it came from the lips of landowner or agent, the clear figures of hereditary succession in tenancy, of reductions of rent, of abatements, of expenditure in improvements and repairs which go to make the positive case for the landowners. That is the real mine of information in which he will, if he be inspired by the genuine zeal after knowledge, be prepared to expend much labour. Now, it is not suggested for a moment that these nine Royal Commissioners were not entitled, as a matter of law, to disregard the ordinary rules of evidence. Thev were O «■■■ •-' authorised, no doubt, to collect information in the manner which seemed to them best and most convenient. Let so much be allowed without reserve in their favour. But, on the other hand, it must be said as a matter of duty, without imputing any blame to any individual Commissioner, that the value of the body of evidence collected by them must depend very largely upon the question whether, before that evidence was formally recorded and preserved in the Blue Books, it was subjected to rational tests. More particularly clear is the necessity of testing evidence in a rational way when the matters in dispute are of such a character as to cause feeling and passion to run high. Such, by universal admission, was the case with which the Welsh Land Commission had to deal. " Differences of race and language, religious and sectarian rivalries, political divisions and social jealousies combined to accentuate, to an extra- ordinary degree, the feelings engendered by an unequal distribution of wealth and an acute economic crisis . . . Without any intention on our part, and without our being able 10 THE LAND QUESTION to control the matter, the inquiry in some places assumed the aspect of a warm contention between landlords and tenant farmers, and indirectly of a contest between the political parties that struggle for mastery in the State." So the Commissioners in their Report ; nor need we dispute the statement further than to say that the question whether they had any control over witnesses was one which depended mainly upon them. Perhaps if they had possessed the strength of character and the moral courage w^hich were undoubtedly required in their position ; if they had defined the issues clearly and had adhered to them ; if they had excluded rigidly all reference to matters which could not be relevant to any conceivable issue ; if they had firmly resisted evidence relating solely to questions of personal conduct and character ; then, probably, they would have had no difficulty in control- ling the course of the inquiry. This mild complaint, this melancholy expression of sorrow that the inquiry followed lines which the Commissioners could by no means control, is in truth a very simple and childlike confession of weakness. So striking is it, indeed, that we venture to retort upon the Commission by inverting an observation made in public by Mr. Commissioner Brynmor Jones and turning it upon the Commission. Mr. Brynmor Jones was good enough to explain to the Times newspaper that if counsel for landowners could not cross-examine effectually, the fault did not lie with the Commissioners. That observation was in revolt against the despotism of facts, for the simple reason that the Commission, exercising a discretion which is not questioned, declined to permit counsel, or anybody else than a Commissioner, to cross- examine at all by word of mouth ; permitting merely written questions to be administered ; and to call such questions '' cross-examination " is simply to misuse language. On the other hand, the Commission had undoubted authority tO' control and direct the course of its own inquiry ; and if it failed to exercise that authority while, by its own profession. IN SOUTH WALES. 11 it was desirous of so doing, the fault lay not in want of authority but in lack of capacity on the part of the Commis- sion. The real doubt is whether the political cast given to the inquiry was in truth contrary to the wishes of the Com- missioners. To be candid, we do not think it was distasteful to them, and, upon a survey of the evidence, we venture to say that individual Commissioners, notably Mr. Brynmor Jones, Mr. Richard Jones, and, in the matter of anti-clerical prejudice, Mr. Griffiths, rivalled any of the persons who mar- shalled evidence before them in importing political passions into the inquiry. This was, perhaps, a pity, though an open fight of this kind may sometimes work benefit by supplying a vent for the turgid gas of political feeling ; but it certainly does not lie in the mouths of the majority of the Commissioners to complain that, in spite of them, the inquiry assumed a political colour, when in fact they helped to give to it that colour. Moreover, upon this point they have fallen into a serious error of fact, and they must be set right. Speaking of the eagerness with which the inquiry was followed by the Welsh people in terms which are, in our judgment, exagger- ated, they write (Report, p. 2) : " No doubt this was to some extent caused by the political aspect given to our inquiry, and by the intervention evenjivherc of a j^olitical organisation on the part of the landlords, and at most places on the part of the tenants." Whether this be true of the gentlemen who marshalled the case for the malcontent tenants, it is not for us to say, but we are constrained to observe that the words which we have italicised are absolutely without foundation in fact in the ordinary sense of words, without a colour of foundation, and contrary to evidence given before the Com- mission, so far as the South Wales and Monmouthshire Association is concerned. That association was the only association of landowners represented before the Commission in South Wales. 12 THE LAND QUESTION In North Wales there was colour, but no real foundation, for the suggestion. In other words, although the members of the North Wales Property Defence Association include persons of every shade of political opinion except that which favours Land Leagues, the secretary of that association, the late Mr. George Owen, was in another capacity a political organiser on the Conservative side. Still, the North Wales Property Defence Association has no connection with any political organisation, and has often declined to take any part in movements having a political complexion. In the case of the Landowners' Association of South Wales and Monmouthshire, the suggestion or charge, if charge it be, of political basis of organisation is a sheer invention. Let us be quite plain. In a classical sense every association of men, even a cricket club, is political, since man is, as our old friend Aristotle discovered some hundreds of years ago, TToXiTiKov Z,h}Ov, a living creature calculated to be one of a community. But this was not the meaning in which the Commissioners used the word "political"; they intended to convey the impression that the association referred to was connected with party politics. That impression is absolutely false. The Association had its origin in the appointment of the Welsh Land Commission ; its object is the perfectly legitimate one of defending the rights of property ; it is expressly non-political ; its members represent all shades of opinion in the political world ; it does not attempt to exercise any influence over elections ; its secretary, who represented it before the Commission at every public sitting, has never been a member of any political organisation more serious in character than the Chatham Club, which was youthful and ■pleasantly convivial. He left that club at the mature age of twenty-two, and it is only on rare occasions that he can be persuaded to vote even at a Parliamentary election. Thus neglecting his duties as a citizen, he is the least political man imaginable. IN SOUTH WALES. 13 The preceding words are not a digression, and therefore need no excuse after the manner of Lawrence Sterne. Their purpose is to lead to the contention that the conditions under which the Welsh Land Commission worked were such that they ought to have been more than commonly careful to subject evidence to rational tests. They were unable, they protest, to prevent their inquiry from taking a political cast ; they encouraged, we contend, the political spirit by showing it themselves ; they thought, quite erroneously, but it must be assumed, honestly, that landowners and tenants were represented before them by political organisations ; they frequently asked witnesses what their politics were ; they saw the passions of men exhibited before them with increasing force every day. Now, the game of politics has never been a very clean or scrupulous game. The terms " stupid Tory," and " beastly Radical," the old story that a Cardiganshire man, having all but exhausted his vocabulary of abuse upon a perverse donkey, roused him to a gallop by calling him " Tori bach," sufficiently indicate the tone of political con- troversy at its worst. It is matter of common knowledge that every Gener-al Election is so prolific of gross and baseless personal libels that members of Parliament have been compelled to protect themselves against one another by special enactment. In fact, if the devil is the father of lies politics are the forcing-houses of them. The inquiry, then, took a political cast. It was natural to expect a large crop of falsehoods ; and no man who followed the course of the evidence given before the Commission will deny that, mixed up with a great mass of valuable facts, a huge volume of sheer falsehoods came before the Commission. We need not specify instances. The thousands of pages of evidence contain numerous examples of serious accusations which were not merely denied, but absolutely disproved by evidence which could not be doubted, sometimes even by documentary evidence signed by the accuser's own hand ; a4 THE LAND QUESTION the Blue Books are marred in countless cases by charges not only irrelevant to any conceivable issue, but impossible on the face of them. In a word, the evidence, which ought to be the most valuable fruit of the work of the Welsh Land Commission, which ought to be a rich treasury of golden information, cannot be regarded as established and trustworthy. Brought face to face with it, the political inquirer, the member of Parliament desirous of finding out the truth concerning this Welsh Land Question (which some declare to be of deadly interest, while others hold it to be mere make-believe) is like an assay er of gold who is confronted with a mass of mixed ore, and rigidly prohibited from applying to it any scientific test by which to distinguish the base metal from the true. Complaints to this eff*ect were made often, and with just indignation, during the long life of the Commission, and they were met by the short-sighted answer that the Commission was not legally bound by the accepted law of evidence. No sane man ever said that it was so bound ; no reasonable person would contend that a rigid application of the strict law of evidence was, in the case of non-controversial matters, necessary or even desirable. For example, it would have been absurd to insist on evidence at first hand, although, as a matter of fact, it was available and formally offered if demanded, in the case of the statistical returns concerning the rise and fall of rents and like matters furnished by the secretaries of the Landowners' Associations in North and South Wales and in Monmouthshire ; and equally absurd would it have been to press for strict proof of much of the evidence given on the other side. But it is very plain, on the face of the evidence recorded, that many of the statements made and the whole of the charges of personal misconduct or dishonesty levelled against individuals were of such a character that, unless they were able to pass through strict tests, they could carry no IN SOUTH WALES. 15 weight. Those strict tests happen to be embodied in the law of evidence, most of which is not the creation of an}'- statute, but the accumulated result of the experience of man in civilised communities. Man has learned that certain rules must be applied before it can be ascertained whether a witness is accurate or inaccurate (which is a matter of intellectual capacity rather than of morality), or whether he is telling the truth or a deliberate falsehood. Experience shows beyond question that many witnesses make mistakes ; that many, a less number, lie with elaborate precision ; and that an inquiry conducted under circumstances of passion, such as surrounded this particular inquiry, and when falsehoods can be told freely and without fear of punishment (for the law of slander has narrow limits and the law of perjury had no application) is manifestly liable to be prolific of untruth. The Commission declined to apply those well-known tests. It is true that they were not legally bound to apply them. But every consideration of reason and fair-play was obligatory upon them. They neglected those considerations. But in making this statement we are actuated by no desire to speak evil of the Commissioners. Their capacity, their honesty of purpose, their character, are matters of small moment to the world at large ; but the fact that this mountain of so-called evidence, this accumulation of alleged evidence, which is all that public opinion can go by, has never been properly tested, and cannot be properly tested now or ever, is serious, lamentable, and irretrievable. No apology is called for in connection with the particularity with which this subject is being treated, for the importance of it is of the most essential quality, and the question of the validity and truthfulness of the evidence goes to the root of the whole matter. Here, in 982 pages, is the great literary edifice of the Report. Below it, in the shape of foundatiou, is the evidence spread over five or six times as many pages. Our submission is that the edifice is liable to collapse at any 16 THE LAND QUESTION moment ; that the foundations upon which it stands may be wide, but that they are not deep ; that they rest not on the soHd rock of truth and certainty, but upon the shifting quicksands of uncertainty. To prove this is to invalidate the whole Report and to demonstrate to the impartial mind that, save as a mere expression of personal opinion, the recom- mendations of the majority are not worthy to carry any weight. It will be necessary, before this volume is ended, to call attention to particular cases of unfair treatment of witnesses by the majority of the Commissioners ; to show that, on the face of their Report, they have reached conclusions upon matters of fact (upon the qualifications of land-agents, for example) not warranted by, and not in harmony with, that which they are pleased to call evidence. But it is more important by far to be able to show that the whole of the evidence as it stands has not passed those tests, and can now never be subjected to those tests, which alone could give it a title to be believed. We cannot tell whether we are dealing with dreams, with mere fictions, the fruit of malicious imagi- nation, or with facts ; and facts are the only things that matter. Lest room should be left for doubt, it is prudent to append to the general statement the particular details of complaint. It shall be done at once. When a man went into the witness- box, or to the table, and, as was the common practice before this Commission, read a statement of grievance and complaint, the first thing which sensible persons wanted to know was whether he was telling his own story or one which somebody else had put on paper for him. That instinctive desire was shown by one of the Commissioners during the first week of the sittings of the Commission in South Wales. It certainly never entered into the mind of counsel for landowners, who had put this witness in the box, that he could venture to question this absolutely proper line of cross-examination. On the contrary, condemned as he was to grope in the dark after IN SOUTH WALES. 17 the rules of practice which the Commission was likely to follow, he determined to use these questions as a model and an example. When next an exuberant witness appeared on the other side, full of poetical phrases and florid epithets, it seemed good to place these questions, copied from the model provided by the Commissioners, before him also for answer. Divers Commissioners, however, resented the questions (they had forgotten their original source) as an outrage upon and an insult to a poor tenant farmer. Counsel, like Brer Rabbit, lay low. The questions were then disallowed, in a haughty tone, as improper. Counsel then proceeded to point out to the chairman in writing the true origin of these questions, and, after the luncheon adjournment, he learned, to his intense surprise, that by way of getting out of a difliculty which, so far, affected the evidence of one witness only, the Commissioners had agreed upon a rule which could not fail to invalidate more or less the evidence of every individual among the thousand witnesses to be called thereafter. For the Commission resolved, and counsel took good care that they should not break through their own rule later, that under no circumstances should any person, whether a member of the public or a Commissioner, make inquiry of any witness as to the manner in which his evidence had been prepared. Every man accustomed to sift evidence, every lawyer, every magis- trate, every man who has occasion, in any walk of life, to distinguish between truth and falsehood, will say without hesitation that, hy the passing of this almost incredible nile^ the first and most elementary test of evidciice was abolished and destroyed. From that day forward the personal honour and character of a witness were the only guarantees that his evidence was not simply invented by the political agent, the lawyer, or the organiser, who brought him forward. So incredible is this rule, that it seems necessary to add that, on many occasions, individual Commissioners tried to break through it, and were checked by written protests by B 18 THE LAND QUESTION counsel for landowners, who had cards ready bearing the necessary words of remonstrance. The excuse for the rule was that inquiry into the sources of evidence would have taken time ; but, in truth, the know- ledge that such inquiry could not be made unquestionably contributed incalculably to the volume of evidence offered ; and it may be added that an ounce of evidence which has stood the proper tests is worth more than a ton of so-called evidence that virtually has not been tested at all. This is the principal weakness which underlies the whole of the books of evidence. But there were others. The Com- missioners cannot be acquitted of having admitted great quantities of hearsay statements, where direct evidence might easily have been obtained, upon serious questions of character and conduct. Not all hearsay was objectionable of course. There was no strong reason why a particular individual should not be received, as many were received, as the spokesman of a district or of a meeting, to give expression to their feeling upon general questions, such as the desirability of a Land Court, or the necessity of amending the Agricultural Holdings Act. It would have been more businesslike, no doubt, if such spokesmen had produced copies of resolutions passed at the meetings in question ; but let that pass ; it is not worthy of serious mention by the side of the other kinds of hearsay that were admitted. Over and over again, both in South Wales and in North, men were permitted in so many words to tell other persons' stories for them ; to say that So-and-so was evicted for political reasons, that another did not receive a penny of compensation when he left his farm, although he had spent hundreds upon it, and &o forth ad infiniticvi. Now, this kind of evidence is open to every kind of suspicion. It may be untrue from the beginning, and the alleged victim may have misled the willing witness ; on the other hand, the willing witness may have mistaken or deliberately misrepre- sented the alleged victim. Besides, the man who goes into IN SOUTH WALES. 19 the box to tell another man's story cannot be cross-examined effectually, however honest he may be, simply because he knows nothing more than he has been told and cannot answer yes or no to questions of which the answers may explain the whole matter and dispose of the alleged grievance. No parallel for this pi'actice can be found in practical life -outside the history of the Welsh Land Commission. News- papers are, for the most part, made up of course of hearsay statements ; but the reporter who repeats the hearsay is checked by the knowledge that a series of mistakes will involve him in the loss of his livelihood, whereas the man who created a sensation before the Welsh Land Commission was accounted a high-minded patriot. Moreover, a newspaper is obnoxious to libel actions, whilst a witness before the Oommission might give free rein to his imagination so long as he refrained from imputing to a man an indictable offence, or from saying that which brought pecuniary damage to a man, or from slandering him in his trade or business. The really analogous case would be seen if counsel were permitted to give evidence for their absent clients ; if, for example, Mr. Marshall Hall had been permitted, at a recent trial at the Old Bailey, to give his version of what the deceased boy Kasfc would have said. To imagine that any court of law would allow or any jury would listen to evidence of that character is to imagine the impossible. There is not, indeed, a prac- tising lawyer who has not known many times, and to his cost, how vast is the difference between the sunny statement of his witness, as it appeared in his brief, and the chequered aspect of the evidence of that witness when he steps out of the box after cross-examination. The remaining weaknesses of the practice of the Commis- sion ma}' be summed up in a paragraph. They frequently admitted at the outset verbal statements as to the effect and contents of written documents which were not produced. They admitted hand-made and undated copies of alleged aO THE LAND QUESTION IN SOUTH WALES. agreements (names of parties omitted), of which it was said that they were contracts out of the Act of 1883. One such was found subsequently to be dated 1875 ! But on this point they were inconsistent, for, when a clergyman at llhyl tendered a copy of a lease, he was sternly told that copies would not be admitted. They allowed a malcontent witness to hand up to them privately the names of six alleged victims of Lord Windsor (that is to say, they gave him leave to do so, but nobody knows whether he did it or not) ; they informed a sub-agent of Miss Talbot, who desired to submit privately the name of his informant, that under no circumstances could they accept confidential communications. That is the kind of Commission with which Welsh land- owners had to deal ; that is the way in which the material upon which this colossal Report professes to be founded was collected and raked together. It cannot be contended that it was not a duty to set forth these plain facts before looking at what these Commissioners have to say and what they presume to recommend. ^OLH CHAPTEB II. Let us now proceed to deal with those portions of the Report which have a practical as distinguished from a merely literary and antiquarian interest. First it is to be noted that, while there is a Majority Report and a Minority Report, it is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain with how much of the observations of the majority the minority agree. The minority, composed of Lord Kenyon, Sir John Llewelyn and Mr. Seebohm, leave us in considerable doubt upon this point, which is unfortunate ; and to show how unfortunate it is, we quote from the opening of the Minority Report. " We have been anxious, as far as we honestly could, to agree with our colleagues in the report of the facts which have come before the Commission and in the general in- ferences to be drawn from them. And with that view we have signed the first part of the Report as a pai;istaking endeavour to place on record a broad view of the conditions under which land is held and cultivated in Wales. There may he parts of the Report as to which, in our view, ^tndtie regard may have been paid to statements of those naturally under politieal Mas, and u)iduc p>rominencc given to matters more or less the subject of political agitation. We have regretted the freriuent introduction of personal matters hy reference to individual cases hy name. Hoivever carefully a short statement of facts^ often imperfectly disclosed in the evidence, may he 22 THE LAND QUESTION drawn, it is impossible to avoid the danger of not ftdly repre- senting aspects of the case which to the individual may he of personal importance as more or less implying moral Uame ; and we should dee'ply regret if in the statement of these cases in the Mcport any unjust morcd asjxrsion shoidd have been un- intentionally cast upon any individual, whether landlord or tenant. With these reservations as regards this part of the Hcport, ive have not thought it needfid to withhold our general concurrence^' Now, the first point that strikes the mind on perusal of this introductory paragraph is that no man can say, and the minority of the Commissioners themselves find it difficult to distinguish, how many of the statements in the Report, apart from the recommendations, are to be taken as unanimous. If the authors of the Report, or the partial endorsers of it, are in this difficulty, it must be abundantly clear that any individual not a member of the Commission who attempts to mark out the boundary line between unanimity and difference in this wilderness of words must fail ignominiously. That is, as has been observed, a grave misfortune, especially from the point of view of those who hold that the views of Mr. Seebohm, Lord Kenyon and Sir John Llewelyn carry con- siderable weight. Next, the reader cannot fail to remember that when this important paragraph was written the " painstaking endea- vour" to summarise the evidence fairly was before the eyes of those who deemed it necessary to preface their own observations with these words of warning prudence. What, then, do we gather ? That the main body of the vital part of the Report came into being from the pen or the mouth of some jDerson or persons, and that, whether there was one author or more than one, neither Sir John Llewelyn, Lord Kenyon, or Mr. Seebohm had any share in the authorship. No one of these gentlemen, assuredly, is capable of describing work wholly or partly his own as a " painstaking endeavour.'^ IN SOUTH WALES. 28 For the rest, the paragraph plainly indicates that, in the opinion of these honourable and responsible men, the readers of the Report must be on their guard against undue regard paid to the statements of those naturally under political bias, undue prominence given to matters more or less the subject of political agitation, unnecessary introduction of personalities, inadequate and inaccurate summaries of evidence. Far be it from us to dispute this opinion reached by men of notorious impartiality and so conciliatory in disposition that they did not withhold " general concurrence ' from what had been written by others. On the contrary, it is a part of the present task to justify the warning given by the minority to show that a distinctly partisan bias runs through the whole of the vital portion of the Ilej)ort and through part of the Introduction ; to point out that sentence after sentence, without embodying any direct statement of fact that can be disproved, has a sting in the tail of it ; and to show that the summaries of evidence, upon which Mr. Thomas Ellis, M.P., appeared, in his recent Carmarthen speech, to set great store, are in many respects, and most particularly in reference to the qualifications of agents, more than accidentally imperfect. For the present, however, it is enough to observe that, for dignified and uncompromising condemnation of the method pursued in drafting the only part of the Report which has reference to the circumstances of the present day or possesses any practical interest, the well-considered words of Mr. Seebohm, Sir John Llewelyn, and Lord Kenyon leave abso- lutely nothing to be desired. And now let us make a "painstaking endeavour" to summarise, as briefly and accurately as may be within our capacity, those parts of the Report which, whether unanimous or not, are of real interest, and to specify the recommenda- tions of the entire body, of the majority, and of the minority ; dealing with these matters as they come and in the order of convenience. 24 THE LAND QUESTION Upon certain points in the Report of which there is strong reason to complain it is to be feared that unanimity must be predicated. And this, we take it, must be said of the Intro- duction, which contains sundry passages highly objectionable to all friends of the present system of landownership to which it is not possible for them to assent. The most objectionable of these is contained in the ninth paragraph (page 9), in respect of the allegation that tenants were afraid to come forward and give evidence. " But in our judgment we feel bound to say that not simply a small number of exceptionally timid and prudent men, but a very large proportion of the tenant-farmers in each district were deterred from coming forward to give evidence by fear of incurring the displeasure of the landlord, and therefore possibly of receiving notice to quit, or, at any rate, being placed ia a disadvantageous position as regards him and his agent." They then are kind enough to say that they are sure no considerable number of landowners would be prejudiced against a tenant because he gave " candid and accurate evidence." Then they exhort landowners not to do anything which can possibly lead to a suspicion, no matter how groundless, of this kind. The inference is obvious. The landowner who desires to secure from the Commissioners a character for prudence must never, whatsoever may happen in the future, whatsoever provocation may be offered to him, take in his own interests any step which may be disadvantageous to the public-spirited tenants who came before the Commission. It follows from this doctrine that to have given evidence, true or false, is, if the view of the Commissioners is to be upheld, to have acquired a property near akin in nature to perpetuity of tenure. '■ Vie are sure," say the Commissioners in effect, '• that landlords will iiot punish ; but they must avoid the very suspicion of punishment " ; and this means that tenants are to be cosseted and favoured for no other reason than that, having IN SOUTH WALES. 25 an opportunity offered to them, they have chosen to make, out of mere animosity and malignance, and without regard to the relevance of their observations, serious attacks upon the •characters of the owners or managers of the land which they occupy or have occupied. It would be interesting to learn whether the accusations, quite irrelevant to the real issues which the Commission had to try, made by a Mr. Evans against Lord Windsor's agent, Mr. Forrest, ought in the opinion of our tender-hearted Commissioners to entitle the said Mr. Evans to perpetuity of tenure. It would be instructive also to learn whether there are any limits to the theory that the practice of back- biting a landlord, aptly described by Lord Morris in the House of Lords by the phrase " domestic treacher}"," entitles a man not only to the negative advantage of freedom from punishment, but also to the positive benefit of substantial reward. The next reference in the sermon (for the whole of the phra- seology savours of "the word of exhortation ") is to certain evictions for political reasons alleged to have taken place after the elections of 1859 and 18G8. With these allegations it is not proposed to deal in detail, for two excellent reasons. In the first place they are allegations in relation to which the Commissioners, if they considered the topic material, had an absolute right, not merely in law, but also in reason, to accept hearsay evidence. But it followed from this fact that the allegations were in themselves liable to that doubt which must alwavs attach to hearsav, and that thev were far more easy to make than to meet. One cannot prove that a man now dead did not tell Thomas Jones that a landlord, now dead, did not give him notice to quit because he refused to give a vote contrary to his political convictions. That, at any rate is plain ; for one cannot call the dead landlord back to life for examination upon his original motives. Nor is ib possible in 1897 to discover whether, forty or fifty years ago. 26 THE LAND QUESTION there was, either in the mind of the landlord or in the condi- tion of the evicted tenant's holding, something other than politics which might explain the eviction. Nor, unhappily^ can it be denied that, in days which were less enlightened than ours, there were evictions which proceeded' from political motives. Those were times in which tenancy was regarded as a privilege. They were times in which men held the opinion — and the present writer for one is not going to say that it was an unreasonable opinion — that they were entitled to surround themselves with their supporters and friends. But we are entitled to say that this principle, even if it be regarded as obsolete in these days, prevailed and was acted upon in England as well as in Wales. We have a clear right to say also that the evidence given on the subject was inevitably open to suspicion on the ground of vagueness and because it could not be tested ; and that much of it showed signs of a natural tendency to exaggeration. But the true answer is that these evictions of ancient days, of which the Commission makes a prodigal use, were quite irrelevant to the present problem, if indeed problem there be. If there was tyranny of that kind thirty and forty years ago,- such tyranny is impossible now. The Ballot Act has been passed in the interval. By the universal admission of all parties, it is absolutely effectual. It is impossible to discover whether a man has voted for the blue or for the yellow, and therefore impossible to punish him for his vote. Frankly, it is impossible to believe that any reasoning being in 1897 can stand in terror of a recurrence of the events of those bygone years ; if there be such men then their timidity is incurable and constitutional. They have absolute protection, and that must suffice for them. But it is a piece of legitimate criticism to add that the Commissioners who have to hark so far back for their arguments must have been sorely distressed to find any arguments at all. In connection with the same subject, that of groundless and IN SOUTH WALES. 27 tmreasoning fear, the Commissioners, in a portion of their lleport which bears the appearance of unanimity, deal with a point of vital importance to the landowners and the estate agents of South Wales and Monmouthshire. No apology is' made for dealing with this subject in some detail, since it is a plain duty to defend a body of men who are held in just esteem and regard against an accusation which is of au obviously grave nature. It is the kind of accusation whicii ought by no means to be made unless the grounds of it have been tested with anxious care ; and certainly it is such a charge that to make it, after the evidence supporting it has been submitted to an impartial authority and has been authorita- tivety declared to be inadequate, is nothing short of scandalous. It will be remembered that, during the course of the inquiry, certain witnesses, hailing from South Wales for the most part, came forward to allege that they had been punished^ damnified, or otherwise injured by reason of evidence given, by them to the disadvantage of the owners of the land which they happened to hold under agreement. The allegations,, apart from the flimsy evidence by which they were supported, were of grave importance for, if they had been justified, they would have provided some ground for saying that the vague fear to give evidence, to which sundry witnesses testified, was not in truth unreasoning. And they were the more important in that they were a boon to the local newspapers, which found readers where the official reports of evidence found none, and were circulated far and wide. What, then, was the course taken by the Commissioners in relation to an important question affecting the characters and the honour of a large body of gentlemen who had the common right to be regarded as innocent until they had been proved to be guilty ? It was, in a word, extraordinary. The Com- missioners, as is incontestably demonstrated by the Report, positively assumed the likelihood of guilt in landowners before they took the first step in their general inquiiy and, when 28 THE LAND QUESTION allegations had been made and had been laughed to scorn by unprejudiced officials, the Commissioners adhered to an atti- tude of suspicion which had been ignoble from the beginning. Not only did they presume the guilt of landowners before a syllable had been said against them, but also they persisted in asserting their guilt after they had been proved to be innocent. It was surely by inadvertence that Lord Kenyon, Sir John Llewelyn, and Mr. Seebohm assented to proceedings and appended their signatures to a Report which can bear no other interpretation than this. The statement which has just been made must be verified without delay, for in itself it is serious and deliberate, and the justification of it will go a long way to indicate the temper and the prejudices of the Commissioners with whom Welsh landowners had to deal. "We could not help contemplating the possibility of attempts being made to intimidate witnesses from coming before us, or to injure them for doing so, though we believed that this was not likely to happen" (Report, page 12). To be plain, we cannot appreciate the difficulty of resisting the contemplation of this possibility. It appears to us to have its origin in groundless and cynical suspicion. If seems to us that we are justified in saying that at the bar of a Commission which entertained this suspicion before a single witness had been heard, the class of persons upon whom that suspicion was thrown could not hope for that fair trial which, in fact, they did not obtain. The sentence quoted was made public in the Report for the first time ; but the feeling in which it was penned animated the Commission from the beginning. The Chairman, as the Report points out in a boasting mood, adopted a novel and curious method of encouraging witnesses at each new place of sitting. It was his custom to recite an imposing proclamation describing, in the first place, the pains and penalties which might be suffered by witnesses who had the temerity to come forward and give evidence. The stereo- IN SOUTH WALES. 29 typed proclamation ended with the words " We desire there- fore (and it is our duty to do so) to point out that the Witnesses Protection Act of 1892 affords a remedy adequate to meet any ordinary case." In passing we may observe a curious omission. The Chairman, in this curious way, urged witnesses to come for- ward, but he omitted, out of tender regard for their feelings, to impress upon them the necessity of testifying to the truth. He was accurate in saying that the Act in question afforded an adequate remedy in ordinary cases, but he omitted to warn witnesses that an ordinary case is assumed to be that of a truthful witness, and that the statute affords no protection to false testimony given in bad faith. But it appears from the lleport that the Commissioners, or some of them, were not satisfied with the sincerity of the proclamation which they authorised to be made with so much precious solemnity. They go on to say, " We were [presumably at the beginning of the inquiry], and are, well aware that the language of the statute is such, and the difficulty of proving an offence under it to the satisfaction of a court of law is so great, that many possible cases of wrongful treatment of persons for having given evidence before a Royal Commission must escape punishment.^' The situation in which the Commissioners thus place them- selves is grimly entertaining. Firstly, out of the fertility of their collective imagination, they evolve dangers ; secondly, they warn witnesses of the existence of these imaginary- dangers ; thirdly, they tell witnesses to be of good courage because the Act provides an adequate remedy ; fourthly, they confess that they knew all the while that the Act was of no value. If this were a case in which personages less august were involved the plain man would be disposed to say that persons who said that a statute afforded sufficient protection when they felt perfectly certain that it did nothing of the kind could hardly claim that they had dealt with their 30 THE LAND QUESTION audiences in good faith. The case is similar to that of a countryman saying to a stranger in winter "the ice may bear, or may give way, but it does not matter much, for there are no more than two feet of water in any part of the pond,"' when, in fact, the countryman well knew the depth to be ten feet or more in places. As for the criticism of the Act, it is childish in the last ■degree. Its defect, which is never likely to be remedied out- side a lunatic asylum, is that the prosecution must prove a ■case against the prisoner before conviction ca.n be obtained. Nobody, except the queen in " Alice in Wonderland," ever dreamed of basing a criminal enactment on any other principle, and no despotic monarch has ever attempted to follow the method of "sentence first and trial afterwards " without forcing his subjects into rebellion. It is true that the prosecution has in this, as in many other classes of crime, to prove the motive of the accused. But there is nothing mysterious in that, since it is a well-known rule of law that a man must be held to intend the consequences of his own actions, and, in the absence of adequate explanation, to have been animated by the motive which his subsequent actions suggest. In a case under this Act the Crown would have to prove, in the first place, that the evidence had been given and the witness had suffered at the hands of the accused. There would then be several conceivable defences. First, the accused might prove that the evidence given was deliberately untrue ; that would bave been the defence in several cases alleged before the Commission. Secondly, he might show that the punishment was never inflicted. Either of these defences, if established, would ensure acquittal. Thirdly, the accused might not merely say that his motive in inflicting the punishment had no reference to the evidence given, but also corroborate his statement by placing in evidence substantial facts in con- firmation of it. This last would naturally be the most diflScult defence to establish. IN SOUTH WALES. 81 The Commissioners are, however, not satisfied with puerile criticism of the statute which they solemnly declared to be effectual for protection : they distinctly declare that it has not been effectual, and that punishment has been inflicted ; they say in effect that Welsh gentlemen, or some of them, have been guilty of crime in connection with the proceedings before the Commission. That the Commissioners publish this scandalous libel in a sentence in which they confess that they have no right to express an opinion at all, is only character- istic of their methods. '"We have had to decide, therefore, how far it is right for us to express an opinion as to the criminality of the persons complained of, and have come to the conclusion that it does not lie within our jJTOvinee, deeply as we regret that in any case the laiv should have failed to give the protection intended hy the Act." The italics are ours, and they are used to emphasise the inconsistency of men who, in one breath, condemn, as criminal, actions upon which they confess that they have no right to express an oj^inion. It may be added that the distinction between the law and the Act is meaningless. For the purpose of protection of witnesses the Act is the law, and the law is the Act, and Parliament intended that the Act should punish those who were proved to be guilty, and none others. But the point is that the Commissioners solemnly aver, although in some cases they curtailed and refused to hear the case for the defence after hearing the prosecution in full, that intimidation and punishment of witnesses were practised. They express the same opinion, in a sentence purporting to contain their impressions as to the meaning of the Act, the said sentence being so crammed with innuendoes that it cannot be called high-minded, and at the same time so art- lessly expressed that it is possible to trace the particular case which the framer of the sentence had in mind. " But we were distinctly under the impression that, in the true con- struction of the Act, any action by a landlord adverse to a 32 THE LAND QUESTION tenant who had given evidence before us for which any capricious, trivial, and wholly inadequate reasons were given, would certsimly pri7nd facie come within its terms and at any rate throw on a landlord the onus of justifying his action." The " distinct impression" is merely a ponderous explanation of the obvious meaning of the statute ; the distinct intention, which is quite another matter, is to assert in a manner not magnanimous, because it is indefinite, that a tenant has been punished by a landlord for giving evidence, that the landlord has given trivial and inadequate reasons for his conduct, that the Solicitor to the Treasury has declined to institute a prose- cution, and that an appeal to the Home Secretary has produced no result in the shape of a prosecution. A little patience and careful application of the method of exhaustion, combined with a knowledge of the indiscreet utterances of the Commissioners on various occasions, render it possible to point to the particular case which the Com- missioners had in mind in framing these observations, and justify the statement that the same Commissioners who declare that to decide whether conduct is criminal or not have, in fact, expressed a decided view that two honourable gentle- men conspired together to punish, and in fact did punish, a witness for giving evidence. Observe, they allege action adverse to a tenant for giving evidence by his landlord, who gave explanatory evidence by way of defence. This excludes the ridiculous but irritating accusation made by Ben Maddy, the rabbit-catcher, against Mr. Thurston Bassett, a master of hounds. Mr. Bassett, it is true, is a landlord, and made as much explanation as the Commission, which had heard the accusation in full, was dis- posed to permit. In this case, be it observed, Maddy's com- plaint was based on the alleged statements of divers persons,, whom the Commission refused to hear in full, although they had been taken all the way from Glamorganshire to Brecon at Mr. Bassett's expense, whereas Maddy was conveyed at the IN SOUTH WALES. 33 expense of the country. But Maddy was not Mr. Bassett'8 tenant ; so that cock will not fight. Nor can the reference be to the ingenuous tenant of Mr. Charles Matthias, who, after testifying that Mr. Matthias paid his rates for him, alleged that, after and in consequence of the testimony, Mr. Matthias ceased to show that particular form of generosity. For in this case the landlord treated the Commission with contempt by not attempting any explanation at all. Probably his feeling in the matter — assuming the story to be true — was that even the newest Act of Parliament could not be so con- strued as to compel a landlord or anybody else to encourage domestic treachery by gratuitous reward. Nor can the refer- ence be to the ardent Board School master of somewhere near Lampeter in " the sweet shire of Cardigan," for his complaint was made against a School Board and a bank. The School Board, he alleged, turned him out of his office and took him back again ; the bank made him pay his overdraft, and addressed to him a letter with the common form of which many men have the misfortune to be familiar. But in this case the relation of landlord and tenant does not appear ta have been disturbed, since it did not exist. Internal evidence shows that the reference is clearly to- what the chairman of the day was pleased to describe as "the very distressing case of Mr. John Thomas," and in relation to - which the chairman ended his little oration of sympathy by an expression of the opinion of the Commission that no . adequate explanation or reason had been given for the treat- ment measured out to Mr. John Thomas aforesaid. An entirely factitious importance has been given to this . case in Parliament and in the Press, partly perhaps because Mr. John Thomas, the alleged victim, was the brother of Mr. D. Lleufer Thomas, the secretary of the Commission. So far- has the agitation concerning " the very distressing case of Mr. John Thomas" proceeded that an endeavour has been made to establish him in the position of a martyr, new style ^ C 34 THE LAND QUESTION that is to say, the kind of martyr for whom a public subscription is started. Whether this enterprise was suc- cessful or not the present writer is unable to state ; but he has his doubts, since he remembers a shrewd saying of the late Dr. Herber Evans, an eminent Nonconformist divine and orator, to the effect that the way to the Welsh- man's heart is short, but the way to his pocket is long. Possibly, however, the appeal may have reached the ears and the pockets of generous Englishmen. Be that as it may, the case is of sufficient importance to demand attention and investigation ; and the facts, so far as they are common ground, are these. Mr. John Thomas was rtenant of a farm called Troed-yr-Ehiw, about twelve miles from Carmarthen, under Mr. Gerwyn Jones, an owner of considerable property in the district. He gave evidence on the 21st of April 1894, in Welsh. The complaints made in the evidence, of which the English version is of considerable literary merit, were, on the whole, normal and so phrased as to cover a whole parish. The personal grievances of Mr. Thomas appeared to consist in a belief that the agent, a Welsh-speaking banker, was " not a suitable or competent intermediary between the landlord and his tenants " ; in a statement that, at the bidding of Mr. Gerwyn Jones's father, he had deserted the sect of Independents and had become an attendant at Church, and that he had been injured by the resumption on the part of the landlord of nine acres of his holding (for which the landlord paid £14 per annum) for the •purposes of a rabbit warren and so forth. On the 25th, Mr. Watkins, the agent, replied at Lampeter. So far the matter seemed to be free from any extraordinary features. But at a subsequent meeting of the Commission, Mr. John Thomas came forward to state that he had received notice to quit, and that he believed this notice to have been given to him solely because he had given evidence. The accusation of crime thus made against Mr. Gerwyn Jones and Mr. IN SOUTH WALES. 35 Watkins was the more serious in that the accuser, albeit himself in no degree superior to the small farmers of the neighbourhood, was the brother of the secretary of the Commission, who, in his turn, was a man of education and of keen intelligence. It seemed hardly probable, having regard to this relationship, that the farmer would come forward to accuse his landlord of a criminal offence without preliminary conversation with his brother at the Bar. The accusation, iu fact, bore every mark of careful preparation, and there need be no hesitation iu saying that the party which alleged intimidation to prevail, which asserted that the pretended terror of the tenantry rested upon substantial grounds, looked upon Mr. John Thomas with the same confidence which a whist-player reposes in the king of trumps. Mr. Watkins, however, came forward to reply. He was warned, as prisoners are supposed to be warned by the arresting constable that any admissions made by them may be used against them later, that he was under no compulsion to make his defence. But, albeit harassed a good deal from the Bench, he was not daunted, and he gave his explanation. He was perhaps wise not to rely on the defence that the original statements of his accuser had not been marked by Ijona fides. True it is that the statements were irritating and that he had denied them. But the questions whether rents are too high, whether an agent is competent, whether favouritism is shown, and who has the right in a petty squabble about a rabbit warren, were questions on which Mr. John Thomas had a right to an opinion. But besides this, Mr. Watkins had an explanation, amply sufficient if it were true, which Mr. John Thomas did not attempt to deny comprehensively. Mr. Thomas, said Mr. Watkins, was always grumbling, and, prior to the giving of his evidence, it had been agreed verbally that he should quit his farm on the following 29th of September. This verbal agreement he did not fulfil ; verbal agreements of that kind seldom are fulfilled. Mr. Watkins was accordingly instructed 36 THE LAND QUESTION to give liim formal notice at the next opportunity, which was, of course, the next 29th of September ; and he gave it. So Mr. Watkins played the ace of trumps to the agitator's king. Such was the version of the transaction given by Mr. Watkins, a gentleman whose position and reputation entitled him to credit. Nor, substantially, was it denied by Mr. John Thomas. In truth, it was quite possible that both views of the affair might be correct, Mr. Watkins on his part holding it to be his duty to carry out his instructions in the proper course, while Mr. John Thomas, very likely felt that the whole thing had blown over. Some of the questions asked of Mr. Watkins by individual Commissioners have an incidental interest as an exemplification of the mood in which they approached questions between landowner and tenant. Why,. it was asked, was not Mr. Thomas informed immediately on his failure to quit the holding as agreed, that notice would be given to him formally at the next proper opportunity ? The answer, of course, is plain. A warning of this kind would have amounted to giving Mr. Thomas nearly two years' notice to quit. To have given so much notice would have been to expose Mr. Thomas to a considerable temptation, for, as every farmer knows, it is easy in the course of two years to transmute much of the inherent richness of a farm into cash. " Mr. Watkins is not," sa3^s Mr. Thomas, " a practical farmer" ; but he seems to have known this elementary rule of estate management. So far we have seen the Commission, after professing to see that it had no business to express an opinion as to the criminality of conduct, pronouncing a solemn condemnation of two gentlemen. Was this condemnation uttered of set purpose or, so to speak, by accident? If of set purpose, then it is difficult to acquit of hypocrisy the man or men responsible for the original sentence ; if by accident, it can only be said that the error was of a singularly clumsy character. IN SOUTH WALES. 37 The dilemma is oue in which we are quite satisfied that the Commissiouers should be left; they are entitled to impale themselves on the horn of their choice. Fortunately final judgment upon the question whether a number of Welsh landowners had rendered themselves obnoxious to the criminal law did not lie with Lord Carring- ton and his associates. They might listen to wild accusations, supported by statements which could never be accepted as evidence in a criminal court ; they might hector the accused after hearing as much, or as little, as they pleased of the case for the defence ; they might tickle the ears of the ground- lings by vague talk of the Public Prosecutor. And, no doubt, it was not pleasant for the gentlemen against whom charges affecting their honour, and even their liberty, were made, to feel that their cases were being considered by the Solicitor to the Treasury. But the result was satisfactory, for that official, being compelled both by legal and moral duty to give impartial consideration to the statements submitted to him, reported of each case that the statements made would not justify a prosecution. In other words, the Commission had recommended not one but several gentlemen to the tender mercies of the Public Prosecutor, and the cold- blooded official had, by his action if not by his words, con- demned the whole series of charges as trumpery and unsubstantial. What, in those circumstances, was the plain duty of the Commissiouers ? Surely, although every lawyer familiar with the facts, with the solitary exception of the ■Queen's Counsel who stood for law on the Commission, had laughed to scorn the menace of prosecution, common humanity and decency pointed to the only course worthy of honourable men. They had dangled fine and imprisonment before the eyes of responsible gentlemen, themselves, for the most part, entrusted with the duty of administering justice. They had been informed, on high authority, that they had threatened in vain and without reason, that out of many reckless accusa- ^815669 38 THE LAND QUESTION tions there was not a single one which could be brought forward, either in a Court of summary jurisdiction or before a jury, with the slightest prospect of obtaining a conviction. From private gentlemen who had fallen publicly into so gross and calumnious a blunder, an ample apology would have been demanded by public opinion. But officials, how- soever ephemeral, must not sully their dignity by confession of error. At least, however, the official mind might have remembered that it was neither humane nor necessary to keep the threatened gentlemen in suspense. Yet it is a plain fact that, until November 1896, when the Commission, under the spur of the j ust remonstrance of the Treasury, was- forced to produce its voluminous Report, no official informa- tion, no intimation that they might take their walks abroad in peace of mind, was vouchsafed to these gentlemen who lay under menace. For this extraordinary silence there was, it is plain from the Report, a similar reason. The majority of the Commis- sioners ought, in all charity, to have been pleased to find that skilled investigation had shown their suspicions to be ground- less ; but their conduct shows plainly that their feelings were of quibe another character. It is the literal fact that after the Solicitor to the Treasury had reported that in no case could a prosecution be instituted with the remotest prospect of success, a deputation of the Commissioners actually had the hardihood to wait upon the Home Secretary to urge, in malignant despair, prosecution in spite of the Solicitor to the Treasury. • The deputation, we learn from the Report, con- sisted of Lord Carrington and Mr. Brynmor Jones, Q.C., M.P. j and the deputation was, as Mr. Kenelm Digby's letter proves, answered with dignity and with courtesy, in which the tone of reproof is distinctly to be traced. Finally the Commissioners, or some of them, for we decline to assume that any individual Commissioner can be respon- sible for the form of every sentence in this huge volume, return. IN SOUTH WALES. 39 to the charge in tlieir Report. They condemn the very persons whom the Public Prosecutor has declared that no jury could possibly condemn, they whine that the Act of Par- liament is inadequate, because, forsooth, it requires that no man shall be punished until his guilt has been established by evidence. No apology need be offered for the careful treatment which has been given to this subject. It has been given not so much in jealousy for the reputation of South Wales and Monmouthshire landowners, which in truth stands too high to be affected by groundless and pertinacious calumny, as in the feeling that the subject itself is of vital importance in relation to every proposal for agrarian legislation. This allegation of fear, this assertion that the peasantry of Wales are so terror-stricken and so timorous by constitution and tradition that they are not free agents in the affairs of life and not capable of looking after their own business, is at the bottom of the whole of the reactionary aud unscientific pro- posal for the establishment of a system of judicial rents. Before the Commission started upon its pilgrimage the ver- nacular Press imagined this fear and invented it to be an excuse for a poor aud unprovable case. The Commissioners have accepted this theory of fear and have made it the foundation of their Report. The party of agitation have strained themselves to the utmost to discover so much as a scintilla of evidence tending to show that facts supported their stolid assertion that the tenantry stand in terror of the landowners. In truth, the party of agitation looked beyond the Commission and saw that, before their confiscatory designs could hope to receive the serious attention of the House of Commons, they must produce something approach- ing to evidence to show that their stories were true. The mere assertion that an entire race lived in groundless and unreasoning terror was one at which the country and the House of Commons would not look in a serious mood. It is, 40 THE LA^^D QUESTION IN SOUTH WALES. therefore, a matter of grave importance and satisfaction that, after exercising all their energies, after using every device which malice and ingenuity could suggest, these persons have failed signally to produce a particle of foundation for the alleged fear, or a single 'primd facie case of intimidation of a witness or injury done to a witness by reason of evidence, true or false, given by him. The only kind of intimidation which existed in connection with the Welsh Land Commission came from the Bench and was applied to witnesses who had the hardihood to disagree with the views, we will not call them principles, as to the tenure of land held by six out of the nine Commissioners, and by, perhaps, one Englishman out of twenty. CHAPTER III. Peom the allegation of national terror, which is at once an insult to the Welsh people and a condemnation of Welsh landowners as a body, the Commissioners proceed to condemn Welsh land and estate agents as a body. The condemnation is pronounced inferentially in the first two recommendations of the Commissioners, which have been compared, unkindly but most justly, to copy-book precepts. The Commissioners recommend estate owners to be careful in the choice of their agents, to choose Welsh-speaking agents for Welsh-speaking districts, to see that their agents are properly qualified. They urge agents to organise themselves into a profession, to be impartial in their treatment of tenants and, oddly enough, never to act upon the testimony of their subordinates. All this is, of course, on the face of it, mere petty trifling ; but unhappily the mere fact that nine gentlemen, after three years of travel at the expense of the taxpayer, deem it neces- sary to advise Welsh landowners to follow the obvious dictates of common sense, compels an inference. That inference is that landowners have not been careful in the choice of agents ; that agents are, as a body, not competent, and not impartial. Nor are we left to inference only, for on p. 251 of the Report is found the following passage : " We cannot wholly acquit all the owners of Wales in the past or in the present of having employed improper or in some cases unprincipled persons as agents, or having with scanty or too slight inquiry and examination acquiesced in 42 THE LAND QUESTION and obtained advantage from harsh, arbitrary, and ill-advised proceedings." This sentence is qualified and watered down a little, but the whole is calculated to leave the impression that the Commissioners, or so many of them as endorsed this sentence, have a very poor opinion of the quality of Welsh estate agents. It is necessary to say one word by way of preliminary to our defence of agents against a condemnation which has really no substantial foundation. That is that, when we speak of agents we refer to persons who manage considerable estates, and not to mere rent collectors of isolated farms, who may be bankers, or accountants, or lawyers, or even, as in one case, confectioners. It is ridiculous to speak of such persons as agents, and absurd to suppose that the small properties of which they collect the rents could support the expense of a professional and trained agent. Moreover, the tenants on such properties must be and ar© perfectly well aware that the relation between them and the owners is purely contractual. They may be better or they may be worse off than tenants on large estates, for on some small estates much money is expended by the owners ; but the men who collect the rents are not, in any true sense of the word, agents. A very large part of the arable and pastoral area of Wales is, however, under the management of agents, and we are concerned to defend them against a rambling condemnation, the injustice of which has been very generally felt. That becomes the easier in that the Commissioners have favoured the world with a species of summary of the evidence on which they rely, and a study of that summary is instructive, since it shows the Commissioners to have been influenced by general and wholly valueless allegations, unsupported by specific facts and in revolt against the despotism of facts. The summary too is in many cases unfair and misleading by reason of omission of material facts. A brief treatment of IN SOUTH WALES. 43 the summary of evidence so far as it relates to South Wales and Monmouthshire will exemplify our meaning. It is quite true that Mr. Edward John of Cowbridge, who is a tradesman, said " The appointment of inexperienced agents has been most detrimental to the best interests of both landlord and tenants." But he gave no instances and, as a plain matter of fact, he was speaking in the hearing of the principal agents of Glamorganshire, of whom the great majority have enjoyed special training. To suggest, for example, that such men as Mr. Knox, ^liss Talbot's agent, and Mr. Forrest, Lord Windsor's agent, or Mr. Randall, Lord Dunraven's agent, were not competent, would be simply childish. Again, Mr. John Williams, speaking of the same county, said : " Agents had generally had no practical train- ing." But this was a ranting witness, who went on to say at once : " There are Scotchmen coming down here, and they do not know anything," which is not, perhaps, the general ex- perience, which is that Scotchmen often know too much. Contrast this loose kind of statement with the deliberate evidence of Mr. Herbert Lloyd, who, speaking of Western Glamorganshire, said that "all the agents he knew, and he knew them all in that district, were men of great practical experience, and fair men too, and who did their best to see that justice was done to the tenants." This is the language of a man who knew what he was talking about ; and he was not cross-examined on the subject from the body of the room or from the bench. Then, we are told, " ]\Ir. AY. Jenkins, of Rhoose Farm, near Barry, complained of mismanagement by agents, and especially instanced the case of an agent who was brother-in-law of the landlord and of the rector of the parish,'^ and some quite general abase of agents is appended. The general abuse does not matter, but the first specific mention, of mismanagement seems worthy of investigation. Will it be believed that the action, thus roughly described as " mis- management," consisted simply and entirely in raising a rent 44 THE LAND QUESTION in the prosperous times of 1875, a process which is far more likely to have been good management than bad ? Next comes a series of passages relating to North Wales, and then we are regaled with the views of Mr. W. Gibbs of Pembroke- shire, as to the qualifications which agents ought to possess ; Mr. Gibbs, however, is not quoted as denying that agents may possess these qualifications. The Commissioners more- over add, in justice, that Major Wynne, one of the principal agents of the district for which Mr. Gibbs spoke, has had practical training at Downton, and at an architect's office. Mr, Moses Williams (Carmarthenshire) then complained that Sir Arthur Stepney's agent could not talk Welsh, which is true. But Mr. Wilson knows his business as well as any man in Wales or in England, and while the advantage of Welsh- speaking in agents is not denied, it is plain that it may be exaggerated and that the ignorance of English pretended by Oymric enthusiasts is also greatly exaggerated. Few indeed are the farmers, even in the remotest parts of Wales, who cannot go through a commercial bargain in English and keep remarkably level with, if not ahead of, the monoglot English- men. Then comes a new kind of indictment from the mouth of Mr. Llewelyn Williams, in which no complaint is made of agents, but in which it is said that many landowners listen to intermediaries in the nature of spies and tale-bearers. No particular instances are quoted, so that the statement is of little or no value ; but in any case it does not affect the character of agents individually, or as a body. Next, Mr. John Thomas, Llandilo, was j^ermitted to say " too often the agent is a solicitor, or bank-clerk, or auctioneer, who knows little of the importance and responsibility of his office." This statement, although untrustworthy in its want of specific reference, calls for some comment. We may pass over the bank-clerk ; he is a mere rent collector, but it really is not very uncommon for solicitors to be agents, or for agents to be IN SOUTH WALES. 45 solicitors, or for auctioneers to be agents. Now, the Commis- sioners and some of the witnesses made a dead set at solicitors, and it is rather difficult to see the rationale of their attitude. Knowledge of the law of landlord and tenant can hardly he reckoned a disadvantage ; and knowledge of the law does not exclude other knowledge. To be blunt, a country s'olicitor doing a little farming on his own account, familiar with the affairs and circumstances of his neighbours, accustomed to judge the characters of men, is quite competent to manage the business of any estate. In special cases he may, as Sir C. G. Philipps's solicitor-agent showed, call in an expert. He may not possess all the scientific knowledge which is at the command of the best agents of great estates ; but, after all, it is surely putting the claims upon a landowner rather high to insist that he shall provide for the men who hire his land a gratuitous tutor in agriculture. He may do it if he pleases^ but it is not just to demand it of him as of right. More- over, such a man is liable to be classed by malcontents of the type of Mr. Gwilym Evans, whose claim to authority rests mainly on his Quinine Bitters, among those agents " who have a rather high opinion of their own abilities as compared with those of tenant farmers." As for the auctioneers, there are no men who know the value of land and its capacities better. They are very often and very properly selected as agents, Mr. T. Rule Owen, of Haverfordwest, being a conspicuous and excellent example. The complaint of Mr. Gwilym Evans concerning the agents of a single estate may be put down as whimsical. He observed that the landlord was a good deal out of the country, that in twenty years he had had four or five agents in succes- sion, and that the various agents (none of whom were alleged to be untrained) differed in their views of farming. Now, as- to absenteeism. Welsh landowners are not charged with it even by the majority of the Commissioners, and it is really a. little difficult to see how, so long as the conditions of human 46 THE LAND QUESTION life remain as they are, or until all men are cast in one mould, changes of agents are to be prevented. Agents are human. They are liable to be of many degrees of intelligence, of many characters ; they may find that they have entered into the service of principals with whom they cannot continue to work, or that the climate of a district does not suit their tastes or their constitutions, or that an opportunity of improving their positions oSers itself. Nor, for a moment, do we dream of saying that they are perfect to a man. But we do venture to say that such a complaint as that of Mr. Gwilym Evans is wholly unreasonable, and shows him and his party to have been very hard-driven for evidence. Next we read, " Mr. David W. J. Thomas, of Brecon, is an instance of an owner acting as his own agent, though he had no practical knowledge of farming." In strict English this sentence is meaningless ; the proper thing for the Commissioners to say would have been " Mr. Thomas, although he is not a practical farmer, employs no agent." Clearly, therefore, no defects in Mr. Thomas can affect the question of competence in agents. But in common fairness it ought to have been added that Mr. Thomas owns but 1000 acres of land : and it would be unreasonable to suggest that it was his duty to employ a special agent for the management of an estate of that area. Then Mr. David Davies alleged that the agents in the Llandovery districts were Churchmen and Conservatives and that the differences of religious aud political opinion estranged landlord and tenant. We are not yet prepared to admit without argument that either Churchmanship or Conservatism imply incompetence, and the charges of religious favouritism failed everywhere. But the plain truth of the matter is that this is one of many charges against landowners and agents which broke down completely. To continue this analysis to the tedious end would exhaust the reader. Let it suffice to say that from beginning to end of the evidence relating to the competence of agents in South IN SOUTH WALES. 47 Wales, not a single specific instance was given which even tended to prove that tenants had suffered injustice from want of competence or want of honesty on the part of any indi- vidual agent during recent years. On the other hand, it was shown in numerous cases, although it was practically impos- sible to bring forward the testimoiay in every individual case, that taken as a body the real estate agents of South "Wales and Monmouthshire were, and are, as competent and honest a body as can be found in any country. The requirements of the Commission on this point strike the ordinary mind as overstrained and exaggerated in the highest and most absurd fashion. They have attempted to •define the standard or typical agent. " We think that such a typical agent should be one who in addition to a sound, preliminary, general, and scientific education has received a special theoretical training in agriculture and land surveying, and in the sciences (such as mathematics, chemistry, &c.), upon the practice of which these arts depends, as well as practical experience in an estate office and on a farm. To put the matter in another way, we think a young man intend- ing to become a land-agent should, in addition to acquiring the average degree of culture and knowledge of a University man, attend courses of study at an agricultural college or a ■college giving technical instruction in the practical arts, and then pass some time gaining practical and actual experience in an office or a farm." After admitting that, until quite recently, the opportunities for producing these perfectly trained agents did not exist they say, "Most of those who are now agents in Wales never had the option of going through such a preliminary career." That is quite true ; the •elder agents have every right to adopt the reply of the man ■who, on being accused of having been born in a poorhouse, retorted, " How could 1 be born in a poorhouse where no poorhouse was ? " But they might have added in justice that the mass of the younger generation of considerable agents. 48 THE LAND QUESTION such men, for example, as Mr. Knox, agent for the Margam estate, Mr. Cowper Coles, agent to the Duke of Beaufort and Sir Joseph Bailey, Mr. Dudley Drummond, Mr. Mouseley ther younger, Major Wynne, and many more besides, have used every opportunity provided by modern zeal for specialised training. For our part, we venture to say that these gentle- men, good agents as they are, one and all, are fully prepared to admit, are indeed even anxious to protest, that they are by no means anxious to be compared to their own advantage witk agents of the older school who have learned their business from experience. They would tell us also, no doubt, that experience in the transaction of estate business, intercourse with tenant farmers, knowledge of the world and of character in general, and study of the individuals under their charge have been of infinitely more value to them than their special training. Next, after speaking of the excellence of some of the agents produced by the "loose and unsatisfactory training,"' the Commissioners go to say, " Taking the man produced by that training as the typical agent, we have no hesitation in saying that the majority of agents, particularly in the more Welsh districts, fall below this high but proper standard."" Which standard ? If the Commissioners mean that these gentlemen were not trained in institutions which did not exist when they were doing their best to train themselves^ the sentence is merely puerile. Yet it is difficult to extract any other meaning from this pompous statement. The next passage is so remarkably spiteful that we must quote it in full : " Many even of those who have had considerable experience, and who are kind and just in their dealings with tenants fail in point of knowledge. They are unable to advise tenant farmers, or to suggest new, or correct old, methods of farming. So, again, many of them have no real experience IN SOUTH WALES. 49 ■vs'liat farming is, do not i:nderstand the tenant's difficulties, and therefore, often reject reasonable demands as unreason- able, and put down as a grumble wliat is a well-founded complaint. It is clear that some owners have, themselves, never rightly appreciated the importance of special training and experience as a qualification of the agent. From motives of kindness, or of friendship, or of economy, they have too often appointed relatives, retired officers, and poorer country gentlemen, who may have been competent to discharge the office and easier business, but who had little knowledge of actual farming, and who often shared the prejudices and possessed the views of the landlord class, unalloyed by the sobering influence of the responsibility and anxiety of owner- ship of a landed estate. We are not saying a siugle word against the appointment of a properly trained person simply because he is a relation of the owners, or has served her Majesty in the army. For instance, not a word is suggested against men like Mr. 0. S. Wynne, Mr. Dudley Drummond, or Major Birch." Be it remembered that we have gone through the evidence which the Commissioners have selected to justify their obser- vations. We may assume, and in truth it is the fact, that they selected the cream of that evidence. We have found it to consist of wildly general allegations of incompetence, not tested in a single instance, and therefore clearly not to be relied upon. Equally clear is it that the Commissioners have relied upon it and upon nothing else. We say without hesitation that the opinion expressed is groundless and uncharitable. Moreover, we challenge the majority of the Commissioners, and particularly their representative in the House of Commons, to justify the sentence beginning, " From motives of kindness." Their summary of evidence contains but one instance of a relative appointed agent, in the shape of Commander Thomas. It is in evidence that he has enjoyed D 60 THE LAND QUESTION special training. There is no evidence that he is poor, and there is evidence that the estate which he manages is in apple-pie order. He is, it is true, an ex-Commander of the Navy, and as such, he is one of two retired officers who are mentioned in the summary as agents. The other is Major Wynne, who again has special training. We protest, in- dignantly, and we venture to say with justice, that the majority of the Commissioners have been, to use a favourite word of Mr. Brynmor Jones, " hasty " and without warrant in making this accusation. It has no basis. It is not true. And what is the inference to be drawn from the three names at the end, taken in connection with the j^receding sentence, by persons not familiar with ^Velsh society, that is to say, by the persons to whom this Report is addressed ? It is that the three persons named are notable exceptions to the imaginary rule that poor and incompetent relatives and retired officers are appointed as agents. Mr. Drummond is no doubt the brother of Sir James Drummond ; he is also his ao-ent. It would have been iust to add that he is also Lord Cawdor's agent. Major Birch is undoubtedly a retired officer who is a very good agent in North Wales. But he would be the first to protest that in this matter he is not singular. Mr. Owen Slaney Wynne is, no doubt, the agent of Mr. Wynne of Penarth, who is his brother; but he is not at all poor, he was agent for the Wynnstay estates for many years, and he has virtually spent his life in estate manage- ment. The sting of the sentence lies in the innuendo. The men who say nothing against Mr. Wynne, Mr. Drummond, and Major Birch clearly imply that, if they were not so kindly in disposition, if they were not so desperately afraid of hurting the sensibilities of men, they could say a great deal against others. That is not a fair or a generous pro- ceeding. It is true that the Commissioners end their summary of IN SOUTH WALES. 61 so-called evidence with the words, " For obvious motives we abstain from referring to the body of testimony we received as to the (jualifications, character, and merits of individual agents." As a matter of fact, the sentence is not accurate, fo)' the summary contains references to the qualifications of several agents. But we are at a loss to understand these " obvious motives," for, to our mind, it is infinitely more unmanly to condemn a whole class without citing a single specific example than it would be to search among the volumes of evidence, almost in vain, for cases of injustice or incompetence. An examination of the evidence upon which the Com- missioners have condemned agents proves clearly that the condemnation is wholly without justification. It may be added that the standard of excellence declared to be indis- pensable, or " high and proper," is far too lofty. The matter must be looked upon from a common-sense point of view, and, by way of illustration, I will look at the conditions which prevail in my own county of Carnarvon. There the estates of Lord Penrhyn, Mr. Assheton Smith, Colonel Wynne Finch, Mr. Nanney, and Mr. Wynn, and perhaps one or two more, are sufficiently large to render the employment of first-rate agents at handsome salaries possible. The agencies are all occupied, and will, I trust, continue to be held by their present occupants for many years to come. What young man in his senses, having no special claims on any one of these owners, is going to the expense of passing through all the courses indicated by the Commissioners in the hope of obtain- ing any one of these agencies ? It is not, of course, denied that, to a man otherwise well equipped to be an agent, these acquirements may be very useful, but it is certain that other parts of the proper equipment of an agent are of far greater importance. An agent must be just, honourable, sympathetic, careful of the interests of his principal, quick to discern between the true and the false complaint. Moreover, it seems to us, the Commissioners take far too magnificent a view of 52 THE LAND QUESTION the obligations of landowners. The legal relation of landlord and tenant is contractual. The tenant takes so much land, with so much capital of the owner's invested in it, on certain terms. In law, if he takes on terms disadvantageous to himself, he must suffer. In practice he does not, since there is abundant evidence at the end of this volume to show that landowners are in a large measure philanthropical institutions. From humanity of feeling, from affection for their tenantry, from pride in their estates, they perform acts of generosity outside the contract, and relieve the tenant from many of his obligations under the contract. But this is done of grace by men who can afford it, not of compulsion. It is the kind of obligation which clearly ought not to be enforced by law. And how does this affect the question of agents ? Surely very closely. It is an excellent thing for the tenant to have the opportunity of consulting an agent who is an expert in agriculture ; it would be still better for the tenant if, say once in a hundred cases, he took the advice given to him. But to contend, as the majority of the Commissioners appear to contend, that a landowner, however small, ought to provide at his own expense an expert adviser for a tenant who ought to know his own business is to carry things too far. Far be it from us to regret the great services to Welsh agriculture which owners of large areas of Welsh land, particularly those enjoying an income from other sources than agricultural land, have been able and willing to render. To them the country is under a deep debt of obligation. But they would certainly be the first to protest that, in so far as they have been able to give more substantial help to their tenantry in bad times than has been possible for their less wealthy neighbours to offer, the difference has been due largely to the fact of their superior wealth. It is a plain fact, unfortunatelj', that no man can, for any length of time, give away money which he does not possess. Similarly the man of small estate cannot afford to employ a qualified and expert agent ; and IN SOUTH WALES. 63 the man of large means can employ such an agent. So much, in the majority of cases, the better for the tenant on the large estate ; but it would be the very absurdity of injustice to suggest the statutory enforcement upon small estates of the conditions, due mainly to generosity, which prevail upon great estates. CHAPTER IV. A PRELIMINARY warning may well be uttered at tlie outset of this chapter, which is devoted in part to distinguishing the conditions of tenancy in South Wales and Monmouthshire, as elicited in the evidence given before Lord Carrington's Com- mission, from the conditions presumed by Parliament to exist in Ireland before the series of Land Acts beginning in 1860, added to periodically until 1896, and likely to be added to from year to year, was started. Firstly, there is good reason to believe, as indeed Lord Ormathwaite's evidence before Lord Carrington suggested, that the Irish landowners as a body were never quite so bad as they were said to be, and that, if proper stej)S had been taken to place their case before the country, it might have been shown that they, like their colleagues in Wales and in England, had invested very considerable sums in their estates for the mutual benefit of themselves, as they fondly hoped, and of their tenants. Secondly, it must not be taken to be admitted here that, even if the party of agitation had been able to show that the so-called Irish conditions existed in Wales, there would be a sufficient justification for the intro- duction into Wales of the present Irish system, or chaos, or of any part of it. In Ireland itself so much evil has been wrought by successive, confiscatory, and contradictory statutes, that it will probably be necessary to go on tinker- ing away at the so-called Irish system for ever. Landowners will not invest money in buildings and improvements, THE LAND QUESTION IN SOUTH WALES, 55 because they know fall well that the law and the Land Courts between them will absolutely forbid them to see any improving by the feeling of insecurity, than that the landlord should be, as the majority of the Commission seem to wish, at the mercy of the tenant. But, it is submitted with some confidence, if some other efficient remedy for a state of things which ought not to exist can be suggested, then statutory fixity of tenure is the very last remedy to be applied ; and the reasons are not far to seek. Firstly, statutory fixity of tenure involves, as of absolute necessity, sundry other institutions by way of corollary. Take, for example, the Land Bill of Mr. Bryn Roberts, M.P., which provides that a tenant shall not be compulsorily ejected save for certain specified causes, amongst them being failure to pay his rent. It follows that, as an aid to statutory fixity of tenure, the settlement of rent by some external authority must be provided for. To illustrate this the writer may be permitted to recount a case within his own professional experience. He was asked to advise a large hotelkeeper in London desirous of getting rid of a guest who, having taken one of the cheapest rooms in the hotel, took neither meat nor drink therein and was unprofitable. It seemed to him doubtful (that doubt was dispelled after an expensive law- suit quite recently) whether the innkeeper had a legal right simply to turn the guest out. He therefore advised that the charge for room No. 126 should be revised, should, in fact, be doubled from day to day. So without any lawsuit at all the p-uest quitted. That is what an unwelcome tenant might have to do if there were fixity of tenure without a Land Court. Therefore if you establish fixity of tenure, you must establish a Land Court also ; and the objections to a Land Court are well known. But the worst objection to statutory fixity of tenure is that it is an unnecessary invasion of the landlord's rights, tending to diminish the value of his property and of all landed property, including that of the smallest freeholder, and at the same time to produce a state of things on occasion which 86 THE LAND QUESTION is distinctly not to be encouraged, and emphatically not to the public interest. Let us take a case from North Wales for example as recorded in the evidence. There a tenant declared that he had been turned out of his farm for political reasons ; his agent, on the contrary, averred that the true reason was persistent poaching on the part of the tenant, and in this case, as a conviction of the tenant for poaching was proved, one may be permitted not only to believe the agent, but to say that no reasoning being can disbelieve him. Now it is not necessary to express an opinion on the question whether poaching is a sufficient excuse for getting rid of a tenant, but it is certain that there are many good reasons conceivable for getting rid of a tenant which are not likely to be scheduled in any Act of Parliament, and which, many of them, would be remarkably difficult to prove in a Court of Law. A man may be sulky and insolent whenever he meets his landlord, he may make his farm an eyesore, he may do many unpleasant things which make him undesirable as a neighbour. The natural sequel is a state of permanent hostility between landlord and tenant, which is not good for either of them or for the land. As matters stand, evictions of any kind are admittedly very rare, but the fact that a landlord can, as a last resource, rid himself of a disagreeable neighbour if he is so disposed, undoubtedly lends part of its value to landed estate, which, regarded as a mere pecuniary investment, is the worst in the world. No wise man will give as much for land planted with tenants whom he cannot remove as he will for land subject only to the conditions which now prevail. If, therefore, there is no necessity for so impairing the value of land, it seems a pity to introduce statutory fixity of tenure. Now, to take a common- sense view of the matter, what are the real rights, moral, not merely legal, of the tenant ? Leaving sentiment, usually a very expensive luxury, on one side, they are that he shall not be turned out of his holding- without receiving full compensation for improvements. Full IN SOUTH WALES. 87 compensation for improvements is the root of the whole matter. It was admitted by several intelligent witnesses, who came forward to support proposals for agrarian legislation of the most revolutionary character, that full compensation for improvements would remove every grievance. Now, full compensation, even generous compensation, is, in the writer's experience (which in this matter may, without immodesty, be called unique) an idea which is welcomed with open arms by almost every landowner and agent in Wales. In other words, no man desires to confiscate the fruits of his tenant's labour and expense, and at the same time, no man, except here and there a politician with electioneering ends to serve, will consent without a struggle to be deprived of his freedom in dealing with his property. And here we come to a curious phenomenon, which is well worthy of the attention of members of Parliament. The Agricultural Holdings Act of 1893 is, as everybody knows, an absolute and peremptory statute. No man, landlord or tenant, can contract himself out of it effectually ; it is supposed to govern them, will they or no. Yet, over the greater part of the county of Glamorgan, which, besides containing half the population of Wales and the best markets, is remarkably well farmed, this Act is confessedly a dead letter. Nobody attempts to contract out of it ; for the plain fact is that nobody takes the slightest notice of it. This is simply because, in the opinion of landlords and tenants alike, the customs of East and West Glamorganshire respectively are infinitely more suitable to the requirements of the country, and far more adequate in every way than the Airricultural Holdinfjs Act of 1883. These customs, the growth of which does great credit to both parties to the contract of tenancy, are, very properly, treated at some length in the Report. They have reached their present state by many successive steps, some of them, no doubt, accompanied by some tribulation ; it is not even suggested 88 THE LAND QUESTION here that they are perfect. But it is a noteworthy fact that, when Parliament produced the Act of 1883 as a kind of Farmers' Charter, the agricultural interest in Glamorganshire were so far advanced on the way to fair dealing between landlord and tenant that they were able with one accord to cast the Farmers' Charter on one side. Meanwhile, over the rest of Wales, and over the whole of England also, the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883 is the governing law. True it is that it was asserted that landlords sometimes purported to contract themselves out of it, but in the vast majority of cases, when specific instances were quoted, the charge broke down hopelessly. Either it was found that the Act avoided was that of 1875, which was avoidable, or that the witness had misconstrued the alleged contract. Sometimes, too, the document produced was an undated and alleged copy, an absurd thing to produce under any circum- stances. True it is also that, on a great many large estates, a better and more generous scale of compensation was, as the Act permits, very properly substituted for the statutory scale. But there are large estates and small, and, as there has been occasion to observe before, it is unreasonable to demand that small properties shall be managed by experts of the same class as the agents of large estates. What is the main purpose of this statute ? It is to regu- late the relations between landlord and tenant when the time comes for their parting company, and that time may come at the option of either party. The tenant may give notice of his intention to quit. When he quits, the Act purports to regu- late the payments, if any, to be made to the tenant, the manner in which the amount to be paid shall be assessed, and so forth. It is submitted that the landowner is in all cases well within his rights, moral as well as legal, in standing by the letter of the Act. For the Act says in effect, " You are neither of you to be trusted to make your own bargains. The law shall settle the matter for you.'' In the face of that it IN SOUTH WALES. 83 cannot reasonably be said that the landowner is under any- moral obligation to depart from the statute. As a matter of fact, the statute is, by universal admission, grossly defective and unfair to tenant and landowner both in England and Wales. Its machinery is cumbrous and expen- sive, it abounds in technicalities and pitfalls for the unwary, its scales of compensation are unelastic and frequently in- applicable, it is grossly unjust to the landowner in at least one important respect, and it has never done much good to any class of men save those of the profession to which the writer has the honour to belong. But every evil in it which is felt in Wales is felt more keenly in England, where changes are, unfortunately, far more numerous, and it is understood — the matter indeed was mentioned in the Queen's Speech — that her Majesty's Government have every intention of introducing a comprehensive measure dealing with the grievances not only of the tenant, but also of the landowner, not merely of the Principality, but of England also. In relation to that Bill Mr. Walter Long will undoubtedly have the cordial support of all Welsh landowners. CHAPTER VII. In this chapter three points remain to be dealt with. It will be remembered that Mr. Morgan Richardson, than whom none has a better right to speak, gave some powerful and touching evidence at Cardigan concerning the condition of the mortgaged freeholders, and described the hardships, the misery, and the utter hopelessness of their struggle for life. Mr. Morgan Richardson, be it observed, is a member of the Executive Committee of this Association, and the sympathetic tone of his evidence may go some way to convince our accusers that this society, falsely described in the Report as a political organisation, is not wanting in sympathy for the distress, varying in different districts and at different times,. under which the Welsh peasantry undoubtedly suffer. So deeply were the Commission impressed by the earnestness and the thoughtfulness of Mr. Morgan Richardson's statement that, at their request, he attended before them again and entered into his scheme in greater detail. That scheme may be summarised in a very few lines. The freeholders of Cardiganshire are on the brink of ruin, especially those who have purchased within the last twenty or thirty years ; in fact, unless relief comes, they are ruined. But the State might advance the money necessary to pay off* the mortgages with safety, for the market price of the land is high, the security is good, and the freeholders might certainly be relied upon to pay such a yearly sum as would give the THE LAND QUESTION IN SOUTH WALES. 91 State fair interest on its money and make a yearly instalment of the principal. It was plain from the outset that all depended upon the security. If the security was, as Mr. ]\lorgan Richardsou said, safe and good, the State might wisely advance the money, and so save the freeholders. There is probably not a. man or woman in Wales who would not hail with delight the salvation of a class which has produced quite an extraordinary number of the most prominent personages in Wales. But this is a hard and businesslike world. If circumstances arose to impair the value of the security it was plain that the State could not, in fairness to other citizens, advance the money, and that the freeholders must perish, as now they certainly will. Now, Mr. Morgan Eichardson expressed his decided opinion that the establishment of a system of judicial rents- Avould so impair the market value of land that, assuming that system to be established, the security would become in- sufficient. As is well known. Parliament, early in the present'session, was asked to sanction the advance of money to freeholders- thus cruelly embarrassed, but Parliament refused its assent. Why ? Surely for the plainest of reasons. The Report of the Commission had been issued, it had painted the condition of Wales in lurid colours, it had described a terror-stricken peasantry, and the majority had recommended the establish- ment of a Land Court. As the land agitation and the proceedings of the Commission had caused sundry mortgagees- of Welsh land to call in their money, and others who had money to lend to refuse Welsh land as a security, so this- wild recommendation of a Land Court destroyed the last lingering hope of the Welsh peasant-freeholders. For that recommendation they have to thank Earl Carrington, Mr. Brynmor Jones, Q.C., M.P., Mr. Richard Jones, Mr. Griffiths, Mr. Grove and Principal Rhys. 92 THE LAND QUESTION For the rest the writer desires to make a personal explana- tion. He had the honour of conducting the case for land- owners, or of taking part in its conduct (so far as the methods of the Commission permitted) in Wales and Monmouthshire. Very early in the proceedings, at Carnarvon in the first place, an endeavour was made to introduce a question of title. The witness in the box was Colonel the Honourable W. E. Sackville West; the question asked affected the title of Lord Penrhyn's property. The writer had deemed it prudent to advise Colonel AA'est, and others also, to decline to ^.nswer any questions going to title, and his advice was followed. The same principle was pursued throughout the proceedings ; and would be pursued again, in the event of the recurrence of any similar proceedings. It has been suggested since that Lord Penrhyn was afraid of showing his title, but that is sheer nonsense. This question of title was .■sprung on Colonel West without a moment's notice ; it was impossible that he should answer it, for he had not the necessary knowledge. Every lawyer will perceive and know that the examination of a title is a tedious, delicate, and expensive business, not to be undertaken save for some verv substantial reason. Men do not fling their titles in the air for every daw to peck at, and the writer gave his advice deliberately, in the belief that if the Crown had intended to promote an investi- gation of titles, a Commission of very different constitution and powers would have been appointed, and the intention would have been very plainly stated. Neither owner, nor agent, nor lawyer, carries the title of a historic estate in his pocket to show to any passer-by. In fact, the contention of the Commission was irrational. The case of Colonel AVest is used for illustration, as showing the thoughtless and hap- hazard way in which Commissioners asked questions which, whatever may have been the object with which they were asked, distinctly went to the question of title. A more audacious and irrelevant effort was made in South IN SOUTH WALES. 93 Wales, where a long attack was made upon the Duke of Beaufort in relation to the rights in the foreshore at Swansea. This, to be entertained by an agricultural Commission, was a marvellous topic, but it was one into which the writer did not feel disposed to enter. Firstly, it was deliriously irrelevant ; secondly, a long and expensive suit involving the whole ques- tion of title had been decided in the Duke's favour by the Court of Exchequer some fifty years ago, and the opinion of that court seemed preferable to that of the Commission. Thirdly, the main argument of the worthy witnesses from the Sw-ansea Corporation seemed to be that it would be much more convenient to Swansea if they were empowered to take the Duke's property without payment. That proposition, since it was self-evident, it seemed hardly necessary to controvert. Then the Commission complain of the Board of Trade on the following ground. It appears that prior to 1888 the Crown and the Marquis of Bute were at issue as to the ownership of a portion of the foreshore at Cardiff. " The local advisers of the Board (we understand the advisers at Cardiff) thought the Marquis of Bute had a strong case, but nothing was laid before us to show how far they were in a position to give sound advice upon so difficult a matter of law and fact." So say the Commissioners. The Board of Trade yielded the claim made by Lord Bute in consideration of £6055. Of this the Commissioners complain, on the ground of public policy, and observe "No one on behalf of the Marquis of Bute explained his title." The writer is of opinion that he ought to have been disbarred for sheer lunacy if he had permitted any explanation to be made when one title, at any rate, was absolutely proved, and the matter was entirely outside the competence of the Commission. For the rest, apart from the question of squatters, which is really too trivial to enter upon, all the principal points raised by the Commission have been treated. They complain, from time to time, of sales of Crown lands ; those sales are irre- 94 THE LAND QUESTION IN SOUTH WALES. vocable, and if some bargains have turned out well, others have turned out badly. They complain of enclosures of waste land made under Act of Parliament ; it is waste of ink and lamentation. Their business was to inquire into the condi- tions of agricultural life in Wales ; their excursions by the way do not concern us. It is enough to have shown, almost out of their mouths, that the cases of Wales and England are identical in character, and that in degree Wales is the more fortunate ; and finally that there is no substance in the cry for special legislation for Wales. 1>^ ft P-l c3 a o • rH o o 03 ■+5 f-' (D C fc- i* " ^ o *^ '^ c 3 5 to > « ? n^ <*-• S '** ^ VH o '-" 2 o si 3. '^' •^ .-J B" 03 o s>. *< ■^" o H ^^ y- £;2 rj. cS P P. X N^ t^ cr " *-' Zj ^ ^ ri o w o *^ 5 -J OJ ^ o ■^ ^ ^ H C3 cc ^ o > M s ci o a; lo *"" 'c a r-l a: > •a S t> 4) GR CJ O S p. 00 O 11 o p •5 •4-3 s c< £ Wi 3 o '^ a; »>-* "§ a; « o •^ ■^ 'V* t^ f-< oc GO 5 H o o CJ o a a ^ c^ X X' 2 OS X 5 4J £ JJ- 'x ci ^ W £ "3 c u IK -? 0^ -4^ >J 3 0^ ^ ;:; ** •E fcc *^ ^ a c ^ 3 II I S ss o <1» o tn QQ ^ 5 3 §»' 2 § cS 1 a g cn CJ S "3 .^2 C.2 o o ■d a> 1 ^ § 7: 5 ir 5 -4-3 a a c3 a 3 ^1 H H 13 o ;] c5 -k3 p a « 3 2. a) -4J 0. g bo •S m 1 i5 Ol CJ 3 c3 ^ " 2 >n -3, -g CJ p m .2 r. ff <4H a 0! ^ ^ ;3 •:: .0 IS I- 5 c-i ■-1 = a >i c; a a» - ;-• a — > u ,2 X' hH o o ci ■s CO cc 00 - s ,5 1:^ •0 00 5W « B p c5 a J- C5 c 5 S y. c I; a a a s ^ o g J s o 2 2 w 5 .a f-H 00 g — 1 '-' d oT 3 2 5 ^ ■4-3 2 +j c «w < ^ rt c a a a) ,• ■a Ti 1 1 a _2 S- c5 o s CO 1-H Ki a a C3 a a »" 22 £ rr. is CO ir> CC •— 1 ?— 1 ■3 2 a +J M c^ C "^ » ^H E t-H c H /-"N Aid "7. -^ r 2 o ►—I T3 d t M ^1 C3 !» ^ o 3 a 3 c 1 crs > aT a 4 a" p 3 a «H , O ID m QJ - e t rt -^ U ^ ■* t** -*^ ^1 "'I c 3 S ^ i ! vT _3 S 5 a c c ■< a 0^ 5 2 is ol P-i » ,£ [U £ Q 'A hi c ! S APPENDIX. 97 - - o a V ~ 5 k 00* 2 ^ HI > 7.^ t: >.J3 _ In'-" SH 3 -. >i 7i . ja 5 a ^■^ i= o -d 2 o 5 3 CO ■5 a U 3 = — 2 •lli Si3 ^l t; 6 to ; 2 = .H = o S o 5- '^ Cj ^ -— T; 3 I = « -tS --•'3 o ~ 5 be = 4; M c , ' it ' £ .5 2 a ; St; 3 " X' >.£" = =■ 3 'S i" O ' "^^ t-^ >s Z o _3 "3 'S o 5 3 = •^ 3 O ~ ., •- 3 ». O > J — o /• o a ii* ii 2 - 2 o o 2 o - W -^ *-^ r3 X ■e =) .e >> CJ 2 .'■'^ 'JO — — *- r» > w 3 O K > a « 1— 1 u s - O Q •- a> ^ >. ^- d r n ^ u fcrt o. a O ~3 o >» S.2 So c ® o " • S ?; ii a ^ ^ — 3 i; •" -w o — 3 3 «: c S — t2 f- = H b •-t! o w — . *> ?; g to 3 > s -d o & "/; -« -^ ».9 — . K 3 ; o ■S «t{ ^ M =ti OS 3 O ■d 7i t: 5 O _ ^ 5 a X - 5 a ;S o s; s O o3 ■" =»J 5 3 >3 cS "o a 2=?3 c -^ y sis "" a 00 ;^ '^ a a* X a ■■ 1 .2 ^ « ? OS P q o t^ ~ 3 " B CO - O o 3. .-J « o ^ o ^ eg. o S 3 a CS •*^ — 3Jj i ^. -= - a ■^ i> o S 2 oj a o 5« *^ a 5 -^ ■*-> > ^ 1^ w c > .C V > o cS 3 ja o '~ " li ° - J ?. £■' 71 3 T " be a 5 ■= - :: ^ 3 S ~ - ^ = a o ~ ■-/: 3 .£ 2 3 L. •■^ ^ =* 3 r ^ -3 '^ I— 1 V, V. — O O « a • f* ' p, 3 & <-■ a o o o a 3 OQ 1- CO cS r3 O CS rt ^ ♦-» '^ : ira rt Oi X -,- " C< a 5 o. o •* ■? 9 r- ^.-3 cd O § ?f 2 a ?s E a * ^ o .a • tH • ct O »: V .a 0) rt t^ ■•-* fcr'x* " O oJ Hall, 5 nne and 11 est acres) fd^. t-, « ^ T!^ as ,-H oJO X ^^ o . a "»' •= ^ S - c^ x: a .a o c.. a p O ■/. a (^ c fcf. a a o ■=~ 6- a «: tf3 B 2-5 X X! > c o c % 5 O. a) i a o *-< -4^ o ^ S ^ a IS 00 a d 0) o " -^ " o d a p. Oj « +^ X £ s c a c XJ *3 >5 E^ « o -a ■« -c ■« C5 o O u^ U5 « " O U5 w ej a a ^■■** 00 (1 O) C O »» ii - _^ o t; rr. -^ ed ii luced noth wa o ■^ s< ci ci ■^-H tH »; ■" +^ =rt t. o 2 zo a S » 00 00 « « oj o '^ « 30 »a '■^ o t-* rH oS.2 a a ^ •" a +j p O K ^ *w S CO 1 e. i '" »c w h 00 m • - ci GC O •- m ? ^ CO 00 CO >f> , •— * 00 00 «t-l 1— ■ *4 Sal oo .3 00 a b ® ■O ft. t- (». o ^ t~ -M a 00 CO — o r-l 2 00 • OT a a> o _C CO a r^ «°^g c m; Q. a «5 CO C. a O "-1 rH ^ cS O o i-H »H __^ a. "S" V u o o c^ 5 s go V ^ •r-. O (— CO •2 S ^ US a O . a «3 g 'w i a S 100 APPENDIX. (D ^ ■*•* O a 0> cS M . ~kJ ^ o > ^r !^ K ^ O o o "d sSS cr; 3 d uS o Tl >-< d 2 « CI ^^ a o J G^ O HI > ^ ^ o s', o >■ en ^ ^ fl n > T r« -tj o C3 a T3 a CS d a ;2 a ^H ^ a O ^3 S o o s u t d c 'd ^5 p., l-( a a : ' *•-' -M ,^s - O O «rt -^ « . ■« ci =■> -3 CO ?; " °° a iH OS > _ a >- a oi £|: a c , -g .=s , =<^ =rt SS' ■=CM I 2 X « -S ^ .Q « S " 3 _, O o 2 rS CO tJ t; o p £"« o2 a ^ -t< *H a) ^ a = °» a ar.2 ■:3 ■•" = 2 'fa a Ti ts - a " c -M fe -■ cS 03 •* a s &: ". o = p. a cs OS a a c3 O q Ol ja ^ bn*' n cS -. o ■^1 r^ ■w -d a> o « ;h -M va o a o 'd n S a ri ^ en PI ^ O eS rn "1 „ a o" r^ !s -ij ^" a CJ o4 =5 o £ ^s a 00 tH m ffl -w d 0) 's a O c3 O 00 ri CO o g kp, ^ a o o5 D O ■- CO g ^ =s .2 o a o -a*" g lO CO S 00 P rH r-« ■«-» I-* a u 11 2 00 a « O ee C5C „ "2 o o "C o _ o & aT "C o Q M a) o a 5 a cj d a < o TCd a a c. ea u ^A ' .5 rn aT ^ a §2 h^ CO j^ be . H ID a a o O 23 ea bD o +-» ^ e c3 ^ O S »4 . a> O cS i o J3 . 2M APPENDIX. 101 is o •a -d fe .a O °3 X a t; o o. m p. s o p. ja H K o 2.2 S ?! ^ lO .c « ■S « o 5 ,q =3 d « .2 '^ -*^ I— ( s § cc ■-h2 g .-s .:: o o a v s P c3 Q^ p O -I o a) bo P «; ert CJ s ^a V ■ 3 p £ . S "s -a M ,-1 <^< , J= 5 OS CO o CI ^ o — en « a~^2$3 -> ^ Oi ^1 a > S> m •a V o p •o v as s a if 3 O .« P p si p< o 00 Q. 00 f-* ^ 1— t o b- d 3 o CO 00 o R. '^ o 00 • •, ■ ■" t. c3 ^H ^ .a ce . 3 m o "d cs p.> e^ P a -do 2 '^ ■ o o p 5 S si ^ -d - a P o &■ . 3 ^"d =s kc P W e3 3 p poo o a ^ be ■ "o -i 5e^ ■S £ -^ c» ^ ■ ft X u o i " . CD P. .9 e if . I* •d o P o •d '-^ a °° 5 o> ea O I*! o §-' o t-< 5 o . "d b£. d a rt o p a I'- O S >> l^ d 1 o ^ H (^ P ,=i S 31^ g ___. = « ci » a; 102 APPENDIX. .a 2 o .2 >> i o O ■a D 11 o 2 - -/J :3 n-, O S en C3 O ,=5 It 2 -^ tn ^ d . 5.S' o .=1 5 >.i a s 0) » S2 •S Ml 01 'S te " Qj 3 iS « Jr >- o s j^ " fl f' " 2 '=1 a 2 _J5 rt .« ta fc. .a on § u m 0) =» as a « 2 .-XS .- » <^ 2 ?* o -^i t! fl -2 fl S^ 2 -as S-^ >.2 -3 2 3 cu =s g £-^ ^ '^ 2 &; ^ s .' <=> 3 2^ 2 3 2 t3 &: a =S ^2 ^ a t« -*^ •2 ° S -S +J -4J GO e^ — ' -■ Cfl fl -a ifl ■9 '^" a ^ a 3 9 a rH 2 a ^ a -a -i s*^"* a o a =* '-' fl :j a .a S ai ?i S si " ^ :MHt o cS Q .a •r- -d >5 tS 00 >? X ^ ^ >.rt OS 2 W Q -O " rH 2^ «= a a -3 =* CO oj S * M 00 <0 a m ii r1 •«) ^ -M X . CD 's 00 .a CO P .CD i CO .2 ft CO I 00 ,1, o a r-l 3 •d "d fl CS ^ 4^ 2 en a — <-> .S fl a °« fl ,0 X ". o o ^ ft a o a 3 - « a fl " ^ 2 « -a _- 2 o » s a S o i< . a ^ a n .a p 01 2 OS H ■s fe ^ •c u 03 w I-) fl • — •^ ;< o »1 fl S M "S •« T APPENDIX. 103 flS CO •a .■■« ?, *j 2 fc. £; ^ --^ a ti » "■^ 1 ■" £ cj r 3 . " "^ <=*!! in V fl O _g >!< il "« kc o 13 = a .5 ti i'' •i3 S H 2 J. 31 a ^ S iX, « m .5 ^ 1 " ^ r* n (U ^ w c « « o 5 a ■^ c3 ^ u a» _^ := I S f 2 1 i P z s X a 9 _ a cj s " '" —• a) ^ c — it C3 a o ■/J a o 60 a, 5 2. ^ ^ ^ ^s"-?: 5-5SH. a « 0^ " >1 ~ a rt "' " ^ ■;: i i! = ? en o U *" « to i" ^ t- > S ° ^ 2 ?. *^ -a - « - « a a 5^ ic^ i?" '■ ac 2 a - "5 - 5 x> 5 f^ ^ ^ a •-, s -a o « a a 3 § a , _ -a 5^i a *-• 'O *^ 3 a ""S'? § 1 -s s 1 cS _a a .2 i-s a a t- o a o ^ 5 TT« — 4) a >• ■a p 73 as +3 o 1 a a l!l "3 a ■: u a P. X a ill 01 ■a 3 •a 3 S 3 iil p ^ .9 •a a d^ i "t^ '^ ^^ ^ a a 1 X a s a 1 fl a X a"" ^ a s< == 43 1 § o «o a a _' o 1 1) I'M ^- X l-H a a >* Oi a a -M X' a a a o 7. o 4-1 s :/. a a. 4-> > is a i a a 2 -a a — ■a >> H ^« o a >■ c3 a 5 -a a CO ^ '-' a a a 32 03 S ^a a ~ ^ 1-3^ a ^ u .c a '-i^ a a " a a o p3 -/. ,13 ^ X r-( a OO h- ( i ^ 2 ^ o .2 u > 5^ 2 a -*-* a a 3 '1^ -!§. Jf OS "Zs "? '-^ p ^ - a-ai 6 P a a ■a o O rH a ^ a a a ^ 1-2 § following abat eeu given : 6 p P.O., 9 P.O., o M a t~ 00 s 0. ° ji a ■tJ ) a a CO so 1 2 QO 72 a 1 52^ a a "5 "« a =° - "5 o a a o 3 -a a "o a o' 30 30 CO CO 1— < 7X 00 00 00 00 r-t of X OO 00 30 U5 CO CO l-( a OJ 00 71 O -a a *C3Q o ^ 5 ■*-» ■a a a a -a a 3 .3 a a a o o a y 5 2 a rH .a a f— 1 ^ r-( I— 1 r-" a a «' a at," > a r =s ?: " 5|a a o a a 3 a ^ a a a a a a a a «o d. 1-4 a ^ ^ a> 4H a 5 S a 1 a a a a a CO rH t-S f^ -2 1 • r— Ol c« o -1 ci ■f— 1 M 0?a^ « "Z^ to u ^•^ ^ mouth, n, and DO acre o X a i; ■a ^ a 4> o -%s a 3 & ~ g^-^ US _ !*» -^ o o cS t- •a ti X •o a a ^ n S o § C^ ^^ rt 'r J-' ^-^ g a U '•^ fe-S^ M ^ li^; .So 1 ■ fei a a "> 3- a = a « « C — . X O >■ a a a o S" Q " a "^ pq 3) o fl a T 5 S ^ •go :] a O CO a> X ^ ■M •■-• -) S *^, -AJ » 104 APPENDIX. 'ts s 1— I W CO O o . i B on ew 2 K aj c , , a> I ■a a o +^ a c — 5 5 ■11 a .2 s -t- — > 11 bC 2 ,0 "3 c 3 3 -^ p "^ * ., ^ 2 -- ^'•w c^ »« "T a» a: <« B O .2 >. »— 1 > .i p fa ^i . IK " s 2 •r ^ a §1 p, CO 3 ,a 2 j3 ■s ^ tw "^ v> ,— ^ n = 2 .2 > il X p 3 -3 C ^ a OJ ^ " 1 = s .I* 5 OS u 3 >. O o u ^ X •0 CO r-H fcl^ X « S •" — c: i^ •5 1* to OS H ^ 55 .x" c s — g C s c C3 3 GO s a o CO c ■~ c 53 .. — CO 10 CO be 3 5 CO CO CO X ci X '7. m 2 '-g 5J "5 r Tc 00 OD 0" 7i 5 S c 5 c ,a 5 1* CO t>- P — 00 p: w X r^ u ^ ^ -^ ^ f-( a , 3 4-3 p ii « — " 'x *- = 2 § CI ^ > cc — a c CI c s 5 3 p. r- H H 00 t« 1 oc i.S £ ^ J^ rt , 03 3 •4-; cj 4^ g >-, :o' "^ a> .a 3 s CO CO .a s c S '" 3.0 3 O *^ _ 5R 1* v^ C ?^ 'H < s «5 be ci "^ "s -S ■" p § S :'3? i C "-"S 0^ 00 > .0 CJ .-1 >>rH ^ > 5 0\ X e3 o ■ en V5 s il ^1 s 3 1=^ S c (U iZ^ +^ *^ >■ be 2 5 >> wis "^ >5 ^5 t^. -^ APPENDIX. 105 tx *- - 2 ''^ ? t; S 03 □ .:; •- d fl t- fc * == o " ^J5 2 c^ 2 » '" '■' ^"^ 3 K 2 « V, 00 o 5 cs ^ 3 J-< w *- ♦- fr. !:; *= o ^ o ti S c: '1' tH -si s55 =5 r. ^ " E c s a i ^-^ - ^ O ^ ^ O X ^ 2 (3 « ^ HI O - O •S-S Pi ri ^ ti 3 '^ s W « — Cj CJ •a - CO >>- o 5 " 2 fc. t: s^ o o = a > r m 03 o ^ ;^ ~ .= a a °° c3 ii a OS o a 03 (fi ■3 S ? o" , so a ^ o 9 U o 1 9; a 2 s a a *" (D ^^ ^ r^ ^ g- £ a (B C£ CJ ■«-> " " CD P X.2 ;- o ^ c a >» 03 J2 g E « il a = « .2 S " _, *^ a c3 — • .0 =^ « CO 'O a 7i ea ♦- - .a •- o "g a, = S a in ^" a ~ a O " ~ 2 o a "" a - i, >» M s t- r e-^ **- '-' a ss 3 " 5 -2 •a ■= .a a +^ V. g oj s - 2 rt r.* D "-^ u a k. e3 a it a a ? = o - .•^ a a « a a- «. a 5 2 .a ~ cs ; "3 00 > i: ^.S U5C0t^0DO5r-tc^ i, QcaoocGccocsosj:; ^ CO 30 CO X CO GC 00 a 4J = a a; 00 X 00 oc _^ o a »- 03 o L-r »^ o c^ o c^ •*; -H rl r- s s V p o Ss 5 £ o a o 03 00 be o P5 ft"" a =* ^ a o< ei — OS o, o a> >- a O o go 106 APPENDIX. 1—1 K M O o t- ^ J^ ^H ^ ■^ S o -3 ?S d 2 = -S - •" s 2 * <" ~ - s - 2 = 2 3 S .S 5 c, i£„ 'Z _-- " a S s5 ~ g - g APPENDIX. 107 gs a S ^ *-a A 5 ce 9 ^ a a V S5 a > C9 ei J ^ ■rC .:i u o 4.^ S 1^ rr"5 a> 3 ^.2 -? ^2 tH X i) a s o g O 9 S J3 ■•8 -w sa 0} o a"? a) ^g a a o •a ^H o > o o » «H B^ o S = •S CO 2 s a . o - OS 3 a> .- :2 ^ = ° = - 5 ■3^0 t3 vh S * ■/. r-, O — a a a n .3 T^ q n •S *j S '* S 2 !-■ ^ fl ri a u bf ■^ c« 1—1 ■w a> a n 3 -5 a, ip C^ 71 1 X V, -t-l -J ^ a -^ •C^ a a >1 Z c; 5 -y a - a ca 3 u a U^ T. ZJ X 7. 5 1 a g 5 a ^ t» '■*" U Zi ■~ oj CJ ^ a 7i ■•-■ — ' »*< s a"5 5 a — * -^ w '■'^ a S frt *ll •^ 4l> ->-» *, ^ 2 *■• x: -*-» ri a >> -4^ :: JD ?-f ^ rt ■0 ri •a .« :o cc c; " 1— 1 & — ;_, ^ -0 X 'O ~ ti — ~ ~ c^ ? ~ —; V ^- >- I— ( - a 4-1 » -^ "u 9. ^ S3 ^ s- a il "t^ a '"" rS ^ >rf =5 si 73 2 a T" >. ^ 5 a a. SS a J3 T* a 3 •5 3 a hi •5 5 0: J ^'j i 1- ~ a c o a a ;^, - a = a •- _, ^ Sj P4 a «3 _ rj fl r ■— -5 c; -." — .~ P o g} O « •M i^ a A -e >. >• ^ « <« ~< •- a ©I g "^ « 'I -« ^ ^" 2 I ^ S « ° J a a " .2 ^ ■"a - ;; 5 .5 x> ^ 3 S a - ? a - a g ^ i ^ 3 s o.; a '^ »^ tr, a =^ a es a a '^ o 2 _ a = a ^ t»> 3 J^ ^ •a -i- •!? a o o (- a A w 05 3 ^a 2 'I; ' h ;; a .-s 00s a '^ a a a o aW a _ =^ OS ri s a 1^' a << 108 APPENDIX. o %^ .2 >> . CO o o a j3 ^ J3 ffi o 2 !E S =* OS -d i. kJ O) ?i 3 oj o a m St ^ 05 +3 ci ■tf s fl A •o T' r.J S'-a a (0 •^ ^ -4-1 ft M -4-> 13 s rs Cl JS o o5 fS -u h 0^ o a> >i a P. s 8 I— I CO W H O o !" s ^ -^ :5 0) n-^ o « c3 5 61)9 a ^ "5 s s ri ft s-° i^ r^ rr, ^ Q §«: a a J5 -2 fee --H r'i a Sh 00 _ > ® t: **-" 'Z* ^ o|^ • a* S 3 !\ » o o «4< M t. J- org rt ^ oo ^ O O eg „ 00 J- o j; a O *H 3^ O 5 ~ K o *; = 1° " "■' ^ .« •^ 01 " i2 ^ a o " »" j; a "" 2 - t~ o t- •" S =• a " g &= S 2 a 5 •■" D ?§ o-^ o a g O S 5^ > o . O •rt o -frj fi a ft 00 a o a .o o a> T-H l> « ;a t~ rr F-H a H^i «o a QJ 1« -M Tl <+-! ,Q < =* fl fe ftl = a ^ S S 5-=' O fl c3 M a 5i a 'bJo^s t^ cT p-( CO »c r^ t^ r^ ^ 00 00 OG CO 00 ■y) cc oo 1— 1 *"* .* f-l ^^ c= a i = a ■n a tu (S H H C =. a O" =. »o 5 O 3 ■ — I- .:: — o E;2:s-';r:3« oo" ^ c^* ■^' s s ^ s 00 =2 00 S CD X to c» u d a +j ^H o CO ~ jj d » o< ft p, ft t> o ■ ft'^ ) >>— a ^ ., » -S s t3 "C cj a sji 2 a a s ft c3 , *j f; T3 - S (A a S I* a " o He ■a ■=> M ' o a " • o t- 8 S ° 2 CS o . f' SI < o -O 13 a a Oj 1-5 s ^21 o o cs .ft ^- H o h4 cj J; g fc. K 2 S g »'*'!^ o S •C !"• '^" i^ 2 S J a j2 S a . o '^ APPENDIX. 109 T* ,*, •- *J . • -1 »^ o 2i3 5 3 a =s ^ i- tr. it t3 = fe = = a -- -Q — '-^ s « - - OS it ■s ^ -13 a> o .a OS = .S - K g M 2 = - ^ -3 — ft S 2 2 S •*■ fl ■^ ^ c •B z:> C) ■4-> ■*.» a ^ s rt cr ^ ^/; -1 ■M tM & C> a O 13 o ^ 5: t: E--^ H /; -. - CC '3 P r -. o o ft ja o - « o a 5 a> S J3 — « H -a t^ s w ;m OS a ^ X = hi OJ a -/2 •c o , « ■» o a a S OS c3 a *" a ■^ u -t^ F-« ■f. o .o ft a tn «D a 01 w o o 5 ^ a 5; H o ^ -«-> o3 a; ^ . cj a o >. s a ^ o ^ a QQ ij «5 ■« O a «i cS >. ,a =3 o ,S >. o ^2 aC- s . s o w o a o ■O J= tj 3 tsc >s r. "^ a t» ■" -5 1—1 w CO O : s :y H V. => •■5 &~'^'^ ; - u _ 3 j « S 5 ^ " ; 3 =7 ^ to - £ s "- a . >» o! w O •- . -T .2 -J I •= ^ - 3 ~ t" 2 ft „ C 5 X •; 1^ ^ _ a a .a 53 a OS "1 T* a j^ — >-. — -. -HP* 6 B t- a "^ E o : ft i o A -a a 9 o :: « 00 ■o - 5^ j; us ci 00 ^ C» CS OO t a - . •* a ^ r; ^ ■ aj a a . ■~ 1- ^ us " a c< ft O) tcH ft ft..'' a ^ 3 ii « "* ^ d r-.;; - - t>. t- . . OO 00 O C?s 00 00 »» IM 1-1 i-c o o - u= ft i 00 r- <3 I '-' . J, C>1 CO * . X3 a u5-'__ ^ ^ . ^ -* s> xr^ g ft ft'-O a M^ ri .a a .MOO a OS as 1) 3 o . o tlL J i^ 110 APPENDIX. o to +^ +^ "5 2 00 M 0; c I ° - M o »— I B n fcr a) C a> ^ ■a » o — be. >-, C3 c ci ° .5 » ,^ « =* I g p. SB r- -^ ^s a E be o 3 S « -MO, -B ^H K M O Ph W Pi ■43 Pi ctT o 9 H g ^ g -s ja ■-' J3 "^ a -M tM tH o S be o a s ft « iS £ o s 4S fc a S -5 ^ § £* i" bB p i-i rt =« ^ iS •-I ^ P 3 » a br «- a a ;2 =« ■ OJ - a 2 ^ a. f^ a -a x: ci i: -M ^ M a a-d g fe « S g =e S a '^ J3 V. o a b >-. C :1 Pi <« ;- o O OJ ^ ftiM a '** S o o "^ :o -M gas o I a o.e-a crj U ;3 CO a f- "-• 'E a ft es P U i« ■M ja a i: o a >M 03 o ii ft OJ % s ,a ^ -M a i^ o; 3 c-) GJ a a ■— ■ ■c a %^- a T^ a cs g ^ 2S a ^ a ^ "'^ a e a S . o ,0 ^ g «:■ C 00 cc g "a; a ,_j -w — ■ 00 U 00 ft t~. KS r1 n rt f— ( ►-5 a p. ■'"' U5 00 00 --- ire •; » • CO a i-< Pi -»-• 1— 1 a OJ 0) w^ 0^ r=i (^ ft OJ a rr a; t-i rrl ,^ rr, OS -^ Ph ■* t: a aj ^ c€ a ;-< .-« o ^^ o a ^ re ^ Ph butS rt ft CJ tl) ^ rt +j n a ^n •r-l CA Q Ph ^ a u a 0) a 03 bt u ft'S ■d OJ t- cS c« ^ ,^ n* IM a o a a Q) ;^ a & c PP 1- a a ci \i OJ bp p; >. t/. S a H^ cs a , fe S, w ^ a ts O 32 H a © o O -w ^ g .£Pft ■ a P3 Vi •PQ APPENDIX. Ill a o « o us C3 ^ « ■" £ - 2 tS s.= ©si;;: ■^ IS s>^ '"" sis = ♦JO'-*-* tl CI a P 2 o 1 1 s = o X - bp 5 S S a -e o o i « S g 5 2 & fe 5^ CO »4 2 §^ J3 .2 S wi :t C (K « S o i "^ w O = rt '^ £ a •= a •S ■= 2. o 3 o S it. > A •f. c ~ O "C 2 03 '-^ "^ s c g; 3 ^ 2 £ i "^ "S C iS 6t a) o c3 a a^ « tM 'S « S S P ° =- =" ^ ? S 5 s .2 g J g o S t > 2 "^ 2 " .5 S 5 o ^ 5 "T <« p. S UJ •+H o f^ cJ S '^ i- •" ^ t* =i a) o' z; o oj bfa 2 ° 5 =" 2 S o 2 « " S S s ° ^ ■" E o S _ a) i '- o -^ = i i '•/. f -- «• ® X o a •—*■*-" J. c^^a*^' — ^ -; _^ _ r^ n "^ €Z^ ^ Tl t- rC . c .a i a S S c "J* - - . ♦- O — i> •^ -^ ■/■-■?=■——•'• a a an _ c c p ci r- o >> 2 ^i'ii.Hilii — — ' a i) 71 3 « •- „, 2t..^5^S2Sos-Ha aSil'Sii-aiiSgS.S .2 c "■5 « §•3 •* a cc o i^. o »> - 5 S a .a -o 7 3 S ^■lEil I'i o - S •a 2 — '- S a o 5SS •r fl p. I o « iP. i? a >. :*■ I " r o „ tj ■'^ -^ i 00 X P- e o' ^"2 o 0) CD ^* 7; ij ^ '-« O o u o o 01 ,0 i^E^? " "^ h- 1 .ri 0) ? X ^ ,£3 ri3 a OS SQ . 5 - a J<( a X > M,^ C^ ,0 . a H c 2 P3 -^ >i^ :- oc ^ — 113 112 APPENDIX. o O a t, o o 2^0 >• 2 '/ 2 •' - o oS rt ^ o r^ s» ^ o ^ i - ■ 05 = 03 *j ^^ ^^ o ^ --- O g O -; <;. 'f ■ X s o ii « >; O cs g a; 5 ^t Zj ^ ^ 'f- Zj s s a O a O ^■' j. o o i •1-) s ^ v t. -*2 >% 17] .0 ^ I— ( ^ •t-' ^ C-1 £ •1> O. cS :? ' '-■; a « fa. g=^« 71 ;- »i3 « £ 0) >» a o g ■r. ^ 1 o p o s o - :: 13 is o en g a s 71 J3 o ■a E'- en 1j ■/- 1 g o s =« 05 ;- >■ 1_1 >. ■U •■ o S >» -7 r: r o o r^ r^ ^ ^ c; -t-) £ ■^ g <2 o p. g ■c g a o 5 5" p f-i < X >^ o a cj as-* M g tn 1 a ■ So-g (V '-' • -i: o 2 o -. a "--5 O) .-1 Si a X a a A □0 =s a X * be 'M C « S CO 0) a ^ > <— 01 52 £ ,a i— ( <1 u o o a o o -a S -< I a 5«; O Am -J h- bs ' % rf I- 1 .0 Hi a> a -5 APPENDIX. 113 •S - A =* ° ^ 2 e QC ■/, - b " - o H-r in S' 2 « W. *- *ji X" " =" ei ~ «5 5 ._ - - S S » -^i ^ o "^ S -^, S S ^ ^ ^ -s <£ 's: > S a (3 O ^■2 OS •? « a P a ^ S i >S a ^ .£: ^ E "^ - -J * i^^l o ° g fe !* « S « 3 OS s 2 .2 « £(-.r3 O a = c ■=" 2 ■« " = g jp S _ c m o — -r "S -2 . o ^ a; s H p ^ >. oc >, ^ ~ COO'" -^ >* S+j -3 • t^ ■» ^. 5 boo H"-i o'-M-S a B o « « » ^ '-^ ■£ a S rt " r^ a K go « © j< o (a o ^ t^ a - a 00 Bt o fl o pp DO a •J3 M •3 So M ^ H 114 APPENDIX. 'e o -t—i m O a A M > u ■ o < a. 4J >- s S S5 i 2 K ^ g ai »^§^ a) D cu «M 0) c ?, ►^ i« wv S ,3 a 2 O 1 "2 ^" X V s -4-> a c: 00 rt 53 Tl a V £ ^ '^ o o a CJ c; V. ci 2 "S o — ' o a cr S o a w -a a -a o a P. O 3 f^ 5 ci o 3 >> o 0^ 11 BSu >• 'S a o be a 0) I-" a " 0) ■d t!£ o a> ct a o< ^ en a i?; o Ol 3^ -M 2 o 5P- o o a; ys CO ; -a a •« ^ i*" 3 O a, t g fc- 01 m >• a 2 ■d d 3 h- ■o « oo b I— 1 s a 3 :;2 '^ 9 00 00 . J2 00 o o .-o u S;- p. - a !7 CO t- ^ 00 3 .a CO 00 a 00 /5 «8 Jj 00 a ~ •S'^ --I 5 S o aa >% >. H gl cS 5 'A , CO _, ""^ Si «: •1 93 p.. . CO ft'" '11 I CO r3 °° a § «:■ >) ce 00 J oc ^ 00 u a a| .a o.S si «> cs oJ P< •d o « r-C s a 00 z', 2^2 ■d « e a > ^ » o dj s " rt fc, '^ s s a c3 ■d a C3 O •d >^ o u '^ =5 M « -d a „ S ac -^^ -d 53 2 y APPENDIX. 115 o o ^ rs .a a 2 3 GJ 3 r. 2 O a 2 ■* iij 60 i 3 Ut « t- - t S ^" r -S I a V o 5 •» ei s ID O > ■A 00 a o u > i:. C--^ u g ^ 2 Mi's ^ I :■ ■= '-■ 3 i^ « u:"-^ o'^S -C'— -' s > o 1 9 4^ p •6 OS 3 5; o a 3 p -4^ V 1 5 HH -/J ■*-' u _, « ^H -" ■^ a; „ -t; tj § o bC 1 J 5 .i! = o X •::; >. i •- -s d S "3 1 1 I o 2 ~ =; '' 5 S " 3 ~ - S oj a a — a < ;. o > - >, - c« 3 ri ii« ~ 0) .S -D .3 = oj .^ Ir^ C^ 00 Ol 00 CO 1— « rH la.S il aj- £ - o &« m * o C 30 o » ^— a-- <= o -i -^ fi Vh in >. : .^ r ^ 3 i x J H 3 E S X 3 = = 5^1 5* 3 ' 3 *? = ^ ■ 0^ ^ 3 J . CS So .a •^ 00 ^ S " > £ g^ I 5 S grt 3 t, - t « H •a o CO X CD 04 xS* 3 cc 'r; as'' O 5 ^1 3 73 I. 3 — ••" • fci ^ r" -— « 3 c -' _:; •** -C .5 a J IIG APPENDIX. ;« d -- o TT c ■^N A O ■-) 4-> k- c3 o li fx cz O CJ s !-• ^ ^ o ("( o *H Wl ' (1> Cm u o w ^ ^ =3 5.' S-4 >» c Si =2 '5 S o S - - 3 ?. ei 2 K «i ;-. „, o o a • '^ o ^ -^ I it vL ■T" — ^ == t: ^ 3j — 3 fen 3 ^ C _3 ■a O :: u - X O ;= V C. cs = s X '/; § ^ o c o o a s) ^ * ti o > 5 U o 9<^ c' v; o o n X *_ ^ c c- -^ J u o q tn <:> T J" ct •n w 33 1^ 0^ ■'' > > M 1—.. *^ X •* .a « 9 & c .2 > 8 S CO O is 5 S g ^ ^ O ■" c3 X .^ p a ^ O — == o o .a 1— ( -M >^ J at id (>-. J3 o o ■a 00 C3 h-l o o (*> d a i ct a a o 2 =3 es c5 a Si) o u en a o o 2 a i3 OS o S m ," _' £ ii a t^ •S.a- .e 03 n^ ijt li. ej h oi X5 S CJ 00 b -w/ OS OS g a O a;SW fc'' o bJ) < fe a oT !3 « ^ !=* is ^ 'S a ?S p fct) Oi ■a o ^ ft > APPENDIX. 117 a a CI o O o ■« o Q C is o * t; ^ . = ic •S "^ = o a « «■ "3 2 '5 00 i-l -— »- "O d 3* 03 ■f T ^ .S o ■-» (1> V. a -• 3 13 0; c-f r^ rf 00 «.H J3 I— ( o ^ C3 Z ■'• - ,3 — :! O ® = n m -xT :j — ' - a . — » H 00 -S ►< — . ^ x i> S * IT J: S = 5 rt . . Cf> ax CO a 1-^ ii 8 a X a u •a "3 eS i) CJ « s & 01 Vi >. g O ■ ; S a •3 >^ O o o a -^ » o a ^ :j> 00 '^ c; "5 00 '" «> o S a 2^ I 1 r! 00 :5 S " 5 ■= ^ ? 5 2 -4^ 2 11 •P o a b* d •^ o SS '^ a ii 00 i) .2 ? a O w r' oa O S *S t2 t. 3 13 i; ,^ ^1 ^ -a 2o =j>> in - ce a ^ ^ CS O ^ •" ^H HH 1-1 ;>> m S a H c3 «w o o o f» •"* !Z ZJ T3 .- EP :e S-" o » f* > *. u ci & o -3 a "S K si o§ 3 .a = « « ■*-» be -J a s > a 3 •=' ■*j lie;; i* i" a t- X ^ 2-° a ■£ >.= o .2 £ ^ "3 " bi 2 " 2"? ;: 00 «> a r- „ 3 CO o i; a o a it o 2 -S > "^ '^ B c3 O a ii — . , " m' & i ra CI J a f,"s -i S 00 a s ^ » s — "5 __ C^ ~ -5 a i) "2 i " " a fS 3= •• 5 o S- X 00 -^ . bj: rH « t. O. So X •* ci -3 - 12; CS S3 o a " o o ci o — — . irti i4 o o 5 "gg 03 " i, oo c; a ° aS ^'-' E "5 -H •a "o o a ° 5 • >. • A a X a "O H a (-. ^ _ o 2 » •3 .y -a X o 3 o a £, a X ^ o ii § J ^•2 a 2^ B'o -a r^ ^ o •-8 118 APPENDIX. 8 8 8 I— I a O pq Pi his small pro- y this: In my time farms eases of three >> 1 V zr. C X 2 H X -M 3 1 G *x 1^ X ci "x 1 ci 0) >. TO r. X 3 1 c '■~> c •Si a •S t 3 X ^ has not been rc- either have rents •d within the last, when it came into of my family .2 >. Zt.y- c c c t. c ■^ 2 CO '{-. - 5 ^ ^ *-* V e: O |S o fili 5 f 00 J CM 7 -5 > +J g •a CM C 3 ■^ X ir s c •5 ^ .2 £ 5 ? = = 1^- 1 "Z i t r i* ^ _ ^ — ' l" •— ^ 3 _ "5 c u ^ j: ^ "^ . rt ^ » O fc. ~ " ^ a = > ^ M 0, H ^^ H H «*-( r ^M ^ 2 a ta c V o a ■if ci o o ■■2 1 2 "S ■§.5 m a = 3 =^Tc .^ 3 h ci .2 g -2 S ^ 5« 5 ^ S £ t; « Z» >- s CJ 13 PS h-l h Kf ^ g t- =rt S 2I j? ^ C ^ (M c 00 ~ :i 00 2 ci ^ X +J h- H c — ■" J- -^ -t-^ , "7" a •- 00 "^ CD 00 ^ c> Qo *c £i 1 '" 3 ^ ;- C3 ;:; ^ 1 -♦J CJ g g; X 00 ^ 3 3f p u •a £ . c4 „ S *^ X a 1^ =^06.2 •^•T^ ce .^ a o > X' 00 =■■ ^ g 5 -, I C -1.^ •C +^ C3 „ CO 00 t. C' c; i ('.ja fc, J3 ^ rH =j -S 00 Q, ■g K 00 "* 7. 3 u • -2 « "5^ =« =-2 = 1. 0, w ca ,=1 fcl .g s (4 . «^. >i ^-' '^-♦m ^. "cS CQ a "S >i 00 ^ t^ a^fa 00 c cS ^ 3 6 5 =• c 2 f^ 13 3--^i I c « C 3 X CO •a OS ■j: I- r OS u H t^ :; s 0: j_' e« B •= ►- ^ c* ,£ :§.^i 1— ' £ XI c 4^ 1 Q c- O X • EC a S5 •g .•!• 00 P g c K J 12 1 a APPENDIX. 119 S! o * 5 t I CO 5 -a — c o T w «;; a - g o — m tn 2'- 00 1-1 .ic "O -c o c *j s ° S O O •■'■ 08 - O S 2 '^ i) ? — to 0£ C i> «.-,'? r ♦^ t, > o ^ _£ , .S .^ § O „.« OS £? a = £ •= =^ « 9 ,, M o C8 - ... a a a 11 o a 'rt CO 53 »— < -s a b o W) o c O) C) e. o c; e^ B ^ f^ d a o a V U, *n 3 o ci 01 ■a a "1 a 6 1 s o ~ K -US a ^ 9 OS •5 §55 •- 05 CC -^ (U O O -w =M rH ^ * 5 i a* 6£ a ' o OS .a O a ^"2 o >. ■" a °° a - o •* ,_, h- ^ "o * 2 • +J "^ 'r-* CD CO S CO g ^ « 43 a&g 00 . «■> oo ^ i-H «M o ire as .= ■* n «« 00 u 00 ^ a u o, OS J-, o ct . D a. .n > '^ OS CZ 3 61) ,q rH « o o US go O P-l a « <= 9 C O O I- cS cs|5 ■ u 120 APPENDIX. cJ Oh C5 O O in 5 ^ 3 I, ^ 03 5 tS =S 3 /-S „"■ ^ 3 2 -^ !N t- 2 g a 43 00 ^ I 05 0) ' a o 1-^ a - -:; - "^ 5- o S ia b "3 a * 9 -. 2 g r. s i> - S ~ • t; - o S 2 ^ ?! 5 .2 •a CO ,3 k- ti ^ - fe d ss --^ s ® .s .s a. > 5 a at > -a c* S -a 0) 3 H s s g " ■a.3 5 t? ^ ■" o 5 O t- !< ,2 a S » a a ■e a o o 58 .S c« 2 g S cf , 2 S 2I 03 fli 3- rt o a) "13 ■a a +-^ es ■ p-f. -i § s 73 ri « =« -1-3 0) 73 a 5^ -) y m ■+^ c; -1 J3 *"■ S -«-> -M 1—" a 0) CD a ^ ii DC GO 22 s - i-r ;a 5 a •4^ oi M a s is a ■"■ ' Si. O oi ; S 2 fe -^ .3 & « .a 4> O U hi ^^- ^ ■-+« « i Z! 3 a ^ CO ■« „ 5 00 -■ * o Hi 5rt S o o a Q< d » S15 S 2 a a a ^ a 3 a ;:i « 3 *^ « 2'C o a _ a> si- "■§a m '^ a 2 c2 ® o o a 3 a* a 00 _ Q> 00 a a 00 S 00 M u a ' o 1^; is X " "3 oT CO * I-( " 03 a 0-. a r-4 a> o O --(-I « a «.a 99 o a CO Ph — bo •a n 4^ a 1 > rn si n ■4-» 1) a a S ^ •♦J a u o 03 O 03 3 a if B h cfi en b <=> o aJ 3 ^ ^ o3 t5 73 73 -»5 ■1) a n a 3 rt 0) hI a c! » OJ a -^ CI.' r^ (L, F! u a 3 J3 ■j) M ^ ^ O B_. s =3-=) «fl- H^ _^ ™ « ^^ a 1^ > 73 r" "^ 5 3 APPENDIX. 121 a> =3 *3 F* •»^ ^H n w . a •o Zj GO >* ij' -s S3 ;^ P« -^ TJ t-i v; 'O •4^ -^ I §^ r: S a - *— . -iJ i-l c^ .« ^- ^ / ?; ■« — o '-• a r* » 91 «.> a o is -1 00 go U 3 71 5 '■" 1 o 0) 3 3 a ■p a O •2-5 ? = t* cS <«H 5c w s: » o X CS a o 1 1 <- 3 O 3 c — ^ o o o a o ^_^ OS 3 C5 *-» •" (P = — 3 ■J. ft. ^ 3 if. "3 ^ ^ .Z ■3 u> « t; p. » = ? u o .3 •- r* c* 5.2 cS m g t^ S => * a « 5 o o a 2 D B -.^ >, ^ 3 S| 3^ S QO s o t< « 1 -4-3 = .^s' o 0) s « 3 t: -= i -§ Ui E 9 k- 3 o « « c o. c^ -JJ 3 I C3 «— 4 If O H t a O o j5 -= -*j o « a .Q o a> o .3 a > tn OS t« c; ^— a .a o 3 i^ a '^ St o 3 m 33 at o a :^ V .a _fcH- - 0^ ,^' i ? s - X ^ o >1 *H -H 00 o ol M t, ■/. u s S ^ c c^ 03 ,n 'x o 4^ ^ CO CJ "; a e ^Jbn" z^ ^ ^ 71 ^ ^ a i:£ ^ s ^ o c ? -d ■» - i: 3 S. 3 ; .sp ~- i: - _ 3 OS — -. c a: . . >> C S S 3 c X >^ • +J C3 0) ^^^ = t. rt -^ •!-• T3 -, ^ £ i t^ t^ -^ •■3 g -2 -3 5) t-4 * ■■ gj a b P 3 30 ^ V C3 g £ " O - i 3 2 'o 2 S «• ^ ;; - „ « p. n< OS S £ .s « -1 o o •-; s — 4> -H > 2 3 li J3 ^ cS 3 i. " *i o -^ S " ^' « ^ tJ > ^ p. cS a a,'^ . = ^ 3 a x '-' ^ o = - i- 2 a -' o ■- • -s "2 o c S .. a .,3 ^ a J, ^ 'T^ . +- 03 C^ w: 3 ■s ij -a a) — cs s 3 . <^ S § m 5 2 5 *" o rs •<- 3 o- a §1 oj e> a ^ 0) "P tn K k p o S ^ X o t) .a PS Pd 5g a (M a -' o •^ O OS 4> °* a is Is^ C.^ «^ 9 3 a .2 g >. 6 O 3 s ■*-* o ai:.Sa o X -X X 3 iJ S .2 ° is-g * -. - -9 +,1 o-" a a 1^ III a o w d S 0) 2 bo 52 1.1 122 APPENDIX. ■d m <" .2 K C« O .O o w t •rt « s 00 «s fl si ^^ 0* B- o si o n "U . <(^ 2 a o PS Oi •^ hH 03 5 « 01 ,C3 > H E n .2 •So § a « c< •5 ^ s S3 cc 0) a" « a) a; »— ;- Oi 03 a ^ fj ^ »-( c -o o M S DO Ui a; a -O a J2 S cc — H o CS T3 X 0^ o be p -^ 'e I— I w K O a Coo buM I o c <= 3 ' a -d g ^ - j; ^ *3 a ~ ■is a^ C "C! OS -s S S " ■!- O X oj a> g, t^ DO 4) r2 0* rt *j3 S r; *- t-i fci Tl a < o Tl "3 a Oi a oj a a V. §§1 ^. la . 03 03 ^ t. S SO 85 i H a ^ kj 03 03 <]< 11 »— » ■gS a 5^ tl -<-* 03 c9 -«-* as o >- o APPENDIX. 123 £ 5 F <^ b 9 "■ 5 a> 7 X " > 2 H OS S -H ^ e* t. " ft • = a OX! •^ .'#1 H 2 ee 5 tcS c o O £?£ s o r- -w cS S .i ^a p. ^ I-" 0_' K •o PS o £ n a (». "3 X h-i >5i <1 fcq <1 W r/; ^ 1— 1 w P5 f^ :z; H < O ^ p? m o < « ^ o H K P O S O •ft o o OC O CO ^ t^ «» » •C ^ •-> •-• «tJ l« ^ c; -*" • . • . . . . • • « b s 0. o M _c • 3 5. -^ a 3 • • • o t a o '^ -< 1 o o > (3 5 — "o £ a''' c; ■o u •^ a s 5 x: o -ij a «d cS u O t*. .a ^ H *<-• ■a •— \ > 1^ o o o o o CC o » i; s • o © o o o « as 1 o fH " 1 l-i -M a «*? «? o lO «o •o l* ►- U5 o 1— t CO (N C4 M C^ « t^ M • • » • r-t 5 w ^ "^ 1 1 -^ 4^ 'i s £ « »— • '3 of. « c 3 ® £i T ^ ^ tc-S •PH .5 3 >^ — o fe 3 ;^ rt e3 .« P* "S- a o <:M o i£ o ^ 00 a 5S .>; a 'cc « S » 4^ "■s a .■» a a> ^ — +j a ® a ^ £ « •^^ "S £ ja . ^ "*"* o tr *i p^ C « o .a o e^ c^ S a >v S $ C3 a> a a a — Ji :« »-H ^^ • ^ S| 9; « r-i '^ 3 cr. o i: •M & v. *J Oga J3 =« ^ p ■^ •—• a; > S o — c f- it E^ "" a ^. 2 Q.-~ « a CJ " o CC *-* ^ ■e S "S s oS* ai " a=i •^ c; 1^ « '7' 1- ^ •w c: a IT ft V 1. s-g pi oa ^ t • ^ 124 APPENDIX. S3 .2 >. Is g 5=5 ^ _ j ^ t.S -^ .= =1 - S S g 1 « 3 2 ^ 3 S ^" « X 3 - 2 a S t g ^ --S a ti ° = g I _• a --. 5' ^ o y. o o .^^ ^ t; -^ -^ ■3 s X > o l>5 o "S ^ 2 -^ o _ _ ,^ " i 3 j3 2 3 ^ .f4 ^ P ~M z> T -«j ^ zti 2 ^ 3 >» F-^ -!-> u. -J 3 ;-H > p « fl -w >, Zl -t-j ^ 3 ■/2 ^ r; =] ;^ -<^ S O 1— c .« 02 O -^ a 5- :e S a ODD >. s a II ^ a CO "^ u s 5 P. S a m " " i-i t-H « -< :5 *■ a < SS CS 2 -4^ t3 fl « »o ■^ :i» C-1 C-- ^H rr -/; fi *-< ^« •n< •^ a M r-l '^ i-H ^ . ■a . . ■ . . . ;-i - . a ^ •U « c ■r ^ ^ a ^ £ a -J a a S X if >> v. » :s a a OH ^ o » S ^ a 00 __ a §.2P a' a g >> 3 « 3 g S x S ci 3 a r. ^ bcfl g ca 2 « a ^ o ila c =^ ® 3 ej)> ri M ^ ->: cs 01 ■"r ^ op J ~hj a >, X X a s as en •r a X 3 3 2 n -«-» ZJ a a > 3 s at 00 "a a a = a =5 3 ri J- +j » ""I a ■^ D a> '"> u i-^i a 0J3 > X ^ a ^ 5S m g ^ cj H t>> ^ W J3 ■0 I— 1 2. «4H U3 a a es <% 5^ s a 3 a> ^ =1 J= 0*^ a tt 5«; APPENDIX. 125 ■^ >. c S . -s =, £ 1: i. - ^ "^ .2 .:; = i i: fc. ■^ .S ^ .c > x § 5 a U 4^ c — :i o , *" *^ c: - -^ !- w — c fe X s " 5: •= :l. ^ -- « - ^ _ — J- .,- "^ o :: 7. " . ^P^-g'-g. c^£=S'^a= 2^.i'5St:5 --g.-^s'S 7i^-=e5^5. -^ip°|5=^ ^^--3-1^-. S=--i-2j| o . O c ?; i- - X — ^ w 00 >. ." a B >. g 8 I. Q, Si ^ ;^ a s S cS > a — ^ § a> -*i OQ C3 A ;: cS ^ =*i C.2 c> ? a 00 a S § ■^ .2 - 8 a d 12; >> £ s X - .:: o .-' o — ^ c ;r •§)£ .So i::© ksk S^' fir;— ci^/ S^er 2wO B- fttio ^ ^^ 2 Ip S *" 5 ^ .a- OS W rf "a >. S S 2^ -So S © 2 -Ji -i: 2 S ff 1 fl =3 ^ - 2 § i £ .2 '^ •a g a ■4-1 S oj a 1 '5 a 5" X B U » •J 1-3 126 APPENDIX. s to s X < o < 1^ o 4-^ 1 1 g o >• i a «^ r-i >^ s CJ it J it a o a X CO 00 it a ci >> a o CO CO 1 ,a 1 o 1— ( o it a « 5 X a — o 5 S a -^ a a a ^ s a a 1 a '^ X IS not been re- y knowledge, uor rd of its being of X c* X r rating purposes \ gross estimated licli was used for £^ X X 9 a Cj '3 1 X .2 >» X 5 X o2 o o > a ^ X ■/- t»^ >. 93 p ♦^ ■/- CJ i 1 X X 0) it X CJ ^, x" >> 1 ^' a CO oi b/ Cj 1 /-*. W 2 > CO 1 S i O -^ Ik. ^ Cj •4-1 o ]x 2j OJ 5 i a ^ X. O a .2 a § 1 CJ a/ H H o a si a -i a O a c £ ^ d o o x 0^ c; CJ O _CJ 05 O H CO 71 Zj o "3 1 2 5 53 o = 2 ^ -J. " Ida 2ol a a aJ « 60 - rH rH '-< *-< _r a o O -C2 a? X CJ o a o pH 5 h5 1 - u ^ a ° -^ ^ it " CJ ^ o 4-» CJ ^ - >-. ^ o i»-. 1 ^^ o > \aii o ^* = ,a TO Sj > S ^ X ~ a-g- e; ft 5. •i S V. 3 a i "^ ^ 5 ^ O U :; 1 "1 2 .^ ■-5 «> p. X — P " «r ^ is" ■2 « i: i "^ " CO CO a o lii . o 2 o s iJ o a o s-^ ■- u — S xr-5 B r» • - C4 S o p,*^ a CJ 2 "2 " o rt ^ f— « X HI "3 " CJ i-H ift I— I OS CO 5 ?i a >.s -^ a a o pc CJ X5 it f |5 •5 a ^ o=^- it cS ?> " " " ■^ hH ^ I^ 0) ^ b^ ^ T. •2? cd J2 ^ =4 ■A 1 cS s- O ffi 01 'H 11 w 44 Is 1 a O 3 a >5 1 • APPENDIX. 127 w — ;? O ca 5h -ra •— » a -2 g 2 cT -2 o .2 ® o ^ -" •" i- oj 0, ^-2 -s ;: -*^ ?;'"-'-"■/"; ~ ^w *-' iZ .5 a "^ •- -S IJ y^ u .-• i> • ,^ § S S a ^ S .= i; cs .= ^ caaooo oiiSoS- ■S "* cs ,, o -3 3^ aj 2 S « J.2':s2;3 gag-S^'-^ iiliii^ llillll O ^ . — . aj o rt ^ ■s pa <» ^-^ 2 _ o o « 1^ .3 -d "-'8 2 9 ?! OS fl — — o ? a 3 ^ bh a u ff sJ as '^ a a -2 « o a -a si ■- B " s 3 128 APPENDIX *j s ;- CJ ci Ph P o P o J3 .2 ^ o re o a ?• -g VI 5 ^ o O APPENDIX. 129 •a s- — G a o o c o ' » 2 -A C -g 2 o S o ^ W ♦^ X 2 "= >- ■" "" H 1 >. i = = " c S "" — ? =i ii 2 = tr5 g-= bo taj- S a .2-=. = 13 g r 5 - rt05jt3;^ff-*a — ■ » X •3a ui 00 u 00 3 rt -3 a> S M •«*• « a bo S-9 0- OJ i-= Vi +i «:> p< BO •— • M S OJ S ^ ^1 ^ ^•00 . • CO o .= = c -g « ^ I. o i; g »• ^ = •?= r_ o5 ? H In • • «tl oo CO CO «rt t— « a a hn f^ a A a « 60 p< a> o 2 ■=1 2 ro 6 « 00 ~ !5 0) c S 03 :c it O rH J = 5^ •'■ ^ -/ s .A :r tj 03 t; ^35 Z^ ZJ a >% I cS : 00 ft, O c; - P 2„c '"'So 2 2 ^ r-i IP U5 2 ° a a c3 .^=: d, ft & O CO >^ "^ *J 00 :3 e« e3 X 03 3 i - ■* u^ — ^ r^' QO m ■-' *"■ w S O O ft CJ d CO « *"* fH "^ X) '^ ^^ rt X ^^ w ■" -« ^ 7:! x: CO M 1, u o 2 a O 00 5; oo a '-' rt CO « QO & -5 g «: >% ft C3 a* o o '-' OS o « s a .a -i? S O t- o « 13 -=• a fc, a) s o d o i' <1 c3 •25 •a !5 a rf T. a £ « (J * _rr -* fli •" ^ :i O , 3 3 -' - = ^^4 = "■« o o a 2 o 1^1 U --^ 130 APPENDIX. l-H K o o o 5 <» " n ot >n> Z 2 S (TI Oi (M i^ IM IN «^ - - 1- -. '— ' l-sl-Sl-Sl c ^ w 1 ^ rt g e « = S 3 rt g s £ ^H »— SSSP^iSii i5 <1 -*^ <; < ■^^ . 1=1 •=0 c APPENDIX. 131 o c. ^ o t" <^ s 5 ;. .5 o t». -• X -5 o S.5 t~* o •a "is J3 O 'A ^ " u ii .ip m /- S ~ - ca ." K 2 5J "* ~ 'J — •s •-> C -C S 3 2 -.-i -s t- § "^ ^ .So ;§ -S 5 ^ !5 ^ J 'r "^ o o = " S ? =^ £ o z 2 .o a 03 ■a 1^ ■♦-J o o .3 3 s u r' e a S ^ o o a a> -*-> rt rt VH >% (U >^ +-> ■ in o r^ TTl «« ^ 5 0) T3 ■^ o rt -«-' ^ o" SO o c; -i oi .ti a t« „ ■2 *- ^ o g a o a o - - ■ o* ^ .« cr-^ m rt .y; F^ ^ .a ri -fcj -s r3 o S.a 9 § - o 2 P< s grH|»> -S t- eS ,= O c; -^ o -x 'o « g « 2 -^ *M ^^ O 1 V ■w 3 cj a m .-H ^ ;i >. o C rS J= 01 1- << H^ -X -w ^3 . CI t^ ci Cj a^-a C H 5 o 1-1 .; rt « 1 o .-5 a. ago. o a ''^ ^ . a 00 O !- S fO O I ^* C^ -- OS a 00 £ T'-^ '^ o 2 rt *: = a ^ '^ • »-- '-' c _ . a _^ !- O S (M .- Xi S- D. 00 'i. »~" u a 02 — o >-> o rH .::; i-( a '^^ ^al-Haoocojsoo'p, '". ^S«-S^ C5«",a. "o o" •r'^'I'a ^^iH'^- oooo>-iO. ro«'T^-i i-H x "-I til c^ — rt ? .a ^ »: ^ M S" -■^'' o ^ '^ ■§ 5 "^ -S' a ag2« '^■:J5- -hJ- C "O a» S CO PHpg a a \fi cs o o a o XI u, a cS _ !1h g en o '^ c; a c» -a a -iJ es a ^ «s a, « a:§ Oh din «!3 II >« 2 ts 3 ■" •=3 I. o s ^ 1^ D C o 2 "2 ■S tJ ■« S 2gg 3 -.J "3 O a; o o a ~ f w > j;^ rt £ ^^ c* 'p J ::; eS n o o o 9 ■3 o » B — » s 03 >M ,£5 " r3 o 1^; a o i. o i" a s 11=1 be Pa a rs >* a t- -i: o I— I w H < «- O IN o >■ •a ^2 y -— ^3 a C cj c« -*j n !>. -^ Cj ^ O. « ^ o o CO p. ,_^ GO 05 ^ I— ( o 00 l-H r-« o. c3 O OS S " ^ C a> ^ "^ rs 00 a ; c! 00 a, £Q «: *" xa ■a 3 ja m O ^ =0 = fc « a 2 5_ ^ > o s 2 g S "5 >. a A OS —' be x« •3 « o "" 5 a^ X 0) « CO o CO a ^ ?5 cj a ■3 .a -■ -*-» ■3 *J ^ a bp-; BO =3 o u CI p o ^—^ is 13 a a at tH 01 ! ^^ a X X c3 OS a a = 2 ° "2 ■ 3 ? o g S be es ' 2 5 .ti 05 "« a a a a "A 60 •3 2 '"o o P2 > en tit ■3 Carv enco t. CI aa = 1 . n vj 2 a 1. o X '' o > n o if t ;^ 5 >> o J. t- S u ^ ^ a a i cS ce ■J. ^ CO -* S > r. V o t- If. «s -o I" -r — •— .a - o CO 00 X M ,:: =s r: = 3 c r O i/ o y a •c " &i !? tr - o ." i^ u 1- u ^^ a o « ^ i/ &4 •^ tc _^ x< o =; B c — OS O ^ C '^ ■w •M > — a "■^ Cl a C ^ ££ -:; <;: K P r! es ^ •s '-= n« « o *^ m 00 = 00 o (C a a a ^^ o N n § ? ^ "' o - >= - = - s c " " t. oa a -— P :r O c3 "= O .= & „ «J ^ ^ Co ^ .> -t^ p, p. o 2 d •-: ^- 00 00 '± a^ Oj A ■^ 00 X .• C » X o ^ ■- " -^ ^ a G« ;i- &. ^ Sr iT JT '" a-j ttj CO 2 S o o ? § C 00 c X ^ X - c:> CO O CO — X Xi . ■— < --^ ^ o „ -'. ^ X '^ , ^, CI ■"■^ o acj ^ C5 c< C^ o ^H ^H o »ft X « -; -^ ;2 c^ , .. :_ 1; C3 ■^ cr r' ^ _ Y C3 ^ - C 'C rf -^ ■^ /. P-, — ■*-> O -/. ~ <; lO a C! ,__ S o !— ~ "^ % *■ >» £t - -w cz " — P ■^ T T) i. — , -, ''. U •1^ "^ -- f^m X ~ C3 — ■ p-« C^ C^ Ci c; ci c- X X X 00 o. "^ »! ^' lo l« ® ^ ^ b 5s" '' 2" ^« = ^ ^ en fH ^ H^ . o 2^ ^ O c3 .sh a 5 g-S go •3 E OB >.2, W c ? s • t. - — ee o - = c » = r »5 c p o u Em I ►4 " C rt E K 134 APPENDIX. S a K m H o o o ■ a c o . , rs >. a o ^ >> O U U CO O P M m O O c3 ~ 3 "" _- ^ 4> 2 > 5; fl ^ g Oj i- O ^ 2 -a < o 9 w. o *^ up a — o H^ bl 5 -^ CJ 2 *J TT « <« p^ , - t< ^ 3 cs a - -a « •-' -- .-■" ^ 2 <^ 5 C ^ F- C3 *^ S fc. ■■« - "O .2 ^ S 2 I §•= ' o fe o « S , -- -> o ■•■« s s a . i cs a O a .s t3 o *« ''^ CO g ^ !-< I- ^ o a ^ •§ g <« a ^ rt ^ a ci o =M ^ „ 2 — JD O K = 1 *- 2 5 p S = p,.g M S m a >: QJ p.; K g2 S O A ■w o u, •3 o o 'a o ' ^.TS t? a ■" ^ i: a g =^ ts rt rt a i ^ Cj O o o c.'S — is '^ a - K -p " u^ O 2 =S '^ C) ^^ *^ "ti .a r a e» S ^ o o a o o, t^ dJS ^ "" <« OS « " S -/' . 'a * '^ a ig.22Sg < f-H CO us o CO g; ':^ 00 S m t. i >i ■^ CO i « S a ■-< ~ -^ t^ a •- « o =* o a tj g rt a 00 ii t, 00 a '^ £60 0, ■^ a " o =j p,-7 a ^ -g o >^ c^ ^ 5 o s a '3 *j o o •S a CJ .— CO ci o ^ 5 fe a o o o t- '. O •5-5^5- ?r3 g 50 ' a *j o a ^ o o - » t» a P. a ..•= o o . ^ o ^ «^ a — cc a. - "i 2 o ♦- ;. t-l M O ^ " o •a S:? fl) ^-^ •^ '^ rs S ^ CJ 03 cs a cs O CO « >. ^^ .q o o u C3 a -n n o a a be O: CO g ^ a °^ Ol ^ ^ i C ^ =^ ■» 1;^ cS -"" a Cj ^ be CD'S ^f bo O =s S. S a" a ii 3 « o, a o >- >« "^ ea »- M L» C3 9 H O 60 ® a >-"3 APPENDIX. 135 <:.= o^^ t i i 5 2 •- =» S X ~ X '" = = C « t *^ — 08— — -Z]'-" c t. o o a cs „ .= -=■'■ = = = " c -o ? 5* >■ g w o " « o -" g ^ T^ « M s; - o - - .= : "3 .i .i a X .3 "O *j a o 5 •S o r> 1=. g& a CI <,- c =- c; B -^ b S X S >, ** Tl CJ'" o Iz; ^ '= "3 ,.' o S :^ o 5 ? '-3 t^ .w r^ " ^ 00 S ■■•sg o ^ -w -W -H p< a> CEO •^ ^ »3 • cc « o ■>: I-" "^ r-i CO c ^=te--+{ 9§ o OQ _o o a •o ■U> CO P -H a " 3 « o '^ — rft o p. CO o CO »-< . X <; i. 00 ^ 'i 'H CIO > O o g"- 7; . ?r 2 2 CN 00 --- — cc CO s -r 5 '-' V rN "^ ^ » -o '^^ i- s "■ T <^ ^ > : ,a s r^ ..i: >> ~ 7i z . ci "O s^._ £ ^ t _ :e "5 ^ X ;'> & "^i 1-) o ' a o u « ~ s S - a'-~ •3 ^ •-:5 = - i; '^i to 'T* o • CO »:, ^ « • 00 •- ^ a. "^ ■-I ;; 00 ^ ?: ej CO ■= o _, S* ^ ^ g T-i ^^ I— t a i* «• "it. -* "w r; 5! O s = s X !;s o ^ ~ !- a cS — ' ^ ?- oo 2^ ^ - fls I -2 M o 2pS _C5 ^ ^ t: tc -2 a o « o •B o "* s O •O .' .' §32 -' = H ^-^ U C8 o^O ■6 a "5 o •" g o a 111 acr 5) ei . t 2 a to ^ L. o o 5 -= I — jr a c3 •^ 1-1 's s* 1-5 = u a a' k"2 "o" Cj - M i> c = " a :r- ^ F^ S ? - — S - ^ 3 J- S 5 "3 -; — . s-.'o « g c == ■ - 9 « OE. O O o . »^ eS -I •7 b" O > 4» 126 APPENDIX. ts K CO J?; w O a 2 w 0) a u C -; o X 2 >, ^ b£ U !►»■" x-i a o « ►- J3 J= 1 .5 ^ 'a s g p 0^ 3 c '■/. ■a ^ a 2 o r= ^ — a> « ■^ o a "5 > a o £ u s •r. a 2 o = '-00 -t-J u' s o i a •3 o 3 C n o a S ■■'■- a 'S +f ^ a "^ •^ U ei C c a tr. o 00 >• j3 u a: 1 i 7". X (^ -4^ _5 2 a .a o OS i ^ 2 *« X s >• 5 •5 ■^ rt sl|!l OS Zj B o ■■■5 p ri ■f. 1 C .ti "3 > i in CO 5 -^ :; p "Ss ■3 .i w 03 ».• • »= -t? . '- •"" a o- x^ -*2 «^ ^ xn P IP^ 1=^^ Jb o ci . - 1 i:!-iii ■t^ ZJ 9 r^ « — c - — c ~ •:3 •=-i2 c =^ fj ~ " t- - lilili S ** rt — x .- ;: 3 K* Hi^ ^ •3 o a o 2:= O 3 S -tJ •"" etf r 1- ^'t 5 s .a 1 •S E- a S — ^ - - ^ . F^^ GO y >- -f 00 a o •^ c t- :i CJ g '^ o 1—1 *^ a « .• s ao- — 00 ;^ k. •" >c — o s '"■' s "^ """ ".t ^ -M C^ o 2 ° *"■ r. ''i r- ' © 1 s 2 2 CS .2 u ^ ^ ^ ■' zi > 00 " o -; X 00 — X p- rt j—K v^ « . OC CO « CO — X *^ O CO a >-. -H 1-. ^ — -^ o c CO ^ O i-H a: o o t^ c; l- o ^^ u 'ao 'x ■J. o o tfl t^ o , 2 »« cc Cj » p^ a CO 13 a 5 00 t*N o • * • ^ ' ' fe: o a s kl • a 1 1—1 ^ •a '^ >^ ' "3 en o C o S ZJ O a d ■-5 o -a a K a e zj 2.~ a s C9 ^ >> w ^ cc a '~ .s o ii^ 1" ps £^^ »«; H a APPENDIX. 137 C -S o ^ ^ 2 S - •-- c w c^ '' Q ■-, y -* S r 5 s o e ^ "■ I 5 " --^ •^- » « ^ — o ^ > . ^21 C ci ^ o -a B O — p — « ;; o c "" s .■^ S O S — -"• 5 ^ fc- X ? *^ — ? r^ e3 o t- c o 3 a -" — 5 ^ i- 3 ■ ~ "" — ^ "*^ c •- >- i-i £ 2 — = c v £""3^3.. f" ^ c " c - « S- 5 S ? 5 w p — t, = fc a* C t- V C • ^ CS <" ^ O rN X ■*-> Cj X -*J cc '-^ „ 5 - ' CO '^• --♦< o 2 a h >• M oh CC . " 00 ^H rsi ■*- ""^ CD _^ — O p- •— ' » .« ^ — -^ _ '- ^ " Tl ,™ .o tn n 3 -^ " ■-^'" ~ - ___. g E o ^ K ?;■?•" ^ O 00~'-=SoaO -C«Sx"2 t^'i? .. ti' !r 2 "P f ,-: 2 ?! C a _ bu I. X -d C-. ^ c 00 r s X <« ^ 1-1 o o ™ o . 00 »-^ o a ^- '^ 3 'S o .t; 2 B o 6 ^ "t: .-,1, tj -d 3-3 ^^ O a; ci iJ I §2 S " i = j au^ SB i^ g« ^^ P 5 _ . ^ § ^_- •- o ? a j. ■« . ;:;« o >. b£ -H I-; K \ a -a ,,' — ■^ 00 a W3 CO M •y 13 CO o I— 1 o ^ o -i M w CO S cs CO c- o no ^ rH r') O > <:i *S r. r. iK — 3 >. o a t "d o J3 "D n -.J o M C .2." — C rt 'rt a "3 IQ oo (U I" V a ©•5 is a . ^1 138 APPENDIX. M H PS So .2 >» ■3 55 PI O s 13 O o ' o fT Ol n Cl> 1— » o a ^-1 X fl +-I ^ c: ,^ o o *- A ■^ a. X U C 73 -«^ >% a 4-> ^^ ^3 rt '^ — 'S C£ o O % X ^ oT p. "^ ? O ^.- >. ^ (A 1^ X i; T* ai o Q ■-^ O a is -tJ >» f» C o .2 'T 1> (TJ C; a* »- ' ~ o cfi o ^ o a g i « s g S' - S. O) G C C I 5 ='- o - ■ 3 - a a ^ _( ■— - * ^ .s s •= ■^ o -- *^ c o o ti •S -c ^ ;r; a „^ :5 ^M a « o" — " 5 ^ '-+< '-^ H ° ° ^ O "M iffl 5tt 5 > _ 00 > ci » a ci o o O ■r. P^- ri a -=> ° S ^ o o i' ^ ^ j£ <^ a C3 « -•00 -; >0 - -Z " l>i ' o - •- >^ a .^ a o i £ i a -n 9 cs B > ^ ^ ? £ o ■V ! :j; a ti ^'— *: •^aj^:.. SSjig L* " •"' P - "^ ? ^ . ^ ^ -i ^x ■« O 5b^ r T ^ ^\ 2 «: •r. -r. — J3 -- CO C-* 2 q-t :^ tj ^ i-H , V5 a jJ "o o e a a cj bo h-l ^ o 1^ APPENDIX. 139 bi 02 o »- > O :: ^ ^g -J w ^ ^ O X > t-H "■ — = o >^ B ■«^ ^ CO ^ t. -, •^ 00 1; y-y - S.5 o ti 73 ." ri ^ £5« — ^ 3 ^ ^ ^ S *« O H Fe- ces ito, . -« cs 5 1^^ a s .s _ u " o '^' F^ X -«-* ■"■ '5 ^ ^ = -' L-5 15 o a o S o z; M " « -. jj o « ^ - c; SS C3 *^ J- c3 '^ a S s '^ o OB X es ■J-. OQ "S = H « r S S .2 o ^ o 5? 3 = . =6 «~ ^ i /- -i Cl ^ CI >^ CO »— ' u — -^ 3 — c: ■71 cs H^ = cc X 1^ o P4 GC o rH c* p« QC or 3 ■^ 00 1— « r' O tiJ :^ h ^ fci es c: o o t~ ^ "C 00 p c ==■ I a - -■ -3 O o s a --^ 5 . — S _ fct •a s 0.3 O o3 140 APPENDIX a ° 2 >• I— I w CO w H P5 <1 IS o >. % x-g a s o s 1 ^3 fn o a cd ^ (n a> CC c; p. o _ '*' ~ C cr^ o — a — js o s o ^ o o o '« o o a =s % a o ^- s - ^ -^ " -^ 73 to ^ 5 ?; ■« 5 '+-1 CD fc- O ei c 5 ■2 ^ o . o '- o cL -'^ ^ ? ' p X '^3 2 -i ■« >» g o a si a 2 =iQ t -i " !^^ " •?, b>> <^ S to 9^" " »-! » = ^. 2 o -s o t^ ^ a ■ a -a IK' C-. ,-1 X ■-I cs ^- a P P5 « Q a M J3 a O <> Q c! S to tJ << CO 5. _ " -a f- k >ito « oo isig _: -^ a cat: c; o t- a > •- " S ^ a c £ 2 f1 >« <5 o •n •a R a rt ci o hJ a cs >^^ •a o 3 i: nag* • a a t* a a ofa U I- o O oc 'T- HH '2 '^ T ^ C M I'. 60 w| APPE^^DIX. 141 ■Z Ox: X o > 08 -r o .1^ R P4 CO ■/. o en O Et u hn ^ *-» rr. t* 3 Ci O QO «.) a a ^ i-t •F-l cs M -3 « u c; ^ o >.t3 rt a r > (X ■J 2 -d o ^ C3 a fe i 03 1") C3 3 ■w •^^ rO tS o -4^ o o *x H -o >. C) PJ -1 > ^ CJ h en O ffl .a CJ hH o l~ -«>J r^ CI Q> rH fH a C) O (h o ^ 3 -4-> <*-( "2 « s •M to "5 _ 8- 2 i5 « Pi « U at (T. ri a hm 3 f, 0) Cj a a "3 a a fl 1 f o a 2 xn O 5t{ X o 'f' J 3 a •-'03 a ^^ ai O rt o o •^ -S ^ - ■u o a ♦J a .S :S a> o 13 ^ O) P- e* »s a 2 'A »o s ocfii 00 =5 d. 00 " 00 M *-4 a^ o P £ .5 ^ a o"' •-H rt :5 GO ^ „ I— I S > ■" a ce P rH a Q «« X CD ■^ 00 cd CO 1-5 - cc ^ CD — i-H O CS ■a i-l o ^ 1^ fS o SS a a?;;i 5 °3 CO 3 -^ H^ ^^ C3 13 ^ a "O Oi 00 >, a a " |g -= bo a) . a r ==J i - be rt r. a "a 0) a * o o -3 d, :t •/; o I 13^ o o •; o u rt a c^ eft 5 * a a rt o a o -s 5 a "O " p ■'^ rt a 01 ^ , <; O o a =s -" o S a a' a tw -< i> >> fc. o o TV ■" .a '" 3 o •a 4J =* Tl ^ 3 si S a &< B^ 2 it-- 0. t. w .e-^o 3-^ CO • iS. ^ ^ ^ m CJ 01 a. «^ u a o 1-5 S I a ho o c3 -» o. >. CO a ■3 ^ ej bo n 142 APPENDIX. o ja m o a V "d w rf) eH a o o X CJ o >■ m hH ^ O , "T, tt ^ ci .if a "S S I 'I t> Ci o - ii > o f- M -^ "S 5 "= ^ 5i 5 2 •= o '^ 2 o T! C3 ^ cS ««H m cc M .— < ^ o o ^% o -«-) c; a «J t; ■r ri -*^ ^ Of ! - 5 t> I S i b- ; B o - - .y _ ' a -^ " o • .S o S. r tn 5* o 4* p ^ ^<2 ■== cc - o j= o ~ r- o ".So. o 9 = £'& *; *j .^ o w a ^ r— CO "^ c C3 X -3 >■ ex o o B <. a i: o ^ - — o - .b ■ ■5 ^ " s^Hqgs o 2 c "^ •2 lb ^ ^ OS s s s 1^ K H O 03 fc: •?. y .2^ S i- c --rt 5-= - .a "3 •a a o S P o X !| ;= ^ i S C ti d w 'S ^ ci ci ^ "^ lO "^ iC '^ s a l«5 1.0 '^ l~ t^ -'■ 00 CO CO 00 ^ t- CC' cc X CO ^ g^„ ^ ^ OO >> '^ - !S S " S S S S M S !? a ^ V 00 : ^ 2 2 bo ."2 ^ a o -LrH ^ C 00 a -S O -I ^ a t) t. tc"^ a >>u_. ^3 ^ a o — is 00 1^ ■ •a ,_i ^ -^ -a T-" >» y -J u S •a p cS eo M (N O • 00 » - p. 00 d CO o "3 ^ a p a2 i s ^ a 3 a f^ 2 CJ =^ "3 .M ,B — 60 .a o ^ a -^ F o to I-; a . >» a 5 Is APPENDIX. 143 - o fl *^ «-- aj c 3 S " o Vi ? 2 o T» _ •A a) X ,', 1' — ■ o a> ? h g a ;; <2 ■*~» cj .. o o fl '/. CJ X E ■J. "^ s r. 73 *-* ■f. — ;— ; OJ ^ o a ^ 1 u ■/. ;- O 2 CJ C ■/, >i '/. ^ ? r. ,r: r — 5 rt ^ ^ o r^ ^ '- -" c ^ n ^ cr ■ •-« c r- ■" o ^ CA r-i ■3 p C^* '/I T 5 EC 3 ■I. "B. t: hH ci< O E — V. c j: = -^., -■^afS'H' 2 . ;:; -a " .5 r o _ , - j: k, -• i? ij ■i; ?! c; ■/. — 2 p, tc ? s 3 3 " w Ol j^ O i; '■ J 3 - ■- ij ti .3 — -tj o :^ •- • S ci X' " ^ ' £ w ■5 § S -5 .S "" 'S "^ o o c-i CJ IX o ^ •a !. 3 o cr o > — 1 4:1 " ii a =1 igl 7: -tj 3 CO " 3 O CO "^ o 'C3 t-< -^ ^ !i 3 o 00 "2 .ti 2 CO ^ +-» O "-^ O Q ^ c-1 Ms <» s. > CO <» O 00 CO c-1 > _ » o rt 1 ^ CO ti "H '" " 3 0) n 53 J= 3 5 ■« ^33 t: X O) s -^^^ -J 1"^^ ! rt CO - ; J2 .-I to ^ *M 3 000 ;h Ct c rt cj ■f p: T* ^n 00 ^ c •^H CX) 1-^ ft -•■J 7; 71 -0 C % C) 3 f^ r- ti v: o ^ 3 "^ O C J CO o ■g ~ 5 QC 3 o ^3 *- o J« ''S e£ "-3 g - -c i fee cs a .s s a Oh o Ch CO ^ o is o 3 o ^:;5 3 j; ,3 b a> Oi > ^ a •^ cc rt a H T' u 2 t4 5H 144 APPENDIX. ji — -; ^ ?; =i H = •3 = ^^50 ^ ^^^ =S bo >. - -S C' O w H « a ci J3 +j o s '^ ja jq S S 5 =^ 3 U , ^•P ■4J m o '/; © ' .— -u ^ ^ ^ c^ o ^ ? 't! •♦^ ji? cj p -'- s a 5- o 2"^ " >; ^H 60 . CJ ^ ^ u "x a u< IS •M rt 5 0. S ■= a - S SJ 3 ^ =* 2 eg g o a "" 2 i* so C - ^ S S 2 " *" =">, p, g - ^ « ^ 2 ?4 *, ^H B H S S 5 aj Et '<< >> < aj C < a :S B "-! u ■/J ^ « - b tJ cj . S ?* a on e 1888 Mich , 10 2 -r ■ — « ^- :; = c o^ TS 2 3 *5 u T. -^ t~ « >.in CS -M 88 i.-h ilf- Ira i DO a '^ •£ 00 -^ ..— a ^. ^ S S 10 Q • ;- -■ CO >» ft p *- o 3 01 St o 2 ^ g o 73 >- 2^ S ^ P CO ■" "^"S -i 2 " 5 O _. <=> -^ ^ '- CS „ *J »— ' - •-^ "S « 1-1 u a CO 3 ce oo "^ a So 7t O S^S >>■« a ^ ■=> o t« a 5 § d j2 ti -is « a -s «s £3 g =s =* a S . a ^ a OS ~ c; .."^ u u si .a ^_^ .a § ce O 3« 2". APPENDIX. 146 •rt M r. , , -_, ^^ o "^ *^ ^ s o .5 5 3 ^ a. OS re-va the r r val be 2 o o =3 X 3 e was when Fou V a g a •a "3 > s r. .a Is"-? o .a J3 s o i|l a. a w "S 3 '7. .Q ^ >." o _• ™ > o Sag 2 3 ^ :.« .3 2 >.? i) 5.^ 1 7: "H -= ' ■: f^ t ( > s us o a i''?.^ 3 S o *- S i" J 3 3 J 3 V =^3 ■r. a fc 3 ■X Ci ri u C « o 3: >. 00 1-H a.s 2 o '' ^M -T •2 = g 00 5 ^ "= ?^ CO «rt C M a -^ ^ o a CO 3 -'.^ > o 3 o J 5 I— 1 o o o fe CJ O C » 00 .2* 3 00 •3 rs rt .^ 1 O and ears anie 3 "o i 2 S55 p3 m ^ a -r 3 ' owed at pre opression in 87, and 1888 Cw 3 .^ ■a o 3 ■« O.S '-■ 2 O ^j '^ 3 se o g ;= -a M "3 ■si t) ^ *^ . ^ to s t. > H ° i; ^ 00 52 b s-g a. a 2 g Ct S ^ ""* ^^ /— /-^ 'k' » a: o c o b k u u cj t § 3 ? i - 1 00 o a o o 00 *-t N- 1—1 •32 OD "3 "c c r tii » §1 .4 n ■ "3 is 1 O if tS" ■ •y ^ U 3 2 .5 i = ^5 2^ i- S3i 1- 5 ■»-> ti O ;3 0) ^ p & c^ "o*^ 2 CO o 5«ti5 _ o •a a >- o t. « 3<2^ "^ — a 2^ o o-= a' 00 3 3 CO — 3 -' <_ 3 W — w 1-H >i 3 •» 3 •- CO 3 . C5 3 O 00 c5 X »-< o ^*.£> 1— I O t- cS Q P3 « 3 to O cS O 5£ F" '^ O t-l 3 .. o a ^■■' A 3m« 00 C5 fl 00 CO cJ 5 00 00 . C r-( -H S, ^ I. a « t: J3 3 c3 146 APPENDIX. o o ■s o >^ ^ 00 <•■* s H Xi ^ a Ci n a i a o S e3 g o s -§ s -S-^ o na •4^ ll a OS CJ '*" H > s II orj oo fl ^ ^ OS .2 3 O fe OJ a: a S a t5 -■5 Eiii 2 2 "o u rt M -^ lO o r) 4-1 fl n •4-t u fTt ^ i) hJ o o ■«-;) << s S 5 3"= — Ci 3 ^w o a) O 2 ^ .a o >. o s '^ ^§|§ 9 S ^ if- fc< o o a "^ a s s e a a Ol S2 " o >3JS s s > p- © al"^ 5i i-^ ^S oS o c >. ■ 6 a ^' c a) I f CO '^ r^ V- ■" 2 s § >- d) » o s-l log 1^ -H oS h=H *^ § « t» o i^ 03 S O (>> a rt "S'S a S^ ^ ce o (_i o H^ rt § o o 05 c3 n o..;<: - o y cl) b -. 9 « , J2 o3 .5 § S -d IS s a a> M s c3 o . a ^« a; w 'C a a ■ a o 'it b Ol p o ^ •a a: ^ •I 5 APPENDIX. ]47 gg a m -a a _ ■3 5 a S P « 5S t? ^ 53 -X J ■-J o p 00 73 o V. 00 9 =+« Zj -*-) o o ■*i pH 05 a « =rt 3 .2 s M c- cC ■ > ii; Ui Cl a S rt S a -M a IK f) 01 ■3 ■f is s t% ■*-• X La ■^^ M^ a § 6-s 2 is a2 tJ) 2 o ^ ^H '- ® i! i- ? -5 » r; J, -a a '- 'o ?: ^ "o ^ a OJ « ti -^s te ■- .a . O c£ >^ 5 ^ P x! ;:; iC'3 CO S • - ci rH "■y o^ f-. T* rH •- 00 H CO Cu /: r-H '■'* o ^ CJ >-. C-l p< Q ^ ea oj r^ "'-' w:ii i-H 4^ y Is- Ci O '"' ^ W i-H ^^ .. .. o o :-- Ih B TS rt — 9 o CO Ml S r-l n hJ b 00 a as a 1 a a a o a o 0") c h. OS es h- 1 m -w ri la •a a> Ol a O ^ wo o as • ^ _M » 5 a" C? a H o c t-. a 2 s a '^"S>i3 1 a S ■= - 1-5 ^ s^ §^ SSH « 3 • a >. k» :2 W :« V "A A^ 148 APPENDIX. o s ° S t»> is c O ^ ^ •- Ho ^ *« — :- HO ?i >..2 g o-a'r P 5^ s« 2^ ^ - ^ =i « S 4: CO en ^ CJ « ct '-r zi '-r t: ^ '-J (-■l ou ta -4-^ =: ?^ S o .X „ -r; " 3 r^ 5 5 S •So c £ ^ ^ « CO C ^ oc OD -*• « ci - Ci ^ =^ J^ t^ 0.5 t. ej « I o -3 — e! o •- a o |i = cs o .S - > '~ ~_ S c = 2 -" •? § o 2 S = = A ' — ."= 5P^ := t. ^-^ a ^ ^^ • -'^ ' ss ?f ;i « S X S — - s - -"2 S ° x o 5 ^ r. "^ ce C ' -^ja5§.i i o a a ce •'- be tj oe o a 0^ CO 2 a . - « CO • (M rt 00 o •^ « ^ 0; ci Cw >— ■ H^S 73 a fe: cS Hi ci a H ^ „ 1-5 03 (1» "3 ■g n iij h-l ^ a _.'c3 cS C3 tH c « t. s ^" g ■r. rS y l-H M S 1^ a a 2: e-J — S nn o r s •° o "3 . . © -r- 55 X .2 "o « -^ O 03 -^ Z £• a O) QJ g ' 3 C *- in a> ct -J CO ^ lis a .a . > a is -a =^ c :: r: a 13 ? "EI S Jj :: ' ^ o a - K rfi -s "^ t. t. OD a X 03 cj - _ 03 >» ^ c^ f; d S ^ tr. £ c3 to c S S M c3 a - 0*4 o tc o "d t~ a j- a CO 01 P o fc: ' a oj o "" a QO fc: 5 OJ ^J ? s APPENDIX. 149 J 2 .S b « ci-r = o &=*■=: = •; ^ " ^ " o •3 S I oT 5P - -3 c; o o r o ^ t-i ■:• - o « P a o o 03 OQ •, QO a *^ S S a r- 3 ^ o 03 OQ -^ uu *i^ C ^ '^ y .2 o =£ i= rt S ♦i t. -^ c; o n 5 o ■" *i .2 5 CO ^ O S _ - S =1 a ?> B •* 00 i ^S22 v: '^ ^'^ S Z t; .5 *^ ■*-• (« O w ^ ~ -- o r; o £ ' 2 >?.s g a S £ n.2 9 £ s . i ^ -S -3 O y o C3 i ;; o i^ S c< ■3 - s i •a I -^ CU as c 7^ o s a> I ' — .-^ _r » I t. 3 J^ -r = •: -J 2 -.- '" « ^ tr -r c: 'U w . -te 5 CO i. .a ■:; o 2 » S B S .t: fi *"" '^ c V .a 00 *" a OS a ;r. IE c5 S — ii S ci -^ o -o ° — 1-3 '"a H S « ~ . ^ -2 » ^ S.gsu a H a " .2 o S |, O ' 2 " o S a « S £ a ►* a Si o ^&a o o .a « ^ a O 13 "o H - .2 g -e 9; c ~ -> i-i ^ ^ 00 — ^ 00 2 a oo a o i-i o ~ 3 < o lo f 00 o " s= a t^ O C3 •« n oi O O O t- O 00 +- 00 ■*- 00 -•-• 00 1. CO . CO ;. CO ^ OD C^ CC o a o O -9 a "3 O ci . ,a CS a a o o CJ o .a a..; CO t* CD O? O OS O c» -" 00 •" cS o 5 > a t^ o u h > --§ 00 S '-' a O CI a ^ ~; c5 -o qJ" >% co' *J 13 X « K CO O y. a '^ i_ K Oi rH 00 S g . rH -^ ^ (M 00 -- £^ CO ^ " _ rH 3 = 5. ■s " o g 0.2 «;:■_>' a r^ »— w - ^ - " =s o S "^ "3 5 a <) a -, ci . ■ >» -<2 g>'3 00 13 ;? ■; CO a P H ^ CS n o n o « ^ Cj fn ^ s h ;j CS CO - ~ a « H 52 ? i 5 i a ■ ■ - 3 ; o a S S a „ o c s; c; a o a ? it ci -s" J- § ?. o 8 < 13 >-H a, 13 o c3 I a^ . o o as O ^^ 150 APPENDIX. '« » s Ph I— I w s .= ^ i; c , a> & fl j^ >> QJ j; a P ■- ?% > -a § S a X g o o o CO 5 -^ X O 8 ci o aiS-S'.^ 11 •a ^s a g a ei a .Q OS a >■ 2 -S 4) ^ 2 c a a -- s S is (» s a 03 3 ^^-^ Si's o . >> 3 o" >. .a ■f^'^^'i ^ ^ bl a X ^ 3 K J- ^ ^ P4 O > C3 cS c« _2 -3^ e- o B o „ C> ^^ 1 • X O ,1 o ■*- X o S 3 00 >■ o S i? S a ^ 2 ^ SS '^ ~ >i,-l >, o = J. t;. S S o .a ^ a X |2§ tc t^- bJO a .E 60 a= y r P o 1 c ^' i^ a C8 X 3' a «--3 ? i s 1 1 O eg a cS rt •4J '5 o a o i .a o ^ S§ a CJ C5 CO >i « ^ ;, — C .:- >.-^ 1— I a < _a p a x' a i «^ a "So -a o t"5 — O o "^ s ti t, ■»-< on o O ^ t> 00 a CO X tH >> ts 1 >> C3 d >-> a> "3 o o X s si CO « o ^ 00 CO 03 £ la oo" 00 00 3 o o 00 3 i o " X ra ■a ^ ■*-» , C3 "A " 2 1 a -S « X _ < (U r. O cs o ,a o 5 ►l^ J X X o *-* t^ 00 00 [3 -a s O is CO S o X u o a. a. p. "3 ^ a 1 2 00 a a a Ut HH !^ X t^ O _cr o oi 1^ |i bco a la eg la "5 a o o 00 'C »— <=■ 3" 5 a « 15 ress of T * t« Si fee a 1 ' iJ • 1 cS •< o "rt £< A -a « 3 ^„ T a H 2 ^ ^ c c /*) X Qi s a p 73 c tmS" "^ a, H^ i E-i . aw £'3 . cs ^ ^ a S ^ APPENDIX. 151 o o u a be- P a fl =s tu o es P fl £^ 2 " o « o m p^5 a § = 5 i o ^ ** ^6 boa 1l2 a "^ a « "3 2 a^ O rl *J r^ *f 00 •-• 2 S S mi OS o aJ ^ i ■tf " § 3 3 (4H Si ^5 cu5 =e fe fl » fl J :^ alio ar, a as 1 per eu a 5 M)f was hat ye rent w The has be 2 "3 = 39 o ■" - o or '*' o S ^ .2 o o =rt (g .a m B 1 mid lord ■" S 2 3 ■" '-•« a C; 00 a) ts jj O ■*^ ;. rH >,^ 2 d -> ciS o 12; c ■«-> ^4 o eS 5rt «M o ■4J a <0 y a f— < ,=5 o -*-> o « 3 cfi r> o >H a i o ^=rt a ' 2 --^ " = :g fi § 5 T-l T^ O rt s -? " £ •'-« ^ ^ us o is -** ca d a) o a o a o 10 o as g S O "S CO 00 - s 00 z^ ^ O fa s S =s o pH '^ -*-> a -=^ s ';;^ o ,M _ o fcj o "5 •=> t; *■ s >^ O o3 .4^ CO C-( ^ -*^ ci o a o o « 55 ■2 > £ Q a _g £!^ o a «^ lis Printed by Ballantyne, Hanson &= Go. London &^ Edinburgh UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY Los Aqgeles This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. Form L9 — 15m-10,'48(B1039)444 HD Vincent - 599 The land q^-es- ■' .• ' .'•14V7 — Hull ill Oouth - •Y»iles APR 8 1952 1 O ED 599 V.'14V7 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY uv ^y-v ..^^^ .. ^,11^ i^.^i ||||| ||||| |||| |||, AA 000 563 491 o