of interrupting the ancient rights of the tenants of the lordship to common of pasture in the forest. They were alleged to have enclosed the forest together with parcels of the commons, and to have converted parts into meadow land and parts into arable land. Echoes of these disputes are contained in these presentments. We learn that one of the Crown farmers, John Lewis, esquire, or his assignees, in the reign of Elizabeth were responsible for building one mansion house and other buildings in the forest, as also for limiting the rights of common of pasture to the winter months only.7 The opposition of freeholders to the application of manorial theory is seen clearly in the case of the commons and wastes. The freeholders claimed that not all un- enclosed lands were commons in the manorial sense. The free tenants of the manor of Uwchmynydd likewise claimed that certain portions called Tirkyd alias Rhyth- did were parts of ancient tenements or randirs "purposely left open and undivided by coheirs in gavelkind for a commoditie of more freedome and easment between them 1.8 All other commons and waste grounds are claimed to be a kinde of com- mon appertenant accordinge to the most common auncient usage and custome in Wales with common of pasture for all kind of cattell sans number and with common of estover and turbary and other liberties. In addition to asserting their own extensive claims the tenants say that they cannot find any evidence that the lords of the manor ought of right to enter common with the tenants or that they ought to license others to do so. They also make specific mention of the scarcity of common caused by keeping the cattle of strangers. This was an evil which received much attention from the Council in the Marches of Wales in the second half of the sixteenth century.9 A number of the questions deal with the rents and services imposed by the custom of the manor All the tenures were free socage tenures, and the tenants owed fealty and suit of court. The gwestfa rent of the Welsh laws has become the chief rent10 and in support of this the wordes of the old Welsh Law' are given with evidence that in former times by some ancient breinte or priviledge some ancient tenements and lands were discharged from paying this rent. Nothing is said about the rent called mabrythaeth but the wording seems to suggest that it was a personal rent due upon all the free tenants of this manor For further information the jurymen refer to the accounts of the King's late bailiffs or reeves, and it is probable that such records as Ministers' Accounts would yield further information about this rent. On the death of a freeholder a heriot or ebediw' was due to the lord of the manor. This was either the sum of ten shillings as laid down in the Welsh Laws or one heriotable beast With regard to heriots due upon the alienation of land the jurors maintain that these were introduced with the Act of Union. This appears to be contrary to the evidence available for other South Wales manors, while the non- payment of a heriot upon a mortgage to which the jurors refer is one of certain interesting changes which were later introduced in connection with the payment of heriot \u The demanding of a heriot from the purchaser is also regarded as hav- ing no basis in ancient custom,12 while the abolition of the custom whereby' a stranger being not tenant within the manor before could obtain a brainte' or license to purchase land, is attributed to the Act of Union. There appears to be also some