Some historical and global examples of tax resistance →
Wales →
Rebecca riots, 1839–44 →
John Jones (threatener of Thomas Williams)
One of the problems I come across in trying to make sense of the news coverage of the Rebeccaite movement is that there seems to have been a fairly small number of English surnames and given names that got parceled out to the people of Wales to use in place of their Welsh names.
Nearly everybody seems to be named Jones, Lewis, Davies, Morgan, Thomas, or Williams.
There are, I think, at least three or four “John Jones”es that have been mentioned so far.
It’s very difficult to determine whether two news accounts are talking about the same person or about two people with the same name.
For example, in this news account, is this John Jones the same as Shoni Scyborfawr, who used that English name?
But that Scyborfawr had already been jailed some time before (see ♇ ), so it seems that this must be a different John Jones.
Maybe it was just very stale news, but it comes from the same paper that reported on captive Shoni Scyborfawr’s examination before the magistrates the week before.
Very confusing.
From the Cambrian:
On , Jones, the Llandovery
Police-officer, accompanied by four of the Metropolitan Police, arrested one
of the principal leaders of the Rebecca gang, named John Jones, a farmer,
residing at Danygarn, near Llangadock. He was taken into custody under a
warrant granted by David Jones Lewis and Lewis Lewis,
Esqs., for sending a letter
to Mr. Thomas Williams, auctioneer, threatening to deprive him of his life,
unless he gave up the title deeds of a small farm he had purchased of John
Jones. Amongst other threats which this letter, signed “Rebecca,” contained,
one was, that, unless her demand was peremptorily obeyed, Mr. Williams should
he dealt with much worse than she had dealt with the
Rev. Mr. Jones, of
Llansadwrn, and warning him to prepare a place for his soul, as she would take
care of his body. As the evidence, which was very clear against John Jones,
will soon be before the public, we need not enter into any particulars,
further than to state that he was , at Llandovery, fully committed to take his trial at the next gaol
delivery. He was afterwards sent in custody of the police, and accompanied by
an escort of Dragoons, to Carmarthen gaol. Jones is the seventh person
connected with Rebeccaism that has been committed by the Magistrates at
Llandovery within the last fortnight, and the activity displayed in the
capture of these misguided men, has caused a complete revulsion of public
feeling. Becca’s vengeance is no longer dreaded, and the farmers are often
heard to express the old adage, that “evil doings have wretched endings.”
The Carmarthenshire Winter Assizes continued on , with a very similar threatening-letter case to that tried the day before:
— This morning the business of the Court commenced at .
John Jones, aged 22, farmer, a remarkably fine looking young man, of respectable appearance, was placed at the bar, on a charge of having sent Mr. Thomas Williams, auctioneer, of Penybank, near Llandovery [the prosecutor in a former case], an anonymous letter, signed “Rebecca,” threatening to kill and murder him.
The whole panel was gone through before a jury could be obtained, owing [as in all the Rebecca cases] to the great number objected to on both sides.
The Attorney General opened the case; and said that the prisoner was charged with sending a letter, which the jury would perceive from its contents, threatened the utmost personal violence to the prosecutor.
Prior to this transaction, the prisoner was in very respectable circumstances, and was possessed of some property, which he became desirous of disposing.
He made arrangements for selling it to the prosecutor, at a price with which he afterwards became dissatisfied.
There may be some reason to think that the price given for the land was lower than might have been obtained for it.
What other transactions besides the one referred to the prisoner might have had with Rebecca, he (the Attorney-General) was unable to say.
He was not anxious to show that he had any thing to do with the recent alarming disturbances, nor did he wish to insinuate that he had been connected with any of the other outrages with which the name of Rebecca was associated.
He would confine himself entirely to the charge before them.
The letter had been posted on , and was delivered at the house of the prosecutor’s son, who was landlord of the Fountain Inn, Llandovery.
The prosecutor lived at Penybank, and the letter was opened by his son, who was authorized to open all the prosecutor’s letters.
In a communication which the son afterwards had with prisoner, the latter did not deny having written the letter.
The letter related entirely to business transactions, in which the prisoner at the bar had been concerned. and the threats had been made for the purpose of inducing the prosecutor to give up his purchase — to restore the estate, on the money being given up.
That would be an important point in evidence.
A man might naturally have a strong desire to repossess property, with which he might have parted in a moment of poverty, and to which he might have formed a long attachment; but he (the At.-G.) need not point out the great danger to society of sending letters threatening violence, when desirous, which persons could have no by law to desire, were not gratified by the party to whom the letter was addresed.
The Attorney-General then read the letter, which was to the following effect:–
“Sir.— It is on my way to inform you, and every one besides whom I will visit, I have heard of yon, among others, for your slyness in many ways, but no more, you may depend.
Prepare your soul, for I will mind your body.
Take great care of yourself, for I will not wait to listen to your flattering, and I will not do with you as I have done with Jones, of Lansadwrn.
This is the last notice you will receive.
What have you done with John Jones, of Danygarn [prisoner], for his farm?
I have wrote to him to pay your money back, and to write to me back, but he did not write to me.
If there will be an offer to do that, mind to do it; unless [or else] you will never be the owner of the farm, and it will not be of any use to you or to your relations.
Send to John Jones to pay the money back, before I visit you, or you shall not live two minutes after I shall come to see you; and you do charge 30 per cent. interest for your money.
This is what you must leave off, too.
Unless you will do this few things immediately, you will repent of it in a short time.
My best advice is to receive the money from John Jones, and not charge so much interest — then you are safe, or you shall be shot to death, as I did at Hendy gate.”
(Signed) “REBECCA.”
There were two persons of that name, continued the Attorney-General, the father and his son.
Both were auctioneers, and the letter was addressed to the son’s house, where the father’s letters were usually sent; but the jury would decide upon that, from the purport of the letter which referred to business transactions had with the father only.
The charge was a most severe one, and if there were any reasonable doubt that the letter was written by the prisoner, he (the Attorney-General) admitted that in no case could the jury be called upon to exercise more care and caution then on the present.
There might be some evidence called upon to prove that the handwriting was not the prisoner’s. Should that be the case, they would have to balance testimony, and he (the Attorney-General) had no doubt they would return a conscientious verdict.
The prosecutor’s son was then called as evidence.
He identified the handwriting of the prisoner from various business transactions had with him.
He also staled that when accused of the offence, the prisoner did not deny having written the letter; but said, “It is very much like my handwriting.”
Witness said, “It must be like it, when it is written by you.”
To which the prisoner said, “Give it to be burned — don’t speak about it.”
The prosecutor detailed the business transactions had with the prisoner, and deposed to the writing, particularly the name “John Jones,.” being the prisoner’s handwriting.
Mr. Wilson then addressed the jury in a very ingenious speech for the prisoner, especially remarking upon the uncertainty of swearing to handwriting.
Even the witnesses who had been called did not venture to state that the whole letter, but merely the particular name, was in the prisoner’s handwriting.
He also contended that the prisoner’s request to burn the letter was no admission of guilt.
A guilty man would have most strenuously denied it.
Again, if the prisoner had been very desirous of destroying the letter, he might have done so as he had it in his possession for several minutes.
Mr. Wilson concluded by deprecating the practice of sending threatening letters, but entreated the jury to pause before returning a verdict, the effect of which might be to send the prisoner to long punishment.
A witness named Jenkins was then called.
He said that he had once seen the prisoner write his name, and did not believe the letter to he in his handwriting.
The Attorney-General replied.
He called the attention of the jury to the entire absence of evidence on behalf of the prisoner, which the exception of a witness who apparently was an entire stranger, having seen him write only once.
He was not deficient in means, and might have produced his neighbours, parochial officers, and others, who were well acquainted with his handwriting.
The Learned Judge then summed up the evidence, and said the points for the consideration of the jury were — 1st, if the letter was addressed to the prosecutor; secondly, did it contain a threat; and thirdly, was it in the handwriting of the prisoner.
If it was in the prisoner’s writing, then it must be concluded that he knew the nature of its contents.
To ascertain that, in addition to the evidence deposing to the hand-writing, they had to take various circumstances into consideration — such as that of the letter referring to the business transactions with the prisoner.
The jury then retired, and returned a verdict of “Not Guilty.”
From the Cambrian:
. — This morning, the business of the Court commenced at the usual hour.
The Attorney-General begged to enter a nolle prosequi as it regarded the indictment for felony against John Jones [acquitted of having sent a threatening letter], 22, farmer, Thomas Hughes, sawyer, and Benjamin Jones, charged with having committed a riot, and feloniously demolishing the dwelling-house of Griffith Jones, being the Pontarlleche toll-house.
The charge of misdemeanour for destroying the gate, was removed by a writ of certiorari to the Court of Queen’s Bench.
Case of the Late Mr. Thos.
Thomas.
David Evans, aged 20, farmer, and James Evans, 25, labourer, were arraigned upon an indictment charging them, with divers others, unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled at Pantycerrig, in the parish of Llanfihangel Rhosycorn, and with having, during the riot, assaulted one Thomas Thomas, and with force demanded the sum of forty shillings, with intent to steal the same.
Both prisoners, who were defended by Mr. Nicholl Carne, pleaded “Not Guilty.”
Considerable interest was felt as to the result of this trial, from the circumstance of the prosecutor, who was the principal witness, having been found dead under very peculiar circumstances, and that of his premises having been fired soon after the prisoners had been committed.
The Attorney-General said, that the charge against the prisoners was one of misdemeanour — for having committed a riot in going to the house of the prosecutor Mr. Thomas Thomas, who had since lost his life; but he must in justice to the prisoners observe, that having been in custody, that circumstance could not in the remotest degree cast any reflection upon them.
Whatever violence might have been offered Mr. Thomas Thomas (and he did not say such was the case), it could in no way have been done by them.
The names of the prisoners could not be connected with any catastrophe of that kind, for they were in gaol at the time.
It was only to be regretted that the deceased’s evidence could not be obtained excepting from the deposition taken before the Magistrates, and that was evidence in law.
It appeared that a number of persons disguised in the usual characteristics of Rebeccaites, with circumstances of considerable force and violence, demanded a sum of money from the prosecutor, and this proceeding did not appear to have originated for the purpose of removing any public grievance, real or imaginary; but, in which it appeared, that the alarming state of the country had been made subservient to the promotion of a private end, and to the settlement of a mere personal claim between the parties.
A short time previous to , it appeared by the deposition, that Mr. Thomas’s cattle strayed at night into a corn field belonging to one of the prisoners, who had estimated the damage at 10s. Early on the morning of , a number of disguised persons assembled together and surrounded the house of Mr. Thomas, and demanded 5l. as a satisfaction for the damage done to the corn.
Thomas would not allow them to enter his house, neither would he go out to them, but refused to accede to their request.
They then reduced their demand to 50s. and subsequently to 40s. They then dragged Thomas from his own house to the house of the prisoner David Evans, and when Thomas challenged them with having offered to settle the matter for 10s., Evans said, “’Tis now in these people’s hands.”
It was for the jury to judge from that expression, whether the riot did not originate with him.
The deceased then asked permission to remain in Evans’s house, but he was finally taken back to his own house, and allowed nine days to pay the money.
Some time afterwards Thomas was found dead, under circumstances which he thought justly created no suspicion against any one.
As far as he (the Attorney-General) could learn, those who possessed the best means of judging, were of opinion that strange and unaccountable as were many of the appearances, there was no just foundation for believing that he came to his death by violence.
As reports had been circulated, he thought it right publicly to state for the sake of the character of the county, that, as far as his opinion went, there had been no reasonable grounds for supposing that the man was murdered.
To resume his statement, the jury would find, that, at one o’clock, the younger prisoner and the other, who was his servant, were at the prosecutor’s house.
Thomas distinctly swore to the presence of both the defendants, as the jury would find on reading the deposition.
In three or four days afterwards a complaint was made, and a a warrant issued, for the apprehension of the defendants.
On , the officer went to David Evans’s premises, and asked him for James Evans, when the former said that James had left his service in consequence of a quarrel, and that he had not seen him for many days.
The premises were searched, and James Evans was found concealed beneath some straw on a loft.
It would be proved that David Evans, in speaking of the transaction, said that they should not have done what they did, if Thomas Thomas had paid the money, and while before the Magistrates, the prosecutor persisted in saying that the demand was 5l. then 50s.s., and then 40s., when David Evans added that he had offered to take 1l. The jury must observe, that he assented to the truth of all the evidence, with the exception of the reduction to 20s. He had also pointed out the spot where he had offered to accept of 1l. He would now read the deposition.
The Attorney-General then read the deposition, as taken , before Col. Trevor and J. L. Price, Esq., in the presence of the prisoners.
The deceased stated, that on the day in question a number of people came to his house, and demanded satisfaction for the trespass, as described.
Deceased did not go to the door, but his wife went.
They at last reduced their demand to 40s. He was then taken by the collar by one of the disguised party calling himself “Becca,” and was taken to Bergwm.
When there he distinctly recognized James Evans, who behaved worse to him than any of the others.
He also recognized David Evans.
James Evans had with him a short gun, and had his face blackened.
David Evans was but slightly disguised.
The Attorney-General observed, that he could very easily have identified him.
They then took him to the Bergwm field.
They kept him outside the door until some one went in to tell the inmates, lest they should be frightened.
They then took him to the house, when he told David Evans that he had agreed to receive 40s. for the damage when the latter answered, “’Tis in the hands of these people.”
The Attorney-General commented upon this answer, as affording convincing proof that the prisoner acted in concert with the mob.
The deposition further stated, that after coming out of the house, James Evans pushed witness on in a contrary direction to his home, and when alone, told him, “I wish to kill you.”
The party who personated Becca called upon him to bring the witness back.
So that Becca, observed the Attorney-General, appeared to have been actuated by better considerations than the prisoner James Evans.
The deposition concluded by stating that the party allowed deceased nine days to pay the money, and if they would visit him again, they would burn his effects.
— The Attorney-General proceeded:— That was the deposition of Thomas Thomas.
He had gone to his account; but the jury could not, in consequence of that, be satisfied with less proof.
It was not necessary there should exist that certainty which could be produced only by witnessing the scene, but with that degree of reasonable certainty which would satisfy them in any important concerns of life.
He hoped they were now rapidly coming to a close with the cases.
He did not know but that he might be addressing them for the last time.
That, he believed, was the last case in which these parties had taken advantage of the agitated state of the county for the purpose of committing outrages.
The guilt was not inconsiderable of those who took advantage of the turbulent state of the country, arising from real or imaginary grievances, and perverted it to their own selfish purposes, for others had some excuse — excuse he should not have called it — pretense rather, who did those things on the ground of abating a public grievance.
— The object of those prosecutions was not to punish every individual who had been concerned in the disturbances.
Their number was so great that no reasonable man could wish, even were it possible, to punish all.
The extent of the outrages and the number concerned in them forbade that wish, but the grand object was to restore the authority of the law, and regain the confidence of those who relied upon that authority for protection.
He trusted the conduct of those whose duty it was to advise the Crown would not be thrown away in reclaiming the misguided inhabitants of that county.
With those observation he would call the witnesses, and leave the case in their hands, and he had no doubt they would do that justice which the circumstances required.
He (the Attorney-General) might be permitted to add — and he did so with unfeigned sincerity, that he had been in various parts of this country performing his official duties and exercising that profession to which he belonged, but he never, in the course of his experience, addressed any gentlemen who inspired in his mind more confidence, that the duties they discharged were done consistently with a sense of right; and he begged to thank them in the name of the public and of the country, for the attention, impartiality, and justice which marked the course of the proceedings which he had the honour to advocate.
[The following evidence was called for the purpose of introducing the depositions.]
Robert Bray, Superintendent in the A division of the Metropolitan Police, examined by Mr. Chilton, Q.C.: Knew deceased — saw his body the morning it was picked up.
Mr. Spurrel examined:– Am Clerk to the Magistrates.
[Deposition handed to witness].
This is the deposition made by Mr. Thomas Thomas; I saw him sign it — the Magistrates also signed it.
Cross-examined by Mr. N. Carne:— Mr. Thomas Thomas first made his statement in Welsh, and it was translated into English by Mr. Price, the Magistrate.
He translated into English, everything stated by Mr. Thomas.
He was not sworn as an interpreter.
I understand Welsh sufficiently well to understand the evidence given.
Mr. Carne went over the whole of the deposition, criticising upon the various English words, given for Welsh expressions used by the witness.
J. Lloyd Price, Esq., examined:— Am a Magistrate for this county.
Took the deposition of Thomas Thomas.
It was taken in Welsh.
He understood English sufficiently well to correct anything which was written not in consonance with what he had said.
I was at Bergwm, the residence of one of the prisoners.
I do not remember the day, but it was on a Friday previous to the apprehension.
I remember it, because, on the following night, his houses were burnt down.
I was accompanied by a policeman of the A division of the Metropolitan police, and a special constable.
I went with the officers to show them the house, because I could get no assistance in the neighbourhood that I could depend upon.
When I went there, I found David Evans in bed.
When he was asked for James Evans, he said, “He has left me; I would not allow him to go to Brechfa fair, and he got offended — has left me, and I have never seen him since.”
He repeated the statement before I sent out the policeman to search the place.
The officers then went ont, and I saw James Evans brought from a hayloft.
The officers brought him to the house.
I remember that near the close of the examination of Thomas Thomas, when he said that they demanded 40s., David Evans said, “When near the gate, we consented to take 20s.”
Cross-examined by Mr. Carne:– I translated nearly the whole.
There might have been some portions of his statement irrelevant to the business omitted.
Some people state many things which are quite irrelevant.
During the first portion of the examination, I put questions to commence the examination.
I had taken a previous examination for the purpose of issuing a warrant.
I took that down in writing, but after the second examination, made in the presence of the prisoners, was over, I did not think the first examination of any importance, so I put them with other useless papers.
The depositions were then put in evidence, and read by the Officer of the Court.
Thomas Evans examined by Mr. Evans, Q.C.:— Is a mason.
Lives with his father at Ty’nyfordd farm, half-a-mile from Pantycerrig.
Lives a mile from Bergwm — the house of the prisoner, David Evans.
Remembers .
Remembers being disturbed about twelve or one o’clock that morning.
Heard a man crying out “heigh” three times at the window.
Went to the window.
Saw people outside.
There were several people present, but I could see only three.
The first thing I heard was a man calling out, “I give you warning, that you must not go to the farm you have taken, or we will burn your hay and corn, as you see your neighbours’.”
My father had taken a farm in the neighbourhood.
To the best of my judgment, that person was James Evans.
I knew his voice, as I was intimate with him.
We had been in the same singing-school.
After this, I and my father got out of bed, and went out of the house.
We heard several guns fired.
When in a field near Pantycerrig, I saw a number of people.
It was too dark to distinguish their dress; but when the guns were fired, we could perceive something white about them.
They then returned from Pantycerrig.
I met a neighbour in the road, whom the mob had desired to shew them the way to Pantycerrig.
Next morning, I went to Bergwm.
The inmates were not up; but the servant shortly opened the door.
David Evans then came downstairs.
I saw a gun on the table, and said, “Here are one of Becca’s guns, I think.”
D. Evans said, “Yes, it is;” and seemed surprised, and said, “Stop, let me see if there is a load in it,” and blew in it, and said there was a load.
I took the screw, and drew the load — it contained powder only.
I then requested D. Evans to come out, and told him “that his servant had been at our house, warning my father not to take the farm.”
He denied it, and said “No; he has been in the house during the whole night.”
David Evans then told James Evans, who came towards me, and said, “D–n you, tell that of me,” and raising his fist.
David Evans put his hand on his shoulder, and said, “Be quiet, James.”
Witness then went to Pantycerrig.
On next day (Sunday) met James Evans, who said, “Why did you tell Thos. Thomas that I had confessed being at Pantycerrig.”
He said the servant of Pantycerrig told him so, and added, that if he had a chance, he would put witness quiet enough; and added, “Well, if you transport me for seven years, I’ll give you a coating when I come back.”
Cross-examined:— I never had a quarrel with Evans previous to that time.
To the best of my knowledge, the voice I heard was James Evans’s. Got out of bed when first I heard the man calling at the window.
I told Thos. Thomas when I saw him, that James Evans was there.
Robert Bray re-called:— I accompanied Mr. Price, the Magistrate, P. C. Powell, and a special constable, to Bergwm.
I saw David Evans, and went out to the barn to search for James Evans.
I heard noise in the loft above the barn, and got up to the loft, and saw the feet of a man showing from under some straw.
I called to him, and took off the straw.
He was James Evans.
We passed Thomas Thomas’s house, who was standing by the door.
I said, “It was a pity you should have gone to this poor old man.”
He said, we should not have gone, had he paid for the damage done by his cattle on our farm.
Rosser Thomas corroborated this witness’ statement.
Mr. Nicholl Carne then addressed the jury in reply to the evidence in support of the charge, and said he should be enabled to prove an alibi on the clearest evidence — that David and James Evans were both in bed at the time of the outrage.
After the examination of several witnesses, whose evidence appeared to be totally at variance with their former statements on oath, Mr. Carne folded up his brief and sat down.
The Judge:— Mr. Carne, if you say you will not hold a brief in this case any longer, I think you will adopt a discreet and honourable course.
The Attorney-General replied, commenting in very strong terms on conduct of the witnesses for the defence.
Verdict — Guilty.
Sentence deferred.
Rebecca’s Daughters
John Jones, aged 21, stonecutter, William Jones, aged 17, stonecutter, Thomas Jones aged 14, stonecutter, Seth Morgan, aged 21, carpenter, Henry Thomas, aged 21, labourer, and Thomas Harries pleaded Guilty to the charge of having, on , with divers evil disposed persons, unlawfully and maliciously thrown a certain turnpike toll-house, the property of the trustees of the Three Commotts district of roads, situate at Porthyrrhyd.
— Discharged on their own recognizances, to appear when called upon to receive the judgment of the Court, and to keep the peace in the mean time towards all her Majesty’ subjects.
George Daniel pleaded Guilty to the charge of having, on , committed a riot, &c., at Blaennantymabuchaf, in the parish of Llanegwad, in the county of Carmarthen.
— Discharged on his own recognizances, to appear to receive the judgment of the Court when called upon.
John Thomas, smith, pleaded Guilty to the charge of having committed a riot and an assault at Llandilo-Rhynws bridge turnpike gate, on .
— Discharged on his own recognizances, to appear and receive judgment whenever called upon.
Mr. Chilton intimated to the Court, that it was not the intention of her Majesty’s Government, to proceed with the case against Francis M’Keirnin and George Laing, charged with the demolition of a turnpike gate, near Llanelly.
The Counsel for the Crown looked into the depositions, and did not think it a proper case to be proceeded with.
William Davies, farmer, Benjamin Richards, farmer, David Thomas, farmer, William Evans, labourer, and Arthur Arthur, labourer, charged with various Rebecca outrages, were discharged by proclamation.
Thomas Morgan, aged 28, labourer, and Thomas Lewis, aged 24, labourer, pleaded Not Guilty to the charge of having, on , at Dolauhirion toll-gate, in the parish of Llanegwad, in this county, and then and there demolished the said gate.
— This case was not proceeded with; but removed by certiorari into the Court of Queens Bench.
In the course of a few minutes, the prisoners who perceived their companions in tribulation set at liberty, wished to withdraw their plea of Not Guilty, and to plead Guilty, but the Judge told them it was too late.
