User:Jnestorius/Monmouthshire in Wales

< Monmouthshire (historic)

Quote from John Davies cited in article Court of Great Sessions in Wales:
 * Monmouthshire was made directly answerable to the courts at Westminster, and as a result the notion arose that the county had been annexed by England. Monmouthshire was no less Welsh in language and sentiment than any of the other eastern counties and it would generally be treated as a part of Wales in the rare examples of specifically Welsh legislation passed between 1536 and 1830.

Acts of Parliament
Instrument of Government 1653 Article X lists Monmouthshire in its alphabetical place among the English counties, not in the later Welsh list.

(1758-9) 32 G.2 c.28 s.11
 * upon the petition ... of any prisoner ... to any judge of any such courts at Westminster ...; or to the judges of assize or justices of great sessions in their respective circuits; or to the judge or judges of any other court of record ... within that part of Great Britain called England; and if within the principality of Wales or county palatine of Chester, then to the justices at some great sessions to be holden for the county in the principality of Wales or for the county palatine of Chester ... ; every such court, judges of assize, and justices of great sessions, and judge and judges of all inferior courts of record, are hereby authorized and required respectively and make such within their several jurisdictions to hear and determine the same in a summary way

The Statutes of Wales (1908)/The Statutes of Wales
 * Sunday Closing (Wales) Act 1881 s.2: In the principality of Wales all premises in which intoxicating liquors are sold or exposed for sale by retail shall be closed during the whole of Sunday.
 * Welsh Intermediate Education Act 1889 [lt "An Act to promote Intermediate Education in Wales"] s.2 "The purpose of this Act is to make further provision for the intermediate and technical education of the inhabitants of Wales and the county of Monmouth"
 * predates the 1891 grant of county borough status to Newport
 * Education Act 1902 "Any scheme for establishing an education committee of the council of any county or county borough in Wales or of the county of Monmouth or county borough of Newport shall provide that the county governing body constituted under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889, for any such county or county borough shall cease to exist"
 * Do these exclude Newport?:-
 * Quarries Act 1894 "In the appointment of such inspectors in Wales and Monmouthshire, among candidates equally qualified, persons having a knowledge of the Welsh language shall be preferred."
 * Factory Act 1901 "In the appointment of inspectors of factories in Wales and Monmouthshire, among candidates otherwise equally qualified, persons having a knowledge of the Welsh language shall be preferred."

The Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act, 1912 applied in districts, one being named "South Wales (including Monmouthshire)".

Welsh Church Act 1914 lt "An Act to terminate the establishment of the Church of England in Wales and Monmouthshire, and to make provision in respect of the Temporalities thereof, and for other purposes in connection with the matters aforesaid."

Representation of the People Act 1918 Schedule 9 "Redistribution of Seats"; Part I "Boroughs"; (1) "London" (2) "England, excluding London and Monmouthshire" and (3) "Wales and Monmouthshire" includes Newport

Welsh Courts Act 1942 s1: "Whereas doubt has been entertained whether section seventeen of the statute 27 Hen. 8.c.26 unduly restricts the right of Welsh speaking persons to use the Welsh language in courts of justice in Wales, now, therefore, the said section is hereby repealed, and it is hereby enacted that the Welsh language may be used in any court in Wales by any party or witness who considers that he would otherwise be at any disadvantage by reason of his natural language of communication being Welsh."
 * Did that exclude Monmouthshire? Cf. Welsh Language Act 1967 "In any legal proceeding in Wales and Monmouthshire the Welsh Language may be spoken ..."

Marriage Act 1949 s80(3) "(3)The provisions of this Act specified in the Sixth Schedule to this Act shall not extend to Wales or Monmouthshire." (Schedule is titled "PROVISIONS OF ACT WHICH DO NOT EXTEND TO WALES")
 * "By an apparent oversight, the disapplication in respect of Wales of certain provisions in the 1949 Act extended to the whole area of Wales (including Monmouthshire), and not to the area covered by the Church in Wales."

Eisteddfod Act 1959 lt:"An Act to make further provision for contributions by local authorities in Wales (including Monmouthshire) towards the expenses of the Royal National Eisteddfod"

Religion

 * Diocese of Llandaff included archdeaconry of Monmouth (since 1921 Diocese of Monmouth).
 * Was there any debate about excluding from Welsh Church Act 1914? (Compare 1915–1916 Church of England border polls.)

Court cases
13 G.3 c.51 allows trial at "nearest adjoining English county to that part of Wales" -- general practice was each Court of Great Sessions in Wales circuit was associated with a particular county, in particular South Wales with Herefordshire and North Wales with Shropshire. (The 1656 case below proves that a similar rule obtained before the 13 G.3 act)
 * (1814) Goodright d. Richards v. Williams (2 Maule & Selwyn 270) Shropshire for South Wales overturned -- a crude hard-and-fast rule better than arguing case-by-case over measurement of distance
 * Thomas Edlyne Tomlins Law-dictionary 3rd ed. v.2 sv "Wales" 'The grounds of this decision have been considered as very unsatisfactory.'
 * (1809) Ambrose v. Rees (11 East 370); cited in Goodright d. Richards v. Williams) Monmouth for South Wales allowed on other grounds (did not object at the time) -- justices Marryat and Abbot took opposite stances, Ellenborough CJ ruled.
 * (1676) Morris v. Kiffin (84 Eng. Rep. 864; 3 Keble 534) "lands in Monmouthshire" in earlier case, "lands in Wales" in this case (but contrast not relevant to decision?)
 * In debt by administrator of tenant for life, against pernor of profits for arrears; the defendant after imparlance pleaded an utlary in abatement, which was agreed ill on demurrer. But Sanders for the defendant excepted that this action is local; and the action not brought where the land is, to which the Court agreed, because the profits are in the realty, and the contract is determined, and the charge only by reason of the pernancy; and its not like 7 Co. Bullwers case of an assize, where the land must be put in view, and in Hall and Arnolds case, on lease to Trott, debt arrears of lands in Monmouthshire was held local, albeit the rent-charge was paiable at the Exchange in London, and reversed in error, because the action was brought in London: Twisden held it well enough, but a respondeas ouster awarded. 2. The lands being in Wales the action lieth not in the next county, but only on a quo minus: also if the tenant be at a rack rent, that must be deducted, &c. and only overplus liable.
 * (1656) Morgan v Morgan (Hardres 66); cited in Goodright d. Richards v. Williams) Monmouth for South Wales rejected "on a different ground from this, viz. that Monmouthshire was but made an English county by stat. 27 H. 8., within time of memory, and trials in prox. com. of issues arising in Wales have been time out of mind at the common law, That, therefore, is only an authority to shew that trials upon causes of action arising in South Wales cannot be had in Monmouthshire: but not that they must be in Herefordshire".
 * Powis for one side argues "Nor does that law [27 H8] make it indeed an English county, it remains a Welsh county still ; only the courts of law in England have a jurisdiction given them in Monmouthshire"; Jones for other side says the statute made it an English county; barons Robert Nicolas and John Parker ruled that 27 H8 made it a county "within time of memory" and trials in "prox. Com'" under common law applied only to time immemorial per Plo. Com. Rice Thomas's case, not to "a place newly taken in".
 * (1590) Price v Jengkings (Croke Eliz 865)
 * If the words be spoken in a foreign language, an averment is necessary to show that the hearers understood them; and even where Welsh words were averred to have been spoken in Monmouthshire, which was once part of Wales, judgment was arrested after verdict for the plaintiff, because it was not averred that they were spoken before Welshmen, or those who understood the Welsh tongue.
 * Would the same be true in one of the 12 Welsh counties? Although a book on Welsh linguistic history includes slander case transcripts from 1577 to 1825, perhaps such cases did provide the required averments.
 * John Williams says yes:
 * And, as the declaration must shew a publication, therefore, if the words are Welsh, French, or other foreign language, the plaintiff must aver that the hearers understood such language; Hob. 268. in Fleetwood v. Curley; Cro. Eliz. 865 Price v. Jenkins; 1 Roll. Abr. 74. (A); unless, indeed, with respect to Welsh words, the action is brought in any of the courts of great sessions in Wales, for it shall be intended the hearers understood the words.


 * (1554) Buckley v Rice Thomas (Plow. Com. 118) There were three issues, the third being the one cited by Morgan v Morgan. Of the judges, William Stanford took one view; Edward Saunders, Anthony Browne and Robert Broke the opposite.

Background
Richard Gough (1789) said "Monmouthshire was considered as a Welsh county till the time of Charles the Second, when it began to be reckoned in England, because the judges kept the assizes here in the Oxford circuit." William Coxe (1801) says "Such was the wretched state of feudal jurisprudence in Monmouthshire, as well as in the other marches of Wales, till Henry the eighth abolished the government of the lords' marchers, divided Wales into twelve shires, and included Monmouthshire among the counties of England". The Beauties of England (1809) quotes both and hedges its bets: "In the confusion which arose from the mixed mode of administering justice, prior and subsequent to the incorporation of Wales with England, it is difficult to ascertain the exact period when Monmouth might be strictly considered an English county. Probably not till the jurisdiction of the supreme court of lords marches, usually held at Ludlow, in Shropshire, was finally abolished, in the first year of William and Mary, by act of parliament, at the humble suit of all the gentlemen and inhabitants within the principality of Wales."

Milman
Four distinct measures were deemed requisite for effecting its object, namely: 1, the union of Wales to the Realm of England; 2, the reduction of the Marches to shire-ground; 3, the extension of English laws to Wales; and 4, the extension of the English judicature to Wales. Of these, the two former were fully, the two latter only partially, carried out at this time.

As to the first, the Act, in uniting Wales to, did not confound it with, England. The common boundary lines of realms are not obliterated by political union ; they are merely removed into the province of historical and antiquarian science. Their political existence, indeed, terminates ; but, for that very reason, no occasion for their subsequent alteration can ever arise, and they remain historically unchangeable. That the union of countries concludes, in point of time, the question of their common limit, is little more than a truism, and applies as well to Wales as to the Anglo-Saxon states; for this comprehension of the former in the united Realm of England and Wales is strictly analogous to the earlier comprehension of the latter in the Realm of England. The extent of Wales, equally with that of Wessex or of Mercia, can only be discussed in reference to the period of its separate existence.

The second measure of the Act reduced the Marches to shire-ground; in other words, completed the shire-distribution of the united Realm of England and Wales. With some trifling exceptions, the Lordships in the March of England were joined to English shires, and of those in the March of Wales some were joined to ancient Welch shires, and the remainder alloted into five new shires, viz., Monmouth, Brecknock, Radnor, Montgomery, Denbigh. Thenceforth accordingly the shires of Wales were reckoned thirteen in number. The territory comprised in them is nearly identical with the country according to its ancient limit; which, however, being anterior to, should be considered irrespective of, its shire-distribution. Thus Wales and the Marches became historical expressions.

The laws founded on the political position of the former as external to England, and of the latter as external to the shires, became practically obsolete. This consequence of the Act, in reference to the local administration of criminal justice implied in shire-government, drew an earnest remonstrance from the then Lord President of Wales, who regarded the Welch as yet unfit to enjoy this privilege. The Legislature aimed at carrying out the third measure by a general extension of English laws to Wales, excepting, however, the rights of the Lords Marchers so far as they were compatible with the King's dominion and jurisdiction, together with certain local customs. But it was in the nature of the case that the full application of this general rule would long be delayed by national attachment to ancient laws, and by the power of vested and expectant interests; and that it was in fact so delayed is evident from many later enactments. The exceptions in favour of the Lords Marchers are probably due, not only to their great territorial influence, but also to the presence of many of them in the Parliament itself.

As to the fourth measure, the Act did not touch the President and Council of Wales and the Marches, nor the Court of Equity before them. It superseded the civil and criminal courts of the Lordships Marchers, which fell under the jurisdiction of the shires wherein they were severally comprised. Further, it extended the English judicature to the new Welch shire of Monmouth; but, considering that the four other new shires were far distant from London, and the inhabitants thereof were not of substance, power, and ability to travel out of their own countries to seek the administration of justice, it established local judicatures there; and, for similar reasons, retained those already existing in the eight ancient shires. Hence this measure was of necessity left incomplete, until, in the course of time, and from the progress of society, these reasons should cease to be applicable.

The continuance of these local judicatures subsequently to the union of England and Wales, is the root of the modern dispute as to the common limit of the two countries. As early as the time of Speed, it seems to have been assumed by some, that the provinces of the English and Welch judicatures constituted respectively England and Wales. But neither reason nor authority supports this assumption. The history and antiquities, the language and literature, the established rights and laws of a country, constitute and characterize its nationality, and remain unaffected by a measure merely concerning the administration of justice. The Acts of Parliament concerning Wales passed in the years immediately following, and the Itinerary of Leland, who visited it at this very period, are evidence that these provisions of the Act of Union were not so interpreted by contemporary authority. To blot out the national name of a country solely on the ground that it no longer retains a separate judicature, is an unreasonable and useless change; and, with reference to a part only of a country, such a change is not merely useless, but directly and widely injurious, as breaking the national unity, and so introducing confusion into the general history of the whole. Eight years after the passing of the Act of Union, these local judicatures of Wales, being found inefficient and inconvenient, gave place to a new and uniform system, created by the "Act for certain ordinances in the lung's Majesty's Dominion and Principality of Wales."

The first section of this Act, that "Wales be from henceforth divided into twelve shires," is often adduced in support of the vulgar error respecting the extent of that country. These words, however, do not purport to declare the legal limits of Wales as then understood, but to create a new Wales, by naming the shires of which it shall henceforth be constituted. This new limitation can only bear a qualified sense; not historical, for an Act of Parliament cannot alter history; nor political, for a political division between two countries already become and still remaining politically one is a contradiction in terms, and can only be compared to a reconstitution by arbitrary limits of the Heptarchy, without touching the integrity of England. [...]

This Act [1 W. and M. c. 27 (1689) abolishing the court of the Marches] was an important step towards unity of jurisdiction in matters of Equity throughout the Realm of England and Wales, but the local judicature of the twelve shires survived in full force to our own day. An arbitrary limitation of territory, laid down for a special purpose, is inseparably connected with that purpose. They stand and fall together. Cessante ratione, cessat el ipsa lex. Wales, as the province of a separate judicature, was such a limitation. A series of Acts from the reign of Henry VIII. assimilated the procedure there to the English form, and at length the "Act for the more effectual Administration of Justice in England and Wales" [11 Geo. IV. & 1 Will. IV. c. 70.] abolished the separate judicature, and completed the work commenced at the Union by extending the jurisdiction of the Law Courts at Westminster to the remaining twelve shires,—thus virtually terminating the existence of the judicial Wales. The popular opinion, that Wales consists of twelve shires only, was true in a certain special sense up to the passing of this Act; since then it has not been and is not true in any sense whatever.

Antiquary
The main object of Mr. Milman is to show that Monmouthshire forms part and parcel of Wales; and that Wales should be considered as consisting of thirteen counties, not of twelve only. I do not agree with this, and I think he has not established his case; but I do agree with him to a considerable extent when he says, "the line of Offa's Dyke and the river Wye should be drawn as an historical limit, independent of the shire divisions." ... Whether before or after the Norman inroads, the Welsh tribes, and the Welsh language, had in various places been driven back. The Welsh have always been fated to yield to the Saxon, or the Dane; and though Offa's Dyke had been at one time a tolerably correct boundary, it had ceased to be entirely so before the Lords Marchers had established their power. [...]

I apprehend that the language of the various sections of 34 35 Hen. VIII. c. xxvi., quoted above, not having been repealed, settles the whole question, confirmed as it is by that of 1 Edw. VI. cap. x. The question next occurs, how was it that this desire to evade the wording of these Acts, and the agitation for making Monmouthshire a Welsh county afterwards arose? ... It was in the time of Elizabeth, when Wales and the Welsh came rather more into fashion; when the monarch with a faulty title was glad to hunt up her pedigree, and to trace back the small Welsh element of her blood to her not very noble ancestors in the obscure village of Penmynydd, in Anglesey; it was then that a pseudo-patriotic feeling was got up in Wales, and in Monmouthshire. ... The same purpose and the same result have been witnessed in our own day. ... Camden [says of the Silures] "Wales then, by which name antiently was comprehended the whole country beyond the Severn, though it is now of less extent, was formerly inhabited by three nations, the Silures, the Dimetce, and the Obdovices. They possessed not only the 12 Counties (as they are called) of Wales, but the two beyond the Severn Hereford and Monmouthshires, now reckoned among the English counties." And yet Camden is appealed to [by Milman] as a decisive authority for assigning Monmouthshire to Wales! [...]

There is no valid ground whatever for the assertion [Gough 1789] about Monmouthshire being "taken from Wales and added to England in the reign of Charles II." On referring, however, to [HCJ v.2 p.57] we do find something more tangible; but this was in the reign of Charles I. [23 December 1640] Committee named ". ... the Knights & Burgesses of the Thirteen Counties of the Principality of Wales, and the Knights and Burgesses of the four shires the Marches of Wales,—and all the lawyers of the house: " This Committee is to consider of the jurisdiction of the Court of Yorke, and of the Court of the Council of the Marches: and to consider how far the thirteen shires of Wales are subject to the jurisdiction of that court" &c. If there were thirteen shires in Wales, which were the four shires of the Marches? It is hard to make up the number without Monmouth! No Act of Parliament defining the "thirteen shires of Wales" can be found in the Statutes at Large; and, in presence of this fact, a resolution of the House of Commons signifies nothing.


 * Wiki Council of Wales and the Marches says "Its area of responsibility varied but generally covered all of modern Wales and the Welsh Marches (Welsh Lost Lands) of Shropshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Cheshire and Gloucestershire/Bristol." — that makes 5 or 6 counties, but even without Cheshire and Bristol it's four (Shropshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire, and Gloucestershire) — I guess "An Antiquary" excluded Gloucestershire as not abutting Wales?

Hubert Hall 1881
This boundary, known traditionally as "Offa's Ditch," ran from north to south, from the mouth of Dee to the mouth of Wye, from Chester to Bristol, according to seventeenth century reckoning. But, like all undefined boundaries, it admitted of extension, and this, of course, in the interests of the stronger and ever-aggressive nation. Thus, in Domesday the fairest portion of Monmouth, the tract between the Usk and the Severn, from Caerleon to Gloucester, broadly speaking, was counted as an appanage of Gloucestershire. Thus, too, Cherbury and Montgomery were both included in Shropshire; so that a second line must be drawn within Offa's Ditch on the Welsh side, to make the final boundary between the English and Welsh counties.

This line, we learn from manuscript authority of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, will be found to stretch from the source of Dee to the source of Usk, or more nearly speaking, from Bala to Caerleon; nor was this a merely arbitrary and informal arrangement ; it was solemnly confirmed by the Exchequer Barons in the reign of Edward III. Henceforth Monmouth might be known as the marches adjoining to Gloucestershire; Cherbury and Montgomery as the marches adjoining to Shropshire. But, in fact, such a trivial point soon dropped out of sight before the more important interests which supervened. Though Wales was always regarded as a distinct country from England, a distinction carefully maintained and even magnified by the common lawyers of the sixteenth century, it had from the earliest times been held, nominally at least, in chief from the English crown; a position laid down for the last time with effect in the tenth year of Henry IV.

...

Comparing this progress in different reigns, we find that a certain portion of the Welsh territory was presumably more or less permanently in the hands of the English kings. The order of Henry II. for the administration of justice by the sheriffs of the conquered districts applies to an area slightly in excess of that ceded to Henry III. by several treaties with Welsh princes; and again somewhat less than that formally incorporated in the principality as recorded in the investitures of his son and grandson.

In 1263, four cantreds of Wales, together with the whole river of Conway and the White Castle, were ceded absolutely to the English Crown for ever.

...

Edward II. granted to Edward III. all North Wales, Anglesey, the four cantreds, and all West and South Wales, together with the forfeited domains of Rece ap Meredith and the dties of Montgomery and Chester.

Those lands had been granted to Meredith by Edward I., " for his lawful service," and included, I strongly suspect, the north-west portion, at least, of Monmouthshire. But as neither Monmouth nor Chester were ever held to be part of Wales — by many they were not even considered as shires marcher — such an inclusion can scarcely be counted as a precedent.

Edward III. invested his son, the Black Prince, with all his lordships and lands in North, South, and West Wales, and the same form was usual up to the reign of Edward IV. The investiture by that lung of his son Edward as Prince of Wales, marks a new era in the history of the Welsh marches.

... Yet in the next century (1333-48) the whole of Gloucester, Hereford, and Shropshire, were admitted by the Crown to be "in the marches of Wales." But it was not till the reign of Edward IV. that the Crown acquired a permanent jurisdiction over both Wales and the marches, and this only in a limited degree. Still to this period the apologists of the Council of the West always looked in aftertimes for a precedent, which they readily found in the Charter of Investiture of the Prince of Wales. By this instrument, power was given to the prince to appoint justices in Gloucester, Hereford, Shropshire, and Worcester, within or without the liberties, " eisde c5m et eoru cuilibet adjacen" — as well as in Wales.

...

According to a later State Paper, though after the reign of Henry VI., there were no more rebellions; yet the state of the country was such, that Henry VII. sent Prince Arthur with, for the first time, a resident council "to terrefie and keepe under the Walshe, and to defende the Englishe counties adjoyning from theire spoyles."

The shires of Shropshire, Hereford, Cheshire, Gloucestershire, and Worcestershire were placed within the jurisdiction of the justices, who had powers of Oyer and Terminer and special gaol delivery throughout Wales and these the marcher shires. As Monmouth was not specified as one of the latter, and as its position did not need explanation till Henry VIII.'s Act of Union, it is almost certain that it was tacitly included with Gloucestershire as a Lordship marcher placed now for the first time under the direct jurisdiction of a commission from the English Crown. The judges of the school of Fortescu<i Icnew their business 4s well as their brediren of the Exchequer in the days of Edward III. — at least in the opinion of Elizabethan authorities. This account is corroborated by the statute 17 Henry VIII. We there learn, that from the long absence of a resident prince Wales and the marches are fidlen into a bad state, justice being greatly impeded by the distance from a civilized centre.

...

The Act of Union itself, in so far as it concerns Monmouthshire, is clear enough, though the ignorance displayed of the previous history of the question is not reassuring. Whereas, it is stated, the larger share of the Lordships marcher are now in the king's hands, five of these, the position of which admits of doubt, shall be redistributed. One, Monmouth, is to be an English county, and sue in English Courts; the other four — namely, Radnor, Brecknock, Montgomery, and Denbigh — are to have, for convenience, a special Chancery jurisdiction of their own. It is important to note, however, that none of these are marcher shires proper, but lordships marcher, abutting on English or Welsh counties respectively, to which they are now respectively relegated, Monmouth being carved out of Gloucestershire as permanently an English county.

In the Confirmatory Act, Wales is to consist of twelve counties, of which eight were Welsh counties in ancient times, and four new ones are added. The old counties were Glamorgan, Caermarthen, Caernarvon, Pembroke, Cardigan, Flint, Anglesey, and Merioneth. The new ones, Radnor, Brecknock, Denbigh, and Montgomery, as before. Over and besides, the Act continues, the shire of Monmouth, and divers other dominions, manors, lordships, in the marches of Wales, united and annexed to the shires of Salop, Hereford, and Gloucestershire. The Act thus acknowledges, if in part it overrides, the verdict of Domesday and of the Exchequer Barons.

But whatever interpretation be given to these Acts, their existence is of little constitutional importance as affecting the position of Monmouthshire; for the question was never an open one before, and was never asked afterwards. Had it been otherwise, any sovereign of the Tudor or Stuart families might have enacted in a servile or illegal Parliament the redistribution of any English, Welsh, or French district, in such form as a particular courtier, mistress, or minister should suggest; but it is doubtful for how long the arrangement would have lasted. Local patriotism is, when justly stirred, very warm and very lasting, especially when inspired by a Keltic imagination.

From this time forward the case of the shires marcher resumed its normal form. Volumes of legal and official treatises were compiled to prove that the "four shires" either were or were not in England or the marches. Sometimes Monmouth was included with them ; sometimes it was omitted. But none ever attempted to prove rationally that any of these were, or had been, parts of Wales.

The confirmation of this opinion, as seen in the official documents at such a distance of time as late in the reign of Elizabeth, is very striking. In a list of the deputy-lieutenants for Wales and four of the march shires in the year 1575, we find the twelve Welsh shires as laid down by Henry VIII.'s Act; then for the march shires, Monmouth, Salop, Hereford, and Wigom. In a list to be presented to Her Majesty for the year 1572, of the Welsh counties which returned sherififs; there are twelve counties, amongst which is not Monmouth. A duplicate retimi by the justices of assize bears like testimony. In a list of English and Welsh counties returning sheriffs for the year 1573, Monmouth is in its alphabetical order amongst the other English counties, and the Welsh counties are headed " Wallie." But here a Minister was piqued into "ticking" the four border coimties with the letter W! The same order is preserved in the Liber Pacis for 16 Eliz., Monmouth being included with Oxon, Berks, and five shires marcher in one circuit. In 1575 Monmouth is not to be found in the list for the Justices of the Peace of the twelve Welsh counties. In an original pricked sheriffs' list "for the twelve counties of Wales," November, 1589, there is no trace of Monmouth. In two original pricked sheriffs' lists, on the contrary, for England, one of Elizabeth, the other of James I., Monmouth does find its place.

In the face of such evidence as this it would be, I imagine, somewhat difficult to alter the immemorial position of Monmouthshire.

Morien 1895

 * In the time of King Offa of Mercia (Worcester, &c.) the treaty between him and Wales left the Wye a river of Wales. Through Anglo-Saxon and Norman times down to twenty-seventh Henry VIII. Monmouthshire continued to be legally one of the estates of Wales. But between the time of Edward I. and Henry VIII. infernal Norman knights, with their Saxon slaves in their service, stole many a rich slice of Herefordshire and Gwent from the natives, and there they built for themselves castles, and called themselves Lords Marchers, that is to say, lords of the border lands between England and Wales. ... we come to the time of Henry VIII. The Welsh nation, which England had absolutely failed to subdue or conquer, appealed to [Henry VIII] to be united to England, that is to say, to place Wales under the same land laws as those of England. The Statute 26 Henry VIII. contains the following clauses — XIII. The laws and statutes of this realm and none other shall be had and used and executed in Wales, in the like manner as in this realm, and shall be further declared by this Act. XIV. Divers lordships Marchers are united to English counties, others to Welsh counties, and the residue are divided into new and particular counties by themselves, viz., Monmouth, Brekenoke, Radnor, Montgomery, and Denbigh. ... Statutes 34 and 35 Henry VIII., 26. Wales 'shall lie divided into twelve counties, whereof eight were ancient counties, viz., Glamorgan, Caermarthen, Pembroke, Cardigan. Flint, Caernarvon, Anglesea, and Merioneth. Then are added Radnor, Brekenoke, Montgomery, and Denbigh, besides the county of Monmouth.
 * The wording in reference to Monmouthshire is peculiar. As is shown by the fact that the Bishopric of Llandaff extends over Glamorgan and Monmouth to the River Wye, Gwent, otherwise Monmouthshire —the Welsh still refer to "Gwent and Morganwg" as one county— the Act seems to deal with Monmouthshire as an auxiliary county, associated with Glamorgan, as it had been heretofore, for it is not united to England by it: The Act simply gives it the separate sheriff's court, to be held alternately at Monmouth and Newport. On this point Mr. H. Salusbury Milman, F.S.A., states:—"Although the ancient Marches were politically by the Act which made them shire ground (27 Henry VIII., cap. 26, s. 20), this Commission continued to be worded as before. 'Wales' however, in that instrument, began thenceforward to signify the thirteen Welsh shires." If this view be correct —and there does not appear to be any doubt about it— Wales [sic; recte Monmouthshire] has never been, even technically, out of the geographical limits of Wales. That in the reign of Charles II. it was, for the convenience of assize, included in the Oxford Circuit of the Bar means nothing, for the Bar does not make the laws. Let Monmouth foster its own most ancient language in its day schools, and foster sons and daughters worthy of the race from which they have sprung!

Peter Roberts 1996
[Wales' post-1543] boundary continued to be imprecisely defined ... Monmouthshire was treated as supernumerary to the "twelve shires of Wales".

Demography and polling
Monmouthshire (historic) corresponds "approximately to the present principal areas of Monmouthshire, Blaenau Gwent, Newport and Torfaen, and those parts of Caerphilly and Cardiff east of the Rhymney River"

Language

 * List of Welsh areas by percentage of Welsh-speakers
 * commons:Category:Linguistic maps of the Welsh language

Elections and referendums

 * 1979 Welsh devolution referendum — of the 8 council areas, Gwent was highest No votes

Snippets
Welsh Bicknor was an exclave of Monmouthshire locally between Gloucestershire (where English Bicknor abutted it) and Herefordshire until the Counties (Detached Parts) Act 1844 transferred it to Herefordshire.

Samuel Lewis included Monmouthshire in Topographical Dictionary of England, not Wales; whereas Berwick-upon-Tweed was in both England and Scotland.

1851 census:
 * p.xix Great Britain and the Islands in its Seas have, for the convenience of statistical investigation, been divided by the Registrar-General into fourteen groups of Counties or Islands. ... XI. The WELSH Division comprises Monmouthshire and Wales; namely, Brecknockshire, and, around this shire, Glamorganshire, Carmarthenshire with Pembrokeshire, Cardiganshire, and Radnorshire, in South Wales; Denbighshire, and around this shire, Flintshire, Montgomeryshire, Merionethshire, Carnarvonshire, and Anglesey, in North Wales.
 * p.lxxx–lxxxii For the purposes of statistical comparison, we shall be able to use the New Divisions, and shall thus obtain a large basis of operation, compress the Tables within a moderate compass, and get rid of the inconvenience of dealing with numbers of people differing so widely as the population of the small and large counties. ... the average population of the eleven [ie including Wales] English divisions ... the area, the population, the topo graphical position of counties, their historical connections, and the leading occupations, have all been taken into account in the formation of the thirteen [ie w/o XIV Man + Channel Is] Divisions ... In their main features the new Divisions correspond with the earlier Divisions of England. ... The Welsh division (XI.) was the North Wealas of the Saxon period—the Powys, Gwynedh, Deheuberth, and Gwent of the Cymri; the Britannia Secunda of the Romans, where the Ordovices, Cangi, Demetae, and Silures lived under their sway.

'The anomalous status of Monmouthshire — accounted for, because of proximity to London, by incorporation in the sixteenth century within the English system of courts and by more generous parliamentary representation — was ended by the Local Government Act 1972; but until then we had to accept the laborious designation of "Wales and Monmouthshire" in official documents and publications.'

(reprinted as )
 * "South of Herefordshire we have Monmouthshire, which was so recently (only in 1535) incorporated with England, that many enthusiastic Welsh people refuse to acknowledge the Act of Parliament, and consider it still Gwent and Morganwg. It is certainly more recent in its English than either Hereford or Shropshire, and a portion of it still speaks Welsh. Its English is decidedly Welsh in tone, and sometimes in words, but, at least on the Eastern part, it has strong marks of the southern dialect." p.187
 * "The [English–Welsh language boundary] seems to enter [Monmouthshire] east of Brynmawr, and probably follows the valley of the lesser Ebbw or Ebwy to its junction with the greater, and keeps east of the united Ebbw, west of Pontypool and east of Risca, but west of Newport, to the junction of the Ebbw and Usk rivers on the Bristol Channel. I understand that most of the Welsh speakers in Western Monmouthshire are immigrants and not natives." p.192

TBD
Did 19th-century Home Nations sports bodies in England and Wales fight over jurisdiction/player eligibility? Welsh Rugby Union members included Newport RFC at 1881 founding and possibly Chepstow RFC at undocumented 1880 meeting.