Today I’ll reproduce some excerpts from the Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry for South Wales (1844) which looked into the causes of the Rebecca uprising, and which was released on .
There is much in the reports about the nature of the turnpike Trusts, their financial conditions, the laws concerning tolls (and how toll collectors sometimes violated them to increase their take), the grievances at the root of the uprising, and so forth. I’m going to stick to excerpting things concerning the tactics of refusal and of tollgate/toll house destruction — how they played out, how they were organized, and what resulted from them.
The resistance to the payment of tolls, and the destruction of turnpike-gates,
began in the Whitland Trust, in the confines of the counties of Pembroke and
Carmarthen. This Trust was established in :
the Act was subsequently renewed, and several parish roads were then included
which had not been named in the original Act. One of these roads (nearly eight
miles in length), leading from
St. Clears to Maesgwynne Gate,
had been made and upheld in good condition by the parishes. The trustees did
not, on the passing of the Act, take the road into their charge, or provide
for its management and repair; it continued for several years to be maintained
as a parish road, when suddenly the trustees resolved to place turnpike-gates
at each end of it.
In , says Mr. Baugh Allen, some
people from England, for the first time, gave intimation that if certain new
gates were erected on roads where considerable lime and culm traffic passed,
they might be induced to farm the tolls at a higher rate than that which had
been previously obtained. Their proposition was accepted; the tolls were let
to Mr. Bullin, an extensive toll-contractor, and four new gates were erected.
But the country people thinking it wrong that the trustees should take tolls
where they had incurred no expenditure, assembled “in the midst of summer, at
about six o’clock in the afternoon, and those gates were pulled down amidst
all sorts of noise and disturbance and great jollity, and were destroyed
without the interference of anybody.” “I do not think,” says Mr. W. Evans, the
clerk of this Trust, “they were a week standing.”
The trustees gave notice of their intention to re-erect the gates. A meeting
was held for the purpose at St.
Clears, but at that meeting a number (from 30 to 40, as it is said) of the
leading magistrates of the county of Carmarthen qualified to act as trustees,
and they decided, by a large majority, that the gates should not be
re-erected.
“This act of the magistrates,” says a very intelligent witness, “gave
satisfaction to the country for a time, but it strengthened the hands of the
discontented, and, in some measure, prepared them for further violence. The
trustees continued to call upon the parishes to repair the roads, without
laying out anything upon them themselves, though the income of the Trust
amounted to 500l. a
year, which made the matter more galling.”
The rioters, however, gained their point, the gates were not re-established;
no one was punished for the outrage which had taken place, and there can be no
doubt (as we are assured by Mr. W. Evans) “that with the erection of those
gates originated the disturbance.”
At the time of our inquiry no one gate or bar was left standing, and the
receipt of tolls on account of the [Whitland] Trust was altogether suspended.
The [Main Trust] trustees, as we were informed by Colonel Rice Trevor, put up
a new gate, called the Mermaid Gate. It was leased with others, but by some
oversight the trustees omitted to direct that a payment at this gate should
free the gate five miles off at Carmarthen. Discontent was created, and the
gate was five times in succession pulled down by a lawless mob.
When the contagion of discontent spread from its focus in the Whitland Trust,
the inhabitants of the parishes lying north and west of Carmarthen (who, from
local position, were constrained to travel as heretofore over the old and
hilly road), were displeased at paying this increased [by 50%] toll on account
of the new road, the benefit of which they did not enjoy. Excitement
prevailed, tumultuous assemblies took place, the gates, one of which stood at
the very entrance of the town of Carmarthen, were destroyed with the greatest
violence and outrage. At the time of our inquiry, out of nine gates
established by the Trust, three only were standing.
At the time of our inquiry neither [Rhynws Bridge] gate nor bar were standing,
nor was any toll collected at the bridge…
The trustees [of the Three Commotts Trust] had established 21 gates or bars,
of which two only were left standing at the time of our inquiry.
In this [the Kidwelly] trust, 14 gates and bars, exclusive of that on the
[Loughor river] bridge, had been destroyed; and 13 bars and one gate had been
ordered by the trustees to be permanently discontinued.
As this road [in Llangadock Trust, “on which there were at one time 13 gates
and bars”] exists chiefly for the carriage of lime, and as a high rate per
horse was taken, the gates became objects of attack; all of them had been
destroyed, excepting four. Some, we were informed, were about to be abandoned
by the trustees, on the condition that the parishes would maintain the roads,
and all the bars had been put down. The toll on lime appears to have been
since reduced, without the authority of the Act of Parliament, from
6d. to
3d. on each horse
drawing. But the trustees were unable to let such gates as they still upheld,
and they had appointed persons to collect the tolls.
In the Llandovery and Llampeter Trust there are 40 miles of road, and on
which, in there were 13 gates and bars… Four
gates and all the bars had been destroyed.
Every gate and bar [in the Carmarthen & Lampeter, and Tiveyside trusts:
“six gates and nine bars”] had been destroyed. When the first was broken, the
trustees put it up again, but it was broken down again in the course of a few
weeks.
[In t]he Llandilo and Llandebye Trust… [t]here were also seven gates, of which
four had been destroyed. Some of these had been re-erected; one had been
altogether discontinued.
[In t]he Brechfa Trust… three gates and two side-bars had been destroyed.…
No meeting [of trustees] had been held to consider what should be done with
the gates which had been thrown down, and Mr. Rees, the Treasurer for the
County of Carmarthen, who still discharges the almost nominal duty of clerk
to the Trust, expressed to us his belief, with respect to the gates, that the
trustees had no intention of putting them up again.
There are two gates on this road [under the Pembroke Ferry Trust], both of
which were pulled down, and one only was restored at the time of our inquiry.
The tolls had been let for
111l. per annum, but
there seemed to be no hope that so large a sum could continue to be received.
In this district [Cardigan] there had been ten turnpike-gates, but at the
time of our inquiry nine had been pulled down.
In the Northern District of Cardiganshire… four gates had been attacked, three
of which were utterly destroyed.
[In the Rhayader and Llangerrig Trust] both the gates had been attacked, and
that which it was most difficult to protect, has been twice pulled down.
There are five gates and one bar belonging to [the Radnorshire Trust],
closely surrounding the town of Rhayader. Two of these gates are upon the
old roads to Aberystwith and Llanidloes, which the creation of the new line
of communication by Llangerrig, to which we have already alluded, has
rendered nearly useless. These roads have been practically abandoned by the
Trust, though the turnpike-gates continue to exist upon them. Both these
gates, together with one at the eastern end of the town, which became
obnoxious because it was so placed as to require payment of tolls from
persons who came upon the turnpike-road at a short distance only from the
toll-bar, were destroyed by an organized mob, and the toll could only be
collected under the protection of police and a military force.
In [the Breckonshire] Trust one gate only had been destroyed. Such as were
likely to become obnoxious had been taken down by order of the trustees.
In [the Llantrissant] Trust three gates [of eight] had been destroyed by acts
of violence…
We met with no one, however deeply interested he might be in the continuance
of the system, who was sanguine enough to entertain a belief that the same
amount of tolls could be collected, or the same number of gates, chains, and
bars be sustained, as before the disturbances began.
In appendices to the report, the commissioners included some transcripts of testimony they collected during their inquiry.
Here is some testimony of John Lloyd Davies, concerning the Carmarthen and Newcastle Trust:
- How many gates are now standing?
- Four this week; three, I believe, last week
- Which of the gates have you re-erected?
- The gate at Pontwilly, by Llandyssil, on the new line. The house stood,
because they did not touch the house; nor did they touch this gates; they
felt the justice of the proceeds of that gate being applied to pay for
the new road, which was a great accommodation. During the whole of the
outbreak it was left untouched, till some miscreants in the
neighbourhood, whether out of wantonness or not, went there, and broke a
little of the gate, and that led to a further spirit of destruction, and
in a few months afterwards the whole was demolished, but not the
house.
- In restoring the gate, do you feel any confidence that there will be a
sufficient sense of justice in the public mind to maintain it?
- I think so. I have very good intelligence who the parties are who were
privy to it, and who are morally criminal, though perhaps not legally. I
mean to see them, every one of them; some of them are respectable people,
I am sorry to say.
- Are there not parts of roads in your Trust which you have turned over to
the parishes, and, as it were, cast out of the Trust?
- Not until now; we have done so recently.
- Can you explain under what view of the law you have been able to
accomplish that?
- At the eastern end of Newcastle there are two turnpike-gates, the one
communicates with a mountain road, the other with the Llangeler road.
They broke the mountain gate, called Bwlehydomen. Such being the case, I
proposed that we should let that gate remain, as they had broken it down,
and let them travel the mountain road; but inasmuch as we received no
toll from it, that we should make no expenditure upon it; if they chose
to have a bad road free from toll, let them have it; or if they chose to
repair it at their own expense, be it so.
- Have you anything that you wish to add to what you have stated?
- I would add this, rather in vindication of my brother trustees, — there
are strong opinions gone abroad that there has not been a sufficient
degree of sympathy on the part of the trustees and magistrates of the
country with the country people to relieve them when a case demanding
relief presented itself. Now, I give this as an instance, and a very
strong one: it is three years ago a great number of gates stood upon the
Whitland Trust. The parties in that neighbourhood assembled and broke the
gates down. Our county member, Mr. Jones, then spoke to a great number of
his friends among the trustees, and intreated many to go with him to a
large meeting, assembled at
St. Clear’s, of
Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire magistrates. I went, at some
inconvenience, down there; and Mr. Jones proposed that these gates
should, by an order of the trustees, be abated, stating that they were a
great burden upon the county, that they were unproductive, and that the
parishes had to maintain the road. … When the Act of Parliament passed,
those roads were in being as parish roads, and the power in this Act was
only of adoption; but it first stated that the trustees, before they
erected gates, should repair the whole of those roads, which condition
precedent they had not performed. I, therefore, took an objection that
they had erected the gates illegally; and as the parishes had ever since
repaired the roads, I thought, in justice and law, the gates ought to be
taken down… At that meeting there were, I dare say, 35 or 40 magistrates;
and the view I took of it was coincided in by every one, with the
exception of four or five, and the gates were taken away. Now that does
not evidence the least want of sympathy with the country people, for we
were of all grades of politics, Whigs and Tories and Radicals, and
everything else, assembled for the express purpose of affording relief,
and the country was completely relieved. I will give another instance,
which led to the whole of this outbreak: it was a bar upon one side of
St. Clear’s, upon the main
trust… the moment I heard of the bar being erected I gave notice of a
Trust meeting, to propose that it should be taken down again; and at the
expiration of that notice there was an immense assembly of trustees
again, and they all perfectly coincided with me that it ought to be taken
away: but there was a little want of moral courage on the part of some of
them; they said, “We must put it off a month or else it would seem a
giving way to clamour.” I replied, “You have done wrong and you cannot do
right too soon.” However I was over-ruled, it was not done, but it was to
be done in a fortnight; and in that unhappy fortnight the whole of that
outbreak took place; and at the end of the fortnight it was so done under
circumstances betraying apprehension, much more than would have been the
case if we had done it the preceding fortnight.
-
At the commencement of this spring, the moment the gates were being
broken, I sent round to my tenants, and I said, “Have nothing to do with
the gate-breaking, I will pay for every load of lime at every gate that
you pass through;” and in defiance of that I am satisfied that a great
number of their servants joined the gate-breaking, from a mere spirit of
wantonness, which required but a slight force to repel at once. We were
perfectly quiet in Cardiganshire. There was a rising in Carmarthenshire to
come and break the gate at Newcastle, on the Cardiganshire side. I saw
their object, and I sent round to my tenantry and neighbours, and
collected about 150, some of them armed with whatever they could bring, on
the Cardiganshire side, and gave it to be understood on the
Carmarthenshire side, that if they came the men would resist them; they
never came, which is a proof that the people would act if they could act
in a body.
William Evans, clerk of the Whitland Trust:
-
With respect to the road from
St. Clear’s to Maesgwynne Gate,
the misfortune is that they did not take that road early enough under
management… The road had existed many years. They set up a gate at each end,
and proposed taking one toll throughout its whole length, that length being
six miles and seven furlongs. The gates were approved of by the public in the
locality; they were riotously destroyed, and those were the first riots, the
riots which destroyed that gate, and destroyed another, called Evel War, upon
another branch of the road. The erection of those gates no doubt originated
the disturbances.
- How long is it since the gate on the Maesgwynne branch was
demolished?
- In .
- And that gate was not re-erected?
- There were meetings of the trustees, at which a great number of new
trustees qualified, from Carmarthenshire principally, who had never
interfered at all with the management of the Trust before. They qualified
in a body, and swamped the order that had been made by those trustees who
usually managed the Trust, and who had ordered the gates to be put
up.
- Are all the gates in your Trust destroyed now?
- Every gate.
- How many?
- There is one at Plain Dealings; there are two gates at Narberth, called
Narberth East Gates; they are close to each other. There are at
Penblowing two gates, Llether Gate, Robeston Wathan Gate, Pulltrath Gate,
Trevan two gates, one of which is a side gate. There are ten gates
altogether.
- The gates were destroyed. The trustees who revoked the order for setting
up the gates, directed that Bullen should be compensated for giving up his
agreement, and accordingly, a good part of the resources of the Trust went
to buy him off. After all those new gates were set up, including those on
the road from St. Clear’s to
Maesgwynne, and after they were let to Bullen at
800l. a-year, the
ex-officio justices qualified, the gates having been destroyed by
rioters, and directed that they should not be again erected. But Bullen
said, of course, “Those gates are let to me, and I will not relinquish
them.” And then the trustees made an order, that in order to induce him to
waive his agreement as to the gates they should pay him out of the Trust
Fund 150l. It was
made a subject of reference.
- What did he pay you for tolls?
- They destroyed the gates immediately after his taking.
- In point of fact, you have never spent from the fund of the Trust any
money whatever upon the repair of the road from Maesgwynne to
St. Clear’s?
- Not a farthing.
- How long were those gates on the line standing?
- I do not think they were a week standing.
- …14l.
4s.
8d., those were
costs paid to an adverse attorney, Mr. Cozens, who was attorney for the
appellant Howell, in an appeal against two justices, and Benjamin
Bullen, who was the toll contractor of the trust, in respect of a
conviction for making forcible opposition to the collection of the toll.
The destruction of gates and opposition to the tolls having previously
commenced, the trustees felt it their duty to defend the conviction,
and so ordered at a meeting on ; the conviction
was quashed, and those taxed costs ordered by the Court to be paid.
Having defended the appeal, the trustees thought it right that they
should pay the costs of the adverse party, and that they should not call
upon the justices, or upon Bullen, and therefore, whether right or wrong,
they ordered them to be paid.
- What was the conviction for?
- The conviction was for forcible opposition to the collection of toll
under the general Turnpike Act. If I recollect rightly, it failed from
not having made sufficiently clear the demand of the toll, previously to
the forcing through.
- Was the appeal to the county sessions, or to the borough sessions?
- To the county of Carmarthen. It was tried here. No 4,
16l. That was
cash advanced to John Mens and Henry Rees, poor men, who having assisted
Benjamin Bullen, the toll collector, in apprehending Daniel Luke and
William Phillips for forcing through the bar, without paying toll, and
having from fear of a rescue, as they alleged, handcuffed them, were
with Bullen, sued for trespass in an action by each. The trustees thought
it their duty to stand by the collector, and those men who assisted him,
and at a meeting of , they ordered
the clerk to defend the actions at the expense of the Trust. They were
defended accordingly, but the plaintiffs obtained a verdict, in each
action, for 6l.
damages, on the ground that the handcuffing was under the circumstances
excessive. Mens and Rees were imprisoned for the plaintiffs’ damages and
costs, and this
16l. was
advanced to them to assist them to take the benefit of the Insolvent
Act, which they did.
- …60l. were
given by way of compensation to a person who had built a house for the
Trust, by way of a toll-house, under a stipulation that they were to
take it at a certain rent. The house was destroyed by rioters; the
trustees did not wish to be at the expense of building it, and they
agreed to pay
60l. by way of
compensation…
- Were these gates all broken last year?
- Yes, we have had them down a long time now; we have hardly been able to
get the tenants of last year to pay us anything. They say they will not
pay us anything, and we shall only be able to recover anything by law
proceedings, if at all. We let them the tolls for the year, which expired
last Michaelmas, but every now and then the people came and knocked the
toll-houses about their ears, and therefore they say, “We are poor
people, we depended for paying you upon the receipts of the toll, and
therefore we are unable to pay on account of the riots, and therefore we
throw ourselves upon your mercy, but if you sue us we are too poor to be
able to pay.”
John James Stacey, clerk to the main Trust:
- The [turnpike-]house which has been destroyed between here and Llandello
cost 55l. at
Penyguarn.
- What has taken place to induce the trustees to increase the payments?
- They have discontinued the gate at Penygarn which has been destroyed,
and they have made other alterations with a view to relieve the farmers,
and they wish to make up for the loss by putting an additional toll upon
strangers, so that they shall pay two tolls in coming from Llandillo here
instead of the one to which they are now subject; that was a proposition
of Lord Cawdor’s.
- You are not able to state what number of gates are now prostrate?
- In this Trust there is only that one at Penygarn, and one side-bar at
Abergwilly. Both those have been pulled down by the mob; and they are
now, by the authority of the trustees, discontinued. There was a gate at
Abergwilly, and there was also a side-gate, and that has been pulled
down; and the trustees have ordered that it shall be discontinued. There
was also a chain near the palace. It was not customary to take tolls at
that chain, but only at fairs and weddings, and that has been
discontinued.
- How many gates have been destroyed upon the main Trust?
- Seven.
- How many of those have been put up again?
- They have all been put up again except two.
- How many times have those that have been put up been destroyed?
- One has been destroyed twice.
- Can you tell the exact number of gates [in the Kidwelly Trust] before they
were broken down?
- Yes, there were 14 toll-gates, exclusive of the bridge; there is a
toll-gate upon the bridge also. One toll-gate and 13 bars have been
discontinued by the order of the trustees lately.
- How many are remaining?
- All the toll-gates except one are to be continued, but great numbers of
them are now in ruins, they have not been re-erected yet.
- Is there any claim against you by the lessees for the loss incurred by the
destruction of the gates?
- Yes; it was agreed to allow the lessee of those tolls
350l., in
consideration of his consenting to the immediate abolition of those bars
which I have mentioned, and also in consideration of certain gates being
made to clear each other which heretofore did not do so.
- How many gates have been destroyed upon this [Kidwelly] Trust?
- I think about 10 or 12 have been destroyed out of 15 or 16.
Lancelot Baugh Allen, magistrate for the counties of Pembroke, Surry, Middlesex, Essex, and Kent; and trustee of the Whitland and the main Trusts:
- You are aware that turnpike-gates and side-bars have been destroyed in
both of those Trusts within the last few months?
- Very few upon the main Trust. Upon the Whitland Trust I know that the
gates and side-bars have been destroyed; but I am not aware, with the
exception of one at Haverfordwest, that any gate upon the main Trust has
been destroyed. I mean not in that part.
- Can you at all account for the different course which has been pursued by
those discontented persons with reference to the two classes of
gates — what has induced them to destroy those in the Whitland Trust, and
to leave those in the main Trust?
- It is an attack of the consumers of lime and culm, all of which comes
from the south part of the country from Pembrokeshire, and goes
northward. There is no lime or culm to the northward of Narberth, and the
attack has arisen in consequence of those persons who live in the upper
part of the county being anxious to get their lime and culm toll
free.
- To what cause do you attribute the discontent with reference to these
turnpike-gates on the roads along which lime and culm is drawn, seeing
that most of them have existed for a considerable time?
- There was no objection made to the toll in any way till a meeting that
took place about four years ago, and it is to that unfortunate business
that I attribute the whole. My opinion is, that the outrages have arisen
from the mismanagement which took place in reference to the transactions
about which that meeting was called.
- After the breaking down of the gate at
St. Clears?
- Yes; there has been very considerable mismanagement in bringing forward
the last Act of Parliament respecting the Whitland gates. The first Act
comprised within the limits of the Whitland Trust a very much less extent
of road than the subsequent Act has done. The subsequent Act took in a
great part of the road in the neighbourhood of Llanboidy and northward;
upon those roads at that time there were no turnpike-gates; those roads
which were parish-roads, and kept in very good order, were then put into
the turnpike Trust. The general belief is, that the gentlemen of that
part of the county thought that a toll might be a grievance, and instead
of putting up a turnpike according to the Act prescribed, they intimated
to the parishioners that if they kept the road in good order, no
turnpike-gates should be put up.
- Is that notice on the book?
- No; I am now stating what I understood to be the case. I wish
particularly to guard myself in saying that. This went on so; those roads
being parish roads, and in no way obtaining any other assistance from the
Trust, but occasionally getting stones which the Trust paid for. The
Trust paid for no repair, but they paid for some of the stones that were
expended upon those parish roads, and that was the extent to which they
went. About four years back Mr. Bullen, the person who was the contractor
for the tolls, took gates upon both lines of road; he stated there was
considerable evasion of toll by the people coming northward into
St. Clear’s, and
recommended that a gate should be put up at a place of which the
Commissioners have probably heard, Pevernwen. The consequence was, that
persons taking lime from
St. Clear’s, northward,
had to pay an additional toll, which was felt by them as a very
considerable grievance. In the course, I believe, of the early part of
the following spring, the gate at Pevernwen was destroyed in the night by
a considerable mob of persons, and in some months afterwards the gate at
St. Clear’s was
destroyed, in the midst of summer, at about six o’clock in the
afternoon, amidst all sorts of noise and disturbance, and without any
sort of interference of anybody. Upon this a meeting or two took place,
and it was stated by a number of persons belonging to the Whitland Trust,
who met at Narberth, that those gates ought to be reinstated. A
communication took place with the Secretary of State, Lord John Russell,
respecting it, and about the reinstating of the gate there seemed to be
considerable division of opinion between the gentlemen who came from
Pembrokeshire and from Carmarthenshire; a meeting was called for the
purpose of reinstating the gates at
St. Clear’s, at which
meeting I attended; upon the proposition being made, it was carried
against the re-erection of the gates by a considerable majority. It is
true that at that meeting a great number of gentlemen in the county of
Carmarthen qualified to act, who never attended before nor since; they
came from a very considerable distance, gave a very ready vote, and
there was an end of the thing; the gates were not re-erected. At the
same time an opinion was produced which possibly you may have seen, that
it was imperative upon the Trust to erect the gates in the district
where they had been pulled down, but it was carried that they should not
be re-erected.
- What interval of time elapsed between the destruction of this gate and
the destruction of others?
- I think about three years; but that will be easily seen from Mr. Evans’s
book. Mr. Evans is clerk of the Trust.
- The Commissioners understand that, since that time, every gate in the
Whitland Trust has been destroyed?
- Every gate upon the Whitland Trust, I believe, has been destroyed, or
partially destroyed.
John Lloyd Davies again:
- I think the Commissioners are taking for granted that the gates have been
the origin of this disturbance. It is no such thing; it is merely the
means by which the feeling of the people has become apparent; for the
breaking of gates has taken place at Newcastle, in a portion of the road
where the gates were scarcely paid or felt; and people have been the
breakers of the gates, who, I am satisfied, never paid
2s. toll in the course
of two years.
- When did the agitation in Cardiganshire begin?
- It began when the Newcastle Gate was broken, what is called the Adpar
Gate.
- The Commissioners have been told that individuals who might have known
better, have lent themselves to exciting and instigating the population of
Cardiganshire to acts of violence. Has anything of that sort come to your
knowledge?
- No; but I think that individuals who ought to have known better, I mean
persons of education, have gone round the country, giving a very high
colour to circumstances, which of themselves were not grievances and
converting them into such.
- Has that been done from political motives at all?
- Yes; from Chartism.
- Have not meetings taken place in the day which have apparently borne an
unobjectionable character, but which have really led to mischief, which
was not apparent to those who observed them cursorily?
- Yes.
- Were not persons of station in society induced to preside at those
meetings with a view to prevent mischief?
- They were.
- Have you reason to believe that they were deceived in the character of the
proceedings, and that things were done at those meetings which were not
known to the persons who presided over them?
- I have reason to think that after the apparent business of the meeting
was over resolutions were entered into of a most injurious
description.
- Can you at all specify what was the nature of the mischief that they
resolved upon at those meetings?
- I have been told that after the Cardiganshire meeting resolutions were
entered into to interdict any tenant from taking two farms under the
usual penalty, fire, in case of non-compliance; and also I have been told
that resolutions were entered into to pull down the weir, and I have
understood that some portion of those assembled entered into a
combination to attack the clergyman’s house or his haggard.
- From the circumstances of the country and the difficulty which exists
amongst those people of communicating with one another, are you led to
believe that if this meeting had not taken place the opportunity for this
combination would not have existed?
- I think not, because those meetings drew parties from opposite directions
who could not have had a pretense for meeting otherwise.
- Have you yourself discouraged such meetings?
- I have; I called together as many of my tenants as I could, and told them
that I made them responsible for their labourers and workmen and
undertenants, and if they had any cause of grievance let the mention it
to me and I would redress it, but that I thought that the probability was
that the only real grievance was poverty, and that the relief to be
afforded to that I was willing to extend to them by a reduction of rent,
and which I had practised some time before, two years, indeed, at
intervals at different times, and the effect of this has been, I am happy
to say, very good. I think I can safely say that not a single tenant of
mine has ever been near those meetings.
- You were understood to say, the other day, that one or two of your
tenants, to whom you had behaved kindly, and for whom you had paid their
lime tolls, had actually attended those meetings?
- I have since had reason to believe that that was not the case.
- When was the last meeting of that kind held?
- .
- Where?
- Near Lampeter.
- Was it largely attended?
- I have been told that there were 3000 people, but I allow something for
exaggeration and bring it down to 2000. It is so large an assemblage,
that it is alarming, I think, in this country, where I never saw 200
people assembled in my life for any such purpose.
- What was the professed purpose of the meeting?
- To petition for redress of grievances and to enter into resolutions. I
have heard that it was the most Chartist meeting that has ever taken
place in Wales, in its complexion, actions, and words.
- Do you know who was in the chair?
- I do not, it has resolved itself into a Chartist business. They are
persons of no good character that get up the meetings.
- Does it occur to you that anything can be done beyond the influence which
you exercise very properly and judiciously as a landlord to discourage
this?
- Nothing, but every landlord calling his tenants together, and making
them morally responsible to him for the quiet within the district in
which they live. Suppose a man lives within an area of four or five
miles, I should say to him, “If I hear of any disturbance I shall take
for granted that you or your sons or your servants know of it, and you
must take every means in your power to prevent it.”
- Do you think that persons come from great distances to those
meetings?
- Yes, they do. The meeting
was in Carmarthenshire, and Cardiganshire people came there; they came
from Pembrokeshire to the nightly meetings for breaking gates.
George Spurrell, clerk to the Three Committs Trust, and Richard Spurrell, clerk to Llandilo Rynnws Trust:
- The return states that there are 21 gates. Does that include
side-bars?
- [GS] Yes.
- Are they all down?
- [GS] I think they are all down with the exception of two gates.
- Are any of them in progress of being re-erected?
- [RS] Yes; the farmers wish to have them re-erected. They see their folly
in pulling the gates down and letting strangers pass toll free; and they
support the gates now.
Lewis Evans, Thomas Thomas, and John Harris:
- Will you tell the Commissioners what has been the cause of disturbances
which have taken place lately in Tallog, where you live?
- [TT] The policemen came there with a distraint upon John Harris’s
goods.
- How did it begin?
- My carter went, with two others, through Water-street gate without
paying it; when he came back that night he told me of the thing, and I
sent the man the next morning to tell the gateman that I should pay next
Saturday, and to leave everything quiet. That was on Tuesday or
Wednesday. I sent to the gateman to say that I would pay on Thursday. I
was summoned to appear here on Friday before the magistrates, but no
magistrate appeared: and we were persuaded by Mr. Philip Jones to attend
that day week. As we were coming to the fair the next day we wished to
come on that day, and we came here on Saturday. I saw two magistrates,
Mr. Morris the banker, and Mr. Stacey the mayor; I told them that I had
sent to the gateman, and the gateman refused to take any notice of it,
and they fined me the same as others.
- Was there any question with respect to yourself except that which arose
from the man having gone through without paying, or did you say that the
toll was illegally demanded, and that you wished to try the right?
- I think it was illegally demanded.
- Had your servant paid when he went into the town in the morning?
- No, he had not. I thought it was illegal.
- What did your cart bring into Carmarthen that morning?
- Nothing but grass for the horse.
- What did it come to Carmarthen for?
- For lime.
- And you had nothing in the cart but grass for the horse?
- Nothing.
- Did your servant pay in the morning?
- No.
- Was he asked to pay in the morning when he came into Carmarthen?
- Yes.
- Did he refuse to pay?
- Yes.
- Did you tell him not to pay?
- No.
- Why did he refuse?
- He joined with others.
- For what reason did he refuse?
- It was reported over the country that the toll was illegal, that it was
overcharged.
He goes on to testify that he sent a message to the toll collector indicating that he would quietly pay to make the whole thing go away, but he was nonetheless summonsed, whereupon he again stated that he would pay but that he thought the charge was illegal. The magistrates fined him two pounds, eight shillings, sixpence (the toll was 2½ pence; the dispute being that it ought to have been 1½). John Harris and Samuel Bowen were also summonsed for refusal to pay and also fined, but they refused to pay.
- Did any disturbance take place at Tallog in that week?
- Not at Tallog, but there was a disturbance.
- How did that disturbance arise? Did officers come over to seize your
goods?
- Not my goods, but Harris’s; I had paid.
- Was the gate broken down shortly after you had refused to pay toll?
- It was broken before.
- Did you think that, because the gate was removed, you were not liable to
pay toll?
- I took no notice about the breaking of it.
- Did the sheriff’s offices coming over to seize make a disturbance
there?
- Yes.
- State what took place?
- Half of them were tipsy.
- Who were tipsy?
- The policemen, and went a way that was not leading to John Harris’s
house, and kicked up a row.
- Did they go to distrain the goods?
- Yes; they took four boxes.
- What did they do with the boxes?
- They took them with them.
- How far did they take them?
- About 200 yards.
But then he told the police that he would guarantee the fine if they would return the property, so they left the boxes behind.
- Had there been any disturbances about the toll upon lime at the
Water-street gate before that?
- I heard of nothing before that.
- How long before this had the gate been broken?
- I do not know, indeed; I think about a fortnight.
- What had been the cause of breaking that gate?
- I think it was because the toll was illegal.
- Was it reported, whether truly or not, that it was some people from your
neighbourhood that had broken the gate?
- I do not know.
- Had many gates been broken down at that time, besides that gate?
- Yes, I think there were.
There then was some confusing testimony about some people pulling down a wall at “the entrance to a gentleman’s house” — perhaps that of a Mr. Davis (a county magistrate) who signed one of the distraint warrants and participated in the fining of the resisters. After that they begin to discuss the Carmarthen Workhouse riot:
- How soon afterwards was any notice given that a demonstration was to take
place?
- I think about a week or a fortnight.
- [Captain Evans.] The word used was not “a demonstration” but that they
were to meet, and that everybody was to attend under Rebecca’s orders,
and that was carried to all the chapels and churches throughout the
neighbourhood.
- Was there a demonstration which took place afterwards when a number of
people rode to the workhouse?
- Yes, that was the very day when that occurred.
David Evans, surveyor to the Carmarthen & Newcastle Trust and to the Three Commotts Trust:
- What number of gates have you now?
- Four.
- What number of gates have been destroyed and not restored, excluding bars?
- Five.
- Were there any particular circumstances that led to the dissatisfaction
that induced the people to pull down the Water-street Gate? Had not the
toll been raised there to prevent the people coming along that in
preference to the new road?
- Yes. That was what the people complained of.
- They thought that as that road remained in the same state as it had been,
it was hard that they should pay the toll there to provide for making a
new road to Conwyl, which in going through Water-street Gate they did not
travel?
- Yes.
- Was there any impression that the maintenance of that gate was illegal,
with reference to the Act of Parliament, that provides that no gate shall
be set up in the borough of Carmarthen?
- I have heard several speaking of that; some of the parishioners in this
parish.
- Is there anything in that in your opinion?
- I do not think there is.
- Upon this trust [Three Commotts] there were 6 gates and 11 bars
destroyed?
- Yes
- How many were not destroyed?
- Three.
James Mark Child:
- Are you aware of any particular instance in which gates are oppressive, in
your opinion?
- From the town of Narberth to the colliery at Bushmore, the property of
Sir Richard Phillips, a distance of five miles, there are four gates, all
of which you pay. At the last Trust meeting I proposed to my brother
magistrates (this is on the Whitland Trust) that one gate should clear
another; that we should only pay two gates. They said, “We will wait a
day or two;” but they said, “Here is the difficulty, two of the gates are
upon the Whitland Trust and the two others are upon the Tavernspite.” I
said “Yes; but the Act gives us the power to confer with one another,”
and I pointed out the section; and at the same time I said, “Every
magistrate, or every man that is now here as a trustee upon the Whitland
Trust, is also a trustee upon the Tavernspite Trust, consequently you
have only to go through the form of sending the notices required.” A
gentleman of the name of Phillips, a very intelligent man in
Pembrokeshire, said, “We will wait till I can confer with Lord Cawdor.” I
saw him three or four days afterwards; he said, “I have been talking with
Lord Cawdor about it, and he thinks it is better not to disturb it, as no
person has taken down the gates.” I said, “In my idea that is the very
reason why we should interfere, because if it is an oppression and
extortion it is better to do it before any step is taken.” He said, “I
think we had better not interfere till it is pulled down.” A man had to
pay at Plain-dealings Gate
9d., at Lower
Narberth Gate
9d., at Kates
Hook Gate 9d.,
and the fourth gate was Begelly; the two former upon the Whitland Trust,
and the two latter upon the Tavernspite Trust; and the parish are called
upon to maintain the road into the bargain.
Stephen Evans, farmer from Llangendeirne, near Pontyberem:
- Should you like to have the tolls done away with, and to have all the
roads repaired by the parish?
- We do not wish to have the gates done away with, but only to have the
bars done away with. The bars were put there rather from spite. They
leased the gates there to one person, and we were obliged to pay the
utmost farthing in every direction, and we made a little road to go to
the mill and to other places without paying the full charge. The trustees
have erected bars in every place to catch us; and now they have erected
one upon the private road, and one of the neighbours went through toll
free; they pulled him up to the Hall and he was obliged to pay
half-a-crown fine and
15s.
6d. costs.
- What was the name of the man?
- William Williams, of Carclover.
- When was that?
- I believe it was on .
- Who were the magistrates who heard that complaint?
- I cannot say. They were at the Town Hall. The people went in spite at
seeing the man pulled up at such expense, and they went and burnt the
house. It was a small house with wheels, and they broke the posts.
- And the reason of that house being burnt down was that the man was fined
half a crown for breaking it, and
15s.
6d. costs?
- Yes.
- Do you think they would have done that if the man had only been fined
without the costs?
- I think not. That is the very thing that caused any disturbance in my
neighbourhood. Now they are erecting the Penffoesfelen Bar, but it will
be a difficult thing to maintain it. I think it cannot be maintained
without a lot of soldiers or police, and it is nothing but spite to the
neighbourhood. There is a road comes in at that place. They erect a bar
to prevent any one going through. The road comes round from the colliery;
the people go there to purchase fire-coal for fuel.
- If there was no bar at Benffoesfelen they could come into the road and go
seven or eight miles along the road without paying any toll?
- If the trustees would not interfere more than for people going to get
coal, the people would not complain of it, but they charge for lime and
for everything.
Thomas Lloyd, surveyor to the main Trust:
- Have you had any gates upon that part of the Trust broken?
- Yes.
- How many?
- There have been three destroyed in my time.
- Have they been put up again?
- There is one that is not to be put up again.
- Which is the gate that has not been put up?
- The Mermaid Gate on the Carmarthen side of
St. Clear’s village.
- Are your turnpike-gates that have been pulled down and put up again
watched now by the police?
- I cannot say. St. Clear’s
has been taken down, and Masholland has been taken down. Masholland is
not watched; but there are soldiers at
St. Clear’s.
- Do you think the thing is dying away?
- I think it is dying away in our neighbourhood.
- Do you think the gates upon the main Trust will remain standing?
- I think so; but there are rumours in the neighbourhood. If you ask a
person, “Who told you so?” we can never find out. They say about the
village that the people that burn the lime in the lower country threaten
the Maesholland Gate.
John Garner, clerk to Llandovery & Lampeter Trust, Llandovery & Langadock Trust, and to the Towy Bridge Branch:
- It is stated also that you have 13 gates and side-bars, including one
gate on the branch road. Is that the case now?
- There were eight gates, but at present there are only seven gates. All
the side-bars have been done away with.
- How many of them were pulled down by violence?
- Four gates were pulled down, and some gates were taken down twice or
thrice at different times.
- Can you name them?
- Dolauhirion was pulled down two or three times.
- Does it remain down now?
- No, it is up again. The gates were destroyed twice, and the toll-house
once.
- Are you taking now at the gates nearly as much as you let them fore last
year?
- No, for several reasons. The Rebeccaites have taken some of them down;
and besides, they can evade the gate now by going another way.
- Because the side-bars are down?
- Yes.
- On the Lampeter Trust?
- Yes.
- Do they evade the tolls much, now that the side-bars are taken down?
- Yes, especially there is a gate near Lampeter that belongs to the Tivey
Side Trust. Now they go about a mile and a half of road, and evade the
gate entirely.
- Is the road a good or a very bad road?
- Very bad.
- What is the toll on that gate that they go round to avoid?
- 3½d.
- Do you believe that the evasion of those gates is by the servants by the
direction of the masters, or that it is done by the servants without the
knowledge of the masters, with a view to pocket themselves the toll which
they evade?
- I think it is often done by the servants without the knowledge of the
masters, and also those that drive the cattle take the same
advantage.
- And the masters for whom they work allow them the toll, although it is not
paid?
- Yes, that is my opinion; but I cannot say that it is correct. But I can
say that it is so with regard to some of them.
- Can you form any conjecture what reduction will be made in the receipt of
the toll in consequence of the alteration that has taken place in the
number of gates. How much do you think you shall lose by it?
- I cannot say; but there is a great loss in consequence of the Rebeccaites.
John Garner was joined in his testimony by John Williams, surveyor to the same trusts:
- Will the renters of the gates pay the rents they have undertaken to pay,
or will they require compensation in consequence of the gates being
down?
- [JG] They will not get any compensation. The trustees erected the gates
as soon as possible after they were taken down.
- Are the gates which were taken down under the protection of the constables
now?
- [JG] Not the whole of them. Some of them are.
- [JW] Some of them are totally abandoned.
- How many gates and bars are there upon the [Llandovery & Llangadock]
road at present?
- [JW] There are seven.
- How many have been destroyed?
- [JW] They have all been destroyed except four.
- How many have the trustees put up?
- [JW] The trustees have put up three of them again.
- Do you think you will be able to maintain those seven?
- [JW] Not the whole of them perhaps.
- Have you had any application made from the gate-keepers for reductions on
account of the gate-breaking?
- [JG] Yes, at the last meeting.
- What answer did the trustees give to such applications??
- [JG] I think they would not give anything to them, because the
gate-keeper neglected to employ men to receive the toll when they were
taken down. The trustees got the gates up again for them, and the
gate-keepers neglected to employ any one to receive the tolls.
- How many days were the gates down?
- [JW] They were put up in general on the following day, but they could not
get any person to remain there the night.
William Thomas Thomas, clerk to the clerk of the Newcastle Trust:
- Do you know how many gates have been destroyed?
- There are nine gates and bars down altogether; five have been
destroyed.
George Rice Trevor, vice-lieutenant of the county of Carmarthen:
- Your attention must have necessarily have been directed to the disturbed
state of this county, what is your opinion as to the causes which have led
to these disturbances?
- The causes appear to me to be so numerous, and yet in many cases so
trifling, that it is difficult to say which of them predominates. In the
first instance, taking a view from the commencement as far as I know,
about a year ago this disturbance, with reference to turnpike-gates,
first showed itself; that was in the neighbourhood of
St. Clear’s, in
; and on
that occasion it appeared that the grievance complained of (which I
should state is a grievance that was not made a ground of complaint
before any of the trustees of the turnpike Trusts, as far as I am aware,)
was the existence of one particular gate upon the main Trust road. That
gate was repeatedly destroyed. It was at the Mermaid gate, in the
immediate neighbourhood of
St. Clear’s, about a mile
on this side of the Blue Boar. That gate was placed there after the
regular notices were given, and no person present at the turnpike meeting
at which it was agreed to be put up, raised their voice against the
erection of that gate. It was placed there, I believe, in consequence of
the representations of the toll-collector, who said that the farmers and
persons could come down certain roads to the north side of the
turnpike-road, which are parish roads, and that also they could come off
the Whitland road, which is a turnpike-road, and they could travel the
whole distance to Carmarthen if they chose to stop short of the gate
coming into Carmarthen without paying any toll, and he therefore begged
to have a gate put there as a catch-gate. That gate was erected, and by
some oversight it was not made to clear the gate coming into the town.
The consequence was that parties who had heretofore paid but one gate
were made to pay two, and of course it caught such people as stopped
short of Carmarthen. This gate was, I think, pulled down as many as five
or six times. The next gates that I am aware of that were attacked were
the gates upon the Whitland road, (a Trust about which I can say but
little, as I am not in the least connected with it,) as well as some
gates upon the main Trust to the westward of
St. Clear’s. Efforts were
made, of course, to re-establish those gates; but there was some
difference of opinion among the magistrates residing in that district as
to the proper mode of restoring peace in that part of the country; some
imagining that by talking to the people, and showing them the folly of
their proceedings, they might be brought to a state of tranquillity;
others thinking that more active measures were necessary. The evil
afterwards spread into other parts of the country. The next part that
became infected with this disorder was a portion of the county called the
Hundred of Elvet, which lies to the northward in a line drawn from this
town, or from St. Clear’s
up to the Tivey. A great number of gates were pulled down there, as I am
informed, and in that case also, as well as in the former, no
remonstrances or complaints had ever been made, as far as I am aware, to
the trustees of the Trust for removal of any of those gates. I think the
next occurrence in point of time was the arrival of a large procession in
this town, who came in, many of them, collected by means of threats, and
whose appearance here ended in an attack upon the poor-house, which I am
inclined to think was not generally the intention of the parties who
joined the procession, which was formed some two or three miles from
here, and in which procession I understand there were people from very
distant parts of the county, some from the neighbourhood of Newcastle,
and the rest from the parishes immediately round the town, and towards
St. Clear’s and Mydrim.
Trelech was one of the parishes from which a great number of people came,
a parish about eight miles from here, and Abernant and Newchurch. All
this I have obtained from information. I was not in the county at the
time, nor at the time when many of the earlier occurrences took place.
Then after this attack upon the poor-house I was sent down here by Sir
James Graham, and on my arrival here I found it was stated that there was
the greatest possible organization existing amongst those parties of
“Rebeccas,” as they were called. It was stated, and I believe it to be
true, that those men were assembled by signals, by letters put under
their doors, and, generally speaking, under some degree of influence from
terror. They were threatened with an evil they hardly knew what, but they
were told to come upon their peril, and they assembled, generally
speaking, to the sound of horns; they were all disguised, and they were
partially armed, and their operations seem to have been in this
manner — that they came down to the gate which was the point of attack;
that they usually surrounded the gate; that they very frequently supplied
themselves with tools for the purposes of demolition from some
neighbouring smith’s forge; and on some occasions they pressed carpenters
to come out with their tools; that they surrounded the gate, and they
posted sentries to prevent the approach of strangers, and kept up a sort
of irregular fire up and down the road during the time that the gate was
being destroyed. In many instances the toll collectors were informed
before hand of the approach of Rebecca. A letter was sent to them to say
that Rebecca was coming at such a time, and that they had better clear
their goods out and get out of the way. Generally, I should say, that
there was no violence used to those toll-gate keepers, but in some
instances very gross violence was perpetrated. Some of them were beaten;
some have been put upon their knees, and forced to promise never to
gather toll again. Some have been fired at; the windows have been fired
into. This system of gate-breaking spread gradually over the whole of the
county, and I do not think now there is any portion of the county where
it has not spread more or less. There is not a parish, certainly, where
there were turnpike-gates, where those outrages have not taken
place.
- Do you think that the unwillingness to submit to the payment of the tolls
arose from the frequency of the toll demanded, or from the high rate of
toll in each instance, or from the demands for payment of toll when the
people thought that was not due?
- It is difficult for me or for any magistrate to give the Commissioners
information upon that subject, for this reason, that no complaints were
made; certainly no complaints were ever made before me; but I have heard
complaints of parties exacting toll beyond what they were entitled to.
Such complaints, I believe, have been made before the magistrates in the
Newcastle district, for example, and the parties, when found guilty,
fined. I have also been told, with regard to the isolated case of a Trust
called the Llandilo Rynnws Bridge Trust, that there perhaps they exacted
higher toll than the Act of Parliament authorized. But I should state
this, which I believe is pretty notorious, that even farmers in this
county, or drovers who use the road very much, are in the habit of
evading the toll wherever they can; that there is a positive dislike
against paying toll, whether it be high or low. They will go any distance
round to avoid a turnpike-gate. That feeling being prevalent, and there
being a great number of cross-roads in the country, I believe has led to
a very general placing of side-bars upon all the roads.
- Do you think those side-bars have been considered as harassing and
vexatious?
- I do not know it of my own knowledge, but I believe it to be so; but I
have never heard a complaint. That has been the difficulty we have had in
remedying these evils. But we have now great complaints against the
side-bars since they are broken, and therefore it is fair to suppose that
that is one of the causes which has led to this disturbance.
- Has there been a great increase of those side-bars of late years?
- I believe so upon the Trusts in the neighbourhood of lime quarries; but
of my own knowledge I know nothing, except with regard to the main Trust
road, and a little with regard to the Llandybie, where I used to attend
the meetings.
- Were there no disturbances and no apparent disaffection till it arose in
connexion with the turnpike-gates?
- None that I know of. At the time of the Newport riots there were
certainly a great number of Chartist emissaries endeavouring to make the
best use they could of their lecturing and so on in this county, and we
had the satisfaction of believing at that time that they had made very
few proselytes. We believed that they had made very little way in those
parts of the county where you might have expected that they would have
made most, namely, among the colliers. A good many of those hireling
orators came from Merthyr, and they made very little progress indeed, and
I remember hearing it stated that some of those colliers had threatened
to put those fellows down the pit if they did not leave that part of the
county.
- But the discontent having once been excited by the unwillingness to submit
to the payment of toll, did it gradually extend itself to other
objects?
- Yes; and my belief is that a great deal of the dissatisfaction that has
been prevalent in this country has been fostered by the efforts of
certain newspapers. I think the articles published in the “Times”
newspaper have done the greatest possible injury, and have fomented
discord and discontent to a very considerable degree in this county.
- Do you believe some of the statements in the “Times” to have been
unfounded?
- Certainly I believe that to have been the case; I do not know it of my
own knowledge, but I have heard of a case connected with a person who is
the magistrate’s clerk in this town, and I know that a gross
misrepresentation appeared in the paper connected with myself; that was
with regard to my magisterial business, in which it was stated, amongst
other things, that Mr. Maule, the solicitor to the Treasury, had given
out that we ought never to have committed the man. That was completely a
gratuitous assumption on the part of the “Times” editor, and it led to my
furnishing a contradiction to that statement, though it was not under my
own name. Then, after this turnpike business had been going on for a
considerable time, we began to hear in complaints against the tithe, which was stated to be
exorbitantly high, and much more onerous under the present law than under
the old system. We also had complaints made with reference to the Poor
Law, and then one heard general complaints as to the weight of rates and
taxes, parties stating their own poverty to be so great that they could
not pay those imposts. Then there were complaints about the rent, and
there were complaints with regard to the magistrates, stating that they
were haughty in their manner, and also there were statements of the
incapacity of the magistrates in many cases, and a wish expressed that
there were stipendiary magistrates instead.
- Were there not complaints of the amount of fees taken by the justices’
clerks?
- There were also complaints of the amount of fees taken by justices’
clerks, and the payments made to constables for conveying parties to
prison.
- Do you think that the opinions which were entertained upon these subjects
were such as would have led to outrage and outbreak, if they had not been
combined with the violence connected with tolls?
- I do not know. I think that probably, single-handed, none of those causes
would have produced anything like the scenes that we have had here; but
they were combined with the very deep state of distress, which certainly
has had a good deal to do with it. I think our people are much poorer
than they were, and that, in consequence of their suffering from
deprivation and from poverty, they have been led to listen to persons who
have been active in ascribing their distress to bad government.
- Was it not said that the procession which came into Carmarthen, and
afterwards attacked the poor-house, on , had its origin in the
conviction of some parties for not paying a toll which was alleged to be
illegal?
- I have heard that it arose out of a conviction which was supposed to be
illegal by the parties. As I understand, it was this:— there was a party
summoned for non-payment of toll at one of the gates near this town. He
was fined, and he refused to pay the fine, and a warrant of distress was
issued. Parties were sent to seize, and a riot took place, which ended in
the goods being given up; and the constables and special constables
returned to the town, having many of them been a good deal ill treated,
and all of them threatened and very much abused; and it has been stated
that the procession in question was meant to be a demonstration of the
force and number of those who were engaged in endeavouring to get rid of
turnpike-gates and tolls.
- Have you found the magistrates generally during these disturbed times, as
active, and as willing to do their duty, as you thought they ought to
be?
- I think so; taking the whole of the circumstances into consideration, I
have seen no desire on the part of the magistrates generally to shrink
from performing their duty; but from the beginning I have felt, because I
have had ample cause to see it, that we have not had, till quite lately,
any proper force in our hands to repress that tumult. The parties
creating the disturbance have been organized very completely; they have
been armed, — they have been disguised, — they have been in great
numbers, and they have by these means, and by means of threatening
letters, very generally circulated, create a very complete panic in the
public mind; and in consequence of that it has been perfectly impossible
to get together in any portion of this county any ten men that you could
rely upon to act as constables.
- Did the magistrates show an anxiety to swear in constables during these
unfortunate disturbances?
- They have shown every anxiety to do it, but they have invariably told me
what I believe to be strictly true, that it was quite useless to attempt
it; and I know that in many cases the people absolutely refused to be
sworn at all. In other cases they did not come, and when they did come,
in one case they said, “Oh yes, we will be sworn, but we will not go to
the gates.”
- Would that have been the case, had there been a good understanding between
the magistrates and the people generally?
- I do not attribute it to the want of a good understanding between the
parties. I believe that it is to be attributed entirely to two causes,
operating at the same time upon men’s minds, namely, that a great
proportion of them sympathized with Rebecca, and wished to get rid of
these gates; and the rest were literally afraid for their lives: and I do
not believe that if you take other persons who are not in the habit of
coming into this town you would hear much complaint of the magistrates
not treating persons with civility or with proper regard. I hear it more
from people about here than I have heard it in other directions.
Richard Rees, treasurer for the county of Carmarthen, and clerk to the trustees for the Brechfa Trust:
- What is the length of that Trust?
- 21 miles.
- How many gates are there?
- There were three gates and two side-bars.
- Have those gates and side-bars been all destroyed?
- They have been all destroyed in the present year,
. I cannot answer to the
upper one, near Brechfa, being destroyed; but I know there is nothing
collected at it.
William Chambers, who coins the term “Rebeccaized”:
- Can you give the Commissioners any information with reference to the
grievances which are complained of, or the disturbances that have lately
occurred, in this county?
- There are some grievances which have been remedied, which were the causes
of disturbances in the county, I mean particularly in regard to the
number of toll-bars. Many of them have been removed by order of the
trustees. Some of them were Rebeccaized first of all, and then removed by
order of the trustees.…
- …Between the Sandy Gate and the town there is also a bar, which is to
prevent persons going to the brick-kiln, which is between the Sandy Gate
and the town. Persons who would go to the brick-kiln would drive about
300 yards upon the Trust road. This Sandy Gate was Rebeccaized and pulled
down, and has been rebuilt. The Furnace Gate was pulled down in the same
way and burnt, and that was rebuilt.
- Is it your opinion that the farmers are becoming more quiet?
- Yes. I attended a public meeting at Llannon,
, at the request of the
farmers, at which they passed tranquillising resolutions. The relations
of John Hughes and David Jones (the men who have been transported) came
to me the other day, and asked me to do what I could to get the sentences
remitted. I told them it was nonsense their trying to do it at this
moment; that, in the face of the attack that was made upon the Sunday,
at Pontyberem, in the parish of Llannon, a day or two before, any
protestations on their part, that they would be quiet, would not be
listened to; that, before they sent up any petition based upon their
being tranquil, they must become so in the first instance, and show a
disposition to be quiet. I told them that they would all be sworn in as
special constables in the whole neighbourhood, every one of them; and
then they said, “Could we send a petition to the Queen, to get the
punishments of those men mitigated?” I said, “No, I do not think it would
be worth while; you had better wait a little. Then, if you are quiet, you
perhaps will be attended to.” They said, “We will be quiet if they are
held as hostages for good behaviour.”
- Have you not had your own or your father’s ricks burnt?
- Yes; there have been five fires in one week upon my father’s property,
and a horse shot; and I had some machinery at a pit, that was broken and
thrown into the pit twice.
- Do you think that the readiness to be sworn in as special constables
arises from the hope of getting off those people who have been
sentenced?
- Yes, that is the real reason. It is not from their great love of their
country, but they feel the inconvenience of these disturbances, inasmuch
as a great number of the farmers upon whom black-mail has been levied do
not like the paying part, especially in these distressed times; and I am
sure that many of them, in the parish of Llannon, are exceedingly glad
that those men have been transported.
- What do you mean by “black-mail” having been levied?
- They used to write a note to a man to say “You must send such and such
contribution to Rebecca, on such a night.” That was received by the
Rebecca of the night, and then he paid the labourers who went out at
night to break the gates. He paid them
2s.
6d. a-night.
- How have you ascertained this?
- From farmers who told me that they had paid the money.
- How did you ascertain that the leaders in the riots had paid the labourers
2s.
6d. a-night?
- From men who have been present at the breaking of the gates. Farmers who
have been present at the breaking of the gates told me that the labourers
who went there received
2s.
6d. a-night.
- Those who did the working part?
- Yes. A neighbour of mine heard a farmer and a collier fighting; and the
collier struck the farmer, and he swore at him, and said, “Damn you, do
you think I will go out to be shot for you for
2s.
6d. a-night
any more?” This was lately, when they began to quarrel among
themselves.
- Are not those observations likely to arise henceforth, in any disputes
that may arise between the farmers and their servants?
- Yes, there is no doubt about that. I have no doubt that things will come
out on the changing of servants. I know in my own district, if I could
get evidence, almost every man that was at the breaking of the gates; but
you cannot get them to give evidence. But there is no doubt they had a
great deal to complain of in the erection of those gates; but the
influence that such men as that John Jones, or Scybor Vowr, got over the
minds of the farmers arose from his having been employed by them in that
way; and, being rather a sharper fellow, the others all felt that they
were in his power, and then he ran riot over that part of the country. He
went to a farmer’s house, lived there as long as he pleased, and knew a
man that he went to (a farmer), and because he would not go out at night,
he went to him, and cocked his gun at him, and said, “Now, if you do not
go out at night, I will shoot you;” but the man did not go. There were
some others of his friends behind, who said, “Come on, and leave the fool
alone;” and he went away; but he threatened to shoot at this man; and he
did shoot another man because he offended him. He was the most despotic
governor that they ever had.
Madock Jones, clerk to the Llandilo and Llandybie Trust:
- What is the length of the road??
- About 37 miles.
- What number of gates?
- Five now.
- How many have been destroyed?
- Four have been destroyed, and there is one discontinued now.
- How many were there altogether before the destruction?
- Seven.
John James Stacey, clerk to the main Trust, again:
- I find that I misinformed the Commissioners as to William Lewis having
been fined for having put up a bar. I saw yesterday the brother of the
man who brought the information against him. He told me that his brother
took out a summons; his wife attended, who of course could not prove the
contents, and the thing was compromised by Lewis paying the expenses and
giving some trifle to the wife; and so the matter dropped. The man came
to me to ask me what he had
better do, for that Lewis had set up the bar again without any authority,
and demanded toll thereat. There are three toll-gates upon the line that
have been destroyed by the mob, and he cannot collect toll at the place
where he has a right to do it, and so he puts it up there.
Philip Griffith Jones, clerk to the magistrates for Carmarthen:
- Will you now turn to the conviction of Thomas and Harris, and the other
people from Tallog, who were convicted of evading toll at the Water Street
Gate?
- Henry Thomas, toll collector, against John Harris. The cause of complaint
originated a day or two after the Water Street Gate had been taken down,
and the conviction took place a week after that. The complainant swore
that “On the defendant brought to Water Street Gate, in this
town, a cart and one horse; I asked him for the toll; he said if he would
pay the toll he was in danger of his house being set on fire, and he had
no other objection to the toll. I said, If you won’t pay I must have your
name, to which he said he had no objection but fear of his house being
set on fire. He gave his name, but did not pay the toll. The defendant
put in a letter as the ground of his defence, by which he was intimidated
and induced not to pay.” He admitted that he had not paid the toll. He
was then fined 40s.,
and 8s.
6d. costs. The
costs were these:— information
1s., summons
1s., hearing
1s., service three
miles distance 3s.,
conviction 2s.
6d. The
conviction was very long indeed. In the second case against Thomas he
made the same defence. He produced a letter, saying that he was
intimidated.
- Did he offer to pay the toll?
- No; he never offered to pay the toll.
- Is 40s. the extreme
penalty?
- No; I think it is
5l. for evading
tolls. The third case was Samuel Bowens. The case against him was this:—
The complainant was sworn, and stated, “On
the defendant brought a cart and one horse to Water
Street Gate; I asked him for the toll; he said if he was to pay he was
afraid his house would be set on fire; he did not pay the toll, but said
he was afraid; he was afraid his life would be taken from him, and that
he had no other objection against paying; he passed through without
paying the toll.” Then the defendant says,— “He saw a notice on a door of
a stable at Blaenycoed village, saying that the lives of all persons
paying tolls at Water Street Gate would be taken from them. He has no
farm of his own, but lives with his father.” They would not pay the
penalties, and we were obliged to enforce them. They said, if distresses
are sent upon our goods we will pay them, but not till then.
- When those men were before the magistrates they were not contumacious
about it; they merely presented those letters, and said that this was the
reason why they did not pay the toll?
- Yes, they were not at all contumacious.
- Was not 40s. rather a
high penalty?
- It was done after the gates were taken down; and unless the magistrates
had taken it with a high hand there is no telling what would have been
the consequence.
- Then there was no allegation on the part of the defendants that the object
was to try the right to the particular amount of toll that had been
demanded?
- Nothing of the kind; I heard exactly what they stated; I was rather
particular in taking their statement at the time.
- Were there any refusals after that conviction?
- Not one, till the gate had been put up there there was not one.
- Do you happen to know whether this was before or after the toll had been
reduced at the Water Street Gate?
- The toll had not been reduced at that time. I believe it has been reduced
subsequently.
- Were there many other informations for evading the toll about this
time?
- Not one.
John Davies, clerk to Carmarthen & Lampeter and Tivy Side Trusts:
- How many turnpike-gates and bars are there altogether upon your Trust?
- Six gates and three bars.
- Has Rebecca been amongst them at all?
- Yes, and destroyed them every one.
- When they were destroyed did the trustees put them up again?
- Not at first. The one they broke first they put that up, and it was
broken down again in the course of a few weeks.
- Have they put them all up?
- No; the Glan-gwili they left pulled down till they could see something
settled.
Richard B.P. Phillips, member of Parliament for Haverfordwest, and “the Lord-Lieutenant” of the county:
- Has any turnpike-gate been destroyed in the neighbourhood of
Haverfordwest?
- One has been destroyed; it is called the Haroldston Gate, on the Pembroke
Ferry Trust. That has been re-erected, and no attempt has since been made
to destroy it.
John Henry Phillips, magistrate for Pembroke county, and trustee on the Whitland Trust.
- Do you remember a turnpike-gate keeper, and some man who assisted him, who
were said to have assaulted some persons intending to evade the toll,
having actions brought against them?
- Yes. I will state the history of that affair. These riots had taken
place; the gates had been pulled down; the attention of a great number of
people had been called to these gates who had never before taken a part
in the Trust. After this riot had taken place a trustee, Mr. Baugh Allen,
wrote to me. He said, “There is going to be a meeting at
St. Clear’s for the purpose
of rescinding the original order for erecting those gates;” and he said,
“It seems to me mischievous; you, as a magistrate, may qualify and
attend; if you think so, will you come and oppose it?” On this
representation, thinking that to have a meeting to rescind the order for
the erection of the gates, subsequently to the riot and the demolition,
was giving the sanction of the magistrates and gentlemen to that mode of
getting rid of the gates, I went up upon that occasion to
St. Clear’s, and qualified
as trustee in order to oppose it. I merely went up there because I
thought that it would have a bad effect if, after people destroyed the
gates forcibly, the trustees met and officially rescinded the order for
their erection. Therefore I went up with Mr. Allen. The resolution for
rescinding the gates was brought forward, and I think I moved a counter
resolution, that we should take the opinion of the Attorney-General, or
something of that sort, merely in order to stave it off; but I was left
in a minority of six out of a great number; and I remember Bullen, the
tollkeeper, at the time said, “You will not be able to keep a gate in the
country after this.” I agreed with the majority of the trustees in
thinking that those gates ought not to have been erected; but having been
erected, I thought that they ought not to have been got rid of in that
way. But I was left in a minority of six; and after having done that I
came away. But I hear a complaint made of an order in the minutes of the
Trust for defending the constables at the expense of the Trust; and I
find in the minutes of the Trust, in the account of that meeting, that of
course my name is down as having been present at that; but there is not a
word said of a counter resolution. I find that an order, of which I have
hardly any recollection, was given for defending the constables; but I
think it was almost part of the bargain with Bullen, for which he gave up
his gates. They were obliged to come to some agreement with him, as he
was the lessee of the tolls; and there was a committee appointed to award
a sum which they considered a fair compensation for giving up those
gates; and I think that defence of the constables was a part of the
stipulation, so that it was a consideration for having the gates removed.
There is one great difficulty which has been felt in this country, with
respect to which I made a suggestion to the Under Secretary through my
brother-in-law, the member for Carmarthenshire. I allude to the
difficulty we have in getting compensation from the hundred, indeed the
impossibility, according to Mr. Evans’s law, in cases under
30l. He thinks
that, where the damage done is under
30l., the Trust
cannot get compensation from the hundred; and, therefore, the expenses of
repairing the gates must be met by themselves.
- What is Mr. Evans’s difficulty about that?
- The difficulty is, that the Trust may sue and be sued; but cannot, like
an individual, make an application before a magistrate. It is a technical
difficulty; but it is one to which we have submitted. Some months ago I
wrote to my brother-in-law to suggest, as the Government were bringing in
a Bill, that some clause should be inserted upon that subject; but his
answer was, that Mr. Manners Sutton said that the Bill was not upon that
subject. If the people had understood that by breaking the gates they
were damaging themselves, that would have had as good an effect in
stopping the breaking as anything could have had. In consequence of Mr.
Evans’s opinion, there was an opinion taken from the law officers of the
Crown; and they divided their answer into two parts. It was said that the
lessee could be described as the party damnified; but that they did not
think that they could get compensation under
30l. That was
their opinion as far as I could understand it.
- Then Mr. Evans considered that all damage under
30l. is
irrecoverable; that the right of action against the hundred is done away
with when the damages are under
30l.; and that
the means of enforcing a remedy where the damage is under
30l. will not
apply to the trustees?
- Yes. I should incline to say decidedly that the difficulty with regard to
compensation from the hundred ought to be removed. I do not know whether
the Legislature mean to say that in cases under
30l. there ought
to be no remedy; but if they do not mean that, the difficulty ought to be
removed. The trustees are asked, “Why do not you put up the gates again?”
The answer is, that where the funds are very small they cannot afford it.
The mere putting up a gate will cost
7l. or
8l., and perhaps
it will be down again in a fortnight; and where the funds are very small
they cannot afford it. It is clear that the state of the law at present
is rather holding out a premium to rioters. I think that one mode of
relieving the farmers with respect to the payment of tolls which is worth
consideration is, by allowing the farmers of the parish, who perform
labour upon the roads within the parish, to compound for the tolls at a
lower rate.
Saunders Davies, member of parliament:
- Were there any gates pulled down in Cardigan?
- Yes, three were pulled down in that Trust; one at the New Inn, about 12
miles from Cardigan, between Cardigan and Aberystwith; the other two
gates were close to the town of Cardigan.
Charles Arthur Pritchard, a magistrate of Cardiganshire:
- Has your attention been much drawn to the causes of the disturbances which
have so unhappily prevailed in this and adjoining counties?
- It has; for they happen to have been more about my residence than in any
part of the country.
- In what way has the evil shown itself?
- In various outrages, such as large bodies going about disguised and
attacking the house of Dr.
Jones and others.
- What has been thought to be the cause of the outrage upon
Dr. Jones?
- Dr. Jones was a man rather
free in his remarks; he said that he knew this man and that man, and that
he would have them punished. He did not mean any harm, but I think that
was the real cause of the attack upon his house, by which he himself was
very nearly killed, for he went to the window and they fired at him.
- Did they fire a bullet?
- It appeared to me as if an old iron pot had been broken into pieces and
put into the gun; and in the parlour there were a great many of those
pieces upon the wall and on the floor, and Mrs. Jones was unfortunately
there, and she is an English woman, unaccustomed to these riots.
- They do not prevail generally in this country, do they?
- I never heard of them, and I have lived here 25 years; they are generally
as quiet and inoffensive a people as can possibly be.
- Do you speak Welsh?
- Only a little; enough to find my way about the country.
- What was it, in your opinion, that led to the outrages upon the
turnpike-gates?
- The first attack upon the gates was in Pembrokeshire, and of course we
all knew that such things were going on, and if the magistrates in
Cardiganshire had been more active, I think we might have suppressed
them. It was publicly known that they were going to attack the gates in
Cardiganshire on a particular night, and I volunteered to go out with 20
men. I think 20 resolute men would have stopped them; that if 20 such
persons had gone they would have run away. From what I could learn, I
should say that the people were led on by three strangers who came into
the neighbourhood of Cardigan, and who we knew were there at that
time.
- Were the names of those persons known?
- I have tried to find out their names. I was in that neighbourhood lately,
making inquiries of the people, but they said they did not know their
names. I said to them, “You must have known their names, for you saw them
every day;” their reply was, “We did see them occasionally, but we do not
know their names.” Those men came down into this country, and I have no
doubt worked up the people to attack the gates.
- Can you form any conjecture as to whence they came?
- Not for certain; it is merely from report that I can say anything; they
are supposed to have come from some part of Carmarthenshire or from the
Whitland district, the same two men were at Cardigan who were afterwards
at the Aberdare Gate; one is a tall man and the other a short man, that
is well known, and the same people seem to have gone through the country
afterwards.
- You say that it was publicly known that there would be an attack upon the
gates. Upon what authority do you say that?
- Three or four of my tenants came to me one day bringing with them
notices, which notices were, — If you do not attend at such and such a
place to night we will burn your house down, and they asked me what I
would advise them to do, and I said, I would not go if I were you on any
account, and they said they would not go, they would rather be murdered
in their beds than go out.
- Did they go out?
- No, I do not think any of my tenants went out.
- Do you think that there was any sympathy on the part of farmers with those
people who attacked the gates?
- Yes; at that time there was, but since that they have changed their
feelings.
- The farmers’ labourers were engaged in those outrages, were they not?
- Yes, and young boys; they went for a lark.
- Do you think that there is still a very bad spirit afloat?
- Yes, I think it is the same as ever it was; I am speaking of my own
immediate neighbourhood.
- The same disposition to violence?
- Yes, I am quite sure that if the police were removed from here and the
troops from the different stations, there would be the same violence if
not more; that is my own private opinion and the opinion of many other
persons.
- From what do you suppose that?
- From conversation; I should say that they are merely checked by fear of
the soldiers and police.
- Suppose that that check were removed, seeing that the turnpike-gates are
most of them removed, in what way would the outbreak show itself?
- All the gates are down in the Cardigan Trust except one, and they have
been down three or four months, but some are to be replaced immediately.
There is a gate near this town in the Cardigan Trust that I am sure they
would pull down if it were put up again. The tolls are reduced one-half,
and the grievances the people complained of are removed.
- The third toll is felt to be a grievance, is it not?
- We have got rid of that; but the complaints they make are of this
character. A farmer, who lives on the outside of this gate, wants the
gate removed to the other side of his house; the consequence of that
would be, that the next farmer would want the same, and there is no
pleasing them. I had a letter lately put into my hands signed “Rebecca,”
which I gave to one of the policemen, in order to endeavour to recognise
the writing, threatening to pull down the gate if it were put up again.
Several of the farmers now say they are very sorry that the gates are
down, because they could get their lime and coal with great ease, and
they did not pay more than
10s. or
12s. a year, and now
they shall have to pay some pounds. I am speaking of the most reasonable
farmers.
- They would rather have the tolls than have to maintain the roads
themselves?
- Reasonable men would, because they get a certain allowance from the
Trust, and that is paid to the parish officers and expended upon the
road.
- Do they pay the men by the day or by the load?
- Some are paid by the day and some are paid by the load; many are paid by
the load. There is another very great cause of complaint — the tithe, and
unfortunately I am very much concerned in that. A friend of mine, Major
Rice, who is now abroad, appointed me trustee to manage his affairs with
another gentleman in Carmarthenshire, and this Major Rice owns a portion
of the tithes in the parish of Pembryn. The chief accusation has been
against the clergyman of that parish, and I have not the slightest
hesitation in saying that it is in fact an attack upon the church; there
is no doubt of that in my opinion, because they have been so very angry
with the clergyman, and he is one of the most inoffensive men in the
country. He is a man who has been educated at one of the Universities; he
came to my house and told me he expected to be murdered, and on one
occasion I had the marines at his house from 11 at night till 5 the next
morning, and I know as a fact, that the people had assembled to do him an
injury, because I saw myself one or two in disguise, and when we got near
the place lights were thrown up and horns were blowing, but after we came
up they were as quiet as possible. I have myself received several
threatening letters. Owing to this the clergyman has not been able to get
one shilling of his tithes; he wanted me to assist him as trustee, but I
did not like to provoke the people. I was in hopes they would come round,
but we cannot go on any longer; we must take some proceedings. There was
a request made by the parishioners to meet them and take into
consideration the state of the tithes. We met them, and offered them a
reduction of
167l. The people
were very violent, and one or two got up as spokesmen for the rest, and
said, “We will not pay even if you give us 20 or 50 or 100 per cent.” I
said, “Then you do not mean to pay anything.” Some of the party said, “Oh
yes we do,” and they cried the man down. There was a shout at first, “We
will not take any reduction at all, we will have it on our own terms.”
They wanted to have it
2s. in the pound. I
said, “I suppose you mean upon the landlord’s rent.” They said, “No, we
mean on the parish rate.” Now the habit is to value on two-thirds of the
rent.
Edward Lloyd Williams:
- Has the clergyman got his tithe?
- He has been paid by some; in fact the clergyman has been afraid to ask
for it, for he has had soldiers in his house; they have threatened his
life, and that was the state of the parish when I got them to meet, and I
wrote to the Secretary of State, anticipating that mischief would happen;
it was before the country was excited, but I knew that it was a very
excitable parish, suggesting that if a short Act could be introduced for
the purpose of opening commutations where manifest error or fraud could
be proved, it would appease a great deal of the feeling that existed in
many places. The parish are paying a great deal more now under this
rent-charge, to say nothing of the difference in the average, than they
did before when they had the option of paying in kind.
Herbert Vaughan, magistrate of Cardiganshire:
- …I think the turnpike gates were an excuse for the disturbance, but that
the real cause was something deeper than that. Now they have gone to the
weir and attacked that. I was told immediately after that a stranger came
into that neighbourhood and located himself at one of the houses in the
parish of Mount, and soon after that the people took down the weir.
- Have you any idea who he is?
- No, I have not; I saw him in the town, and marked him, but of course I
could do nothing. The morning after the New Inn turnpike gate was taken
down he went off, and the Monday night following the other gate was
taken down. He used generally to go into the blacksmith’s shop, or any
place of that kind, and talk of the people’s grievances. He said they
ought to have more for their labour, and other things; he was a
remarkably well dressed man. I saw him in a church, and asked who he was,
and they said he is lodging with So and so; I did not think much of it at
the time, and I saw him again, and then I asked who he was, and they said
he walks about the sea-shore a good deal. I have not the slightest doubt
that he organized this party hereabouts; he was in Cardigan for some
time, and the very next morning after the attack upon the gates I saw him
in a regular blackguard dress; he wore one of those loose velvet jackets,
and his boots were of the commonest description, nailed and laced, and
dirty, as if he had been at some work; he went that week from Cardigan,
and was traced up the road to the New Inn.
- Do the people with whom he lodged know anything about him?
- No; I do not think he let them know.
Lewis Evans, treasurer of the Cardigan Trust:
- What number of gates have you upon the Trust?
- Only one now; we had ten, but nine have been pulled down.
Richard Jenkins:
- …In this case it is a tax upon industry: it prevents parties from
manuring their land as they would otherwise do; and if that [Cardigan]
gate were to be rebuilt there, I do not believe they would be able to
keep it up without having the military or police constantly to watch it.
When the gate came down I happened to be mayor, and I could not get the
people to act.
The Rev. Eleazar Evans:
- I merely wish to state that I have been exceedingly annoyed, and my life
threatened in the parish, for a long time; I cannot conceive for what
cause; merely because I wished to demand what has been my due. I have
letters in my pocket which I have received, most shameful letters, and my
life has been really miserable for months past, and if I am not protected
of course I must leave.
- Have you with you any of the threatening letters that you have
received?
- I have.
- What do they indicate?
- They desire me to give back the money that was subscribed to the
school-room, as otherwise I should be destroyed and ruined in my
property and everything. I subscribed
15l. a-year
myself towards the school-room.
- Will you read the threatening letters you have received?
- This is dated . It is in
Welch: “Reverend sir, — I, with one of my daughters, have lately been on
a journey to Aberaron, and amongst other things have heard many things
respecting you, namely, that you have built a school-room in the upper
part of the parish, and that you have been very dishonest in the erection
of it, and that you promised a free school for the people, but that you
have converted it into a [Church of England] church, and that you get
80l. by the year
for serving it. Now if this is true, you may give the money back, every
halfpenny of it, otherwise, if you do not, I with 500 or 600 of my
daughters will come and visit you, and destroy your property five times
to the value of it, and make you a subject of scorn and reproach
throughout the whole neighbourhood. You know that I care nothing about
the gates, and you shall be like them exactly, because I am averse to
every tyranny and oppression.” That is signed “Rebecca and her
daughters.”
- What is the purport of the letter which you now hold in your hand?
- This is upon a different subject, it is signed “Becca,” and dated
“.” It is not very intelligible, it is in very bad Welch: “I
send you this letter in Welch that you may understand it in the language
in which you were born.” They request me to send back the advance in
tithes and the law expenses by such a day, and that Becca and her
daughters are sure to take notice of me if I do not do so; that Becca
had found a place for my body, and they desired me to find a place for
my soul, and the place for my body was to be at the end of the National
Whore, that is at the end of the Established Church, that is the title
they give to it; and that I have been a great oppressor since I have
been in office; and then they refer me to the
6th chapter of the book of Judges, and the
27th and 28th
verses, which is the account of “Gideon taking ten men of his father’s
house and throwing down the altar of Baal, and because he was afraid to
do it by day he did it by night, and when people got up in the morning
the altar of Baal was cast down and the grove was cut down that was by
it, and the second bullock was offered upon the altar that was built.”
The meaning I suppose was, that the men were coming to destroy my house,
and I was intended for the second bullock, because my curate had been
attacked; and they desired me to read much of the Old Testament, to see
whether my conduct was like that of Pharaoh, and that I had doubled the
tasks of the people. “Do not you suppose that I am an idle old woman. I
have not been brought up in idleness, nor do I bring up my daughters in
idleness, and I am determined to have justice done, in spite of the
world, the flesh, and the devil,” signed “Becca.” That is the substance
of it, and then at the bottom it is addressed, “To the Minister of the
National Whore.” I also received an English letter between those two
letters, which is in the possession of the Inspector-General of the
Post-Office.
- How long have you been in that parish?
- 15 years.
- Has any conjecture been formed as to the writer of that second letter?
- Yes, it is strongly suspected who the man is, but I do not know his
writing; he has had a little better education than most, having been in a
family where a little attention was paid to him. I have been obliged in
consequence of this to sell my farm and stock and everything I had except
my household furniture, and the day of my sale that man was there, and he
summoned the parishioners to come to a meeting at the New Inn against my
tithes, otherwise if they did not go there they should be destroyed, and
their houses should be burnt.
- How did he summon them, by word of mouth?
- Yes, he said he was there as a delegate.
- By whom was he delegated?
- There is not the least doubt by Rebecca; who Rebecca is it is difficult
to find out.
- You think it did not originate from himself?
- No, I am certain it did not; he must have been put on by somebody.
- Have you any idea by whom?
- By the farmers.
- Do you mean to say that he publicly threatened to burn the houses?
- He threatened that they must abide the consequences if they did not come,
and some he threatened to burn. I have seen a letter to a tenant in the
parish who held a little land of me, part of the glebe, that unless he
attended he should be burnt.
- Was that letter written by that man?
- By somebody, I cannot say; it was written from
St. Clear’s, and demanding
that man to give up the land to me, saying that they were coming to
destroy him because he did not give up the land.
- Can any evidence be produced to show that this man had threatened any
persons if they would not attend the meeting?
- There is not the least doubt that there could if they were willing to
give evidence. And more than that, he demanded something for his trouble,
1l. from each of
the people.
- Who are the magistrates near you?
- Mr. Jordan is the only magistrate near me; he lives close to me. My house
was threatened to be attacked, and he came to the house to protect
it.
- Do you keep fire-arms?
- I only keep a gun for shooting crows.
- Have you any police in your parish?
- Yes, and military.
- Was that upon your application?
- No, I suppose it was done by the magistrate; the people met three nights
successively.
- Has Mr. Jordan seen those letters?
- Yes.
- Has he ever taken possession of them for the purpose of following it up
and trying to discover the authors of them?
- No, he took possession of the letter that was written to my tenant and
Mr. Saunders Davies has it, but. Mr. Saunders Davies himself came up to
the parish and called his tenants together. They were the principal
tithe-payers, to me at least more than half, and reasoned with them, and
said that they might rely upon it that the law was powerful enough to
meet them in the end; that they must consider that, the obligation was
upon the land and not upon themselves; that if they did not pay he must
pay; and then they said they would not pay more than
2s. in the pound, (I do
not know whether they said on the assessment of the parish or on the
rack-rent,) otherwise the people from Carmarthenshire would come and burn
them down. Of course that showed at once that they were in league with
some persons somewhere. With respect to the amount of tithe I have with
me a valuation of the parish by the parishioners themselves to the county
stock 2112l.;
the gross amount of tithe commuted is
240l.; that will
amount to 2s.
3d. in the pound,
and I believe
2l.
18s. more.
- Were the tithes paid with tolerable willingness before this addition was
made to them?
- They were paid till the last six years, but not since that; in the last
six years I am certain, I have been losing at least
6s. in the pound
regularly by long credit.
- Do you ultimately get the whole sum?
- No, I have lost a great deal; I have lost since I came to the parish
nearly
400l.
- Is that by persons refusing?
- No, by not paying; they would not actually refuse to pay, but I did not
like to go to law for it.
- It was not from open avowed resistance to the payment that you lost that
sum of money?
- No, they did not actually say that they would not pay; but I gave up the
tithes rather than go to law for them.
- The people now refuse to pay?
- Yes.
- What reason do they give?
- That they should be destroyed by the people of Carmarthenshire if they
paid according to the present average.
- Do you believe that to be an excuse, or to be the real reason?
- I believe it to be the real reason in many cases.
- Do you believe that there is any system of terror?
- Yes, I do, because some who have paid me, have paid me under a charge of
secrecy; and another thing I should state, that I gave them back
2s. in the pound
because the times were hard, and I would take no advantage of the rise in
the average. In the last three years I have paid
37l. and
received only
27l. I have paid
10l.
16s.
1½d. more than I
have received for my tithes. I believe there is a promise that they will
pay me some to-morrow, but I do not know whether they will pay. I have
not asked for what is due to Michaelmas, but only up to Lady-day.
- Do you think that the evil disposition which is afloat in your parish, and
which you have been made the victim of, diminishes at all?
- I do not think it does; they are only kept under by the military and
police.
Thomas Jones, of Llangranog:
- Have you had much disturbance in your parish?
- Yes.
- Have you any turnpike-gate in your parish?
- Yes, it was made on my premises; it was nothing to me, because I did not
pay anything. The turnpike-road from Cardigan to Aberystwith went
through the middle of my farm.
- Is the gate now pulled down?
- Yes.
- Who pulled it down?
- I do not know; they say that it was Rebecca, but who Rebecca is I do not
know.
- Did you see it pulled down?
- No.
- What did the people say who pulled it down?
- They said it was not right to remove the gate to the place where it had
been removed to. The farmers go to fetch culm and lime as manure from the
shore, and they say that they took the gate about a mile from the place
where it was before to this place to catch those farmers because the
other gate was not on their way when they came from the shore.
- Have you received any threats from Carmarthenshire, that if you pay the
tithe it shall be worse for you?
- I have never received a threatening letter.
- Are you under any fear that, if you pay the tithes to the clergyman,
people will come and attack you?
- No.
- Do you feel at liberty to pay what is justly due if you please?
- Yes; but I think that it is very heavy.
James Morris, John Williams, and Mr. Smith:
- Have you ever summoned the toll gate-keeper for exacting an illegal
toll?
- [JM] Yes, I have.
- When was he summoned?
- [JW] Thomas George was summoned for the non-payment of toll.
- [MS] The toll-keeper was John Davis, and the magistrate adjudicated in
favour of the toll-taker. I will explain what the circumstances were:–
the trustees, in the first instance, after the erection of Catherine-row,
put a chain there, seeing that several houses were licensed there as
public-houses that had stables attached to them which took in horses and
carts, and the gate stood below the row, so that the inhabitants of
Catherine-row were obliged to pay going up and likewise to pay coming
down.
- Was there more than one payment?
- [MS]I believe so; it was understood that they were obliged to pay at
both. One Thomas George, a respectable farmer, came one Saturday-morning,
and seeing a chain there, told the girl that stood at the chain, “There
is no sign or anything here, I will pay at the old gate where I have been
in the habit of paying;” “No,” she said, “You must pay here.” This farmer
taking hold of one end of the chain, and the girl of the other, the neck
of the padlock gave way, and for the breaking of that he was summoned
before the magistrate, not for non-payment of the toll, and it was
suggested by the magistrate, that if he paid for the lock the thing might
be settled; at the same time, the sitting magistrate observed, that he
was a very proper subject to make an example of.
- The toll-keeper has never been summoned for exacting what you considered
an illegal toll?
- [MS]No, that has never been done.
John Hughes, surveyor to Aberyslwith Trust:
- How many turnpike-gates have you upon your road?
- Eleven.
- Does that include side-bars?
- There is one side-abr at Lampeter; that is a little distance from the
gate, and that should be added, that makes 12; but there are 100
toll-houses.
- Of those how many have been attacked?
- Four; the Lampeter, Tregaron, and Llanon toll-houses and gates destroyed;
but the gate only at Aberyron destroyed. With respect to the side-bars at
Lampeter and Llanon, the trustees came to the resolution to remove them,
and also resolved to take away the Cromystwyth Gate, within two miles of
the extreme end of the county, on the road to Rhayader.
- What do you believe to the the loss by the disturbances?
- I should say
500l. or
600l. a
year.
John Hughes, lawyer:
- …The tolls have been reduced from
1½d. to
1d. a horse; the
country did not expect that, and they are very much pleased with it; it
was done because our gates were in jeopardy, and it had the effect of
quieting the country.…
Lloyd Phillips, chairman of the board of guardians:
- Are you at all acquainted with the circumstances which led to the
destruction of Llannon Gate?
- I am.
- What were they?
- There was a side gate there, which I do not think ought to have been
there. A person of the parish of Llanarth, wrote a letter to the clerk of
the magistrates at Aberaeron, begging him to call a meeting of
magistrates to hear these grievances, and the meeting was called, but,
before we had the meeting, both gates were taken down, but not the
toll-house. Of course we held that meeting, and we did away with the side
gate, though it had been taken down; the magistrates were aware of this.
We had a meeting here, and lowered the toll on a horse from
1½d. to
1d., and on a
cart from 4d. to
3d.; carriages
the same as they were before. We lowered the toll on cattle going through
to one half, and we put down lime carriage free; notwithstanding that
deduction they went immediately and pulled down the toll-house.
- Was it publicly known that you had proposed to do away with the toll on
lime?
- Yes, I had mentioned it myself.
David Oliver, acting treasurer of the Rhyader and Llangerig turnpike Trust:
- Have either of the gates been pulled down?
- The upper gate was pulled down in , and it was put up again the next day.
- Is it now standing?
- It is, but it is continually watched by the Montgomeryshire police
force.
- Was any attempt made to pull down the other gate near this town?
- Yes, an attempt was made, but they were interrupted by the
gate-keeper.
Harry Lingen, London barrister who sometimes resides in Rhayader:
- Were you resident in this neighbourhood when the disturbances took place
respecting turnpike-gates?
- I was.
- Have you had opportunities of forming any opinion as to what it was that
led to those disturbances?
- There appeared to be a general feeling in the country that they were
labouring under great grievances of different kinds. I do not by any
means attribute it altogether to the turnpikes, for there are many other
things that they feel to be grievances; the chief cause, perhaps, is the
great depression that they are suffering under, but the turnpikes were a
tangible thing for them to lay hold of.
- Your opinion is, that the extreme poverty of the farmers rendered them
desirous of throwing over any payments that they could get rid of,
provided they thought that those payments were harshly or unjustly
demanded?
- Precisely.
- Was it under that feeling, and hearing what had taken place in other
parts, that they were led to make an attack upon the turnpike-gates
here?
- No doubt of it.
- Are there any particular circumstances relating to the turnpike-gates at
Rhayader which excited the disturbances hereabouts?
- Yes, I think so. There are six entrances into the town of Rhayader, and
a gate at every entrance, and a toll-bar besides, so that the town was
completely surrounded; and what makes the grievance a great deal worse is
that three of those gates were upon roads that are in a most abominable
state, and which have never had any outlay whatever upon them; one of
them is under indictment now. I indicted it myself four years ago; that
is the old road to Llanidloes.
- Have you any other observations to make?
- It has unfortunately happened, that we have not been able to agree with
the authorities in the place as to the proper means that should be taken
to restore peace and order in the district; all have the same end in
view, but we differ in the way in which it is to be carried into effect.
The authorities have been determined to carry their point with a high
hand, and we are satisfied that grievances exist, the getting rid of
which is a sine quâ non to the restoration of the
district to its former state. We consequently advised concession, that
advice has been disregarded, but neither of us has been able to convince
the other of error. Now as a part of the proceedings here, I do not state
this at all with an intention of showing that intentional wrong has been
done, but I do say that the magistrates have acted with indiscretion in
reference to these late disturbances, and in one case I would mention
that a man in this town was seized by a magistrate without a warrant and
taken from his team, and his team left in the middle of the street to
take care of itself; the offence for which he was seized was passing
through the gate without paying toll. It has been charged against us that
we have frustrated their intentions, and to some extent, a limited one, I
would plead guilty to the charge, but I say this, that although the
magistrates, by following the course that they have been endeavouring to
pursue, may have done what would appear to heal the wound, yet if the
cicatrice were examined it would be found festering in the core; we have
been desirous of performing a radical cure by removing the cause of the
disease. Now this is part of what we content is bad policy in the
magistrates using such means as I have just alluded to; this state of
extraordinary coercion is working badly in this district. This very case
I allude to has done the magistrates more harm in the opinion of the
people than I can describe to you.
- What was the case to which you allude?
- I would rather that the party himself should state it. Another thing
that I think we should speak of is what appears to us improper, if not
vindictive, towards the hundred of Rhayader. On
, this present month, four gates in this neighbourhood and
one toll-house were destroyed, and almost immediately proceedings were
adopted against the hundred for a much larger sum than the damage could
really have come to. That we think a very great hardship, and
particularly when the toll-house destroyed was really a disgrace to a
public body such as the trustees to put a human being with his family to
reside in.
John Jones:
- Were you taken up for passing through the gate without paying toll?
- Yes, the gate was broken down on the night that we passed, and I told the
person there I would pay at the gate I had been used to pay at.
- How did you get through?
- The gate was wide open.
- You did not open it yourself?
- No.
- What took place when you came down into the town?
- Nobody asked me at the gate where I was used to pay.
- Did anybody stop you afterwards?
- No.
- Did you go home?
- Yes.
- What charge have you against anybody?
- We were fined in Rhayader for doing that.
- When?
- About a week after.
- Before what magistrate did you go?
- Before Mr. Whitaker.
- Was any other magistrate present?
- Yes, Mr. [David] Oliver.
- What passed when you were before the magistrates?
- We were fined
26s. for not paying the
gate. I had hauled 100 loads of lime, and nobody had asked me at that
other gate before.
- Was that gate where you were in the habit of paying down?
- No, it was up; nobody asked me to pay.
- You pay when you come back?
- Yes, and the gate was up; it was 11 o’clock.
- Did you not know that the gate was pulled down till you got back to
it?
- Yes, somebody on the road told me it was broken down before I came.
- (To Mr. Oliver.)—What is the explanation of this case?
- [David Oliver] Mr. Jones went through this gate; he was on his way to the
Radnor lime-kilns, 26 miles off; when he went through the gate, the first
gate was up, and he brought down his load of lime, and in his way up he
met somebody who told him the gate had been broken down; he passed
through that gate, and then when he came to the gate at the lower end he
refused to pay.
- (Mr. Jones.) I did not refuse, nobody asked me for toll at that gate
before. I said I will do anything that is fair; that is what I told the
collector.
- (Mr. Oliver.) This man has been dealt with very leniently; he was fined
upon this for refusing to pay; he was coming up a second time through the
gate, and in his way up he and another, when they came to the gate, took
the liberty of breaking the gate open, and breaking the lock; that was
the charge sworn to before us, and the lock was produced and put upon the
table.
- (To Mr. Jones.)—Did you hear that sworn to?
- No. I did not.
- (To Mr. Oliver.)—At the time this charge was made, and the lock was put
upon the table before you, and it was sworn that this man and the other
man had broken the lock, was this man present?
- He was. I prevailed upon Mr. Whittaker to join me in not inflicting the
second fine, but fining him upon the first, and excusing him upon the
second ground that it was a very different charge breaking the lock. I
said I think these people have done it in ignorance, and therefore the
fine was upon the first charge.
- (Mr. Jones.) The boys broke that lock in the night.
- Did you find the gate open when you went through the second time?
- The little girl had shut the gate against me.
- What did you do?
- I only touched the chain and the lock fell in two.
- You opened the gate?
- The gate did open, and I did take sheep through the town and paid the
gate, and they tried to fine me
5l. after.
- (Mr. Oliver.) I got Mr. Jones clear of that.
- (To Mr. Jones.)—Why did you not pay this gate?
- Because we had never been used to pay this gate, and they wanted to put
the costs upon me.
James Davies, clerk of the peace:
- How many gates have been destroyed?
- In the Radnorshire Trust there have been five gates destroyed.
- Before the destruction of the gates, how many were there?
- In there were 32; there must be 33
now.
- How many of those gates that were destroyed have you restored?
- We have restored all; at least we are taking toll at all. I do not know
whether the gates are entirely up.
John Benn Walsh, parliamentary representative for Radnor county:
- …The first outbreak occurred on ; I happened then
to be at Pentybont, ten miles from Rhayader; and I was informed that the
two bridge gates had been cut down the previous night. I immediately
proceeded to Rhayader and inquired into the transaction, and ascertained
the particulars upon the spot. I did not that day meet any of the
magistrates, but I communicated with
Dr. Venables and Mr.
Oliver on the following day. I was not very well acquainted myself with
the locality of the gates, but I immediately requested those gentlemen to
communicate to me any grievances, or any well founded objections which
might exist in that neighbourhood to the existence of any gates, as I was
extremely anxious that we should, before taking any measures for
vindicating the law, show every disposition to redress the grievances of
the people in that part of the country, and those gentlemen particularly
mentioned the lower gate doing to Cwmtoyddwr, a gate on the old
Aberystwith road, at the top of the hill towards the Devil’s Bridge, in
the confines of the county, the New Bridge Gate and Saint Harmons Gate;
they mentioned those as gates against which objections might be
entertained, and particularly pressed upon me the New Bridge Gate, and
stated a very strong case as regards that gate. I was extremely desirous
of showing every disposition to enter into the discussion of the
grievances of the people, and I immediately consented to bring forward
the case of New Bridge Gate at the following turnpike meeting. The
feeling I think was, that at that time the cutting down of those gates
was the work of a party who are not inhabitants of that immediate
neighbourhood; it was supposed that they came from Brecknockshire and
Cardiganshire. The steps that were taken then, were an order for the
re-erection of those gates. We then proceeded to call a general meeting
of the magistrates of the county, who passed resolutions declarative of
their determination to repress any attempt at outrage; and at the same
time their willingness to give every facility for hearing all complaints
which might properly be brought forward, and to redress grievances which
might be proved and established. They proceeded to appoint special
constables for the protection of the property in Rhayader. The
magistrates in the neighbourhood of Rhayader, made a very strong
representation to the meeting of the inadequacy of such a force, except
under the control and direction of some competent police sergeant, or
person accustomed to the organization of such a force. They expressed the
strongest conviction that it would be impossible to procure persons who
would do their duty, except under some such superintendance, and they
likewise very strongly represented that a force composed of special
constables, would be a very inadequate one under any circumstances. An
application was in consequence made to the Secretary of State, and a
sergeant of police was sent down for the purpose of organizing that
force. There was no further outbreak until about a month afterwards; the
New Bridge Gate was in the first instance attacked and was destroyed,
that was the gate the question of the removal of which was brought
forward at the meeting, but it was considered that it would be illegal to
remove that gate, which formed part of the security which was pledged to
the creditors for the interest of their debt. This gate was the first
which was destroyed. On receiving information of its destruction, I
immediately repaired to New Bridge, and with
Dr. Venables, Mr. Oliver,
and another magistrate swore in special constables, and ordered that that
gate should be re-erected. I likewise considered that it would be
necessary to strengthen the special constables, by employing a portion of
the military force which had been placed at my disposal by General Brown,
which was stationed at New Bridge as a guard in aid of the special
constables. Two days afterwards, I received intelligence of a more
serious outbreak at Rhayader. Immediately on being made acquainted with
it, I signed a requisition to the commanding officer at Builth, to move a
detachment upon Rhayader in aid of the civil power, and I then proceeded
to Rhayader and made myself acquainted with the particulars of the
outbreak which had there occurred. It appeared that three parties had
simultaneously approached the town of Rhayader, in the direction of the
adjoining parish of Cwmtoyddwr, and Saint Harmons, and Nantmel; they
joined as it appeared at the Saint Harmons gate, which they levelled and
proceeded to the Penybont, or East Gate, which they likewise demolished.
A metropolitan sergeant of police, accompanied by six special constables,
met them marching from the Penybont Gate towards the main street, through
the town upon the main road. The sergeant drew up his men in a line and
called to them to halt. The party walked forward in defiance of this
appeal, and ordered him to stand back. When they came up to the special
constables, they diverged to the right and passed them. The front rank
pointed their guns at the police officer and special constables, and
threatened to shoot them; the rear ranks fired several guns in the air,
but the front rank always kept their guns pointed at the police officers
without discharging them. They defied them to take them; the police
constable and special constables being unarmed did not venture to
interfere with them. The police officer, who has been in the army,
computed their number at from 120 to 150 persons. He observed that they
marched in military array, that they maintained good order, and that they
were obedient to the word of command, which was given to them by one of
the party. They walked through the town to the two bridge gates which had
been restored since the former attack, and again demolished them, and
proceeded to demolish the turnpike toll-house, The constables were
entirely overpowered and intimidated, and did not venture to pursue them
further than the bridge. In consequence of the representations which had
been very strongly made to me, of the entire inefficiency of the special
constables as a force to deal with disturbances of this character, and
after communicating with Mr. Davies, the clerk of the peace, and other
magistrates, I made an application to the Secretary of State for the
assistance of a body of metropolitan police, who arrived on the following
day, two days after this affair had occurred. They have since been
employed in protecting the gates, and also in endeavouring to trace and
detect the perpetrators of this outrage. From the reports which they have
made to me, as well as from the observations which I have been enabled to
make, I have no doubt of the existence of an organized system, and that
the greater part of the inhabitants of the parishes in the immediate
neighbourhood of Rhayader, particularly those of Cwmtoyddwr, and
Llanwrthll, and Cwm Elau, in Brecknockshire, and Saint Harmons, and a
portion of the parish of Nantmel, and a portion of the parish of Llanyre
are confederated together. I have every reason to suppose that the heads
of this Rebecca confederacy in those parishes, are the principal farmers
and occupying tenants of those parishes. The police have entirely failed
in their attempts, to bring home any legal evidence of the guilt of any
parties; at the same time the general report of the neighbourhood and
other circumstances, leave me in no doubt whatever, that the inhabitants
of those parishes are almost all cognizant of the persons who committed
those outrages, and that in point of fact the inhabitants of those
parishes are the parties who were guilty of them.
- Would it not appear, then, from the statement which you have made, that if
the gates were to be replaced upon their former footing, and the military
and police were withdrawn, attacks upon them, similar to those which have
already taken place, would be renewed?
- I entertain no doubt that at the present time, with the present
disposition of the inhabitants of those parishes, unless some measures of
protection or repression were adopted, the obnoxious gates would be
immediately destroyed again if the military and police were
withdrawn.
- Does it not appear, from the mode in which they proceeded, that they
discriminate between one gate and another; that it is not a rebellion
against all gates, but against some gates only?
- Yes, they spared two gates and they destroyed four; whether that was
discrimination on their part, or whether they had not time to destroy the
others, I do not know, but I should conceive that they certainly did
intend to destroy those gates particularly, against which a strong
complaint existed in the neighbourhood. I am inclined to think that their
object was to attack those gates which were previously obnoxious to the
neighbourhood, and against which they conceived that they had just cause
of complaint.
- The conclusion, therefore, to which you come is, that if it were possible
so to modify the gates as to remove the particular cause of complaint, the
system of collecting tolls need not be abandoned from any apprehension of
resistance on the part of the country?
- I am not prepared to say what the ultimate objects of this sort of
combination are. It certainly appears to me, from a conversation which I
had with the parties at Rhayader. that they have other objects in view,
not immediately connected with gates, but particularly directed against
tithes, and in some respects against the poor-law. I conceive that this
confederacy has other and more important objects in view, and that the
gates are only in the first instance attacked as being the most
prominent, and perhaps the least defensible. I would add, in respect to
the principle upon which I have acted throughout these outrages, that my
anxious wish has been to give every possible facility to parties pursuing
any legal and proper modes of obtaining redress for grievances and
preferring complaints in a respectful and proper manner, but that I have
felt a very strong impression of the absolute necessity of vindicating
the authority of the law, by the adoption of firm and energetic measures
at the outset. I entertain a strong persuasion that there are elements in
other parts of the county which might very easily take fire, if a certain
degree of firmness was not shown at Rhayader. Rhayader is a part of this
county which is more immediately in connection with those portions of
other counties which have been, unfortunately, the scenes of these
Rebecca outrages lately. From the disposition of the people, from the
small divisions of property, and from, perhaps, the backward state of
that part of the county, I always feared that it would be in the first
instance visited by these disturbances, if they appeared at all among us.
I felt, therefore, that it was necessary to make every exertion to
repress them in the outset at Rhayader. I have been at the same time
extremely anxious to win back the people to a respect for the laws, and
to invite, and, if possible, to obtain their co-operation in repressing
these outrages, and in rendering their services as special constables for
the preservation of the peace. I entertain hopes that they are themselves
now sufficiently convinced of the folly, as well as the criminality, of
these proceedings, and that there is a disposition at present in that
locality, if we can at all conciliate the feelings of the better disposed
to come forward, to give the authorities an assurance that these excesses
will not be repeated, and I should myself deprecate very much any
withdrawal of the force which is at present provided for the preservation
of the peace, and for the maintenance of the authority of the magistrates
and of the law until some such disposition was evinced on the part of the
population of those parishes. I think it would be wise, as soon as such a
feeling shall appear to be displayed, to confide in it. Of course there
must be a certain discretion reposed in the magistrates of the hundred,
and those who are immediately in contact with the persons, as to the
guarantee which they give, but the disposition of my mind is to repose a
confidence in those parties as soon as they come forward in such a manner
and intimate their wish to preserve the peace, and I think that we might,
after the display of force, and the decided measures which we have
adopted at the outset, hope in that case that peace might be restored in
the county, and that these disorders would not further encroach upon
it.
- The Commissioners understand that no actual outbreak took place at
Knighton, but that the moving of troops there was in apprehension of an
outbreak?
- Exactly, and as the question is put to me, I may be permitted to state,
very shortly, the circumstances which led to the application for military
force. I received from a highly respectable individual, resident in
Knighton, a gentleman of great local knowledge, a communication informing
me that an attack upon the workhouse had been threatened, that he had
received information of that fact from a source which he considered
entitled to credit, and submitting to me the propriety of sending a
military force for the protection of the workhouse and the town. I
immediately considered it my duty to repair to the town of Knighton to
investigate the circumstances upon the spot, before I gave any such
order, and I there convened a meeting of the magistrates of the hundred,
and although considerable doubt was expressed by some of the magistrates
of the correctness of the information which had been given to me, yet
upon the whole they unanimously voted for an application to the
authorities for a military force for the protection of the workhouse. I
forwarded that application, and the force was immediately sent there at
the request of the magistrates. I have received communications since from
the magistrates of the hundred; they have instituted a very complete
inquiry, I believe, into the sources of the information which created
this alarm, and I am perfectly satisfied upon their communication with
me, that the danger does not exist, and in consequence of receiving a
communication from them to that effect, I have forwarded a letter to the
commander of the district recommending that the military force should be
withdrawn.
Edward Williams, clerk of the Breknockshire Trust:
- Were any gates taken down by the Rebeccaites?
- Only one gate, that was the Ceffnllandewi Gate.
Francis McKiernin & George Laing:
- Have any of those gates been pulled down?
- [McKiernin] Yes, we are both out on bail, charged with having pulled the
gates down.
- [Laing] And that a gate we never wanted to come through.
- [McKiernin] I was never out of my house that night, but a drunken fellow
informed against me, and I was admitted to bail.
Thomas Penrice:
- Have you anything to say to the Commissioners?
- Lately the magistrates have ordered two gates in Gower, the gates of
Kilvrough and Cartersford, to be guarded, which gates do not interfere
with the parish at all, but they happen to be placed in two parishes
which are nearly all my own property; and now, in consequence of a letter
from the Secretary of State, the parish constables are ordered to be paid
by the parish; they say that is the law; they read the Act of Parliament
in a different way from what I do; but the parishioners are very much
discontented about it, and in fact I am almost afraid we shall have
Rebeccaism there, where nothing of the sort ever existed before, for they
are all English people.
- Was any gate pulled down in Gower?
- Yes, one gate in the Welsh part of Gower was pulled down, that was the
Poinfalt Gate. I wrote to the magistrates’ clerk to beg that the
magistrates would take the constables away, for I knew there was no fear
of anything, but they remained for five weeks, till the expenses of
guarding those gates now are 15 guineas each week, and I consider it to
be perfectly useless, as a magistrate, knowing the disposition of the
people.
- What led to the guarding of those gates; was there any attack upon the
gates?
- No; it was only because the chief constable chose to recommend it; and
the hardship is that the parish should pay for it, where there is not one
person in the parish that has occasion to go through the gate except my
own tenant, who lives at my farm, and I am sure he would not attack it,
and all the other parishioners live on the other side.
Thomas Arnold Marten, clerk of the Swansea & Wych Tree Trust:
- Were any of the gates in the Trust pulled down?
- The Pontardulais Gate was, and the Bolgoed Bar, the Pomfalt Gate in
Gower, the Rhydypandy Gate, and the Red House Bars.
- What have the trustees done with respect to those gates that were taken
down, have they restored them?
- They have restored the Pontardulais Gate and the Red House Bars; they
removed the other gates and bar.
Thomas Bullin, who rented and supervised collection at many toll gates:
- …there were four gates on this Whitland Trust put up, and I rented them,
and I gave 800l.
for the whole of the gates there. I do not think that many people knew
we were going to take tolls (there were notices given, but there are not
many newspapers taken in that part of the country) till the gates were
put up. After they were put up the people seemed very uneasy; they were
put up at the time the lime season began; they had no sooner been put up
than one was taken down one night, and then another the next night; and
Mr. John Jones, a gentleman well known in the county, and a few more
gentlemen residing in Carmarthenshire, met at
St. Clear’s as trustees,
who had never acted before, at least I never saw them. I found I should
have some difficulty in collecting the toll; I had paid
200l. in
advance, and I wished to get my money back and give up the gates, and
they said they had spent all the money; and I was left therefore in the
lurch, and I have never had the money till this day.
- Did you give up the gates?
- Yes, I did, because Mr. Jones and the rest wished me, as being the
renter, to give them up, so that they might do away with all those gates
which had been taken down; so I told them that I would willingly give up,
because I knew that I should have great difficulty in taking the toll;
but I thought that they were doing wrong all the time, because it was an
encouragement to people to do wrong, and I thought it would be a great
advantage to have good roads; but however it was determined to do away
with them, but not by the commissioners in that part of the country, but
by persons who came from different parts of Carmarthenshire.
- Were you present at the meeting when it was agreed not to re-erect those
gates?
- Yes, I was.
- What was said at the meeting, and what did you prophesy about the effect
of it?
- My belief was, that there would not be many gates in that part of the
country if they gave way to the people in that sort of manner.
- Did you say that the consenting to keep down those gates would be the
cause of pulling down the gates generally?
- I did.
- Where was the meeting?
- At the Blue Boar, St.
Clear’s.
- When?
- How soon after that meeting was there any outbreak?
- After these gates were done away with, and the people were rejoicing at
what they had done, the name Rebecca originated in the neighbourhood of
St. Clear’s, because they
used to ring that in my ears, “Rebecca will come to you.”
- As long ago as that?
- Yes.
- Was that after the meeting?
- Yes, after the meeting the person that took the lead was called
“Becca.”
- Who was that person?
- I do not know. I have no doubt it was some respectable man in that part
of the country, but I do not know who it was.
- When did you first hear that name used?
- As soon as ever the first gate was taken down, this leader was called
“Becca and her daughters.”
- How soon was it after the trustees had taken down this gate in consequence
of the resolution of the meeting, that any gates were pulled down by the
mob?
- It was in ;
there was a bar put up near
St. Clear’s, and they took
that down.
- Was that in the same district?
- No, on the turnpike-road; they then returned to this Whitland Trust
again, and took down nearly every one on the Trust, bars, gates, and all
into the town of Narberth.
- When was that?
- In ; whether there was one
left standing I do not know..
- There have been some re-erected, have there not?
- Yes. Then the people began to be excited in the county through the
reports, particularly the reports which appeared in the “Times” and other
papers, for my belief is that this was excited by the papers more than
anything else; that that was the cause of it, from the newspapers giving
the accounts and exciting the people. It was supposed, from the accounts
in the papers, that they were doing right, and were backed on by
different people where they had their grievances, or had a spite against
different people.
Robert Cook, assistant clerk of the Llantrissant Trust:
- There were two gates removed by violence, and persons were convicted for
taking one away, one gate at a place called Cwmnar; there was only a
chain there, no gate.
- Was not the Cross Vane Gate taken off?
- Yes, and destroyed.
- And never seen again?
- No.
- That is a gate at the very entrance to your Trust, about six miles from
Cardiff?
- Yes, about six or seven miles, between Cardiff and Llantrissant.
- Were any parties taken up for that?
- They were not found out; and Chapel Gate, and toll boards were
demolished.
- That is a third one?
- Yes.
- Was that a gate or a chain?
- A gate.
- The toll boards were destroyed?
- Yes.
- Were not the toll boards also destroyed at Newbridge?
- I believe one of the toll boards was split through.
- When were those three gates on the Llantrissant district destroyed or
removed?
- About .
- Which was the first taken down?
- Chapel Gate.
- Which was the next?
- Cross Vane, and that was a week or nine days afterwards.
- The third?
- The third about , the
parties were brought before the magistrates.
- Was it done in the night?
- That was done in the night, and the other was done in the night.
- Was part of the toll house taken down?
- They began unroofing the toll house at Cwmnar; it is a very low toll
house that might be reached with their hands from the ground.
- Was it done violently and outrageously, and in defiance of the law?
- I suppose it was done in a fit of drunkenness.
- Were any people seen disguised about there?
- There were two men seen; the toll gatherer saw them.
- Were their faces blackened?
- No; they did not disguise themselves; they were found near the toll
house; they had been to a public house close by.
- Have the gates been set up again?
- They have not; at the one at Chapel they have put a chain.
- At Cross Vane?
- No.
- Do they receive any toll at Cross Vane?
- Yes; they demand toll regularly, but there are several who go through
without paying; some will pay and others will not.
- How long has that gate been placed there?
- About six or seven years.
- And it has been a good deal objected to, has it not?
- Only lately. I have never heard any complaint before.
- The toll is not now regularly taken?
- It is demanded, and refused sometimes by some parties.
- Do they take them before the magistrates?
- They keep a list of them.
- Do you know any party who refuses to pay?
- No.
- Has any party been summoned for refusing?
- Not yet, but they are to be. It is proposed to be abolished on
.
