In our last publication we announced the destruction of the Rhydypandy and Bolgoed toll-bars, the latter of which had been re-erected but a short time before.
On , information was communicated to the Magistrates, relative to the parties implicated in the destruction of the toll-bars, in consequence of which, they issued warrants for the apprehension of several parties of the highest respectability.
This circumstance created the greatest excitement in this town and neighbourhood — so much so, that many old residents of Swansea have declared that, on no former occasion, have they seen the town in such a state of effervescence.
Early on , Captain Napier, accompanied by Inspector Rees, of the Borough Police force, Sergeant Jenkins and Henry Lewis, of the Rural Police, proceeded to the neighbourhood of Pontardulais, with warrants for the apprehension of Mr. David Jones, son of Mr. Morgan Jones, of Tymawr (formerly of Court-y-Carne), who is a most respectable freeholder, and Mr. Wm. Morgan, farmer, of Bolgoed.
After having brought these two persons to town and placed them in custody at the station-house, the same officers proceeded to execute a warrant, signed by J.D. Llewellyn and T. Edw. Thomas, Esqrs., for the apprehension of Matthew and Henry Morgan, the sons of Mr. Morgan Morgan, a freeholder, residing at Cwmcillau, near Velindre, in the parish of Llangyfeiach.
The former resides on his own farm, which he rents from J.D. Llewelyn, Esq., and the latter, being a single man, in his father’s house.
The officers arrived in the neighbourhood of Cwmcillau about , and apprehended Matthew Morgan at his own house, two or three fields distant from his father’s house.
He was left in the custody of Sergeant Jenkins and Lewis, while Capt. Napier and Mr. Rees proceeded to Cwmcillau farm-house, for the purpose of executing the warrant against Henry Morgan.
The nature of the warrant was fully explained in Welsh, by Mr. Rees, to the family, who positively declined allowing Henry to be taken by the officers.
At last, Capt. Napier and Mr. Rees found it necessary to take him by force, when the whole family assisted in his rescue, and committed a serious assault upon Capt. Napier.
As all particulars relating to the attack are detailed in the evidence given before the Magistrates on , a report of which is subjoined, it is quite unnecessary to enter upon them here, and refer our readers to the evidence adduced.
However, the family succeeded in rescuing the person against whom the warrant had been issued, but not until one of them (John Morgan) had been seriously wounded by a pistol shot, which Capt. Napier was compelled to discharge in self-defence.
With the assistance of Sergeant Jenkins and Policeman Lewis, who had been left with Matthew Morgan, at a distance of three fields from the house, they succeeded in bringing the young man who was wounded, with his brother, to Swansea.
In , three vehicles, with a party of the 73d Regiment, and several policemen, proceeded to Cwmcillau, for the purpose of apprehending the rest of the family, who had joined in the attack on the officers.
They succeeded in apprehending Esther Morgan, the mother, Margaret Morgan, the daughter, and Rees Morgan, one of the sons.
Morgan Morgan was apprehended in town, having come to enquire after his son.
All the family were now in custody, with the exception of Henry Morgan.
Dr. Bird and Mr. Rogers, surgeon, extracted the ball from John Morgan’s body, and have done everything that was necessary for his recovery.
The ball had entered the left side, below the navel, and was extracted from over the third lower rib, but the medical men were of opinion that it had not entered the abdominal cavity.
On , Mr. Griffith Vaughan, formerly a draper in this town, but now landlord of the Red Lion Inn, Pontardulais, and postmaster of that place, and Mr. Daniel Lewis, known as a writer in the Welsh periodicals, under the name of Petris Bach, were taken into custody, on a charge of having been concerned in the destruction of the Bolgoed bar.
During the whole of the town was in the greatest state of excitement, being filled with a number of respectable country people, farmers, and others, whose countenances betrayed the inward anxiety entertained to know the result of these proceedings.
A private meeting of the Magistrates was held during the whole of , in the Petty Sessions-room, in the Townhall.
It was the fullest meeting that had taken place for some time.
The following Magistrates were present:– Sir John Morris, Bart. (in the Chair), John Grove, Esq., Rev. S. Davies, W.I. Jones, Esq., J.D. Llewelyn, Esq., L.W. Dillwyn, Esq., L.Ll.
Dillwyn, Esq., C.H. Smith, Esq., H. Lucas, Esq., J.N. Lucas, Esq., Rev. John Collins, Thomas Penrice, Esq., Robert Lindsay, Esq., T. Edw. Thomas, Esq., J.H. Vivian, Esq., M.P., J.D. Berrington, Esq., and F. Fredericks, Esq. — Several Reporters made an application for admittance, but were told that the meeting was strictly a private one, to which Magistrates and the necessary officers only were to be admitted, but that reporters should be admitted at the proper time.
Soon afterwards, all the prisoners were brought to the Town-hall and were taken to the Magistrates’ room.
The large hall, was immediately filled, in the expectation that the examination would take place there.
In a short time the Rev. S. Davies appeared, and announced that the examination would be a strictly private one, but when the parties were brought up for final hearing, the public would be admitted.
Mr. Powell, the reporter for the Times, who had come that morning from Carmarthen expressly for the purpose of being present, applied for the admission of reporters.
Messrs.
W. Walters, J.G. Jeffreys, and J.R. Tripp, solicitors, who were respectively engaged to defend the prisoners, made a similar application in writing, and in reply, received the following resolution of the Magistrates — “That all meetings, with a view to the investigation of charges relating to the demolition of turnpike gates in this neighbourhood, be strictly private until the parties are brought up for final hearing.”
— From enquiries made, we understand that the information relative to the destruction of the gates was given by a man named John Jones, who has stated that he was present at the destruction of the Rhydypandy gate.
On , this man told Mr. Rees, the Inspector of police, that he knew all the parties concerned in the destruction of the gates, and could give their names and residences.
This induced Mr. Rees to communicate the circumstance to the authorities, who subsequently issued warrants for the apprehension of the parties.
It would be unsafe to offer any opinion as to the correctness of the information until the case is brought forward, but we deem it right to state, that the public place no confidence whatever in his testimony.
His wife declares that he was in bed on the night of the destruction of the Rhydypandy gate, at which it is said that he was present.
She also stated that, ever since a seizure of his effects for debt, his conduct has been such as to lead her to suspect that he is not altogether sane.
It also appears that some of the Welsh have a notion, that if they can erect what they call Ty un nos — that is, if they can build a house on a common in one night unobserved until the following morning — that the house so erected becomes their property.
Jones erected a house of this description on a common, belonging to the Duke of Beaufort, over which Messrs.
Jenkins, of Cenhordy, and Morgan, of Cwmcillau, had a right of pasturage, and which house they demolished.
This, coupled with the fact that the sum of 100l. has been offered for the apprehension of the destroyers of Bolgoed bar, tend to throw considerable suspicion on his evidence; for we understand that he is the informer respecting the destruction of both bars.
Various rumours were afloat on , respecting the conduct of Capt. Napier and the police, towards the Morgan family, for which, as it appeared by uncontradicted evidence on , there were not the slightest grounds.
Had the assault case been publicly investigated on , those injurious reports would not have been circulated.
Rebecca in North Wales
We find that pulling down toll-gates has become the fashion of the day, and that North Wales is imitating the South.
On the turnpike gate of Brynefal, near Tre’ Madoc, was destroyed.
It appears that there were from twenty to thirty of the Rebeccaites, some speaking with the South accent, and others in English.
They told the toll-keeper that, unless he was silent, they would make him so, and tried to effect an entrance into the house, but he had the presence of mind to place four sacks of salt against the door, which prevented their effecting an entrance.
Having pulled off the post, &c., they carried the gate about a mile, and then cut it in pieces, and left the fragments by the river side.
We are given to understand that no clue has been obtained as to the perpetrators.
We trust that the proper authorities will be on the alert.
— Carnarvon Herald.
On , a party of workmen in returning from hay-making in a field above Mount Pleasant, amused themselves in pushing before them one of the party, a mason, named Williams, who covered his face with his apron, at the same time crying out “Becca for ever.”
The Mayor, who was accidentally passing at the time, immediately seized him by the collar, and gave him in custody to two soldiers.
Mr. Morris, joiner, meeting them, told the Mayor that he would answer for Williams’s appearance on .
He was then liberated.
On , he entered into recognizances to appear before the Magistrates on .
The Monmouthshire Merlin rushed to print on with early reports of the Cwmcillau (or “Cwm Cille” in this account) brawl:
On a gentleman whose family are at present stopping in Glamorganshire, conveyed to us the intelligence that serious outrages had been committed by the followers of the Amazonian Great Unknown in the neighbourhood of Swansea; that the police had been violently handled; and that Captain Napier, the chief constable of the county, had been dangerously wounded.
We deemed it well to proceed to Swansea, and on our arrival found the town a scene of great excitement, and on seeking information from sources likely to prove authentic, learned that a conflict had certainly taken place, but fortunately on a small scale; that several Rebeccaites had been captured, and were then prisoners in the town; and that Captain Napier had been injured, after manifesting the humanity and forbearance which become a brave soldier.
It appeared that the anti-toll-gate campaign having widened the circle of operations, and frightened some of the good and peaceable people of Swansea, the active and intelligent head of the constabulary force of the county was vigilantly on the look-out.
On , a considerable force of the gate levellers marched to Bwlgoed toll house, near Pontardulais, about seven miles from Swansea, on the Carmarthen road, forced the keeper out without making his toilet, and placing an implement in his hand, compelled him, under certain threats of death, to aid in the work of demolition, and lest he should take the liberty of tracing any of the Guerrillas home, they locked him in an adjoining stable, where he was shivering, en chemise, “till daylight did appear.”
Disorganization was increasing with impunity, and as toll-gate keepers looked upon each coming night with fear and trembling, as probably the last of their road-side reign, the authorities of Swansea were not wanting in efforts for prevention and detection.
Heretofore the seal of secrecy has been upon the lips of all sympathisers with the Rebeccaites, and none were found to give a trace to the homes of the termagant, or any of her myrmidons.
On , however, according to public report, a person named John Jones, or Lletty Fulbert, not having the love or fear of “Becca” before his eyes, but being moved and instigated by John Barleycorn, or the genius of cwrw dha, met a policeman at a beerhouse, and there showed symptoms that he would a tale unfold of the wicked lady’s visits to the glimpses of the moon.
Inspector William Rees, of Swansea, was duly acquainted with the circumstance, and deemed this a favourable opportunity of obtaining information touching the names and whereabouts of the persons who razed the toll house and bar of Bwlgoed.
Pursuing this intent, Rees had the informer conveyed to a place of safety, where no person was allowed to interfere with his expressed intention of rendering the State some service, and where, the wicked Rebeccaites insinuated, his public spirit was kept effervescent.
Be that as it may, whether such report arose from malevolence or otherwise, we know not.
Inspector Rees applied to the county magistrates, who, having minutely scanned Jones’s story, issued warrants against persons charged with the commission of Rebeccaite outrage at the Bwlgoed gate.
Four warrants were confided to Captain Napier for the apprehension of William Morgan and Henry Morgan, farmers, of the parish of Llandilo, Talybont, and Matthew Morgan and David Jones, of the parish of Llangerelock.
At the gallant chief constable, accompanied by Inspector Rees, and William Jenkins and H. Lewis, policemen, proceeded well armed to execute the warrants.
Matthew Morgan was taken at home, about .
— David Jones was a prisoner soon after, and both were brought to the lock-up house at Swansea.
After the performance of this duty, they again set out to take Wm. Morgan and Henry Morgan.
William was found in a field, captured, and left handcuffed in the custody of Jenkins, the policeman; and the remainder of the party proceeded to Cwm Cille, near Velindra, the house of Morgan Morgan, farmer, in order to take Henry Morgan.
Inspector Rees first entered the house, and told who was outside.
He then sent for Captain Napier, who, on entering, was handed a seat by Esther Morgan, mother of Henry Morgan.
The object of the visit was then told, the warrant produced, and the signatures of the magistrates — Dillwyn Llewellyn and T.E. Thomas, Esquires — were pointed out.
Morgan Morgan, the father, said Henry was lame, and could not come then, but would do so at some more convenient time.
Morgan, the father, said he would lose his life before his son should go out of his house.
On this, Captain Napier ordered Rees to lay hold of Henry Morgan, and a scene of the utmost violence ensued, which will minutely appear in the evidence which we give below.
Old Morgan, his wife, his sons, Rees and John, the latter of whom was shot, and Morgan’s daughter Margaret, fell upon Captain Napier and Inspector Rees like tigers and tiget cats.
An iron bar, a reaping hook, a hatchet, a crutch, a hammer, scalding water, and a saucepan, were actively used against Mr. Napier and the policemen; one would almost suppose that the gallant captain must have a charmed life to survive the affray.
As it was, he escaped with a severe cut on the head, and other injuries; and no doubt he would have fallen a victim in the discharge of his duty, had he not, when the power of enduring forbearance could go no further, and when they had endeavoured to discharge a pistol, which he had, against him, he fired, by which one of his assailants, named John Morgan, was wounded in the abdomen.
Rees was sadly pummelled, and Jenkins, who came to their assistance, rescued both from further violence, by some dexterous passes of his sword against some neighbours of the Morgans, whom the cry of “Lladderch Nwynt,” — kill them!
— had brought to the scene of action.
Henry Morgan and John Morgan, the wounded man, were then brought to Swansea, where the eminent Doctor Bird skilfully extracted the ball from John; and, be it observed, to the credit of Captain Napier, that though covered with blood, and suffering severely, he declined the medical relief of Dr. Bird, until that gentleman had first performed the offices of humanity for John Morgan, and assured him that Morgan’s life was not in danger.
The news of the capture of Rebeccaites, and of the affray — magnified into a pitched battle, with reports of the killed and wounded — spread like wildfire over the town and neighbourhood — the streets became densely crowded — hundreds assembled at the station house, and the most feverish excitement prevailed; but we did not hear of any breach of the peace.
Doctor Bird and Surgeon Rogers paid close attention to the wounded man, and succeeded in extracting the ball, which had entered the abdomen, passed up, struck the edge of the ilium, and glanced up til it lodged backwards between the second and third ribs, the abdomenal cavity not having been entered in any part.
On a detachment of the Seventy-third Regiment, accompanied by several very well armed policemen, marched to the neighbourhood of Pontardulais, for the purpose of apprehending the parties who had offended against the law in the morning, and the Morgan family, and others, were conveyed to prison without resistance.
On two additional prisoners were brought in, and the rush of anxious crowds to catch a glimpse of the new-comers — for whom we heard repeated expressions of sympathy by the people — rendered the streets through which they came almost impassable.
Mr. Griffith Vaughan, a man of some property, and landlord of the Pontardulais Inn, and Mr. David Lewis, of, we believe, the same locality, are the two persons in question.
[Actually Daniel Lewis, I think — ♇]
The current of the population flowed to the Town Hall, where a numerous bench of magistrates, Sir John Morris, chairman, assembled.
The court was filled in every part, immediately after the doors were opened; and several members of the Press — London and provincial — were ready to take the proceedings; but after the lapse of a considerable period, the Rev. Samuel Davies entered the court, and addressed the meeting to the following effect:–
“I suppose you have assembled here for the purpose of hearing the examination of witnesses in the case which now occupies the attention of the magistrates.
I have to inform you it will be a private hearing, and therefore you may all depart; but before the investigation is brought to a close, when the prisoners are brought up for their final hearing, the public will be admitted.”
This announcement was received with marks of disapprobation.
Mr. Powell, of the Times, applied for permission to be present.
The solicitors who had been engaged to defend the prisoners, made a similar application, and in reply received the following:–
Resolved unanimously — That all meetings with a view to the investigation of charges relating to the demolition of turnpike gates in this neighbourhood be strictly private, till the parties are brought up for final hearing.
John Morris, Chairman.
The people dispersed from the hall slowly and complainingly, but the rumours of fresh arrests, and the current of reports prejudicial to the character of Jones, the informer, gave food for gossip and speculation.
It was said that a rev. gentleman met Jones’s wife in Castle-street, when she assured him “That her husband could know nothing of the occurrences at Bwlgoed and Rhyd-y-pandy, having been at home every night for the last two months.
She added that his conduct of late had been very singular, so as to induce her to believe him insane.
About twelve months since his effects were seized by the officers of the law for debt, which circumstance, she added, had a most powerful effect upon his mind.
Some time ago, he build a house upon the mountain, in the neighbourhood of his former residence, in a bleak and barren spot, where it was scarcely possible for a human being to reside, more especially in such a house as he erected.
The country people have a notion that if they can erect a house in one night upon a common, that house becomes their freehold property.
One of those houses Jones attempted to erect for himself, his wife, and five children; but Mr. Morgan, of Cwm Cille, and Mr. Jenkins, of Cynhordy, conceiving their rights to a sheep-walk invaded by this building, took steps for having it demolished.
Jones’s wife fancies that this act of Mr. Morgan’s so irritated her husband’s mind, already weakened by previous misfortune, that it must have caused him to have sought his revenge, by stating that Morgan’s sons were engaged in the destruction of the Bwlgoed bar.
However, this is mere conjecture on her part.
One thing she seems certain of, that her husband has not been from home during any one night for the last two months.”
Consequently, if her statement be true, her husband’s story must be untrue, as we believe he states he was present at the demolition of the Bwlgoed bar, which occurred a considerable distance from his residence, and during the night.
Jones was in town early on , and called at Mr. Davies’ house.
Having sat there a considerable time, he beckoned to Mrs. D., and begged her to as Mr. Davies to lend him five shillings; but Mr. Davies having some knowledge of his character, refused to lend him any money.
This circumstance plainly shows he was considered unworthy of being trusted with five shillings by persons who knew him.
It is well known that the magistrates have offered a reward of one hundred pounds to any one who will give such information as will lead to the conviction of any person engaged in the destruction of Bwlgoed bar and toll house.
The statement of Jones’s wife is given as being much relied upon by the friends of the Morgans, who are very numerous.
A couple of interesting details show up in this version: one, that among the weapons the Morgan family used was a “crutch.”
No crutch is mentioned during the initial presentation of the prosecution’s case against the Morgan family (though some of the other weapons are brought out for display to the Magistrates), and this may perhaps be because it would bolster the idea that Henry Morgan was injured and that the father had offered to bring him to town to face charges once he’d healed up.
Another detail is that neighbors of the Morgans came to their aid and joined in their vigorous defense of their household.
From the Cambrian comes this account of the examination of Rebeccaite prisoners who had been rounded up after being fingered by a fairly sketchy informant, and then subjected to a very irregular proceeding in which the witnesses and defendants were interrogated in the presence of the judges while their own counsel was denied the ability to be present.
The examination mostly concerns the desperate actions the prisoners took to resist arrest, and so doesn’t concern the main Rebeccaite activity directly, but that act (and the sympathy for it shown by members of the public attending the trial) says a lot about the state of Welsh public opinion towards the authorities:
On , the Magistrates commenced their public sitting soon after nine o’clock [the Monmouthshire Merlin, by contrast, says “The doors of the Town Hall were not opened till nearly ”].
The following Magistrates were present:– Sir John Morris, Bart., in the chair; J.N. Lucas, Esq., H. Lucas, Esq., W.I. Jones, Esq., J. Homfray, Esq., High Sheriff, J.D. Llewelyn, Esq., John Grove, Esq., Rev. S. Davies, Rev. J. Collins, Howel Gwyn, Esq., C.H. Smith, Esq., J.D. Berrington, Esq., J.H. Vivian, Esq., M.P., T. Edw. Thomas, Esq., N.E.V. Edwards Esq., and Col. Cameron.
The following persons were then placed in the dock:– William Morgan, and Esther Morgan, his wife, Rees Morgan, and Margaret Morgan.
There was also a charge against John Morgan, who was in the Infirmary.
Mr. Wm. Walters appeared on behalf of the prisoners.
The Chairman stated, that the Bench had, on , taken down the evidence as to the facts connected with the assault, and they had been engaged a long time about it, as they thought it would be best to explain to the prisoners the nature of the charge against them, for the sake of giving them every opportunity of offering any explanation.
Whatever explanation they had offered, was not taken down in writing at the time, so that it could not be used in evidence against them.
They were desirous of having the evidence explained to them in Welsh, which was done.
He (the Chairman) would read over the depositions of Captain Napier and the other witnesses; and Mr. Walters could cross-examine them as to any of the statements made.
Mr. Walters begged to make one observation.
He was somewhat surprised at the course the Magistrates meant to pursue, and at that which they had pursued on .
He had then applied to be present, which was refused, and that was the first intimation he had received that any examination had taken place.
He would say, that the fairest way would be to go over the evidence orally.
He had the opinions of several Judges by him, who said that such a course was the best to pursue.
He also thought the way proposed to be adopted by the Magistrates would be prejudicial to the prisoners’ case.
After a short consultation with his brother Magistrates, the Chairman observed, that they had no objection to the course Mr. Walters proposed to pursue.
If he wished that all the evidence should be taken de novo, it should be done, and what was taken down on considered as mere waste paper.
Mr. Walters said, that he felt obliged to the Magistrates for the option given him.
He should certainly give a preference to the course of going over the whole of the evidence de novo.
He would not unnecessarily lengthen the examination.
Considering that the case was connected with some of the unfortunate disturbances which had lately been so prevalent in the Principality, it appeared to him that it was decidedly better to have a public examination, for if the depositions which had been taken in a private meeting were merely read over, some evil disposed minds might think that the parties had not been fairly dealt with.
— (Loud cheers, and other manifestations of public feeling, followed these observations as well as on two or three previous occasions).
The Chairman observed, that the Magistrates wished to make their proceedings as public as possible, but those demonstrations would not be allowed.
They were not bound to make the examination public, and if people could not behave themselves, the Hall must be cleared.
If the prisoners could be exculpated, either through their own innocence, or by the ingenuity of their advocate, that should be done; but those demonstrations could not be allowed there, more than in any other Court in the kingdom.
After some further conversation between the Magistrates and Mr. Walters,
Captain Napier, having been sworn, made the following deposition:– I am chief constable for this county.
On I proceeded to Cwmcillau, in the parish of Llangafelach, in this county, for the purpose of executing a warrant upon two persons.
Mr. Walters:– Don’t say upon whom, but produce the warrants.
Captain Napier left the Court for a short time while getting the warrants.
Mr. Walters:– I take this opportunity of applying, that the witnesses for the prosecution should be sent out of Court.
— The witnesses were then ordered out.
The Chairman:– You would, I presume, not wish Dr. Bird to be sent out.
Mr. Walters:– I do not know why any distinction should be made, as the evidence of the other witnesses might influence him.
Captain Napier now returned, and produced two warrants, signed by T. Edw. Thomas and J.D. Llewelyn, Esqrs., for the apprehension of Matthew and Henry Morgan, for the destruction of Rhydypandy gate.
Examination continu[ed:– portion illegible] warrants signed.
I was accompanied by Inspec[tor Rees portion illegible] of the Swansea Police, Sergeant Jenkins, and H.L. [portion illegible] the Rural Police.
We arrived at Cwmcillau at , and apprehended Matthew Morgan on the road near his own house, which is about three hundred yards distant from Cwmcillau.
I left Matthew Morgan in the custody of Sergeant Jenkins and H. Lewis, and then proceeded, accompanied by Inspector Rees, across the fields to Cwmcillau farm-house.
On arriving there, I directed Inspector Rees to ascertain if Henry Morgan was in the house.
He went into the house, and in a few minutes the prisoner Margaret Morgan came out, and I went with her into the house.
The family offered me a chair.
I do not remember which of them did so.
When I sat down, Inspector Rees spoke to them in Welsh, and told me–
Mr. Walters:– I beg you not to proceed further.
As Captain Napier is going to say what Rees told him in English, I apprehend it cannot be evidence against my clients, who could not understand what was spoken in that language.
Examination continued:– I heard the old man speak English, but not the rest.
Rees told me that he had informed them that I was Chief Constable of the County.
The other three prisoners must have heard him.
I then produced the warrant against Henry Morgan, and desired Mr. Rees to explain to the parties the nature of it, and tell them the name of the Magistrate who had signed it.
Mr. Rees spoke to them in Welsh, and told me–
Mr. Walters objected to hearing witness describe what Rees said, as Rees himself could say that.
Mr. Attwood was of opinion, that as all the prisoners were present at the time, that what Rees said in their presence could be taken as evidence.
A long discussion ensued, after which the examination was proceeded with.
Inspector Rees informed me that the father stated that his son was lame and could not walk.
I desired him to tell him that he (the son) must come with us, as we were bound to take him into custody.
Rees spoke to them in Welsh, and seemed to have some discussion with them.
At last he proceeded to lay hold of Henry Morgan by the arm, and the whole family surrounded him, and endeavoured to prevent his taking him from the corner in which he sat.
Morgan Morgan, the father, and Esther, his wife, John Morgan, the young man in the Infirmary, Rees Morgan, and Margaret Morgan, the daughter, attacked him, and Henry finally succeeded in disengaging himself from Mr. Rees, and attempted to run towards the stairs.
I laid hold of him by the collar, upon which the old man and his wife attacked me.
The old woman jumped on my back, put her two fingers to my eyes, scratched my face, and bit my ear, while the old man took a stick [“a crutch,” wrote the Merlin] and struck me repeatedly upon the head, my hat being then off.
The old woman then took an iron bar from the fire place, and struck me several times on the head with the middle part of the bar.
Immediately afterwards, Margaret Morgan and the young man in the Infirmary, attacked me.
Margaret, after striking me on the head with a stick, took a saucepan, containing some boiling water from the fire, and poured it over my back.
Eventually, I was compelled to let Henry Morgan go.
They continued struggling with me until I got outside the door, when I fell.
Previous to my falling I had taken a pistol from my pocket.
When I was on the ground, the old man laid hold of my hand by the wrist and turned the muzzle of the pistol towards me, while John Morgan, who is in the Infirmary, put his hand over mine and pressed the trigger with his finger.
The pistol was not cocked at the time, the hammer being on the cap.
The father had his right foot upon my thigh, and his left upon my groin, while John Morgan had his foot on the right side of my thigh, and was kicking me with the other foot, and by their endeavours they succeeded in turning the muzzle of the pistol towards my stomach, and kept pressing it to my body while John Morgan continued pressing the trigger.
At that moment, I received a cut on my head with a reaping-hook from Margaret Morgan.
Had the pistol been cocked it would most certainly have been off.
I had seen Margaret Morgan approach me with a rusty reaping-hook.
Considering my life to be in danger I turned the pistol, cocked it with my thumb, and fired.
I hit the young man, John Morgan, who is now in the Infirmary.
He stepped backward on receiving the ball, and again attacked me.
I at last succeeded in getting on my feet, and observed Rees Morgan, who had a hammer in his possession, and Morgan Morgan, who had a reaping hook approach me [the Merlin says this testimony fingered John with the hammer and Margaret with the reaping hook].
I fired a second time into the air.
No person received the shot.
Henry Morgan had a hatchet in his hand.
Rees Morgan struck at me with a hammer, and I knocked him down with my fist.
Observing Henry Morgan running away, I directed Inspector Rees to follow him, which he did.
I was following Mr. Rees, while Rees Morgan again interrupted me, and endeavoured to prevent me.
I again knocked him down with my fist.
Inspector Rees then returned, having failed to apprehend Henry Morgan.
Observing a mason’s hammer in Rees Morgan’s pocket, I attempted to get possession of it, but he resisted and struck at me with it.
At length I succeeded in wrenching it from him, and struck him on the head with the hammer.
He then left me alone.
I afterwards directed Sergeant W. Jenkins and H. Lewis, who had arrived on the spot with Matthew Morgan, who had already been taken into custody, to bring John with them in custody to Swansea.
On Mr. Walter’s application, the Magistrates allowed Morgan Morgan to come out of the dock and sit by him.
Examination continued:– During the whole time Henry Morgan took no very active part in the assault, but appeared desirous of getting away.
In his cross-examination by Mr. Walters, Capt. Napier said– When I went into the house, and asked for Henry, I did not understand that his father said that he would appear on .
The old lady, Esther Morgan, did not receive a shot in any part of her dress.
The only two shots fired were those fired by me — one at John Morgan, and the other close by his head, but not at any one; it was fired in the air.
I saw Morgan Morgan, the father, lay hands upon me; he also put his foot on my thigh.
Inspector Rees was engaged in struggling with Margaret Morgan, who endeavoured to throw the remainder of the hot water over him.
When on the ground, my face was towards the door of the house.
I observed the girl, Margaret Morgan, approach me with a hook; she had procured it from the cart-house, the door of which I could see.
Rees Morgan struck at me, but the blow did not take effect.
Mr. Tripp, at this period, made an application to the Bench, on behalf of Messrs.
Jones, Morgan, and Lewis, who were in custody.
The application was twofold — first, he requested the Magistrates would grant permission to inspect the warrants upon which they were taken into custody; and, secondly, that they would allow him, as their attorney, to have access to the prisoners as often as necessary.
With respect to the first, the law provided for it — the Magistrates had no discretion to exercise; and with regard to the second, he trusted the Bench would afford the prisoners every opportunity and facility for making their defence.
The Chairman, after consulting with the other Magistrates, said that they would accede to the first request, but the second could not be then granted, as all the Magistrates were not present.
Mr. Tripp stated, that he had not been able to ascertain the nature of the charge against the prisoners, and without that it was impossible for them to make any defence.
The prisoners had already been in custody.
Could he be informed when the Magistrates would decide upon the other application made to them?
The Chairman, after a pause, during which he consulted the other Magistrates, said, that the Magistrates themselves did not yet know the extent of the charge against the prisoners, but they had come to a decision to accede to Mr. Tripp’s application, though not instanter, but within twenty-four hours.
Mr. Tripp:– I am then to understand that to be the answer of the Magistrates.
May I ask the reason why the request is not now granted?
The Chairman said, the Magistrates were not bound to give reasons for the course which they pursued.
Mr. J.G. Jeffreys made the same application on behalf of Mr. Griffith Vaughan, who was in custody.
The Chairman gave him a similar answer.
Mr. Tripp asked if any evidence relating to the charge against his clients had been taken in their presence.
We understood the Chairman to answer in the affirmative.
The assault case was then proceeded with.
Inspector Rees examined:– On , I accompanied Captain Napier to Cwmcillau.
We arrived there at , and having apprehended Matthew Morgan, we proceeded to Cwmcillau farmhouse.
Mrs. Morgan offered me a chair; I told them that I wished Henry to accompany me to his brother’s house.
The father said that his foot was bad, and that his brother must come to him.
I then told Morgan Morgan (the father) that Captain Napier was outside, and I asked Margaret to request him to come in, which she did.
Captain Napier, at my request, produced the warrant against Henry Morgan.
I explained the nature of the warrant to Henry and his father, and told them that it was a warrant against the former, signed by J.D. Llewelyn and T. Edw. Thomas, Esqrs. I spoke to them in Welsh.
I also told them that Captain Napier was the Chief Constable for the county.
Morgan Morgan said that he would lose his life before he would allow his son to be taken out of the house.
I told Captain Napier, in English, what the old man had said, and asked what was to be done.
Captain Napier said, “Lay hold of him.”
I took him by the arm, upon which Rees, John, and Margaret Morgan, took hold of me, and succeeded in taking the prisoner from me.
He then went towards the stair, and Captain Napier laid hold of him.
Esther Morgan struck Captain Napier on the head, with a piece of iron.
I was pushed out by Rees, Margaret, and John Morgan.
After I got out of the house, Rees Morgan took up this [producing a three-pronged fish-spear], with which he prevented my returning to the house.
Margaret and John returned to the house, and left Rees with me.
In a short time I saw them bring out Captain Napier, who bled profusely from the head.
They threw him against a wall, which was before the house.
Margaret Morgan then brought the saucepan from the fire, and threw some hot water at me, and then aimed several blows at my head with the edge of it; I warded them off with my club.
Margaret Morgan went to the carthouse, from which she brought a reaping-hook [produced], and aimed a blow at the head of Captain Napier, while the father, mother, and the person who was wounded (John), kept him on the ground.
I cannot say whether the blow took effect or not.
At this time, I observed in Captain Napier’s hand a pistol, the muzzle of which was turned towards his own body.
Morgan and John Morgan struggled with him, as if to get the pistol out of his hand.
I then heard a shot fired, upon which Captain Napier rose from the ground, and Henry Morgan came out with this hatchet [produced], or one similar to it.
— After describing some other unimportant particulars, witness went on to say — Rees Morgan came after me with this hammer [produced — it was a large mason’s hammer], which Captain Napier afterwards wrested from him, and with which he struck him on the head.
We then went to the field, near the house, and Morgan Rees, Margaret Morgan, and the old woman, followed us.
Rees had a pike, and Esther Morgan a stick, with which they aimed several blows, which I warded off.
[The Merlin adds: “Margaret Morgan had the sickle in her hand.”]
Sergeant Jenkins then came into the field, and drew his sword, with the flat part of which he struck Rees Morgan on the body.
We then returned to Swansea, with Matthew Morgan and John Morgan, who was wounded.
Cross-examined:– The first thing Esther Morgan did was to strike Captain Napier with an iron bar on the head.
The old man did not say that Henry should come on the next day.
He did not object to his coming on the ground of his not being properly dressed, or because he had had no food.
He said that he would lose his life before he would allow him to go.
During the assault upon Captain Napier, I was engaged with Rees Morgan, who fenced me with his pike.
I could command a view of the entrance to the carthouse.
G.G. Bird Esq. M.D., examined:– I examined Captain Napier’s head, at , and found a cut on the left side, about two inches long, and down to the scalp-bone.
There were also scratches on his face, and a mark on the right ear, which appeared to be that of a bite.
There were other bruises on the head.
He also complained of a pain on the hip, and walked lame.
— [Dr. Bird corrected himself, and said that the mark was on the left ear].
Cross-examined:– The cut appeared to have been made with an edged instrument.
Sergeant W. Jenkins stated, that after taking Matthew Morgan into custody, he was left in charge of witness and Henry Lewis on the road, while Captain Napier and Inspector Rees proceeded to the house.
In a short time (observed witness), I heard a shot fired, and went towards the house.
Upon getting into the field before the house, I observed that Captain Napier was bleeding; his face and clothes were covered with blood.
The four prisoners, and Henry Morgan, followed him.
Margaret Morgan threw a stone.
The old woman used a stick to me, as soon as I approached them.
Margaret tossed the hats of Captain Napier and Mr. Rees towards me, at the same time saying, “Go home, you scamps and vagabonds.”
Captain Napier gave John Morgan, who was wounded, in charge to myself and Lewis.
We handcuffed him to his brother Matthew, and both were conveyed to Swansea.
It was then announced that no more witnesses were to be examined on behalf of the prosecution; and the Chairman told Mr. Walters that he was at liberty to produce any witnesses whom he might think proper to call on behalf of the prisoners.
Mr. Walters replied, that it was not his intention to offer any evidence, or of making any defence, at that time.
He perceived that a primâ facie case had been made out against his clients — sufficiently strong to warrant their committal for trial.
The only application he had to make to the Bench was, respecting bailing the prisoners.
He apprehended that there was nothing felonious in the rescue of Henry Morgan, consequently the prisoners would be committed for a misdemeanor, as the rescue of a prisoner could not be a higher crime than that with which the party rescued was charged.
Mr. Walters quoted an opinion from Archbold’s Pleadings in Criminal Cases, as his authority.
The Chairman observed, that the crime for which the prisoners would be committed, depended, not upon the nature of the charge against the party rescued, but upon the means adopted for effecting the rescue.
He understood that, if Henry Morgan were in custody on a charge of misdemeanor, and if the prisoners were simply charged with rescuing him, without having committed any act of violence, in that case, their crime would amount to no more than a misdemeanor; but here the parties had committed an aggravated assault.
After a short consultation, the Chairman informed Mr. Walters that the Magistrates had determined on liberating the prisoners on their finding bail.
The bail required would be, each principal in the sum of 200l., and also two surities in the sum of 100l. each.
— The Chairman also stated, that the case would not be further proceeded with that evening, but the prisoners would be remanded until .
Mr. Tripp now applied to the Bench for the liberation of Mr. David Jones, on his finding bail to appear whenever required.
The Chairman asked if there were any distinction between his case and that of the other persons who were in custody?
Mr. Tripp replied that there was not, but he applied on his behalf first of all, as the decision of the Bench, in his case, would govern that in the cases of the other prisoners.
Mr. Walters made a similar application on behalf of Matthew Morgan, and Mr. Jeffreys on behalf of Griffith Vaughan.
The Magistrates were of opinion, that the parties could not be admitted to bail before committal.
Mr. Tripp observed, that Jones was in custody upon a charge of breaking a turnpike-gate, which was simply a case of misdemeanour, and he submitted that it was a case of great hardship that enquiry into the charge should be so long delayed.
He (Mr. Tripp) could produce most unobjectionable surities for the appearance of the party whenever called upon.
Mr. Tripp proceeded to contend that, in point of law, the Magistrates were bound to liberate persons charged with misdemeanors on their finding bail.
At common law, all offences were formerly bailable but murder, and were still so, excepting in those cases specifically excepted by subsequent statutes, and by the present law he contended that misdemeanour was an offence for which it was provided that bail should be accepted.
Mr. Tripp quoted several authorities, among others, an opinion from the fourth volume of Mr. Justice Blackstone’s commentaries, and from the third volume of Burn’s Justice, and also an opinion expressed by Lord Denman, in the case of O‘Neil, the chartist, who was charged with misdemeanor.
After a consultation, the Magistrates declined acceding to the application.
The prisoners were then remanded until .
Henry Morgan, one of the party for whose apprehension the warrant was originally granted, and by rescuing whom the assault was committed, surrendered in the course of by the advice of Mr. Walters, and was in the dock during the latter part of the examination.
The report in the Merlin adds a few things to this description, and many more judgments.
Here, for instance, is that article’s description of the Morgan family:
The following prisoners were placed in the dock: Morgan Morgan, Esther Morgan, his wife (a sharp-looking lady, who though upwards of 70 years of age, had jumped on the chief constable’s back, bit his ear, and clapper clawed his face), Rees Morgan who appeared with his head bound up.
Margaret Morgan, daughter of Esther, a pretty and innocent looking Welsh damsel, who seemed more suitable to trim roses than to cut men’s heads with reaping hooks.
The Merlin reports also that “[s]ymptoms of dissatisfaction were apparent” as the chairman of the inquiry explained that they had taken testimony and interrogated the prisoners in closed court, and out of the presence (and over the objections) of their counsel, “only… that they might be better enabled to do justice to all parties.”
When their attorney objected again to this practice at the current hearing, according to the Merlin, “[c]onsiderable excitement pervaded the court, and loud cheers and clapping of hands followed the learned gentleman’s remarks.
It was quite evident that the sympathy of the people was strongly with the persons in the dock; and the magistrates throughout the day had considerable difficulty in restraining popular ebullitions unusual in courts of justice.”
The Merlin also reported, in another brief article, about the attack on the Tyllwyd gate and toll-house on
:
Destruction of Another Gate and Toll-House within Two Miles of Carmarthen.
A letter from Carmarthen on , says: “You will be astonished to hear, that notwithstanding our vigilance and precaution, notwithstanding the presence of forces which might well be supposed to frighten Rebecca and her family out of the county, or, at all events, into decent behaviour, that ubiquitous person and her vagabond family came last night within two miles of our county town, and on the main road, destroyed the Ty Llwyd gate.”
From the Cambrian comes this account of the examination of Rebeccaite prisoners.
This part of the examination mostly concerns attempts to bail out the prisoners, but also touches on the national publicity and local concern about the proceedings.
Wednesday.
, the hall was as densely crowded as on the preceding day.
The following Magistrates were present:– Sir John Morris, Bart., in the chair; J.D. Berrington, Esq., Colonel Cameron, Rev. S. Davies, Rev. John Collins, L.Ll.
Dillwyn, Esq., John Grove, Esq., W.I. Jones, Esq., H. Lucas, Esq., J.N. Lucas, Esq., J.D. Llewelyn, Esq., C.H. Smith, Esq., and J.H. Vivian, Esq., M.P..
The prisoners were placed at the bar, and the charge read over to them.
Margaret Morgan, the daughter, was charged with having feloniously and maliciously assaulted and wounded Captain Charles Frederick Napier, with the intention of preventing Henry Morgan from being lawfully apprehended.
[The coverage of this hearing in the Monmouthshire Merlin says that this charge was against Esther Morgan.]
Morgan Morgan and Esther Morgan (the father and mother), and Rees Morgan, were charged with aiding and abetting Margaret Morgan, in the commission of the felony.
The nature of the charge was explained to the prisoners in Welsh, and the usual questions put, whether they intended making any statements — at the same time they were cautioned by being told that whatever they said would be used in evidence against them if necessary.
The prisoners, by the advice of Mr. Walters, declined making any statements.
They were then committed to take their trial at the next Assizes.
Morgan Morgan, and Esther, his wife, then bound themselves in the sum of 200l. each, and the two surities, Messrs.
Isaac Jones and Robert Williams, in the sum of 100l. each, to produce the two former at the next Assizes.
Rees Morgan and Margaret Morgan, also bound themselfes in the sum of 200l. and the two surities, the Rev. Daniel Davies, of Swansea, and Mr. Wm. Thomas, of Llangafelach, in 100l. each, to produce the prisoners at the next Assizes.
— The parties were then liberated.
[The Merlin adds: “The whole family were then discharged out of custody, and left the hall accompanied by large numbers, who pressed to shake hands and congratulate them.”]
Captain Napier was then bound over to prosecute, and Inspector Rees and Sergeant Jenkins to give evidence against the prisoners.
The Chairman then announced, that the Magistrates had come to a decision to liberate the parties who were in custody on a charge of destroying Rhydypandy and Bolgoed toll-bars, on their binding themselves respectively in the sum of 100l., and two responsible surities in 50l. each, to appear on
Mr. Walters applied to the Bench, for the liberation of John Morgan, the young man who had been wounded, and who was then in the Infirmary of the House of Correction, on his finding surities to the same amount as the others.
Mr. Attwood observed, that he was charged with a more serious offence than those who were in custody at the station-house, and who were charged with misdemeanor only.
The Chairman observed that as far as his own opinion went, unless there was a technical objection, the young man might be discharged on entering into the same recognizances as the rest of the family who were charged with a similar offence.
Mr. Attwood suggested that the only objection to the adoption of that course would be, because the rest of the family had been committed, whereas the case of John Morgan had not been heard.
Mr. Walters then stated that the medical men were of opinion that the young man was in a fit state to be brought forward, and that the investigation of the case should be proceeded with.
He (Mr. W.) would certainly prefer the adoption of that course, if bail could not be taken for his appearance whenever required.
The Chairman expressed his readiness to accede to Mr. Walters’s proposition of proceeding with the examination.
He would have admitted him to bail before examination were not that course informal.
The Government and the whole kingdom watched their proceedings, and it was necessary they should avoid any technical informality in their proceedings.
The Chairman then expressed his readiness to proceed to the Infirmary, and take the examination on .
After a lengthened conversation, the Chairman’s suggestion was agreed to.
The Chairman, and several of the other Magistrates, then proceeded to the Station-house, for the purpose of receiving bail for the appearance, on , of the parties charged with the destruction of the toll-bars.
Should the investigation be then proceeded with, we shall give a full account of the proceedings in our next publication.
— Each of the principals then entered into recognition in the sum of 100l. each, and the following surities in the sum of 50l. each:–
For Henry Morgan, Messrs.
Thomas Glasbrook and Joseph Rees; the same persons were surities for Matthew Morgan.
For Mr. William Morgan, of Bolgoed, Messrs.
Morgan Jones (Courtycarne), and Griffith Griffiths.
For Mr. David Jones, Messrs.
Isaac Thomas and Jacob Lewis, draper, Swansea.
For Mr. Griffith Vaughan, Messrs.
John Cadwallader and Wm. Sayer, of the Bush Inn; and for Mr. David [Daniel?
–♇] Lewis, Messrs.
John Alexander and Edward Williams.
The Chairman, and several of the Magistrates, then proceeded to the House of Correction, to take the examination of John Morgan, the young man who had been wounded.
After remaining for some time in the Committee-room, it was suggested that the Magistrates had better proceed to the bedroom, to avoid disturbing the invalid; to that suggestion the Chairman readily assented.
On our entering the room, the young man, who is fast returning to a state of convalescence, and did not appear very ill, though he was much paler than when in health, was preparing to meet the Magistrates, who desired him to return to his bed, when the depositions made on were read over to him, and explained in Welsh, by his attorney, Mr. Walters.
When asked if he wished to put any questions to Captain Napier, he stated in Welsh, that he did not attack Capt. Napier, but merely ran towards him, after having been wounded, to prevent his shooting him the second time.
That being a mere statement, Mr. Walters did not give it in English, but advised his client to say nothing at that time — His father, Mr. Morgan Morgan, then entered into recognizances in the sum of 200l., and Messrs.
Jacob Lewis and David Bevan, in 100l. each, for his appearance at the Assizes.
— The Magistrates then left.
The preliminary hearing in the first big Rebeccaite criminal trial began on .
Here’s how The Cambrian covered it:
The examination of the parties charged with having been concerned in the destruction of the above toll-bars took place at the Town-hall, Swansea, on .
In consequence of an announcement, that the proceedings would commence at , the hall was completely filled long before the Magistrates, who held a private meeting previous to the examination, had taken their seats.
Soon after , Capt. Napier announced to the prisoner’s attornies, reporters, and others who were anxiously waiting in the large hall, that the Bench was ready to proceed with the examination in the small petty sessions room.
An instantaneous rush took place from the hall to that room, so that every avenue was immediately filled.
The Magistrates occupied the whole of the table, and consequently there was not the slightest accommodation either for the attornies engaged or the individuals connected with the press.
Mr. Tripp, after remarking upon the inconvenience of conducting the examination in that confined room, expressed a hope that the Magistrates would consent to adjourn to the large hall.
J.D. Llewelyn, Esq., on behalf of the Magistrates, expressed their willingness to do any thing for the accommodation of the public, but they had come to an unanimous decision of holding the examination in that room, in consequence of the very unseemly manifestations of feeling evinced by the crowd at the last examination, which had a tendency to defeat the ends of justice.
Still, the Magistrates were quite willing to adjourn to the hall (though they were not bound to give publicity to their proceedings) provided no similar demonstrations would recur.
The Magistrates then adjourned to the Hall.
The following gentlemen formed the bench on the occasion:—
Sir John Morris, Bart., in the Chair.
J.D. Berrington, Esq.
J.D. Llewelyn, Esq.
Col. Cameron.
Griffith Llewellyn, Esq.
The Rev. John Collins.
Robert Lindsay, Esq.
The Rev. S. Davies.
J.N. Lucas, Esq.
L.Ll. Dillwyn, Esq.
Henry Lucas, Esq.
Richard Franklyn, Esq.
C.H. Smith, Esq.
John Grove. Esq.
T. Edw. Thomas Esq.
The Rev. W. Hewson, D.D.
Henry Thomas, Esq.
W.I. Jones, Esq.
J.H. Vivian, Esq., M.P.
Mr. Maule, the Government Solicitor, said that he would not trouble the Bench with a statement, but go through a regular examination, and leave the prisoners, by their attornies, exercise their right of cross-examining; but, in addition to the depositions against the defendants, David Jones, Wm. Morgan, Daniel Lewis, and Griffith Vaughan, there was another circumstance which affected one of them — that was Vaughan.
That circumstance had recently come to light, and until it was satisfactorily explained, be would call upon the Magistrates to give it its due weight and effect.
The fact he alluded to was, that a few days ago, a case arrived by steam-packet from Bristol; the agent to the steamer had received it from the railway carriers at Bristol.
It was addressed to Mr. Griffith Vaughan, and after he had been taken into custody, the order for the contents of the case had been countermanded.
That circumstance excited suspicion, and the case was consequently detained and examined, and upon examination it was found to contain fire-arms and ammunition — there were about a dozen guns, some of which were double barrelled, a brace of pistols, and a number of percussion caps. Now, that seemed to him (Mr. Maule) to be rather an alarming fact, and unless it could be explained, it was a fact which must affect the defendant.
He should submit that circumstance, together with the depositions, to the attention of the Magistrates.
Mr. Tripp requested Mr. Maule to state the charge.
Mr. Maule stated, that he charged the defendants under a statute of 7th and 8th Geo. 4th, which was to the effect that, if any person broke down or destroyed any turnpike-gate, bar, chain, or any toll-house, so as to prevent the collection of tolls, and allow passengers to pass without paying, such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and punished accordingly.
He charged the four defendants with having been concerned in the destruction of the Bolgoed Gate, on ; and if that charge should be brought home, the statute enacted, that they should be guilty of a misdemeanour.
Mr. Maule then called John Jones.
The Chairman:– Can you speak English?
Witness (in English): “No, Sir” (laughter.)
Mr. Tripp said he understood English well, and it would be a convenience if he gave evidence in English.
The Chairman observed, that a Welshman who spoke English imperfectly always preferred giving evidence in his native tongue.
He (the Chairman) could understand and speak French, still, if in a court of justice, he would insist on his right of giving evidence in English.
Mr. Glasbrook was then sworn interpreter.
John Jones was then examined:– I live in Cwmsciach, in the parish of Llangafelach, in this county.
I am a labourer, and the place where I reside is about two miles distant from Bolgoed gate, which, I believe, is in the parish of Llandilo-talybont, in this county.
I was out on the night of when the gate was destroyed.
I saw the gate destroyed .
The house was pulled down with pickaxes, and the gate cut with saws.
The parties engaged in the destruction of the toll-house and gate were counted previous to leaving, and they amounted to some hundreds.
I know there must be hundreds of men there.
I did not see any women.
I believe there were both old men and young men present.
There was something peculiar in the dress of all.
Some had white shirts on, and others had women’s bed-gowns about them.
They also wore women’s caps on their heads.
Some of them were armed.
I cannot say how many.
There might have been a hundred guns there.
They were principally single-barrel guns, but some of them were double-barrelled.
They had several hand-saws, a cross-saw, and pickaxes.
They cut the toll-bar with cross-swords and hand-saws, and the toll-house they destroyed with pickaxes by undermining it, and taking out the lower stones with pickaxes.
When the toll-house and gate were being destroyed there was a continual firing of guns.
They were occupied for about ten minutes in destroying both the toll-house and the toll-bar.
Some of the parties also had their faces disguised by having some kind of handkerchiefs tied around their heads, and hanging like veils over their faces.
I did not observe that any of them had their faces blackened.
One of the persons rode on a white horse.
The men addressed the person on horseback by the name of “mother.”
I was near enough to the person they call “mam” (mother) to hear them talk lo him.
They were consulting with each other if it was time to go.
That was before the gate and toll-house were demolished.
It was the man on horseback that asked the men if it was time to go.
They replied that they thought it was time for them to go.
The person on horseback had a white shirt put over his clothes.
He had also a cap and bonnet on his head.
He gave them directions, and made a short speech.
That man was the prisoner Daniel Lewis.
I should know him if I saw him.
This is the man (pointing to Daniel Lewis.)
I had known him before that night.
I know him to be a weaver, and that he lives near the Goppa, but I do not know in which house.
The Goppa is near the Pontardulais road.
I had seen him frequently before, but do not know how often.
I had been acquainted with him for three or four years.
I saw more persons whom I knew among the mob.
I saw Mr. Griffith Vaughan, of the Pontardulais Inn.
I see Mr. Vaughan now.
He was among the crowd.
He had a gun in his hand.
I do not know whether it was a double or single-barrelled gun.
He was dressed in some kind of a white shirt, a cap, and a bonnet.
He fired several shots from the gun.
It might be twice or thrice during the time the others were destroying the gate.
I saw nothing in Daniel Lewis’s hand.
I saw others whom I knew besides Lewis and Vaughan.
I saw David Jones, of Dantwyn, present.
His father is a farmer.
Dantwyn is about a mile distant from the Bolgoed bar.
He was also dressed in a while shirt, a cap, and a bonnet, and had a double-barrelled gun.
He fired more than once, but I cannot say how often.
That was during the time the others were engaged in destroying the toll-house and gate.
I also saw John Morgans, of Bolgoed.
I know his name is Morgans.
I know him well.
[Mr. Tripp observed that his name was William.]
— He is a farmer, and lived at Bolgoed.
He was dressed in a similar manner to the others.
He fired a gun three or four times.
There were neither shoutings or noise then.
They were not speaking, only firing.
I became acquainted with David Jones in the last winter, when I met him out sporting.
I have known William Morgans for the last ten years.
I partly know from where the crowd came.
I first met them on the lowest part of Goppa mountain.
This was .
I accompanied them to the gate, but did not speak to one of them.
Their numbers increased as they went on.
They sat down on the mountain, and others came from all parts to join them.
I understood where they were going to.
They said they were going to break the Bolgoed bar.
I had my coat turned inside out.
I also put a handkerchief about my face.
I did it for the purpose of being like the others.
I had been on an errand, and saw two persons who were going there.
I had previously heard that they intended destroying the gate, but I had not heard the night.
They did not remain a minute after they had destroyed the gate.
They went together to the side of the Bolgoed mountain.
They then pulled the bonnets, &c. from their heads and dispersed throughout the neighbourhood.
I then went home.
I do not remember that I saw Lewis after I saw him by the gate.
Cross-examined by Mr. Tripp, who appeared for David Jones and Wm. Morgans, and, in conjunction with Mr. Walters, on behalf of Dl. Lewis:— I was with my father during a part of that day.
I was at home during a very short portion of the day.
I was not at home after seven or eight o’clock in the morning.
I will swear I slept at home on the preceding night.
I then went to Gellywran-issa, where my father resides; I remained there until the evening.
I do not remember the hour I left.
I did not return to my own house when I left Gellywran-issa.
From my father’s house I went on an errand to my brother’s. My brother’s name is Richard Jones, he lives at Llanedi, in Carmarthenshire — that is about four miles distant from my father’s house; it may be five miles distant, or more.
I reached there about dusk.
It may be six, seven, or eight o’clock; I should think it might be about seven o’clock; I do not know when.
I will swear it was not nine or ten o’clock it was not quite dark.
I had left my father’s house between four and five o’clock.
I did not call at any house between my father’s and my brother’s house; I went direct from my father’s to my brother’s house.
I met several persons on the road, but I do not remember who they were.
I did not speak to one.
I do not recollect having met any person whom I knew; I will not swear I did not.
When I arrived at my brother’s, I saw my brother and his wife, his daughter, and the servant — the latter was in the kitchen; the child was with her in the kitchen, and no other person.
My brother was not in in the house when I arrived, but came in there about an hour afterwards, accompanied by his wife.
I remained there until it was dark.
I might have remained in my brother’s house for about three hours.
When in my brother’s house I saw no person but those named.
The Chairman now asked Mr. Tripp, what course he intended pursuing with the defence?
Mr. Tripp, in reply, said, he did not exactly know at that period of the proceedings, but if the Chairman’s object in putting the question was for the purpose of sending all the witnesses who might be called for the defence out of Court, on the part of his clients he was very willing it should be done.
Mr. Maule observed, that it was usual to do so.
The witnesses were then ordered to leave the Court.
The cross-examination was then proceeded with:— The errand, to perform which I left my father’s house, was to consult with him about my going there to mow hay.
I went there on my own account, and not for any one.
I consider that to be an errand.
When I left my brother’s, I went to the Hendy-gate, and thence to Pontardulais, and from thence to the Farmer’s Arms, and was on my way home.
I had heard that the Bolgoed bar was to be destroyed on that night, but I did not know for a certainty.
I saw the two persons, who were going to break the gate, going through the fields before me — I did not speak to them.
I thought they were going to Bolgoed, because one had a white dress on, and the other a bedgown.
When first I saw them, they had those dresses about them.
I did not walk with them, but after them.
I followed them until the wooden bridge, near the factory.
I do not know that I saw them afterwards.
I will swear that I did I not see their faces.
I then went to Goppa Mountain; I saw scores of persons there.
I have disclosed to the Magistrates the names of all the parties whom I knew were present at the destruction of the gate and toll-house.
When I first saw them, they were sitting down — some were standing.
I sat down above them all.
I did not hear them talk, as they were talking in a subdued tone.
I was near enough to hear, if they had spoken aloud.
I remained there for about half an hour.
During that time the numbers increased.
Becca was calling upon them, throughout all the neighbourhood.
When they left the mountain, they amounted to some hundreds; I was then in the midst of them.
I well understood that they were going to destroy Bolgoed.
One rose upon his feet, and said to me, “You know where we are going — it is to break down the Bolgoed-gate.”
It was Becca that said that.
I knew who Becca then was, but not so exact as afterwards.
I suspected it was Daniel Lewis; I knew him by his voice, but at the gate I saw his face.
I had heard all the neighbourhood say that Daniel Lewis was to act Rebecca’s character.
I had not heard that he was generally Rebecca, but that he was to be so on that night.
I heard that a week or a fortnight before, but cannot name any person who said so.
I will positively swear that I heard Daniel Lewis was to be there, on that night, from a great number of persons.
I do not remember one of the persons who told me so.
I turned the sleeves of my coat by the factory, about three quarters of a mile from the Goppa mountain.
I disguised my face when first I saw them; I used my neckcloth for that purpose.
I turned my coat after I saw the two men disguised.
I did so because I had heard they had done so in Carmarthenshire and I went to see them breaking the gates.
I think all those assembled on the mountain were disguised.
I named all I knew to the Magistrates; I cannot say how many I knew, but I knew many of them — perhaps about six, including the four prisoners.
I did not positively recognize one of them on the mountain.
While on the mountain, one of the persons stretched his hand towards me, but I did not know him.
No person spoke to me.
I heard conversations between several of them.
I was within three or four yards of the toll-house when it was demolished.
I was standing near, looking at them.
I have said that they were about ten minutes destroying the gate and toll-house; it might have been fifteen minutes.
I had seen and known David Jones previous to last winter, but not so well as afterwards; I never spoke a word to him in my life; I only know him by sight.
I first knew Morgans when he was in the employment of Mr. Griffiths, of Penrhiew, at Swansea.
I reside in a house in the Sciach valley; it is a poor house.
I cannot name the day or week I heard that a reward was offered for the apprehension of the Rebeccaites — I cannot say how long before last Saturday week; I had heard some days before.
I first mentioned what I have sworn to to-day, to Mr. Rees.
Inspector of Police, last Saturday week.
I had business at Swansea.
I intended buying plates there.
Near Mr. Attwood’s office.
I had heard speaking about the Rebeccaites.
Mr. Tripp:— What did you tell Mr. Rees?
Mr. Maule objected to that question.
It was quite unusual to ask witness what they had told any person with a view of comparing it with his evidence.
The examination was proceeded with after a short discussion.
I did not name to Mr. Rees the parties whom I have mentioned to-day.
Mr. Rees desired me to accompany him to Mr. Attwood’s office.
Mr. Attwood sent for two Magistrates, who arrived there.
I was examined before them, and I believe my examination was taken down in writing.
When speaking to Mr. Rees, I believe not a word was spoken about the reward.
I then knew that a reward was offered.
I think I had asked Rees if I would be free if I informed about others.
Mr. Rees said I would have the reward if I could make out who had broken the gates.
I do not remember all the conversation between me and Mr. Rees, but I think something might have passed about the reward.
I have no doubt of it.
You must have heard if I said that not a word had passed between us.
— [The witness was also cross-examined as to whether any person had influenced him to become informer on this occasion, which he strongly denied, and stated that he gave the information of his own accord, uninfluenced by any one.
— During his examination, the witness said, that if his word was doubted, the Magistrates might sign two warrants, and he would produce two witnesses who would confirm his statements in every particular.]
Mr. Jeffreys, on behalf of Mr. Vaughan, cross-examined the witness:— I have known Mr. Vaughan for some years.
I do not remember that I ever spoke to him.
I believe I was in his shop some years ago.
I think his shop was in a street called High-street.
I have been often in Swansea.
I do not know the names of the streets.
On the night in question I was within two yards of Mr. Vaughan.
I did not exchange a word with any one by the gate — nor on the mountain.
In leaving the gate I spoke to two men after they had taken off the covering from their faces.
It was a dry light night.
I do not remember that it was a moon light night.
It might have been.
I know Mr. William Jones, of Rhyd.
I spoke to him in coming from the lime-pits a few days after the destruction of the gate.
It might have been a week after.
I spoke to him on two occasions, but only once upon that subject.
I will not swear it was not on the next day.
I did not tell him whom I saw, but that I witnessed the destruction of the gate.
I did not say I was close to them, or that I was at a distance from them.
I did not tell him that I knew any of them, We had no conversation as to the parties who were present.
William Jones did not ask me where I met the Rebeccaites, but I said I had seen them breaking the gate.
He said, “where were they?
If I knew where they were, I would go with them.”
I did not say I did not go near them as I was afraid of them, or any thing to that effect.
I did not say I turned off the road as soon as I had a place to turn.
I did not tell him that I could not recognize one of them, nor did I say they had come from Carmarthenshire, as I knew better.
I was brought before the Magistrates about six years ago for cutting birch.
I was compelled to pay a fine on that occasion.
Cross-examined by Mr. Walters, on behalf of Daniel Lewis.
I do not hold any land.
I was working with my father for three or four days in the week I gave the information.
On the previous week I also worked with my father, perhaps during the whole week.
I was working with Mr. Williams, of Penyfidy, on the week before.
I used to mow for my brother, and my brother for me.
I lived for the last six weeks in a barn belonging to Morgan Pugh.
I had left Pwllfa.
I was turned out of that house.
I had not occupied the farm since Michaelmas.
I wished to have a house near the mountain for the purpose of keeping cattle, otherwise I had the offer of many houses.
I wished to live in a house near Rhosfawr, and Mr. Powell told me that he intended making the two houses into one.
I went to bed about .
That was the first time I returned home after leaving on the previous day.
In leaving the gate I met a man on Goppa Mountain.
When I returned to my house I saw no person, as they had all gone to bed.
I did not see Morgan Pugh.
I know Mr. John Williams, of Penyfidy.
I had some conversation with him shortly after the gate was destroyed.
I did not tell him that I was at a distance from the gate.
I named to Mr. Williams, at that time, the persons whom I have named to day.
I did not tell him that I did not know one of them.
In coming to the gate the four defendants turned the covering they had on their faces on one side, and afterwards returned to shoot.
Re-examined by Mr. Maule:– Mr. Williams, of Penyfidy, is a farmer.
I do not remember whether he or myself commenced the conversation.
What I told Williams was in reply to questions put by him.
Mr. Williams did not express his regret that this disturbance had taken place.
Mr. Williams seemed rather to advocate the parties who had broken the gate.
— William Jones is a small farmer and a publican, and is generally called William, of Rhyd.
The information I communicated to him was in answer to questions put by him to me.
He made no observations expressive of regret at what had occurred, but appeared very partial to Rebecca’s doings.
Mr. J. Naish Smart was then called by Mr. Maule.
Mr. Jeffreys stated, that if the witnesses were called to prove the arrival of a case of arms, he would object to his evidence, as Mr. Vaughan denied having anything to do with the arms in question.
It was also irrelevant to the case, for the arrival of arms would be no proof that Mr. Vaughan had destroyed the gate.
Mr. Maule insisted upon the necessity of calling the witness.
It was most important that an explanation should be offered if that were possible, for it appeared in evidence that Mr. Vaughan, and a multitude of others had riotously assembled, armed with guns, and at the very time he was in custody on that charge, a case of guns and pistols arrived by packet and addressed to him and the order for which had been countermanded since he had been taken into custody upon the charge.
He would say that the Magistrates were bound to receive such evidence, though it was not yet complete as the order had not yet been proved; still he maintained, that it was closely connected with the circumstances of the case, inasmuch as it was evident that he collected arms for some purpose, though it might be no proof that he was present at the particular riot in question.
Mr. Tripp observed, that the evidence might effect his clients, and contended that it was no evidence relating to the destruction of the gate.
It was merely of a general character.
Mr. Maule said that it would not be made evidence against the other prisoners, but thought it of importance as far as it regarded Vaughan.
If the evidence would not be taken as it then stood, the only course would be to adjourn the investigation for the purpose of ascertaining the whole of the facts connected with the transaction.
The only evidence he could at present offer was, that the case had been addressed to Mr. Vanghan.
He was aware that it was necessary to prove some connection between Mr. Vaughan and the case, either by means of a written order or otherwise, as a case of arms might have been addressed to Vaughan by him (Mr. Maule) or any other person, though that would not be a very probable circumstance.
After some further discussion, the Magistrates admitted the evidence.
Mr. Smart’s examination was proceeded with.
He deposed to the following effect:– I am the agent for a Steam Packet Company in this town.
On , we received a case addressed to Mr. Griffith Vaughan, of Pontardulais.
It was received from Messrs.
Bland, who were the railway carriers.
It reached this town on the same day as it was put on board.
The witness read the extract from the manifest relating to the case as follows:– “Bland and Co., shippers, one case, Vaughan, near Swansea.”
Then follows amount of freight.
1s. 6d.; charges, 3s. total 4s. 6d..
The Mayor took possession of the case.
On I received a letter.
It was half-past eight o’clock on Sunday evening when I received it.
— [Letter produced].
It arrived by post, and was given me by Mr. Turner, who is also a steam-packet agent.
— [Mr Jeffreys having glanced over the letter, objected to its being admitted in evidence.]
— [The case was then produced].
It was addressed “G. Vaughan, Red Lion Inn, Pontardulais.”
Witness said that the first word after the name appeared Rich.
Upon the receipt of the letter, I wrote to the Clerk of the Magistrates.
Within five minutes afterwards, he came to the house where I board, and returned in company with the Mayor and Capt. Napier.
There were three or four policemen present.
Mr. Rees was one, and there was a Mr. Jones present.
The case was opened in my presence, and contained twelve fowling-pieces, one brace of pistols, a bullet-mould for the pistols, and ten or twelve boxes of percussion caps. There were three or four double-barrelled guns, and the rest were single-barrelled.
The contents after they had been inspected were replaced in the case, which was fastened up.
It is the practice to keep goods in the warehouse until called for.
I do not know in whose writing these letters are.
Some of the policemen took away the case.
Cross examined by Mr. Jeffreys:— The box was opened about [Mr. Jeffreys handed the witness a letter.]
This letter is in my hand-writing. it was written on .
[Mr. Jeffreys wished to put the Magistrates in possession of the letter, to show the course adopted towards Mr. Vaughan.]
I received no communication from Mr. Vaughan direct or indirect.
I received no answer from the letter addressed to Mr. Vanghan.
The letter referred to was to the following effect:–
County of Pembroke Steam Packet Office, Swansea, .
Sir, — A case arrived per County of Pembroke steamer on , addressed to you.
As we have but little room to spare in the warehouse, probably you will call or send for same at the earliest opportunity.
I am, Sir, yours, obediently, John Naish Smart. Mr. G. Vaughan, Pontardulais.
Mr. Tripp asked if there were any additional evidence against Vaughan?
Mr. Maule answered in the negative.
Mr. Jeffreys again begged leave to urge the objection made by him before, against admitting, as evidence, the circumstance of Mr. Vaughan being in possession of arms weeks after the occurrence had taken place upon which the charge was founded.
Mr. Maule:— “Weeks after.”
We must see what time the order was sent.
Mr. Jeffreys said, that be would be able, at a future period, to give a full and satisfactory explanation of circumstances attending the case of arms being addressed to his client.
The above was all the evidence offered on behalf of the crown.
Mr. Tripp, on behalf of David Jones and Morgan, submitted to the Bench, that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution was not sufficient to warrant a committal.
The evidence given by John Jones fully established that, in point of law, he was an accomplice in the case, having formed a part of the company when they first started from the mountain — having accompanied them to the spot, and remained present during the whole of the time that the gate and toll-house were demolished.
It could, therefore, be safely said, that Jones was an accomplice to an equal degree with any of the other two hundred and fifty, stated to have been present, with the exception of those who were actually engaged in breaking up the gate, and pulling down the house.
It was therefore clear that Jones was an accomplice and it was equally clear that he was also an informer, and, in that character, he hoped to receive the reward offered for the apprehension of the parties.
He (Mr. Tripp) would therefore submit, that the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice would not justify the Bench in committing the parties for trial.
In support of that opinion.
Mr Tripp quoted a case from Carrington and Payne, and opinions given by Baron Alderson and Mr. Justice Bailey.
Mr. Walters urged similar objections, and contended that Jones was an accomplice in whatever aspect the question was viewed.
He had accompanied the party, disguised his face, and turned his coat.
It was evident that he had considered himself as such, for the first question he put to inspector Rees was, — Whether he should be free, if he informed on the others?
Supposing that Jones had been instructed by the Magistrates to disguise himself, and appear among the crowd for the purpose of bringing the offenders to justice, he would appear in quite a different character.
In that case, he would not have been an accomplice; he would have been present from understood pre-arrangement, but in that case there was no such arrangement.
He would not trouble the Bench by quoting any cases, as Mr. Tripp had quoted several high legal authorities, shewing with what caution the evidence of an accomplice should be taken.
The Magistrates ought not to be satisfied with a committal, on a primâ facie case, from the evidence adduced, but they should also be satisfied that the evidence was accredited.
Mr. Jeffreys, on behalf of Mr. Vaughan, contended that no primâ facie case had been made out.
Supposing Jones’s testimony to be creditable, there was no evidence that Vaughan was concerned in the demolition of the gate and house, but merely that he was present, as the witness himself was.
Mr. Maule replied to the observations made by the gentlemen who defended the prisoners.
He agreed with some of the remarks made, but the Magistrates could not assent to all of them, unless they had made up their minds to think that Mr. Smart and Jones were not creditable witnesses.
The gentlemen who defended the prisoners were entirely mistaken in the cases they had quoted.
If, instead of being before the Magistrates for examination, the prisoners were tried at the Assizes, the Judge had no power, in point of law, to reject the evidence of an accomplice, even though uncorroborated; but it was usual, unless circumstantially or directly corroborated, to recommend the jury to acquit the prisoner; yet that was a rule of discretion rather than a rule of law.
The question was, not whether there was sufficient evidence to convict the prisoners, but whether the account given by John Jones was sufficiently satisfactory to warrant the Magistrates to send the prisoners before another tribunal.
With respect to the witness being an accomplice, he (Mr. Maule) would observe, that there might have been accomplices in various degrees.
If that argument were to operate, there were many persons, besides John Jones, whose evidence would be rejected.
He alluded to parties, who might be mere spectators, encouraging others who were intent upon mischief.
Mr. Walters observed, that there was no difference between the case of Daniel Lewis and that of the witness Jones, with respect to the parts taken by them in the riot.
Mr. Maule was of opinion, that there was a material difference between the two cases.
Had Jones ridden on a while horse?
Had he acted the part of Rebecca, which Daniel Lewis seemed to have done to admiration?
Had the mob consulted Jones as to their manner of proceeding?
He had only turned his coat at that moment, but they were better prepared, having white shirts, caps, bonnets, and gowns.
Mr. Maule quoted several authorities, to prove that the evidence of an accomplice was sufficient to commit, and that it would be legal evidence before a jury.
The Magistrates would necessarily adopt one of three courses — either to acquit the prisoners, to commit them, or to adjourn the proceedings.
Mr. Maule proceeded at considerable length, replying to the observations made by Messrs.
Tripp, Walters, and Jeffreys.
Mr. Walters repeated his objections to committing on the evidence of an accomplice.
Col. Cameron read an opinion from a legal authority, to the effect that any person could be convicted on the evidence of an accomplice, provided the jury thought him worthy of belief.
Mr. Tripp observed, that prisoners formerly were convicted on the unsupported evidence of an accomplice, but that old rule was entirely abrogated.
Mr. Jeffreys hoped the Magistrates would entirely exclude from their minds the circumstance of the possession of fire-arms by the defendant Vaughan.
The Magistrates then retired to an adjoining room, and in a short time returned, when the Chairman said that the Magistrates had come to a determination to commit the prisoners.
Messrs.
Walters and Tripp then proposed calling witnesses for the defence, when Mr. Maule objected to hear, in a preliminary investigation before Magistrates, evidence to contradict statements made on behalf of the prosecution.
They could call evidence to prove that the witness was not worthy of credit, but not to contradict circumstances stated by the witness, for if the Magistrates decided upon the credibility of witnesses, they would be assuming the functions both of judge and jury.
After some further observations from Mr. Tripp and Mr. Maule, the following witnesses were called on behalf of the prisoners.
William Jones deposed to the following effect:– I reside at Rhyd.
I remember the time when the Bolgoed bar was broken.
I heard from some sort of a friend of mine that the gate was broken.
It was from John Jones, whom I met on the following day.
I was returning from the lime, and he was coming from Llandilo.
We were on the road between Glamorganshire and Carmarthenshire.
I had a conversation with him about Rebecca.
John Jones said that he had seen Rebecca on the previous night.
He said that she went before him from Pontardulais to Bolgoed.
I asked him if he did not go near them.
He said he was afraid to go near them — that they were walking before him, and he following.
He said that he was looking for a place to turn, and that at last he turned up by the Fountain Inn to the Goppa Mountain.
He said he looked down from the bank, and saw Rebecca on a white horse with a white dress.
I asked.
“Did you know none of them?”
He said.
I did not, and added, [“]I was glad to get out of their way.”
I asked.
“Did you not know one of them?”
He said, “No, not one of them.
I saw them going before me to Pontardulais, and heard them firing from Llandybie.”
— Mr. Jeffreys:– Are you sure that he is the man who was called as a witness to-day?
— Witness:– Good God, yes; do you think I would commit such a blunder as that.
(A laugh.)
Cross-examined by Mr. Maule:– I was returning from lime at the time.
I had not known before that time that the gate was broken down.
I believe I commenced the conversation about Rebecca by asking how it came on about Llandilo?
I was just asking for news.
I had been in Llandilo in .
I was curious to know how matters got on.
I had never heard of the intention of breaking down Bolgoed gate.
Jones might have been lagging behind me on the road for about two miles.
I mentioned this conversation to Mr. Llewellyn, of Cardinen, and to Mr. Williams, Clyn Castle, and another person.
I told Mr. Jeffreys the circumstance on .
Mr. Jeffreys sent for me.
I might have told a dozen more.
I cannot name any of them, but my wife.
I had a boy with me.
He was about eight years old, but did not appear to take notice of any thing.
John Williams, of Penyfidy, examined:— I am a farmer, and reside in the parish of Llangafelach.
I first heard of the destruction of Bolgoed gate from John Jones.
He spoke to me upon the subject .
In the conversation John Jones had with me he told me he had been with them breaking down the gate.
I asked John Jones if he knew one of them, and he said he did not know one living being.
I asked him if there were any gentleman present? and he answered that he could not say.
He did not name any of the four defendants.
Cross-examined:— The conversation took place at different times.
He spoke to me on two successive days.
He told me the same story both days.
I will swear he did not name either of the defendants.
I reside three miles distant from Bolgoed gate.
I will swear I had not heard of the destruction of the gate before he told me.
I mentioned the circumstance to my own family on that day, but not to any one else.
I think I was in Chapel on the Sunday following the destruction of the gale.
I attend Salem Chapel, which is between three and four miles from Bolgoed.
Mr. Tripp stated, that the next witness he intended calling, would prove that, from Jones’s general character, he was not worthy of credit.
Mr. Maule objected to evidence of that description being adduced before Magistrates.
Mr. Tripp replied, and quoted Phillips on Evidence in support of his opinion.
The following witness was then called—
Evan Roberts said:– I live at Llandimor, in the parish of Talybont.
I have known John Jones for the last twelve or fifteen years.
From his general character I would not believe John Jones on his oath.
Rees Morgan, who stated that he lived in Glyn Castle, in Llangafelach, said:— I have known John Jones for twenty-five years, and would not believe him on his oath.
Cross-examined:— I live about three miles from Bolgoed.
I do not remember the day of the month on which I first heard or the gate being broken down, but I was going to meet the boys coming from lime.
I am generally at home at night, and I think I can swear I was at home on the night the gate was destroyed.
I do not know what time of night I went home.
I will swear that I saw no person going to destroy the gate, until it was destroyed.
None of my family were out on the night the gate was destroyed.
John Joce Strick, Esq., examined:— I reside at Clydach.
I have known John Jones for three or four years.
I cannot say whether I would believe him on his oath.
I think that, from so much as I know of him, I would not believe him on his oath but I am not sufficiently acquainted with him to say so positively.
Richard Jones examined:– I reside in the parish of Llandilo, and am a brother to John Jones.
I heard of the day the gates was destroyed.
I do not remember seeing my brother on that day.
I do not think my brother was in my house on that day.
To the best of my recollection the last time previous to the time mentioned I saw my brother was about .
I saw him then on a Sunday.
I did not see him in the week the gate was destroyed.
Cross-examined:– I swear I did not see him — that he was not seen or my family would let me know.
I am a tenant of the Rev. Samuel Davies, to whom I pay ground-rent.
I also pay rent to Charles Vaughan.
I am not aware that he is any relation to Griffith Vaughan.
I am come here at the request of the young men.
I felt for them, as I thought they were not guilty.
They told me to swear nothing but the truth.
I had previously told them that my brother had not been in my house.
— There was nothing elicited in the remaining part of his cross-examination.
Mr. Tripp, on behalf of David Jones, offered to call witnesses of the highest respectability, who would prove that David Jones was at Neath on the night in question.
He knew the Magistrates were not bound to hear such evidence it was entirely at their discretion, but he hoped they would exercise that discretion in a favourable manner.
Mr. Maule stated at considerable length his objections to such evidence, which he had never known to have been received by Magistrates, who were not to decide upon the guilt or innocence of parties, but to send them before another tribunal.
In cases which were summarily disposed of by Magistrates they heard evidence for the prosecution or from the complainants, and also for the defence.
They also decided upon the guilt or innocence of the parties, and passed sentence.
In those instances Magistrates performed the functions of Judge and Jury, but such evidence could not be admitted in a case like that which was to be sent to the Sessions or Assizes.
Mr. Wallers replied, after which the Bench decided that the evidence offered to be adduced by Mr. Tripp could not be received.
The Chairman then slated that the Magistrates had come to the determination of committing the parties for trial at the Quarter Sessions.
Mr. Tripp hoped the Magistrates would allow the prisoners to chose the tribunal before which they should be tried, and that they would commit them for trial at the Assizes, where they should not only be tried before one of the Learned Judges of the land, but where they should have the assistance of able Counsel, who would do justice to their cases.
— The Bench assented to Mr. Tripp’s request.
On the usual question being put, each of the defendants declined making any statements, as they left the matter entirely to their attornies.
They were then committed for trial at the next Assizes; and having entered into recognizances to appear at that time, were liberated.
Swansea, . we attended at the Assize Court, at nine o’clock, in anticipation of an early commencement of the public business, but the magistrates remained in their private room , when it was officially announced to those in the great hall that the court was opened, that is, that the proceedings against the parties charged with the demolition of the Bwlgoed gate, were to take place in a small apartment, inconvenient to the magistrates, and insufficient to accommodate more than about 50 of the anxious public, when closely packed.
The assigned cause for this very unpopular arrangement, against which we heard the good citizens of Swansea and the visitors from distant parts, strongly and loudly declaim in the precincts of the court, where several “rate payers,” in the peace of our sovereign Lady the Queen, were constitutionally holding forth on the liberty of the subject, was, that on the former day of hearing, the feelings of the public in court were so loudly and irrepressibly expressed, that it was resolved to avoid such unseemly interruptions and annoyances this day, and thus give the people a “great moral lesson.”
No sooner, however, were the magistrates assembled, than the overwhelming heat produced by the closely-packed audience in a small apartment, rendered a motion by Mr. Tripp, the solicitor, for an adjournment to the capacious court, favourably entertained, and Colonel Cameron strongly expressing his disapprobation at the very limited accommodation, seconded by other gentlemen in the commission, the Assize Court was resorted to, which in a few minutes presented an exceedingly dense mass; the far greater proportion of which were farmers, and their country’s pride, a “bold peasantry,” here and there relieved by bright-eyed Cambrian mountain maids.
Pontardulais and its neighbourhood poured its almost entire population into Swansea; and as a “great demonstration” was expected to conduct the defendants (some of whom are great favourites in their respective localities) to the court house, a procedure properly prevented by their legal advisers, the streets were thronged from an early hour of .
The report (since authenticated) that on the previous night, Llanon toll house and gate, together with another “trust” in that locality, had been levelled with the dust, gave an additional interest to the proceedings of the day; whilst the presence, to prosecute, of Mr. Maule, of the Treasury, assisted by the able Mr. Haven, of the same Government department, brought to the Court House the most intelligent gentlemen of Swansea and its precincts.
The following magistrates took their seats on the bench… [omitted; the list is the same as above except that it contains “J.N. Miers” instead of J.N. Lucas, “J.W. Dilwyn” in place of L.Ll.
Dillwyn, and adds F.E. Leach, Esq.]
The following defendants were placed at the bar:– Griffith Vaughan, an exceedingly well-looking rustic, Daniel Lewis, an unsophisticated young farmer, charged with being the Rebecca of , and who would certainly look more effeminate than masculine as a petticoated and capped heroine, David Jones, a staid good humoured looking yeoman, and William Morgan, a merry-countenanced blade, who seemed anything but a fellow addicted to deeds of darkness.
All the reputed Rebeccaites were accompanied and cheered to the court by numerous friends, and seemed to think that it would be “all right.”
J. Ralley Tripp, — Jeffreys, and — Walters, Esqs., solicitors, defended the prisoners.
Mr. Maule rose and addressed the Bench to the following effect:– He had the honour to be engaged by the Crown in the conduct of the present proceedings against the persons who stood there charged with having taken part in the breaking down and destruction of a toll gale at Bwlgoed, distant about eight miles from Swansea.
The four persons then at the bar, named David Jones, William Morgan, Daniel Lewis, and Griffith Vaughan, had been liberated on bail, but this morning had surrendered, in order to have the charge against them investigated.
The witness, upon whose testimony proceedings had been taken against the defendants, would be placed in the box and examined before them, that being the most regular course.
The gentlemen who appeared on behalf of the defendants would then have an opportunity afforded them of cross-examining the witness, and of using every other means of defence which 1 the law placed at their disposal.
In addition to the facts which the witness Jones would prove, he (Mr. Maule) would be in a position to prove a circumstance of a peculiar nature affecting defendant Vaughan.
The circumstance he alluded to was of a most extraordinary character, but as it had only transpired within the last day or two, he (Mr. Maule) was not able to enter very fully into the details of the case.
He would, therefore, merely state that a day or two ago a case, containing arms, and addressed to Mr. Griffith Vaughan, Pontardulais, had been found at the warehouse of the Bristol Steam Packet Compaqny.
It would appear in evidence that after the case had arrived in Swansea, a letter, countermanding its delivery, was received at the packet warehouse.
That case was found to contain from ten to twelve guns, ammunition, caps, bullet moulds, &c., and a brace of pistols.
The defendant Vaughan might be in a position to explain satisfactorily the reason for having arms in such quantities directed to him, and he (Mr. Maule) hoped he would do so; but as the case stood, he was bound to ask the magistrates to admit that fact in evidence.
The degree of importance to be attached to it, he, of course, would leave to the Bench.
The prisoners stood charged with having been concerned in a public outrage committed some short time since.
The statute 7 and 8, Geo. Ⅳ., c 30, s 14. enacts— “That if any person shall unlawfully and maliciously throw down, level, or otherwise destroy, in whole, or in part, any turnpike gate, or any wall, chain, rail, post, bar, or other fence, belonging to any turnpike-gate, set up or erected to prevent passengers passing by without paying any toll, directed to be paid by any Act or Acts of Parliament relating thereto, or any house, building, or weighing engine, erected for the better collection, ascertainment, or security, of any such toll, every such offender shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof, shall be punished accordingly.”
The several defendants were charged with having been participators in the destruction of a toll gate, called the Bwlgoed, on , and if the charge was substantiated, it would become the duty of magistrates to commit them for trial.
The learned gentleman then called John Jones, the informer, and on his appearance the indignation of the persons in the body of the court could scarcely be repressed by the officers; hisses were first loudly heard, and when calls of “order” and silence were authoritatively called, a slight under current of sibilations was muttered.
Jones was very firm and collected, and gave his evidence without apparent embarrassment.
He was examined by Mr. Maule.
The examination took place in the Welsh language, which was cleverly interpreted by Mr. Glasbrook, a respectable trader of Swansea.
Witness said that he lived at Cwm Skeach, in the parish of Langafelach, in this county: is a labourer, lives about two miles from the Bolgoed gate.
I was out when that gate was destroyed.
It was destroyed on .
I saw the gate destroyed between twelve and one o’clock somewhere.
It was calculated that there were about 250 people there.
I saw no women there.
Every one of them had something remarkable in their dress.
Some had white shirts on, and some had women’s bedgowns on.
They had women’s caps upon their heads.
I observed that some of the men were armed.
Perhaps there were a hundred guns there, some were double-barrelled.
They had pickaxes, handsaws, and cross saws with them.
They destroyed the toll-house by pulling it down with pickaxes.
While this was going on there was firing of guns all the time.
It took them about ten minutes to destroy the toll-house and toll-bar.
Besides the dresses which I have described, some of them had their faces disguised with some sort of handkerchiefs tied round their heads, and hanging over their faces like veils.
I did not observe that any of them had their faces blackened.
They were not all on foot, one was mounted on a white horse.
I heard the people address the man upon the horse.
They called him “mother.”
(Laughter.)
I was so near to them as enabled me to hear them talking.
I heard the people address the man upon the horse saying, “Is it time for us to go?”
I heard that before the house was pulled down.
The man on horseback asked them, “Is it time for us to go?”
An answer was made to that question.
They thought it was time for them to go.
The man on horseback had a white shirt over his clothes, a cap on his head, and a bonnet over the cap.
(A laugh.)
He spoke a few words to the people.
I know who that man was.
It was Daniel Lewis.
I should know him again if I were to see him.
[Witness then stood forward and pointed out the prisoner Daniel Lewis, who smiled derisively at witness.]
I knew him before that night.
He is a weaver, and resides near the Goppa, but I do not know in what house.
I saw Mr. Griffith Vaughan, of the Inn, there.
I mean the Pontardulais Inn.
I see Mr. Vaughan now in the hall.
He was in the middle of the crowd.
He had a gun with him.
He was dressed with some sort of a white shirt over him, and a cap and bonnet.
He fired the gun off two or three times while the people were destroying the toll-house and bar.
I saw David Jones, of Tantwm, there.
I see him here now.
He had a double-barrelled gun in his hand.
I saw John Morgan, of Bolgoed there; I see him here.
He was disguised like the others, and had a gun with him.
There were no shoutings or noises.
They were not speaking; only firing.
I joined them on the lower part of Mynydd-yy-Goppa, by Velin-ucha.
It was I joined them.
People came from all directions.
I learned where they were going to.
They said they were going to break the Bolgoed bar.
I had my coat turned inside out, and a handkerchief about my face.
After they had broken down the bar and the house they did not stop a minute, but every one went away to [t]he side of Bolgoed mountain again.
I went with them.
When they got to the side of the Bolgoed they drew off the things from about their heads, and scores of them went home.
They spread all over the neighbourhood, and dispersed.
I went home.
I do not remember having seen Daniel Lewis after I saw him by the gate.
Cross-examined by Mr. Trapp (who appeared for David Jones and William Morgan, and who throughout distinguished himself by evincing the ability of a lawyer, with the zeal of an advocate.)
I was with my father during ; that is not my home; I was not at home scarcely any time .
I was at home about but not afterwards that day.
I will swear I slept at home .
I reached my brother’s house in the evening.
Perhaps it might have been six, or seven, or eight o’clock.
Perhaps it was seven, I cannot say exactly.
I am prepared to swear it was not so much as nine or ten, it was something in the dusk of the evening.
It was not dark.
I left my father’s house between four and five o’clock.
I did not call at any house between my father’s and my brother’s. I went direct from one house to the other.
I know I did.
I met some people on the road, but I cannot say whom I met.
Do not recollect having met a single person that I know.
I will not swear that I did not meet some person that I knew.
When I arrived at my brother’s house I saw the servant.
I also saw my brother and his wife.
I saw no one else except my brother’s daughter.
I saw the servant in the kitchen doing the work of the house.
Only the child was in the kitchen at the time with the servant.
My brother was not in the house when I first arrived there, but came in about an hour afterwards.
He and his wife came in together.
I remained at my brother’s house till it was night, I remained there in all two or three hours.
I believe I was there three hours.
During the time I was in my brother’s house I saw no other person except my brother, his wife, daughter, and servant.
The witnesses were ordered to leave the court, but to remain within call.
Cross-examination resumed–
I had a message to my brother, when I left my father’s house on the night in question.
It was a message to talk to him about mowing hay.
I left my brother’s house for the purpose of returning home.
I had heard the Bolgoed bar was to be destroyed that night, but I did not know exactly.
I did not know what night it would be destroyed.
I saw the two persons who told me the bar was to be destroyed that night, going before me on a field near the Pontardulais factory — did not speak to them.
Knew they were going to the Bolgoed bar, because one had a white dress, and the other a bedgown on.
I do not know whether I saw them afterwards.
I did not know them, nor see their faces.
I afterwards found scores of people on the Goppa mountain.
I have disclosed to the magistrates the names of all the parties present at the Goppa that night, that I knew.
Stayed there as long as they stayed — perhaps half an hour.
Becca was calling upon them all the while.
There were some hundreds there when we left the mountain.
One rose on his feet and said– “You know where we are going?
We are going to break down the Bolgoed gate.”
Becca said that — Becca was Daniel Lewis.
I saw his face at the gate, and suspected his voice on the mountain — had heard all the country say it was Daniel Lewis to be there that night as Becca.
I disguised my face when I was near to them — when I saw them.
It was after I saw two men I turned my coat sleeves.
I thought I should see the Rebeccaites — it was night, but not very dark.
I knew many of them.
I went with all of them to the gate.
I could not swear to one of them on the mountain.
I was within a few yards from them when they commenced breaking down the toll house.
I stood by looking at them — it was all done in about ten or fifteen minutes.
I live in Cwm Skuach, in some sort of a little, poor house.
I first mentioned this to Mr. Rees, the inspector of police.
I left home last Saturday week, to transact business in Swansea, and I wanted a scythe.
I told Mr. Rees, Becca broke the gates of our country, but did not tell him the names I mentioned here .
Went with him to Mr. Attwood’s office, and two magistrates came there, who examined me.
In speaking to Rees not a word passed about the reward — knew one had been offered.
Believe I asked him if I should be free if I were to inform on others.
He told me I should have it if I could make out who broke the gates.
No doubt something was said about the reward, when talking with Mr. Rees.
Cross-examined by Mr. Jefferys on behalf of Griffith Vaughan–
I have known Mr. Vaughan for some years, but do not remember having ever spoken to him.
On the night in question I was within two yards of Mr. Vaughan.
It was a dry, light night — not moonlight, I think — the stars were shining.
I know Mr. William Jones, of Rhyd, and had a conversation with him after the gate was broken down — did not tell him whom I had seen in the night, but told him I saw the breaking of the Bolgoed gate.
I did not tell him I knew any of the men — he did not ask me.
I did not say I did not go near them, because I was afraid of them.
He said — The devil! if I was to find them, I would go near them.
I was brought before the magistrates for cutting birch about six years ago, and paid a fine.
Cross-examined by Mr. Walters, on behalf of Daniel Lewis–
I was working with my father before I gave this information.
I worked with Mr. Williams, of Penyfiddy, the week before the week I worked with my father.
I was working two days in exchange with my brother — he came with me two days to mow hay, and I went with him two days to mow hay.
I have lived in Morgan Pugh’s barn six weeks.
I went to bed about two at morn after the gate was broken — all were gone to bed.
I did not tell Mr. Williams I was at a distance from the gate at the time it was broken.
Re-examined.
Mr. Williams is the son of Ynisfawr, and is a farmer.
William of Rhyd told me that he was very willing for the gates to be pulled down.
The whole of the evidence was then read over and explained to the witnesses.
The same paper also covered the part of the examination concerning the arms shipment.
It is similar to the coverage in The Cambrian, although much less extensive about the nature of the objections from the defense.
It also reports the testimony about whom the case was addressed to as “G. Vaughan, Rich Lyon, Ponterdulais, near Swansea” while The Cambrian reports it as “G. Vaughan, Red Lion Inn, Pontardulais” but adds “Witness said that the first word after the name appeared Rich.”
That article also covered the examination of the witnesses called by the defense to impeach the credibility of the prosecution’s main witness.
It is more perfunctory in general than the report in The Cambrian.
The way it reported John Joce Strick’s brief testimony was different in a somewhat interesting way:
I reside at Clydach, and have known John Jones for three or four years.
I would not credit his oath after the way in which he has treated me.
The night of this trial (if I have the difficult-to-interpret chronology correct), there were more toll gate attacks.
A later issue of the Monmouthshire Merlin reported:
Swansea, . The Rebeccaites have brought the anti-toll-gate war literally to the gates of this town, and the audacity of the movement has astonished the natives.
Notwithstanding the strong garrison of soldiers, and numerous police force, with us, the midnight levellers , in considerable numbers, destroyed the Ty Coch gate and two other bars, situated about half a mile from the Town Hall.
On going to the scene of Rebecca’s misdeeds , the work of ruin appeared effectively done: the heavy posts were sawed down nearly to the level of the road; bars were wrenched from their hinges, and cast upon a neighbouring lime-kiln, where they were partially burned, and every part of the “trust” evidenced the determined purpose of the malefactors, whose display of wantonness of power has annoyed the authorities exceedingly.
Ty Coch, which is a sort of suburb, is separated from the town of Swansea by the river, which is crossed at the ferry side by a floating bridge.
In the very centre of this village, completely surrounded by habitations, is a toll house, to which two gates are attached, called the Ty Coch gates.
It appears that at nearly , the woman who is the toll-keeper, was alarmed by a noise outside, and immediately afterwards the window of the toll house was broken in; being very much frightened, she remained in bed, but shortly afterwards the door was violently burst open.
She then rushed out of the house, and saw 30 or 40 men in the road, and found that the gates had been broken down.
She screamed out murder! as loud as she could, when a man rushed at her with an iron bar, and struck her a violent blow on the arm, which inflicted a serious wound.
She then succeeded in re-entering the toll-house, and closed the door, which was endeavoured to be forced, and was split in pieces.
She again rushed out and screamed, on which the men all ran away.
It was then found that the posts of the gate had been sawn off, and the gate itself thrown on a lime kiln, where it was burnt.
They not only demolished these two gates, but also a bar about one hundred yards from Ty Coch.
They were not disguised, but dressed in their usual dresses, those of workmen.
No person came to the poor woman’s rescue, although, as before observed, Ty Coch is a populous village, and the noise must have been great.
No one appeared this morning to be cognizant of the outrage, except from seeing the gates down, and it is quite evident that Becca has friends at hand.
Official intelligence has just reached me, that these depredators made an irruption into Llanelly, about , and totally demolished the Furnace Gate, on the road leading from that town to Carmarthen, and burned the toll-house to the ground.
This is a new — a very formidable feature in this servile war.
They also destroyed the Sandy Gate on the road leading to Pembrey, as well as a private gate, the property of a gentleman named Lewis, of Stradey.
The grand jury deciding on the case against several accused Rebeccaites met again on to decide on the cases of John Hughes, John Hugh, and David Jones.
The Cambrian was there to report on the proceedings.
The toll collector, William Lewis, and John Morgan, a surveyor, started by testifying about the extent of damage to the Pontardulais toll house.
Then:
The papers on which there were writings in the Welsh language, was also put in evidence.
A translation had been committed to writing by Mr. Powell, the Court interpreter.
Mr. Wm. Cox, Governor of the Swansea House of Correction, was also examined, and produced a small quantity of powder, some percussion caps, 5s. wrapped in a piece of paper, addressed “Mrs. Becca,” and stating that it was 5s. from Thos. Thomas, of some place, in addition to 5s. given by him before.
This summed up the prosecution’s case.
The defense attorney, a Mr. Hill, then offered his rebuttal.
Excerpts:
The Attorney General had told them that this was an unusual course of proceeding.
He referred to the Special Commission — a similar one he (Mr. Hill) had not heard to have ever taken place in the history of the county of Glamorgan.
They also heard it said that the cases were extremely few.
Was that any reason for conferring upon the country the unenviable distinction of a Special Commission.
He could not devise what cause existed for one, but that did not prove that a cause did not exist.
Why was it not sent to a neighbouring county, where there were apparently greater reasons for sending it?
For this they had had no explanation.
It was no part of the Attorney General’s duty to give the explanation; but if the object was that a great public example should be made in the vindication of the power and majesty of the law, he could say, that the effect produced would not be that which was intended.
Be that as it may, he admitted that it was no part of their duty to enquire into it.
He thought that all good men, in every district, deprecated the outrages which had been committed; but he did not remember any instance in which the penal law, even when justly incurred, had succeeded in staying disturbances consequent upon notions of the existence of public grievances, whether real or supposed.
He did not know whether any grievances existed; but if they did, it was beyond the power of the law to restore tranquillity merely by the infliction of punishment.
In making these observations, he did not rest upon his own authority alone, but he spoke the opinion of Edmund Burke, one of the brightest stars of political opinions.
In that immortal speech or his, in favour of the consolidation with America — a measure which it would have been good for this country to have adopted, he illustrated his argument by a reference to the Principality [Wales].
He said that in former times, when the grievances of the people used to be answered by the application of force, either of the penal law or military power, crime multiplied to such an extent, that an Englishman passing through Wales could not go five yards from the highway without incurring the risk of being murdered.
Special Commissions, with the Attorney and Solicitor General, a number of Queen’s Counsel, and a host of lawyers, were things never suggested by the wisdom of their ancestors, very justly so called.
But when just legislative measures were adopted, they were successful beyond even the anticipation of those who, like himself, had almost an unlimited confidence in the power of moral force.
So great was the effect produced by such means in the reign of Henry the Eighth, which was not very auspicious for mercy and justice, that it had been likened to the “sudden stilling of the storm.”
Hill went on to criticize the way the prosecutor had made his case, and along the way characterized the guns seized at the bridge and presented as evidence in this way: “He was glad the guns were produced, for he believed that, if the choice were offered him of firing them, or having them fired at him, he would choose the latter alternative, but he might be wrong.”
He suggested that, contrary to the testimony the prosecution had offered, perhaps the police had fired unprovoked on the Rebeccaite crowd, and not in response to having been fired upon.
The instances were not new, but were in the memory of all, in which soldiers and police, in similar transactions to the present, both exceeded their duty.
It was no new thing to find that their conduct was not always such as resulted from united bravery with forbearance, and which indeed participated of the sublime, for there was nothing more sublime than the conduct of men armed with great power, with command to exercise it, and yet submitting to insults and injury rather than exercise it towards their erring fellow-creatures.
The Learned Counsel then proceeded to make some general remarks upon the conduct of the assembly — they had advertised their projects on the night in question by firing arms, while the police had hid themselves in their retreat, having pistols loaded with balls, while the mob foolishly and innocently fired without any such implements, as if merely to cheer and arouse their comrades, for there was no evidence that they had injured a single individual.
There had not a single hair from the heads of either of the police been singed, and yet it would seem, though strange, that it should be represented that ferocity had been exhibited on the part of the mob, and that justice demanded that they should be placed for trial at the bar of their country.
What did the evidence prove?
Nothing more than that there was an idle firing of guns — not loaded with bullet or ball.
Certainly there had been a few shots produced, and the Attorney-General had asked if they were large?
What number were they?
Why, it was only necessary for them to be looked at to enable any person to see that they were small bird shot — and that they were fired as a mere feu de joie — for to suppose that with those they intended resisting the police, who were armed to the teeth with pistols loaded with balls, in addition to other weapons, would be the height of absurdity.
Capt. Napier had said that there were marks of shots on the windows, and near the lamp on the toll-house door, which evidently proved the use of the small shot — to break the glass.
He did not, for a moment, mean to contend that they were justified in doing so, but the question was whether they were guilty of the particular act charged in the indictment.
The question was not whether they were guilty of some breach of the law, but whether they were so upon that indictment.
He was glad that shot had been produced, for it afforded further proof that there existed no intention to injure.
For with shot, though the injury done would be less than with balls, yet it would be more general — the chances of inflicting wounds with shot being at least fifty to one.
How could the jury suppose that any shots had been fired, while not one had even penetrated the garments of any of the police or magistrates.
— On the other hand, if the conduct of that body were glanced at, it would be found that information of the intended attack upon the gate had been given, as early as , and that after a delay, respecting which no explanation had been given, the police had proceeded armed, not with sparrow-shots but with pistols, each carrying balls, each of which would be fatal to man’s life.
They were found coming to the field, and though knowing by the blue lights, firing of guns, &c., that a crime was contemplated, instead of making any attempts to prevent the riot, they were found hiding in the field until the gate had been broken.
He confessed it was to him a novel part off the duty of the police of this country to watch until mischief had been accomplished before attempting to prevent it.
Here the Magistrates and police had an opportunity of preventing a great outrage of the law, but instead of doing so, they had waited to see it committed.
Mr. Hill, after making several additional observations upon the conduct of the police, remarked that in conducting the case against the prisoner, the first maxim of law had been overlooked, which was not to punish the guilty, but to protect the innocent.
He hoped that he did not exceed his duly expressing a hope that the spirit which seemed to actuate some of the Glamorganshire authorities would not become general throughout the land.
He had never before heard of a prosecution for a flight on one side, while the attack was upon the other.
It was something new to him to see persons coming to that Court under the auspices of the Attorney and Solicitor General, to vindicate their conduct in shooting at British subjects with pistols loaded with balls.
Such proceedings, in his opinion, exceeded those of the French revolution.
Instead of appearing as prosecutors and witnesses, the wounded and injured men appeared at the criminal bar.
He could give no expression to any feeling but that of astonishment.
He then called eleven character witnesses for John Hughes.
The Solicitor-General then gave a rebuttal and the prosecutor summarized his case.
The Monmouthshire Merlin goes into a little more detail here, and reveals the prosecution’s idea of the importance of the five shillings wrapped in the note:
There was also another paper found on prisoner, which was important.
On it was writing, directed to Mrs. Rebecca, to the effect that 5s had been paid at some time before by a person named Thomas, and that he now paid another 5s, and two half-crowns were found wrapped up in this paper.
It will be recollected that on the person of the prisoner, when apprehended, there was a large number of half crowns, besides other monies, and hence it would appear that he had been collecting subscriptions for some purpose.
Then the jury considered the evidence and came back with its verdict:
The jury then retired, and in the course of fifteen or twenty minutes [“about three quarters of an hour” reported the Merlin] re-entered the Court, and returned a verdict of guilty, with a strong recommendation to mercy on account of previous good character.
Sentence deferred.
The Court was then immediately adjourned.
True bills have been returned against the Morgan’s family, of Cwmcillan; against David Lewis, for assaulting the Tycoch toll-collector; against Lewis Davies for a misdemeanor, in aiding in breaking the Pontardulais gate.
No true bill against the boy, Wm. Hughes, upon the same charge.
Which confuses me, as I thought this was a grand jury designed only to decide whether charges could be brought, but this seems to indicate that at least in the John Hughes case, it was acting as an ordinary criminal jury.
The special commission trying the Rebeccaite cases continued on
, starting by considering
the cases against David Jones and John Hugh, who were captured during a
Rebeccaite attack on a toll booth. They chose to plead guilty, probably as
the evidence against them was pretty near identical to what the same jury had
been convinced by a couple of days earlier in the trial of John Hughes, who
had been captured alongside them.
The court sentenced Jones and Hugh to be exiled to a penal colony in Australia
for seven years. Hughes, however, got sterner treatment:
He appeared to be one in a station of society far above the rest — one not
likely to be misled by others, and upon evidence proved to be a leader, if not
the leader of this lawless multitude.
He got 20 years of penal colony exile. The court then moved on to other cases.
The charges against David Lewis were dropped. Lewis Davies was charged with
destroying a turnpike-gate, and pled guilty, but was not yet sentenced.
Morgan and Esther Morgan pled guilty to assisting in the assault on the man
sent to take Henry Morgan prisoner, but the prosecutor, “[c]onsidering their
advanced age and other circumstances connected with the case,” declined to
pursue the felony charge. Margaret, Rees, and John Morgan also pled guilty,
Margaret to the assault itself, and the others similarly with abetting. The
prosecutor again declined to pursue the felony charges, “and observed that,
having ascertained the circumstances under which this aggravated assault had
taken place, he did believe they were under a mistake with respect to the right
to resist. Under these circumstances he was not disposed to press for a severe
punishment in this case…” Margaret was sentenced to six months in prison, and
Rees & John to twelve months each.
The Rebeccaites were “bad cops” that allowed peace-loving, law-abiding,
innocent Welsh farmers to play “good cop” and use the implicit threat of
Rebecca to get more attention for their grievances. Here is an example (from
the
Monmouthshire Merlin):
Sir, — I am sorry no abler pens than mine have undertaken to draw the
attention of our neighbourhood to the monstrous high rate of tolls, as well as
the unequal system of collecting them. For instance, from Nash or Goldcliff we
only travel one mile on the turnpike road, and have to pay
9d a horse, while in
many districts it is only
3d or
4d, and where, too,
materials are much more expensive.
Again, the toll to Caerleon from Newport, I understand, is
17d or
18d for one horse.
Surely, the tolls might be arranged so that a person might pay in proportion
to the distance he has to travel, for under the present system he might go
thirty or fourty miles for the same money he is obliged to pay for one — As we
small farmers find great difficulty in scraping our rents together for our
landlords, I hope and trust the proper authorities will look after these local
burdens, as they were advised to do by Lord Granville Somerset at the last
Quarter Sessions, in order to prevent tumults and outrages like those which
are disgracing South Wales, for we ar really very desirous that Rebecca and
her children should never come among us to create an anti-toll rebellion — we
would rather have our grievances redressed after a lawful fashion.
Should you think these few remarks deserve a corner in your intelligent paper,
till some abler advocate may come forward you will greatly oblige,
Several Poor Little Farmers.
PS. Would not our
monthly agricultural meeting do a good service to us, by taking the matter
into consideration, with a view to assist.