Page:EB1911 - Volume 09.djvu/154

 Caerwys in Flintshire received that honourable distinction, it having been the princely residence of Llewelyn the Last. Some of these Eisteddfodau were conducted in a style of great magnificence, under the patronage of the native princes. At Christmas 1107 Cadwgan, the son of Bleddyn ap Cynfyn, prince of Powys, held an Eisteddfod in Cardigan Castle, to which he invited the bards, harpers and minstrels, “the best to be found in all Wales”; and “he gave them chairs and subjects of emulation according to the custom of the feasts of King Arthur.” In 1176 Rhys ab Gruffydd, prince of South Wales, held an Eisteddfod in the same castle on a scale of still greater magnificence, it having been proclaimed, we are told, a year before it took place, “over Wales, England, Scotland, Ireland and many other countries.”

On the annexation of Wales to England, Edward I. deemed it politic to sanction the bardic Eisteddfod by his famous statute of Rhuddlan. In the reign of Edward III. Ifor Hael, a South Wales chieftain, held one at his mansion. Another was held in 1451, with the permission of the king, by Griffith ab Nicholas at Carmarthen, in princely style, where Dafydd ab Edmund, an eminent poet, signalized himself by his wonderful powers of versification in the Welsh metres, and whence “he carried home on his shoulders the silver chair” which he had fairly won. Several Eisteddfodau, were held, one at least by royal mandate, in the reign of Henry VII. In 1523 one was held at Caerwys before the chamberlain of North Wales and others, by virtue of a commission issued by Henry VIII. In the course of time, through relaxation of bardic discipline, the profession was assumed by unqualified persons, to the great detriment of the regular bards. Accordingly in 1567 Queen Elizabeth issued a commission for holding an Eisteddfod at Caerwys in the following year, which was duly held, when degrees were conferred on 55 candidates, including 20 harpers. From the terms of the royal proclamation we find that it was then customary to bestow “a silver harp” on the chief of the faculty of musicians, as it had been usual to reward the chief bard with “a silver chair.” This was the last Eisteddfod appointed by royal commission, but several others of some importance were held during the 16th and 17th centuries, under the patronage of the earl of Pembroke, Sir Richard Neville, and other influential persons. Amongst these the last of any particular note was one held in Bewper Castle, Glamorgan, by Sir Richard Basset in 1681.

During the succeeding 130 years Welsh nationality was at its lowest ebb, and no general Eisteddfod on a large scale appears to have been held until 1819, though several small ones were held under the auspices of the Gwyneddigion Society, established in 1771,—the most important being those at Corwen (1789), St Asaph (1790) and Caerwys (1798).

At the close of the Napoleonic wars, however, there was a general revival of Welsh nationality, and numerous Welsh literary societies were established throughout Wales, and in the principal English towns. A large Eisteddfod was held under distinguished patronage at Carmarthen in 1819, and from that time to the present they have been held (together with numerous local Eisteddfodau), almost without intermission, annually. The Eisteddfod at Llangollen in 1858 is memorable for its archaic character, and the attempts then made to revive the ancient ceremonies, and restore the ancient vestments of druids, bards and ovates.

To constitute a provincial Eisteddfod it is necessary that it should be proclaimed by a graduated bard of a Gorsedd a year and a day before it takes place. A local one may be held without such a proclamation. A provincial Eisteddfod generally lasts three, sometimes four days. A president and a conductor are appointed for each day. The proceedings commence with a Gorsedd meeting, opened with sound of trumpet and other ceremonies, at which candidates come forward and receive bardic degrees after satisfying the presiding bard as to their fitness. At the subsequent meetings the president gives a brief address; the bards follow with poetical addresses; adjudications are made, and prizes and medals with suitable devices are given to the successful competitors for poetical, musical and prose compositions, for the best choral and solo singing, and singing with the harp or “Pennillion singing” as it is called, for the best playing on the harp or stringed or wind instruments, as well as occasionally for the best specimens of handicraft and art. In the evening of each day a concert is given, generally attended by very large numbers. The great day of the Eisteddfod is the “chair” day—usually the third or last day—the grand event of the Eisteddfod being the adjudication on the chair subject, and the chairing and investiture of the fortunate winner. This is the highest object of a Welsh bard’s ambition. The ceremony is an imposing one, and is performed with sound of trumpet. (See also the articles, : Celtic Literature, and .)

 EJECTMENT (Lat. e, out, and jacere, to throw), in English law, an action for the recovery of the possession of land, together with damages for the wrongful withholding thereof. In the old classifications of actions, as real or personal, this was known as a mixed action, because its object was twofold, viz. to recover both the realty and personal damages. It should be noted that the term “ejectment” applies in law to distinct classes of proceedings—ejectments as between rival claimants to land, and ejectments as between those who hold, or have held, the relation of landlord and tenant. Under the Rules of the Supreme Court, actions in England for the recovery of land are commenced and proceed in the same manner as ordinary actions. But the historical interest attaching to the action of ejectment is so great as to render some account of it necessary.

The form of the action as it prevailed in the English courts down to the Common Law Procedure Act 1852 was a series of fictions, among the most remarkable to be found in the entire body of English law. A, the person claiming title to land, delivered to B, the person in possession, a declaration in ejectment in which C and D, fictitious persons, were plaintiff and defendant. C stated that A had devised the land to him for a term of years, and that he had been ousted by D. A notice signed by D informed B of the proceedings, and advised him to apply to be made defendant in D’s place, as he, D, having no title, did not intend to defend the suit. If B did not so apply, judgment was given against D, and possession of the lands was given to A. But if B did apply, the Court allowed him to defend the action only on condition that he admitted the three fictitious averments—the lease, the entry and the ouster—which, together with title, were the four things necessary to maintain an action of ejectment. This having been arranged the action proceeded, B being made defendant instead of D. The names used for the fictitious parties were John Doe, plaintiff, and Richard Roe, defendant, who was called “the casual ejector.” The explanation of these mysterious fictions is this. The writ de ejectione firmae was invented about the beginning of the reign of Edward III. as a remedy to a lessee for years who had been ousted of his term. It was a writ of trespass, and carried damages, but in the time of Henry VII., if not before that date, the courts of common law added thereto a species of remedy neither warranted by the original writ nor demanded by the declaration, viz. a judgment to recover so much of the term as was still to run, and a writ of possession thereupon. The next step was to extend the remedy—limited originally to leaseholds—to cases of disputed title to freeholds. This was done indirectly by the claimant entering on the land and there making a lease for a term of years to another person; for it was only a term that could be recovered by the action, and to create a term required actual possession in the granter. The lessee remained on the land, and the next person who entered even by chance was accounted an ejector of the lessee, who then served upon him a writ of trespass and ejectment. The case then went to trial as on a