Some historical and global examples of tax resistance →
Wales →
Rebecca riots, 1839–44 →
Matthew Morgan
The government finally got a break in the Rebecca investigations when an informer came forward to finger some of Rebecca’s daughters… but it may have been less of a breakthrough than it seemed.
From the Monmouthshire Merlin:
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.”
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 night, 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.
Jones was whisked off to a safe place (and, so “the wicked Rebeccaites insinuated, his public spirit was kept effervescent”) and interrogated, whereafter warrants were issued against William, Henry, and Matthew Morgan, and David Jones, and the constable set out with three others to make arrests.
All but Henry were arrested without much incident, but when they attempted to arrest Henry at home, his family attacked the officers and one of the family was badly wounded.
Later, Griffith Vaughan and Daniel Lewis were also arrested and charged with involvement in the Bwlgoed attack.
As news spread, huge crowds assembled, and attempted to get admission to the hearings, which were then closed to the public.
Meanwhile, Jones’s wife was heard saying that her husband had gone a bit around the bend, had not been a witness to the gate destruction, and had fingered the Morgan family in order to satisfy a personal grievance and to collect the government’s reward.
The trial of the accused Rebeccaites fingered by the sketchy informant John Jones begins.
From the Cambrian:
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 had its second day on .
Here’s how The Cambrian covered it:
. —
The Magistrates entered this morning into the case of Matthew Morgan and Henry Morgan, who were charged with having formed a part of the mob who had destroyed, on , the above toll-bar, which was in the parish of Llangafelach.
There was an impression prevalent, that the investigation into the Rebecca riots had closed on , the hall, consequently, was not as full at the commencement of the proceedings as on .
Mr. Maule stated the charge upon which he intended proceeding against the defendants, which was founded upon the same statute as that against the four defendants on .
John Jones was then sworn, and deposed as follows:—
I know Henry and Matthew Morgan, and see them now in Court. Henry Morgan resides with his father, at Cwmcillau-bach, and Matthew Morgan resides at Tymawr.
Tymawr is three or four fields distant from Cwmcillau.
I know the Rhydypandy turnpike-gate, in the parish of Llangyfelach.
I know the night on which the Rhydypandy-gate was broken down — it was on .
I saw both Matthew and Henry Morgan on that night; I saw Henry first; that was at .
I spoke to him.
I asked him if he was going to break the gate — I did not name the gate, it was reported that Rhydypandy-gate was to be broken.
On my asking him the question, he (Henry) replied, that “he was going to do like the rest.”
I had my coat turned on that occasion.
I had turned my coat just before I spoke to him.
Henry was dressed in a bedgown, and he had a kind of cap on his head, and a pickaxe in his hand.
We went together across three or four fields, and arrived on the high road.
I then stood on the road, and Henry went to the house of his brother Matthew.
He came out of the house, in three to five minutes, accompanied by Matthew.
The latter was dressed in a bedgown, he also had a cap on his head, and had a hatchet in his hand.
Henry, Matthew and myself, went down the road, until a place called Tri Onen (Three Ashes), where there are four cross-roads.
We then went together to Coed-caebryn maen; there were a number of people there — perhaps about forty; they were all men, and the greater part dressed either in bedgowns or white shirts.
There was one person there who attracted my attention more than others — they called him “Becca,” and “Mother.”
He was occasionally on foot, but generally on horseback.
When first I saw him he was walking about, whispering to the different men.
He rode a while horse, was dressed in a white shirt, and had something black over his face, and had an old bonnet on his head.
I did not recognise that man, but suspected him.
The greater portion of the people had some instruments in their hands — some had guns, some pickaxes, cross-saws, &c.
They remained at Coed caebryn-maen for about half an hour, and went off in a body towards Rhydypandy-gate.
The man on horse-back went before them and before leaving, he said, “Come, let us go now, it is time.”
He spoke in Welsh and imitated a woman’s voice, as near as he could.
In obedience to Becca’s orders, the party fired about twenty shots on the road, and the numbers increased as they proceeded.
I heard the man calling out on the road, “Lucy,” “Mary,” “Nanny,” and every name.
They arrived at the gate , and then destroyed it.
Becca gave command.
They broke it up with cross and hand-saws.
Four or five shots were fired during the time the gate was being destroyed, which was done in ten minutes or a quarter of an hour.
I saw Matthew and Henry Morgan during that time.
Henry Morgan drew off the board containing the terms of the gate, from the pine-end of the house.
I heard them break it, but was not on the spot.
They then returned in a body to Coed caebryn-maen.
I did not observe the two Morgans, but I believe they all went.
I had also a cap on my head.
Henry Morgan had a red mark on his face.
Cross examined by Mr. Walters:—
I never built a Tynôs on a mountain.
I dug the foundation of a house near Darren-fawr; that was in the last Spring.
I was never in Cwmcillau-house since that time.
I believe Morgan Morgan had a right of common over Darren-fawr, like others.
I asked him leave to build a house, and he said, I had better seek a place on some freeholder’s land.
I believe he said he had no right to give me leave, as he was only a commoner.
Morgan, at last, gave me leave.
Mr. Jenkins, of Cynhordy, afterwards went round the neighbourhood, and asked several persons to go with him to destroy what I had done.
The two defendants went with them.
I never said I would injure the defendants, when I had an opportunity; I never said so either to John Williams, of Penyfidy, or to his wife.
I told Mr. Jenkins, of Cynhordy, and the others, that perhaps they might want a house themselves.
They were about six in all.
I never told them that they would repent of what they had done.
On , I had been working at Gellywran issa; I was labouring on the farm.
I went there about six, and left at nine o’clock.
There is about a mile between Gellywran and my house.
I returned home about .
I went across the fields, beyond Cwmcillau, from Gellywran.
I knew they were going to destroy the gate that night.
I remained near Cwmcillau for a quarter of an hour, when I saw Henry Morgan.
I had walked direct from Gellywran to the place where I met Henry — it is about an hour’s walk.
I believe it was about when I met Henry.
It might have been later than nine when I left Gellywran.
I turned my coat in the field beyond Cwmcillau house; it was in that field I overtook Henry.
It was daybreak when I went home.
There was no person there but my wife and children.
I did not see Morgan Pugh on that night; I might have seen him in the morning of that day.
I do not remember, nor do I deny, telling Morgan Pugh I did not get up that morning, as I was tired, having been mowing hay.
I have frequently spoken to both defendants, after the taking down of my work on the Common.
I had frequently spoken to Matthew, in going and returning from chapel.
The bedgown worn by Henry Morgan was something grey; the police found 12 of them in Matthew’s house; Matthew wore a similar one.
Mr. Walters then called Morgan Pugh, on behalf of the prisoners:—
I am a farmer, residing at Llangyfelach.
John Jones, the last witness, lives in a barn belonging to me.
On , I saw John Jones returning to bed.
When I saw him on , in bed, he asked me what time it was?
He said he had not got out of bed because he was tired, after having been mowing.
I went into the barn, to see if John Jones had gone to mow hay on that morning.
I thought he was engaged to go and mow for Williams of Penyfidy.
Re-examined:—
I was frequently in the habit of turning to the barn, to see if Jones was there.
I would not have gone to the barn had I not seen the door open.
I had not heard that the gate was to be destroyed.
I got up early that morning, to prevent a calf which was weaning going to suck the cow.
I knew that the calf would suck as soon as he could get up.
(Laughter).
I was in good time to prevent him on that morning.
I have a wife and a son.
My son was not out during that night.
Mr. John Williams, of Penyfify, was examined, and stated, that, after the foundation on Darron-fawr had been destroyed, Jones said he would injure Morgan, of Cwmcillau, or his children.
He said he would not care to run the risk of his life by doing so.
Cross-examined:—
John Jones and myself were always friends.
This conversation took place in , in my own house. — The witness went through a very long cross-examination, but nothing material was elicited.
The defendants were then committed for trial at the next Assizes. — The Magistrates accepted bail to the same amount as that on which they had been previously liberated.
Rebecca at Swansea.
Early on morning, it was generally rumoured in this town that the Tycoch gate, on the other side of the Swansea river, had been destroyed at about , having been cut down with saws and other implements, and afterwards burnt on a lime kiln.
The rumour, at first, excited considerable surprise, especially as the circumstances which gave rise to it had occurred so soon after the long investigation before the Magistrates, on , which terminated in the committal of the parties charged; but, on enquiry, what was a mere rumour soon turned out to be a stubborn fact.
In spite of the number of policemen, both rural and borough, at present sojourning in town — in spite of the numbers of military, including companies of the 73d and 75th Regiments, together with between forty and fifty Light Dragoons, the Tycoch gate — half a mile distant from the town of Swansea, was levelled to the ground unobserved, excepting by the toll-receiver who, as will appear from the following examination, recognized one out of the thirty or forty rioters who took part in the demolition of the gate.
On evening, the Mayor, and several persons in authority, went over the river for the purpose of viewing the wreck of the gate, and of obtaining some information relative to the perpetrators of the outrage, one of whom had committed a most cowardly and disgraceful assault upon Margaret Arnold, the toll-receiver.
On , after the conclusion of the investigation relative to the Rhydypandy gate, a collier, named David Lewis, who had been identified by the toll-receiver, as the person who had assaulted her, was brought before the Magistrates, who had adjourned from the Hall to the Petty Sessions-room.
Reporters were admitted from the commencement of the examination, and the public generally shortly afterwards.
Margaret Arnold, having been sworn, stated that she was a singlewoman, and collected tolls at Tycoch gate, in the parish of Llausamlet, about half a mile distant from Swansea.
I lived in the house near the gate.
When in bed about , I was disturbed by a noise outside the house.
Several heavy blows were given the door of the house, and the shutters, the latter of which together with the windows had been smashed.
When I came out of bed and opened the door, a man came from the turnpike towards me.
He had an iron bar in his hand, with which he gave me a severe blow on the arm.
I had held up my arm for the purpose of avoiding receiving the blow on any other part.
The prisoner, David Lewis, is the man who struck me.
He then struck the bar through the door, which I then closed and ran into the house.
He struck at the door repeatedly afterwards until it was broken to pieces.
I again went to the door, and observed the prisoner break down the toll-board which was fastened to the wall.
There were about thirty or more men scattered here and there about the house when I went to the door.
I screamed out “murder” as loud as I could, upon which they all fled in various directions.
They appeared to be working-men, colliers, &c., and were not disguised.
One of the party rode a dark-coloured horse, which appeared to be a cart-horse.
In leaving he rode on before them.
The gate appeared to have been cut down with saws.
It was all right at when I retired to bed.
There was a gate and a bar by the house, one leading to Foxhole and the other to Danygraig.
The gate was placed on the lime-kiln after it had been cut down.
I well knew the prisoner before.
He had passed through the gate on with a cart.
He rose his hand in passing, which intimated that he had no money about him, but would pay again.
I have frequently trusted him before, and he has always paid me.
Mr. Emery, who stated that be was a member of the Royal College of Surgeons, stated that he had examined the complainant’s person, and found a wound about two inches in length, and half an inch deep, on the fore-arm.
It might have been produced by a blunt instrument.
Mr. Melvin, who now came to the room, said he appeared on behalf of the prisoner, and asked permission to cross-examine the first witness.
The Magistrates granted the request, at the same time intimating that it was a mere favour, being quite irregular after her evidence had closed.
In her cross-examination she said:—
It was nearly when she saw the prisoner at the gate.
It was rather dark, but light enough for her to see his features, and recognize him.
She knew him well.
He is rather lame.
Inspector Rees corroborated the witness’s evidence respecting the state of the gate and house.
Mr. Melvin then addressed the Bench, and offered to produce witnesses who could prove that the prisoner was in bed .
The Magistrates declined hearing evidence to prove an alibi, while it was not intended to convict summarily, but send the case before another tribunal.
The prisoner was then committed for trial at the next Assizes, on a charge of felony.
The Magistrates declined accepting bail for the prisoner’s appearance at the Assizes.
He was consequently committed to the House of Correction.
About , the inhabitants of Llanelly were alarmed by the nocturnal depredators who assume the above name; they were numerous on the occasion, and before they left the town they succeeded in destroying the Furnace gate, which is on the road leading from Llanelly to Carmarthen, and burnt the toll-house to the ground.
The Sandy gate, on the mail road leading to Pembrey was also wholly demolished.
We understand that the party broke to pieces a private gate belonging to D. Lewis, Esq., of Stradey.
During the last week nine gates and several toll-houses have been demolished in the neighbourhoods of Llandovery and Lampeter.
It appears that the impunity with which Rebecca and ber Daughters have hitherto carried on their system of destruction against toll gates in Carmarthenshire and the neighboring counties, has emboldened some lawless ruffians to destroy, by night, the property of any person whom they think to be opposed to their destructive proceedings.
On , some mischievous persons cut down and destroyed some scores of young trees growing in the plantation of Mr. Evans, of Tymain, in the parish of Llangeler.
On , Mr. Howel Davies, of Conwil, was alarmed by the reflection of a bright light in his bedroom window.
On looking out he observed a rick of old hay, and two stacks of straw intended for thatch, on fire in his haggard.
An alarm was given, and nearly all the inhabitants hastened to the spot.
As there was a good supply of water near the place, the flames from the hay were soon subdued, but the stacks of straw were entirely consumed.
On , a neat little house, lately built at Cwmdyad, near Conwil, Carmarthenshire, was in a short time completely reduced to ruins, by a set of lawless ruffians, who were disguised as usual.
Several of them were furnished with fire-arms, which they frequently discharged, to the great terror of the neighbourhood, and of those who travelled along the road.
Some persons who had attended the Carmarthen market, and had to go home that way, were detained for some time, until the Rebeccaites had completed their work of destruction, when they disappeared, and no man can give an account whither they went.
It is believed, that what excited Rebecca’s vengeance against this house was, that it was intended to be a gate-house, at which a toll-gate was proposed to be erected, instead of that lately destroyed at Nantyclawdd.
The government of course played its “why didn’t you just address your grievances through proper channels” card (the same one they’re harping on so tediously in the Edward Snowden case today).
But some did try calling their bluff.
From the Monmouthshire Merlin:
On , a written complaint was made to the Magistrates of Swansea, by a great number of persons who obtain a livelihood by hauling coal for supplying the town, charging Mr. Bullen, the farmer of the tolls for the Swansea district with the exaction of illegal tolls.
The magistrates received the complaint with the greatest cordiality and kindness, and were glad to find that they had brought forward their complaint in a peaceable and lawful manner, and assured the complainants that it should have immediate attention.
Mr. Bullen was requested to attend, which he readily did, and Mr. Wm. Walters appeared for the complainants.
The complaint was, that the scale of tolls which Mr. Bullen had rented of the trustees, authorised him to take three half-pence only for every one-horse cart of coal, which sum was also stated on the painted toll-board, as being the charge; notwithstanding that he had for more than a year past exacted a toll of three pence for every horse drawing coal.
Mr. Bullen, on being called upon for his answer to this charge, referred to an Act of Parliament, and contended that the trustees had no power to reduce the toll to three half-pence; that therefore he had a right to demand the utmost toll allowed by the Act, namely three-pence, but admitted that the scale of tolls let to him, and the toll-board only authorised the demand of three half-pence.
The magistrates referred to Act 4 Geo. Ⅳ c. 95, whereby it is directed that any toll-collector, exacting a greater toll than allowed by any order or resolution of the trustees, was liable to a penalty of £5.
They signified their unanimous opinion that he had been guilty of an illegal exaction, and that they were prepared to fine him when the case was ready for adjudication.
The hearing of this case was resumed on and the magistrates unanimously convicted Mr. Bullen in the full penalty of £5.
We hope this decision will give the public confidence in the laws, and induce all persons to bring their grievances before the magistrates, who have thus shown themselves ready to give redress.
Funny how a little direct action can start making the wheels of justice turn, i’n’ it?
Another note in the same issue read:
We are given to understand that Vaughan, landlord of the Pontardulais Inn, to whom the case of arms recently alluded to, was directed, can prove that the guns (fowling pieces) were ordered for sporting by farmers in his neighbourhood, from a commercial traveller who stopped at Pontardulais Inn: in fact, that the farmers and the commercial travellers will be forthcoming in due time.
We hope so, for the credit of that part of the county of Glamorgan.
It appears that the eyes of the magistrates of Carmarthenshire are at length opened to the gross injustice so long practised on the poor farmers, many of whom were obliged to leave their land almost unmanured, in consequence of the excessive toll plunder.
In one district nine gates levelled by “Becca,” are not to be restored.
A note in an issue of the Monmouthshire Merlin datelined reads:
The prominent report in town is, that a proclamation will shortly be issued, offering a reward of £300 for such evidence as will lead to the conviction of any person or persons engaged in the destruction of toll gates in this county, and that 30 warrants are being prepared for the apprehension of persons against whom there is private information of being participators in the toll-gate crusade.
The investigation of charges against persons for breaking down other toll gates and houses in this county, took place at the Assize Court on .
Mr. Maule conducted the prosecution.
The prisoners charged with the destruction of the Belgoed gate were finally examined before the Magistrates at Swansea, on , and committed for trial.
The only witness against them was John Jones, a rioter turned informer; who was declared unworthy of credit by witnesses adduced for the defence; his own brother contradicting part of his evidence.
Among the committed prisoners, is Mr. G. Vaughan, or Pontardulais; to whom a package, containing twelve fowling-pieces, a brace of pistols, bullet-mould, and percussion-caps, had been addressed, but intercepted at Swansea.
A letter, written after Mr. Vaughan’s arrest, countermanding the order for the arms, had also been intercepted.
At a meeting of the Kidwelly Road Trust, on , it was determined to abandon thirteen out of fifteen tolls within the trust.
The correspondent of the Times, continuing his researches into the cause of the Rebecca riots, rather inculpates certain Dissenting ministers—
I was rather surprised to learn during my inquiries, that the text I sent to you some time ago, the 24th chapter of Genesis and 60th verse, on which the Rebeccaites are said to found their proceedings, has frequently been preached from in the Baptist, Independent, and Dissenting chapels, and that the preachers have advised the people to their outrageous proceedings.
The Wesleyan Methodist preachers, on the contrary, have pursued an opposite course, and have urged the people not to break the law.
This sect, however, in Wales, is not by far so numerous as the various sects of Dissenters.
I have been informed that Mr. Chambers, a Magistrate of Llanelly, and a gentleman of considerable influence, sent an address round to all the Dissenting Ministers, in Welsh and in English, urging them to read it to their congregations, and exhort them to refrain from these outrages; but these Dissenting ministers of peace, as I have heard, without an exception, refused to do this, stating as their excuse that they durst not do it.
This fact exhibits in strong colours one of the worst features of a voluntary system of religion.
He has “wormed out what is at the root of the toll-bar grievances”: every fresh inquiry shows the abuses to be worse—
It happens that in this country the genus of pettifogging and jobbing attornies is pretty numerous.
Wales, as everybody conversant with a London attorney’s office, or with the business which passes through a barrister’s or pleader’s chambers, well knows, is notorious for its spirit of litigation; which is, no doubt, chiefly owing to the chevaliers d’industrie who live by the law.
These “gentlemen,” when lawsuits were scarce, often found it a splendid “spec” to get up a new road.
There were travelling-expenses, the “costs” of getting a private act passed through both Houses of Parliament, and the prospect of getting the appointment of “clerk to the trust” in futuro: and accordingly, there are, as I informed you in a former letter, no less than fourteen distinct trusts in this county; and, of course, fourteen “clerks” and fourteen surveyors of the roads, all receiving heavy salaries — in fact, fourteen different managements to be paid out of the tolls.
And now for the way in which this system works.
When a new road is beat up in the way I have described, a few gentry in the neighbourhood subscribe a few hundred pounds; then the private act of Parliament is obtained, including a certain district, and giving power to the trustees to take under their management such roads as exist, and which have been already made by the farmers.
So far all goes on swimmingly.
The new road is begun, and the trustees are short of cash.
Toll-gates are put on these farmers’ roads, where they never before existed; but still money must be borrowed to go on with.
Then comes another little bit of jobbery — the quid pro quo.
The trustees have money to lend, are gentlemen of the neighbourhood — magistrates: who so fitting to lend money to the trusts as these gentlemen?
They accordingly advance money, taking securities called “tallies,” which are, in fact, bonds for securing the repayment to them of their principal out of the tolls, and interest at 5 per cent.
But the new road, often not being much needed, is not a very paying road: there is not much traffic upon it; and it is found, that though the toll-bars on the trust are as numerous as the trustees dare make them, yet the tolls taken will do little more than pay the 5 per cent interest secured by the tallies, and the salaries of the “clerk” and “surveyor”; and then these gentlemen trustees come “down upon” the farmers under the provisions of the General Turnpike Act, and by indictment compel them to repair in many cases their own roads, which they themselves originally made, and also every day extract from them a grievous toll, nominally to repair the roads, in reality to pay 5 per cent to a neighbouring magistrate on an investment of his money.
But this is not all: from being so numerous, these trusts intersect one another perpetually throughout the country; and though all the tolls taken on the roads of one trust may not be by themselves very oppressive, (though quite enough,[)] it continually happens that you cannot go nine or ten miles without crossing two or three separate trusts, each of course demanding separate tolls.
If, on arriving at a turnpike-gate scarcely a mile from one you have paid toll at, you again have toll demanded, and naturally enough ask, “How is this? I paid toll not a mile from here?” you are answered, “Oh, we have nothing to do with that; this is another trust” — “No connexion with the people next door.”
And now comes perhaps the worst feature in the case.
The tolls are farmed, and let out to the highest bidder; and it is quite common for these toll-collectors to charge a higher toll in the country places than they are entitled to.
If the farmers, exasperated at this and at the way in which toll is demanded of them, refuse to pay, or pay and summon the toll-collector before the Magistrate of the district, what is their remedy?
The Magistrate who adjudicates upon the case is also a trustee of the road: but he is more — he is a tally-holder and a cestui que trust; he has merged his fiduciary character, and become bona fide an owner of the road and its tolls; and is in reality adjudicating in his own case, where his own interest is concerned in the charge, and is opposed to that of the farmers.
The result may be easily imagined.
The farmers get no redress; and the “clerk to the trust,” in defending the case, pockets some fees out of the poor oppressed farmers’ pockets.
Is not this monstrous?
It is to be hoped that the Government Commissioner will inquire into this, the very root of the evil; and that the Government will pass a general act to consolidate all these trusts, and thus insure a moderate and uniform rate of toll throughout the county, and at the same time still enable the keeping up good roads by knocking off the salaries of thirteen “clerks” and thirteen “surveyors,” and (if possible) gradually abolishing the tallies and lessening the rate of interest paid.
If this be done, we shall not hear much more of the war against the turnpike-gates.
Mr. Hall, the Magistrate, who was sent down by Government to inquire, began the investigation at Cardigan on .
He has had such of the farmers as wish to say any thing before him separately; thinking that they would make a more full statement of their grievances than if influenced by the presence of their neighbours.
Several of the farmers afterwards repaired to the reporter of the Times, who was at the same inn.
They fully confirmed statements made by that writer.
We select a few points in this more formal evidence.
The payment of toll at a turnpike does not free the vehicle for the rest of the day; it is free to return, but it must pay on repassing another time; and so on, paying every alternate time.
A man who had contracted to carry building-stone from a quarry to a gentleman’s house for 4s. 6d. a day, threw up the contract, because the tolls on the first day came to 5s.
The new Poor-law is unpopular, for many of the usual reasons; but there are two especial reasons in those districts: under the old plan the paupers were employed by the inhabitants, so that rates were not needed or paid; and as the people of each village are almost all related, it causes them shame when any are declared paupers.
An increasing demand on the score of tithes is another grievance.
This curious note comes from the Monmouthshire Merlin, dated :
We have received from our valuable correspondent at Swansea, a capital report of a cricket match which took place on on the Crumlyn Barrows, near that town, between Mr. Starling Benson and Captain Napier, each supported by ten other gentlemen, in which Mr. Benson’s side was successful by a majority of 23.
The game was well contested on both sides.
We have likewise received from him a small publication, which has just made its appearance, entitled “Will you join Rebecca to night?” which is calculated to do much good at the present moment.
We may make some extracts in our next.
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.
