The parties trespassing on the Limestone Quarry allotment were the neighbouring quarry owners, Messrs. Jeffreys Powell and John Williams, and it appears that they had worked the stone for a distance of some thirty yards beyond the boundary.

Messrs. Cobb and Tudor, solicitors, of Brecon, were at once instructed to take proceedings in the matter, Mr. Howel Gwyn, of Dyffryn, Neath, being responsible for the costs, and his nephew, Mr. J. E. Moore, on his behalf, conducting the correspondence with them.

(LETTER 1.)

On April 2nd, 1886, Messrs Cobb and Tudor write as follows to Mr. Joseph E. Moore:

"PENWYLLT COMMONERS' ALLOTMENT.

"Mr. Kempthorne has written to me to say that we may use the name of the Surveyor of the Ystradgynlais District Highway Board as a Co-plaintiff, and the Surveyor of the Defynnock District has been with us to-day and consented to be one of the Plaintiffs. But both of them were to be indemnified against costs and held harmless.

"We are now ready to commence proceedings, and shall be pleased to see you when convenient.

"Perhaps you will be here on Tuesday to attend Quarter Sessions."

It was then resolved to take the opinion of Counsel on the case, and Mr. Howel Jeffreys was consulted.

The following is a copy of his opinion :—

"GWYN AND OTHERS v. POWELL AND AN'R.

"It is proposed to commence an action against the Defendants in respect of two different matters. In the first place it is alleged that although as commoners of the Great Forest of Brecon they were entitled to get limestone from the commoners' allotment for their own use within the Forest or upon the estates in respect of which they are entitled to rights of common they have committed a wrongful act in taking such limestone for sale to the public.

"In the second place it is alleged that they have wrongfully excluded the commoners from a strip of land crossing the allotment and upon which a tramway formerly ran.

"The case of Price v. Dickson tried before V.-C. Hall does not bind the present Defendants but undoubtedly has an important bearing upon the present questions, but there are two distinctions of great weight to be drawn. Firstly Dickson was not a commoner and the present Defendants are, and secondly the defence then set up was that the commoners had by abandonment of their rights given up all claim to any part of the allotment whereas in the present case the Defendants claim only the narrow strip upon which the tramway was made and at most a right of quarrying upon the rest of the allotment.

"I think that it is quite clear that the Defendants right of quarrying upon the allotment is limited to the amount required by them for their own use as commoners and that they had no right to sell to the public the lime made from the limestone obtained from that allotment. Though the same thing may have been done by Christie and others (as appears from V.-C. Hall's Judgment) the Defendants can have acquired no right to this profit à prendre" by custom or otherwise.

66

"The question as to the site of the tramway is more difficult. This strip appears in some sense to have been regarded as private property since the tramway was made or at all events since Claypon's death and on two occasions it has been put up for sale by public auction. It has been bought by the Defendants and they have successfully brought an action for trespass upon it. Of course if the Defendants in that action were not commoners the present plaintiffs will be in no way bound thereby, and even if they were commoners it may be remarked that they could not in that capacity support a right to

make a railway over the strip of ground. It seems never to have been enclosed by the new Defendants or their predecessors but enclosure is not necessary to obtain a title under the statute of limitations as was fully decided in Seddon v. Smith 36 Law Times N. S. 168 mentioned by Mr. John Williams in his recent book on commons. I am informed however that it was proved before V.-C. Hall and can be proved again that until recently at least the commoners or rather their cattle have crossed and recrossed this strip of land without interruption and I understand that it is this right which they specially desire to maintain and I think that they are entitled to it if this usage can be fully proved. I have drawn and herewith send draft Indorsement and statement of claim which I have drawn as far as possible in the same way as that used in the action against Dickson but I have not made it an action for recovery of land as the Defendants in this case being commoners are entitled to the use of the whole allotment though not in such a way as to exclude the rights of the other commoners. It moreover avoids any question of misjoinder.

"I think it right however to say that it is in my opinion very doubtful whether the Plaintiffs will succeed in recovering any damages. I presume that the amount of limestone in the allotment is not very materially diminished and that the commoners have been and are able if, they do desire, to obtain as much lime there as they may require for their

own use.

"The claim for an account was given up in the action against Dickson, and I do not think that it can be obtained in the present action.

"In fact I do not think that that would be the proper measure of damages if any damages are recoverable.

"The tramway strip moreover never having been enclosed, the commoners are probably in no worse a position with regard to that strip or very slightly so than they have been since 1820.

"I think that at all events with regard to the quarrying for sale upon the allotment, if this can be fully proved, the Plaintiff's are fairly entitled to an Injunction but it must be remembered that an Injunction is entirely in the discretion of the Court, and it is not impossible that it might be refused and in that case if only nominal damages are obtained the Plaintiff's would at least have to pay their own costs.

On May 20th, 1886, Messrs. Cobb and Tudor write further to Mr. Joseph E. Moore as follows:

"GWYN AND O'RS v. POWELL AND O'RS.

"We have this morning received these papers from Mr. Howel Jeffreys, and on the other side we send an extract from his letter to us, which we think you ought to see, and place before Mr. Gwyn.

"We have not taken any steps in the action, and of course shall not do so until we receive instructions.

"When the writ is issued, if Mr. Gwyn decides to proceed, it will be necessary for him to give the two Road Surveyors his undertaking to hold them harmless as to costs. "Waiting your reply,

"We are, etc."

EXTRACT REFERRED TO.

"I have seen Mr. J. E. Moore, who has talked to me about this action, and I am glad to find that there is a probability of the matter being settled. If this were not so, I should have great hesitation in recommending the considerable expense to be incurred, which must be involved."

Apparently, negotiations for terms of settlement of the action were then entered into, and

(LETTER 3.)

On July 12th, 1886, Messrs. Cobb and Tudor write to Mr. Joseph E. Moore that the action had been settled, and the terms of the settlement are comprised in their letter, which is as follows::

"GWYN AND OTHERS v. POWELL AND ANOTHER.

"We have to-day finally settled this Action, the Defendants agreeing to a perpetual Injunction restraining them from getting Limestone from the Commoners' Allotment for the purpose of Sale, or otherwise than they are entitled to get the same as Commoners.

"And they agree not to enclose the site of the tramway, or prevent the Plaintiff or any of the Commoners from the free use of the same.

"That is the best settlement we could get, and we hope that it will meet with Mr. Gwyn's approval.

"Of course, the defendants paid the cost of the Action."

We have been unable to obtain a copy of the Order of the Court or of the Master in this case, though every search has been made, in the office of Messrs. Cobb and Tudor by them, and at the Filing Offices of the High Court of Justice by myself, and the letters quoted are the best secondary evidence of the terms of the settlement of the Action, and of the Decree or Order of the High Court, that we are able to procure.

Dismissing these Actions of 1778 and 1886 from notice, as relating to trespassers and interlopers, it does not appear that the Commoners themselves-certainly not as a body— worked these limestone quarries since first allotted to them in 1819.

And it would seem that there are two reasons why the quarries have remained idle and unused by the Allotment-holders so long; and why, unless some additional powers are conferred by Statute on the beneficiaries, they must ever remain so.

The first is, that the Allotment-owners are not empowered to unite with the Crown grantees in working the quarries as a joint concern, or in leasing the quarries to third parties. And the second is, that to have a profitable trade, or even to pay expenses and no more, there must be a power conferred upon the Allotment-holders and the Crown grantees jointly to sell the surplus limestone worked, and especially the surplus lime above and beyond what they require for their own use. Even in the primitive times, when lime was carried on the backs of mules and horses straight from the kilns on to the arable field or to the homestead, it was ever a precarious summer trade. But when lime has to be conveyed in full truck-loads by rail, any system of special order and in small quantities becomes impracticable. In fact, no one would dream of entering on the lime trade without possessing the power freely to sell the products.

And apart from the sale of lime, a considerable trade could be carried on in limestone for the repair of the roads in the western part of the county; but this, from somewhat similar reasons, is found to be impracticable.

It will be seen in the following pages that in 1903 an attempt was made, though unsuccessfully, to obtain Parliamentary sanction for the working of the quarries and the sale of lime by the Allotment-holders; but as to this and the further disputes and differences that have arisen on various Forest questions, and are still pending, we have yet to write.

The part this Great Forest has played in modern history has undergone no change. Peace, good will, and prosperity are still strangers on the Forest land!

R

CAP. VIII.

THE 1893 BILL IN PARLIAMENT.

Harry, Duke of Buckingham, and Lord of Brecknock, in 1482, and a little later on King Richard III, who fell on the battle-field of Bosworth, both deserved well of Breconshire Harry, the Duke, gave the inhabitants of Llansaintffread free pasture for ever on his Forest of Buchlyd, and King Richard reduced the payment of Kyferyve by the tenants of the Great Forest from 3d. to 1d. per head for ever!

We have not seen their like since in Breconshire!

And what shall we say of the Crown of England? of Good Queen Bess in her day, and George III in his; who respectively tried their utmost, with the aid of their AttorneyGenerals, and all the prestige and power of the Crown, to break in one instance a plighted word, and in the other to take away, or if that were not possible, to render valueless almost, the privileges a King of England had once given, and which privileges had been freely enjoyed without interruption of any kind for over three hundred years!

Those who have followed so far attentively the story of the Great Forest in these pages (and it is a long story to follow) will remember, that the Amending Inclosure Act of 1818 (58 Geo. III, Cap. 99) was drafted, passed through Parliament, and paid for by the Crown itself, and at its instance. No one would seem to have represented the Commoners in Parliament, and the Bill was just passed through the Committee stage somehow, the sole object and end in view being, that the Crown at any rate should be certain of its half or moiety of the Forest lands. It is easy to understand this; the Crown was employing public money for the purpose, while the Commoners were expending their own money, and were too weary and worn out to prolong the struggle against so powerful an opponent.

And out of the Forest gate, and out of Breconshire, went the Crown, never to return, having in their hands two large bags, the one labelled

and the other

"Crown Allotment, 13,800 acres of the Great Forest,"

"Mines and Minerals of the Great Forest."

But it was subsequently discovered that, unbeknown to any one, a large bundle of Tithes, three Tithe Allotments, Manorial Rights, and sundries of some imaginary value had, in name at least, secretly been placed in the Mineral bag! The purchasers soon found out, at the cost of expensive lawsuits and inquiries, that the Tithes and the Tithe Allotments had never been the property of the Crown, and were wrongly included in their Conveyances; and with regard to the supposed manorial rights, the purchaser, Mr. Christie, abandoned these, without any attempt to claim and enforce them.

The last owner of the mineral rights was a Mr. Gribble of Bristol, and he certainly never claimed tithes, tithe allotment, or manorial rights, and was contented with his rotten stone quarries, the only valuable part of the mineral rights.

However, in 1888, Mr. Gribble placed the the mineral rights of the Great Forest, whatever they were, on the market for sale, and on an unlucky day-we may call it one of the Egyptian days-the present Lord Tredegar chanced to hear of this, and became an intending purchaser. What was the object of the purchase? We are told no more than it was to keep a stock of poneys on the Commoners' Allotment, but which, it may be said, could equally well have been done by his Lordship, as one of the Allotment-holders, in virtue of one of his farms, like Blaenhepste Fechan.

Having bought the mineral property from Mr. Gribble for £1,200, Lord Tredegar

first paid attention to the sporting rights then exercised over the Allotment land of the Commoners; and finding that on the part known as Waun Tinker, which adjoined his own moors of Penderin and Cantref in the Brecon Lordship, a good many odd promiscuous sportsmen, not being Allotment-holders, were in the habit of shooting the grouse there, he resolved to proceed against them.

Accordingly, on the 12th October, 1889, Informations were laid by Mr. Jenkin Jones, of the "Tredegar Arms," Cwm Taff, on behalf of Lord Tredegar, not as owner of the exclusive right of sporting there, but simply in the capacity of a Common Informer, against certain parties, and who were duly convicted of trespassing in pursuit of game. The annexed Copies of the Information and Conviction (of which I have certified copies) denote this clearly to those who are familiar with the Magistrates' Courts proceedings. I had also communicated with Mr. Walter M. North (now deceased), the Stipendiary Magistrate, who granted the summonses and heard the cases, and also, with Mr. T. A. White, the Magistrate's Clerk-and they both formally assured me by letter that the Information was laid as by a Common Informer, and that no claim of exclusive sporting rights had been asserted or set up in the Information, or had in any way been dealt with on the hearing of the case.

We now give copies of the Certificated Copies, which are in our possession, of the Information and Convictions referred to:

[COPY.]

COUNTY OF BRECON TO WIT.

Be it remembered, That within Three Calendar Months after the commission of the offence hereinafter mentioned, to wit, on the 12th day of October, in the year of our Lord, 1889, at Merthyr Tydvil, in the County of Glamorgan, Jenkin Jones, of the Tredegar Arins, Cwmtaff, in the said County of Brecon, for and on behalf of Lord Tredegar, in his proper person cometh before the undersigned, one of Her Majesty's Justices of the Peace, in and for the said Counties of Brecon and Glamorgan, and now here Giveth me, the said Justice, to understand and be informed, that William Powell, of No. 6, Pit Head, Cwmdare, of the Parish of Aberdare, in the County of Glamorgan, and Thomas Jones, of Tonglwyd fawr, Cwmdare, Aberdare, aforesaid, and each of them did, within Three Calendar Months now last past, to wit, on the 12th day of August, in the year of Our Lord, 1889, at the parish of Ystradfellte, in the said County of Brecon, unlawfully commit a certain Trespass, by being in the day time of the said day upon a certain piece of Land in the possession and occupation of Evan Evans, Commoner, and other Commoners, and of Lord Tredegar, there in search or pursuit of Game (or of Woodcocks, Snipes, Quails, Landrails, or Conies) there without the license or consent of the Owner of the Land so trespassed upon, or of any Person having the right of killing the Game upon such Land, or of any other Person having any right to authorize the said William Powell and Thomas Jones, or either of them to enter or be upon the said Land for the purpose aforesaid, contrary to the Statute in such case made and provided; whereby and by force of the said Statute each of them, the said William Powell and Thomas Jones, has forfeited a sum of Money not exceeding Two pounds, to be applied as the Statutes in that behalf made and provided direct. And thereupon the said Jenkin Jones prays that the said William Powell and Thomas Jones may be duly caused to appear before one or more of Her Majesty's Justices of the Peace in and for the said County of Brecon, to answer the said Information, and to be further dealt with according to Law.

Exhibited by the said Jenkin Jones
before me, the Day and Year first

above written.

Walter M. North. (L.S.)

JENKIN JONES.

I certify this and the foregoing sheet of paper contains a true copy of the original information. Dated this 24th day of March, 1893.

T. A. WHITE,

Clerk to the Justices, Penderyn Division, Brecknockshire.