Some historical and global examples of tax resistance →
Wales →
Rebecca riots, 1839–44 →
David Thomas
Today I continue in my roughly-chronological arrangement of some of the newspaper coverage of the Rebeccaite campaign in Wales which peaked in .
I think this is a particularly fascinating example of organized, mass, grassroots tax resistance, and it is particularly worth a look today because of the strikingly similar bonnets rouges movement in Brittany that conquered the “écotaxe” there by methodically demolishing the highway portals that were to have attached the tax to passing trucks (here’s coverage of a recent example).
(The French government has recently decided to abandon the hated “écotaxe”… sort of: it has been replaced by a similar tax in a different form.
Instead of truck drivers being taxed by vulnerable portals along the highways, they will instead be required to install GPS units in their trucks, and will be charged a tax whenever they travel on certain highways — excluding almost the whole of Brittany, which remains free, for now.)
This account of the Rebeccaite movement comes from the Monmouthshire Merlin:
— Notwithstanding the sudden check given on.
to Rebecca and her deluded followers, in their attempt on the Carmarthen workhouse, each day brings its report of some fresh outrage in this or the adjoining county, and it would seem that the daring spirit of resistance to the laws by which these deluded men have hitherto been governed, has received no efficient stop by the proceedings of , nor are they as yet content to submit to the advice of friends or the dictates of reason.
No fresh attack has been made either upon the town or workhouse since , and with the exception of the continuance of the excitement necessarily following so daring an outrage, the town is comparatively tranquil and quiet.
, or at least during the , Rebecca and her daughters paid a visit to the two following gates, some distance from Llanbyther, in the county of Carmarthen, viz., Pencader gate, which they soon destroyed, both gate and toll-house.
Exulting in their lawless acts, they proceeded from thence to Llanfihangel-Yeroth gate, which, together with the toll-house, was also demolished.
The muster on this occasion is said to have been about seventy persons, who soon after the completion of their work dispersed, and retired to their respective homes.
On , another division of the family visited the village of St. Clears; they were disguised and armed, and although the party was on this occasion smaller than usual, they effected their purpose in the destruction of the gate in question, which is opposite the Blue Boar inn, and they then proceeded to another gate called Maeswholand gate, which was also very speedily destroyed.
While at St. Clears, an attempt was made by Mr. Powell, of Penycoed, and Mr. Thomas, currier, to apprehend one of the party, but without effect.
These gentlemen had the man in safe keeping until his party overtook them, and having beat them violently with the but end of their guns, they were reluctantly compelled to release their prisoners.
On a large mob of Rebeccaites assembled themselves together, and having made their arrangements for their purpose, proceeded en masse to Newcastle Emlyn turnpike-gate, which of course was soon demolished, amid the cheers and firing of this lawless gang.
Castell-y-rhingill gate, near Llandilo, has also been destroyed, as well as Llandilorwns gate, and a bar near Llanddarog gate.
A night or two ago, a gate or bar on the road near Pont-y-berem was destroyed, and every morning we have the history of gate destruction from one part of the country or the other, to an extent that must lead the most skeptical to admit at least that this state of things is really alarming.
We have had the mayor and magistrates sitting daily — meeting after meeting of county and borough justices, all impressed with the importance of maintaining the laws inviolate, and the necessity of peace being restored to this once loyal and rural district, and that without any wish to refuse to redress fair grievances.
It is commonly reported that Rebecca has sent threatening letters to most of the workhouses in this and the adjoining counties, intimating her intention of paying them a visit, razing the workhouse to the ground, and of ejecting the paupers therefrom.
This is but a report, the truth of which we cannot vouch for.
On , a report reached the ears of the powers that be, that Rebecca’s children had commenced demolishing Glangwilly gate, about a mile and a half from this town.
Colonel Love, Major Parlby, and his well-disciplined troop were speedily mounted, and went off at a slashing pace to the supposed scene of destruction, when it happily turned out that there was no real grounds of alarm; but the town became at once seriously excited, and scores of persons about to retire to rest were seen anxiously following the dragoons to the place of supposed danger and mischief.
On a company of the 73rd regiment of foot arrived in town, under the command of Major Dawson, and are quartered in the union workhouse.
the town was again excited, it being currently reported that the dragoons were ordered off immediately to another part of the country.
On enquiry, we found the troops were under orders, and the fact that Col. Powell, M.P., and Lord Lieutenant of Cardiganshire, had arrived in town , led to the conjecture that they were to be stationed at Newcastle Emlyn, or in the immediate neighbourhood of Cardigan.
They left town about , as we are informed for Newcastle.
Earl Cawdor arrived by mail, express from London.
Colonel Rice Trevor, M.P. for this county, arrived in town some few days since, to act on his noble father’s behalf as lord lieutenant of the county.
He presided at Newcastle Emlyn, at a large meeting of the magistrates and free-holders, on , which was very fully attended.
A very large meeting of magistrates, county and borough, was again held on , at Carmarthen, but the business was of a private nature, and although we have three reporters from the London press in town they with ourselves were shut out, not being of the privileged class, and publicity perhaps not being required as to the matters under discussion.
The names of the persons committed last week to the Borough Gaol are David Thomas, of Rhydymarchog, in the parish of Newchurch, David Thomas, of Pantwrgwm, Treleach, weaver; Job Evans, of Treleach, labourer; for riot and assault.
County-Gaol.
— Jonathan Jones, Howell Lewis, Jonathan Lewis, David Evans, David Davies, and John Jones; for riot in the Tallog affair.
On John Harris of Tallog mill, was brought up before a full bench of magistrates, charged with a riot at the Carmarthen workhouse on , and held to bail in the sum of £400. to answer the charge at the next assizes.
Most of the many gate attacks mentioned in this article are not to be found in Henry Tobit Evans’s chronology (though some are noted in a Welsh poem he includes as an appendix).
This suggests that the attacks were much more widespread than his already impressive account gives credit for.
From the Cambrian:
. — This morning, the business of the Court commenced at the usual hour.
The Attorney-General begged to enter a nolle prosequi as it regarded the indictment for felony against John Jones [acquitted of having sent a threatening letter], 22, farmer, Thomas Hughes, sawyer, and Benjamin Jones, charged with having committed a riot, and feloniously demolishing the dwelling-house of Griffith Jones, being the Pontarlleche toll-house.
The charge of misdemeanour for destroying the gate, was removed by a writ of certiorari to the Court of Queen’s Bench.
Case of the Late Mr. Thos.
Thomas.
David Evans, aged 20, farmer, and James Evans, 25, labourer, were arraigned upon an indictment charging them, with divers others, unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled at Pantycerrig, in the parish of Llanfihangel Rhosycorn, and with having, during the riot, assaulted one Thomas Thomas, and with force demanded the sum of forty shillings, with intent to steal the same.
Both prisoners, who were defended by Mr. Nicholl Carne, pleaded “Not Guilty.”
Considerable interest was felt as to the result of this trial, from the circumstance of the prosecutor, who was the principal witness, having been found dead under very peculiar circumstances, and that of his premises having been fired soon after the prisoners had been committed.
The Attorney-General said, that the charge against the prisoners was one of misdemeanour — for having committed a riot in going to the house of the prosecutor Mr. Thomas Thomas, who had since lost his life; but he must in justice to the prisoners observe, that having been in custody, that circumstance could not in the remotest degree cast any reflection upon them.
Whatever violence might have been offered Mr. Thomas Thomas (and he did not say such was the case), it could in no way have been done by them.
The names of the prisoners could not be connected with any catastrophe of that kind, for they were in gaol at the time.
It was only to be regretted that the deceased’s evidence could not be obtained excepting from the deposition taken before the Magistrates, and that was evidence in law.
It appeared that a number of persons disguised in the usual characteristics of Rebeccaites, with circumstances of considerable force and violence, demanded a sum of money from the prosecutor, and this proceeding did not appear to have originated for the purpose of removing any public grievance, real or imaginary; but, in which it appeared, that the alarming state of the country had been made subservient to the promotion of a private end, and to the settlement of a mere personal claim between the parties.
A short time previous to , it appeared by the deposition, that Mr. Thomas’s cattle strayed at night into a corn field belonging to one of the prisoners, who had estimated the damage at 10s. Early on the morning of , a number of disguised persons assembled together and surrounded the house of Mr. Thomas, and demanded 5l. as a satisfaction for the damage done to the corn.
Thomas would not allow them to enter his house, neither would he go out to them, but refused to accede to their request.
They then reduced their demand to 50s. and subsequently to 40s. They then dragged Thomas from his own house to the house of the prisoner David Evans, and when Thomas challenged them with having offered to settle the matter for 10s., Evans said, “’Tis now in these people’s hands.”
It was for the jury to judge from that expression, whether the riot did not originate with him.
The deceased then asked permission to remain in Evans’s house, but he was finally taken back to his own house, and allowed nine days to pay the money.
Some time afterwards Thomas was found dead, under circumstances which he thought justly created no suspicion against any one.
As far as he (the Attorney-General) could learn, those who possessed the best means of judging, were of opinion that strange and unaccountable as were many of the appearances, there was no just foundation for believing that he came to his death by violence.
As reports had been circulated, he thought it right publicly to state for the sake of the character of the county, that, as far as his opinion went, there had been no reasonable grounds for supposing that the man was murdered.
To resume his statement, the jury would find, that, at one o’clock, the younger prisoner and the other, who was his servant, were at the prosecutor’s house.
Thomas distinctly swore to the presence of both the defendants, as the jury would find on reading the deposition.
In three or four days afterwards a complaint was made, and a a warrant issued, for the apprehension of the defendants.
On , the officer went to David Evans’s premises, and asked him for James Evans, when the former said that James had left his service in consequence of a quarrel, and that he had not seen him for many days.
The premises were searched, and James Evans was found concealed beneath some straw on a loft.
It would be proved that David Evans, in speaking of the transaction, said that they should not have done what they did, if Thomas Thomas had paid the money, and while before the Magistrates, the prosecutor persisted in saying that the demand was 5l. then 50s.s., and then 40s., when David Evans added that he had offered to take 1l. The jury must observe, that he assented to the truth of all the evidence, with the exception of the reduction to 20s. He had also pointed out the spot where he had offered to accept of 1l. He would now read the deposition.
The Attorney-General then read the deposition, as taken , before Col. Trevor and J. L. Price, Esq., in the presence of the prisoners.
The deceased stated, that on the day in question a number of people came to his house, and demanded satisfaction for the trespass, as described.
Deceased did not go to the door, but his wife went.
They at last reduced their demand to 40s. He was then taken by the collar by one of the disguised party calling himself “Becca,” and was taken to Bergwm.
When there he distinctly recognized James Evans, who behaved worse to him than any of the others.
He also recognized David Evans.
James Evans had with him a short gun, and had his face blackened.
David Evans was but slightly disguised.
The Attorney-General observed, that he could very easily have identified him.
They then took him to the Bergwm field.
They kept him outside the door until some one went in to tell the inmates, lest they should be frightened.
They then took him to the house, when he told David Evans that he had agreed to receive 40s. for the damage when the latter answered, “’Tis in the hands of these people.”
The Attorney-General commented upon this answer, as affording convincing proof that the prisoner acted in concert with the mob.
The deposition further stated, that after coming out of the house, James Evans pushed witness on in a contrary direction to his home, and when alone, told him, “I wish to kill you.”
The party who personated Becca called upon him to bring the witness back.
So that Becca, observed the Attorney-General, appeared to have been actuated by better considerations than the prisoner James Evans.
The deposition concluded by stating that the party allowed deceased nine days to pay the money, and if they would visit him again, they would burn his effects.
— The Attorney-General proceeded:— That was the deposition of Thomas Thomas.
He had gone to his account; but the jury could not, in consequence of that, be satisfied with less proof.
It was not necessary there should exist that certainty which could be produced only by witnessing the scene, but with that degree of reasonable certainty which would satisfy them in any important concerns of life.
He hoped they were now rapidly coming to a close with the cases.
He did not know but that he might be addressing them for the last time.
That, he believed, was the last case in which these parties had taken advantage of the agitated state of the county for the purpose of committing outrages.
The guilt was not inconsiderable of those who took advantage of the turbulent state of the country, arising from real or imaginary grievances, and perverted it to their own selfish purposes, for others had some excuse — excuse he should not have called it — pretense rather, who did those things on the ground of abating a public grievance.
— The object of those prosecutions was not to punish every individual who had been concerned in the disturbances.
Their number was so great that no reasonable man could wish, even were it possible, to punish all.
The extent of the outrages and the number concerned in them forbade that wish, but the grand object was to restore the authority of the law, and regain the confidence of those who relied upon that authority for protection.
He trusted the conduct of those whose duty it was to advise the Crown would not be thrown away in reclaiming the misguided inhabitants of that county.
With those observation he would call the witnesses, and leave the case in their hands, and he had no doubt they would do that justice which the circumstances required.
He (the Attorney-General) might be permitted to add — and he did so with unfeigned sincerity, that he had been in various parts of this country performing his official duties and exercising that profession to which he belonged, but he never, in the course of his experience, addressed any gentlemen who inspired in his mind more confidence, that the duties they discharged were done consistently with a sense of right; and he begged to thank them in the name of the public and of the country, for the attention, impartiality, and justice which marked the course of the proceedings which he had the honour to advocate.
[The following evidence was called for the purpose of introducing the depositions.]
Robert Bray, Superintendent in the A division of the Metropolitan Police, examined by Mr. Chilton, Q.C.: Knew deceased — saw his body the morning it was picked up.
Mr. Spurrel examined:– Am Clerk to the Magistrates.
[Deposition handed to witness].
This is the deposition made by Mr. Thomas Thomas; I saw him sign it — the Magistrates also signed it.
Cross-examined by Mr. N. Carne:— Mr. Thomas Thomas first made his statement in Welsh, and it was translated into English by Mr. Price, the Magistrate.
He translated into English, everything stated by Mr. Thomas.
He was not sworn as an interpreter.
I understand Welsh sufficiently well to understand the evidence given.
Mr. Carne went over the whole of the deposition, criticising upon the various English words, given for Welsh expressions used by the witness.
J. Lloyd Price, Esq., examined:— Am a Magistrate for this county.
Took the deposition of Thomas Thomas.
It was taken in Welsh.
He understood English sufficiently well to correct anything which was written not in consonance with what he had said.
I was at Bergwm, the residence of one of the prisoners.
I do not remember the day, but it was on a Friday previous to the apprehension.
I remember it, because, on the following night, his houses were burnt down.
I was accompanied by a policeman of the A division of the Metropolitan police, and a special constable.
I went with the officers to show them the house, because I could get no assistance in the neighbourhood that I could depend upon.
When I went there, I found David Evans in bed.
When he was asked for James Evans, he said, “He has left me; I would not allow him to go to Brechfa fair, and he got offended — has left me, and I have never seen him since.”
He repeated the statement before I sent out the policeman to search the place.
The officers then went ont, and I saw James Evans brought from a hayloft.
The officers brought him to the house.
I remember that near the close of the examination of Thomas Thomas, when he said that they demanded 40s., David Evans said, “When near the gate, we consented to take 20s.”
Cross-examined by Mr. Carne:– I translated nearly the whole.
There might have been some portions of his statement irrelevant to the business omitted.
Some people state many things which are quite irrelevant.
During the first portion of the examination, I put questions to commence the examination.
I had taken a previous examination for the purpose of issuing a warrant.
I took that down in writing, but after the second examination, made in the presence of the prisoners, was over, I did not think the first examination of any importance, so I put them with other useless papers.
The depositions were then put in evidence, and read by the Officer of the Court.
Thomas Evans examined by Mr. Evans, Q.C.:— Is a mason.
Lives with his father at Ty’nyfordd farm, half-a-mile from Pantycerrig.
Lives a mile from Bergwm — the house of the prisoner, David Evans.
Remembers .
Remembers being disturbed about twelve or one o’clock that morning.
Heard a man crying out “heigh” three times at the window.
Went to the window.
Saw people outside.
There were several people present, but I could see only three.
The first thing I heard was a man calling out, “I give you warning, that you must not go to the farm you have taken, or we will burn your hay and corn, as you see your neighbours’.”
My father had taken a farm in the neighbourhood.
To the best of my judgment, that person was James Evans.
I knew his voice, as I was intimate with him.
We had been in the same singing-school.
After this, I and my father got out of bed, and went out of the house.
We heard several guns fired.
When in a field near Pantycerrig, I saw a number of people.
It was too dark to distinguish their dress; but when the guns were fired, we could perceive something white about them.
They then returned from Pantycerrig.
I met a neighbour in the road, whom the mob had desired to shew them the way to Pantycerrig.
Next morning, I went to Bergwm.
The inmates were not up; but the servant shortly opened the door.
David Evans then came downstairs.
I saw a gun on the table, and said, “Here are one of Becca’s guns, I think.”
D. Evans said, “Yes, it is;” and seemed surprised, and said, “Stop, let me see if there is a load in it,” and blew in it, and said there was a load.
I took the screw, and drew the load — it contained powder only.
I then requested D. Evans to come out, and told him “that his servant had been at our house, warning my father not to take the farm.”
He denied it, and said “No; he has been in the house during the whole night.”
David Evans then told James Evans, who came towards me, and said, “D–n you, tell that of me,” and raising his fist.
David Evans put his hand on his shoulder, and said, “Be quiet, James.”
Witness then went to Pantycerrig.
On next day (Sunday) met James Evans, who said, “Why did you tell Thos. Thomas that I had confessed being at Pantycerrig.”
He said the servant of Pantycerrig told him so, and added, that if he had a chance, he would put witness quiet enough; and added, “Well, if you transport me for seven years, I’ll give you a coating when I come back.”
Cross-examined:— I never had a quarrel with Evans previous to that time.
To the best of my knowledge, the voice I heard was James Evans’s. Got out of bed when first I heard the man calling at the window.
I told Thos. Thomas when I saw him, that James Evans was there.
Robert Bray re-called:— I accompanied Mr. Price, the Magistrate, P. C. Powell, and a special constable, to Bergwm.
I saw David Evans, and went out to the barn to search for James Evans.
I heard noise in the loft above the barn, and got up to the loft, and saw the feet of a man showing from under some straw.
I called to him, and took off the straw.
He was James Evans.
We passed Thomas Thomas’s house, who was standing by the door.
I said, “It was a pity you should have gone to this poor old man.”
He said, we should not have gone, had he paid for the damage done by his cattle on our farm.
Rosser Thomas corroborated this witness’ statement.
Mr. Nicholl Carne then addressed the jury in reply to the evidence in support of the charge, and said he should be enabled to prove an alibi on the clearest evidence — that David and James Evans were both in bed at the time of the outrage.
After the examination of several witnesses, whose evidence appeared to be totally at variance with their former statements on oath, Mr. Carne folded up his brief and sat down.
The Judge:— Mr. Carne, if you say you will not hold a brief in this case any longer, I think you will adopt a discreet and honourable course.
The Attorney-General replied, commenting in very strong terms on conduct of the witnesses for the defence.
Verdict — Guilty.
Sentence deferred.
Rebecca’s Daughters
John Jones, aged 21, stonecutter, William Jones, aged 17, stonecutter, Thomas Jones aged 14, stonecutter, Seth Morgan, aged 21, carpenter, Henry Thomas, aged 21, labourer, and Thomas Harries pleaded Guilty to the charge of having, on , with divers evil disposed persons, unlawfully and maliciously thrown a certain turnpike toll-house, the property of the trustees of the Three Commotts district of roads, situate at Porthyrrhyd.
— Discharged on their own recognizances, to appear when called upon to receive the judgment of the Court, and to keep the peace in the mean time towards all her Majesty’ subjects.
George Daniel pleaded Guilty to the charge of having, on , committed a riot, &c., at Blaennantymabuchaf, in the parish of Llanegwad, in the county of Carmarthen.
— Discharged on his own recognizances, to appear to receive the judgment of the Court when called upon.
John Thomas, smith, pleaded Guilty to the charge of having committed a riot and an assault at Llandilo-Rhynws bridge turnpike gate, on .
— Discharged on his own recognizances, to appear and receive judgment whenever called upon.
Mr. Chilton intimated to the Court, that it was not the intention of her Majesty’s Government, to proceed with the case against Francis M’Keirnin and George Laing, charged with the demolition of a turnpike gate, near Llanelly.
The Counsel for the Crown looked into the depositions, and did not think it a proper case to be proceeded with.
William Davies, farmer, Benjamin Richards, farmer, David Thomas, farmer, William Evans, labourer, and Arthur Arthur, labourer, charged with various Rebecca outrages, were discharged by proclamation.
Thomas Morgan, aged 28, labourer, and Thomas Lewis, aged 24, labourer, pleaded Not Guilty to the charge of having, on , at Dolauhirion toll-gate, in the parish of Llanegwad, in this county, and then and there demolished the said gate.
— This case was not proceeded with; but removed by certiorari into the Court of Queens Bench.
In the course of a few minutes, the prisoners who perceived their companions in tribulation set at liberty, wished to withdraw their plea of Not Guilty, and to plead Guilty, but the Judge told them it was too late.
There was some Rebeccaite mopping-up to be done at the Spring Assizes in Carmarthenshire, as was reported in the Pembrokeshire Herald and General Advertiser (excerpts):
The following was the address of his lordship to the grand juries:– … I shall not trouble you with any remarks on the general state of the country, as I have no doubt you have heard much on that subject on more than one occasion previously to this.
There is, however, in the calendar, indications of a disturbed state of affairs continuing in this county longer than in the adjoining one.
I hope that by the vigilance of the magistracy the peace of the county will soon be permanently restored.…
The Rebecca Riot.
John Lewis, Isaac Charles, Job Evans, John Harries, David Williams, and David Thomas, for unlawfully assembling at the Union Workhouse, at Carmarthen, on , were first put upon their trial, and a special jury was sworn in.
Mr. John Evans, Q.C., Mr. E.V. Williams, and Mr. Chilton, Q.C., were retained on the part of the prosecution, and Mr. Lloyd Hall for the defence.
Mr. Chilton opened the pleadings and stated, that John Harries, a miller, residing at Talog, in the parish of Abernant, in this county, was charged with being the ringleader in this unlawful assemblage.
That the said John Harries, had refused to pay Water-street gate, in this town, which caused him to be fined, and his goods were distrained upon for the amount, and that the riot took place in consequence of the distress made by the constables.
That the distress caused an ill-will and an angry feeling, and that threats were held out that Water-street gate would be destroyed.
That the defendant John Harris had called upon Capt. Davies, of Green Hall, stating that unless the fine would be returned, they would pay him a visit, and handed him a letter to the same effect, signed by John Harris and Thomas Thomas.
The parish clerk of Abernant was compelled by Harris to make a proclamation on the previous Sunday, demanding the attendance of all the neighbouring farmers at Carmarthen on the following Monday,— farmers to come on horseback, and their children and servants on foot.
His summons was obeyed, and they attended in thousands, carrying with them banners with Welsh inscriptions, and a band of music playing before them.
That after parading the town, they arrived at the Union Workhouse, and demanded admission; the governor refused for some time, but seeing the crowd so great, he admitted them in, and the place was immediately filled, and were it not for the timely arrival of a detachment of the 4th Light Dragoons, the work of destruction which they had commenced would be carried on.
Several of the horses were left in the Workhouse yard, a number of the men were taken at the time, and that some of them were the prisoners at the bar.
Capt. David Davies.– I am a magistrate of this county.
I know defendant Harries — he is a miller, living at Talog mill.
He called on me on and delivered this letter to me.
I read it in his presence.
He said he had another for Mr. Morris for the same purpose, and away he went.
The letter was as follows:– “Talog, .— Sir– As we have been unlegally fined for refusing to pay Water-street gate, no refuse being made, we give you this offer if you are intending to pay the money to-day is the day.
John Harries and Thomas Thomas.”
He said unless paid that day they were coming to demand it on Monday.
I was in the town of Carmarthen on the Monday.
I was with the magistrates in the Guildhall.
I saw a number of persons between twelve and one o’clock coming up towards the Hall from Lammas-street.
There were 350 on horseback, and a couple of thousands on foot.
There was a band of music on foot.
They came up part of the Hall and went up street.
They were a quarter of an hour passing.
The shops were shut.
The crowd did not alarm me.
Those on foot were agricultural boys and girls, farm servants.
I was not at all alarmed.
David Evans, road-surveyor.— On , I was sworn in as a special constable.
I live in this town.
On , I was required to assist the police to levy a distress on goods of Harries, the miller, for refusing to pay tolls at Water-street gate.
I went with other constables and police constables.
The attempt to distrain was resisted, and there was a great riot.
Towards the end of it they said they would pay Water-street gate a visit and take it down, and also pay the workhouse a visit and take it down.
Cross-examined.— I did not see either Isaac Charles, or John Lewis.
I do not believe they were there.
I believe they were not.
James Lewis.– I am the parish clerk of Abernant.
I have been so 14 years.
I attended Divine service there on .
It is the custom after service is over to cry anything that is lost, or give any public notice.
I cried a mare that was lost, on that day.
I was then desired by John Harries to give notice to parishioners to come to Carmarthen next day; whoever stayed at home would do so at their peril.
I did not refuse to cry it, but I told him I had rather not.
He said there was no harm in it.
After I had made the proclamation, I heard Capt. Evans advise the people not to go.
Late in the evening, I heard a conversation between Capt. Evans and John Harries.
Cross-examined.— Isaac Charles and John Lewis were not at my church on that day.
Capt. Lewis Evans was called on.
Thomas Evans, fanner, of Placeparke, and Thomas Davies, of Bwlchnewydd, Newchurch parish, farm servant, confirmed the preceding statements.
John Rae Evans, master of the Carmarthen Workhouse.— On , my attention was attracted to a parcel of people idling and sitting about the hedge outside.
Perhaps 100 of them.
I had heard rumours that people from the country were to come to the workhouse that day.
Most were country; people about an equal number of women and men.
The gates were closed.
I afterwards saw a large body of people coming up.
We are on an elevation, and had a view of them.
Those in front were on foot, those behind on horseback.
There were hundreds on foot.
I saw musical instruments with them.
I did not hear any music.
They knocked and kicked at the door, and demanded admittance.
I was inside and can’t say who demanded admittance.
Mr. Evans of Placeparke begged me to admit him.
He advised me to open the door, otherwise it would be worse for me.
I said if they were respectable men I would admit them, but not such a rabble.
There was a great noise outside, and the knocking continued.
At last I told the porter to open the gate.
I was afraid, they were so numerous.
The mob rushed in.
I retreated to the dining-hall, they followed me.
The hall was full; some jumped on the table, others thumped the table with sticks.
I attempted to reason with them.
They said they wanted all the paupers out.
They said there was no further need of my services, nor the workhouse.
They demanded the keys of the men’s and women’s yard.
I refused to give them up, and they were wrenched out of my hand.
They got into the two yards.
I was requested to go to the workhouse, some of the pauper children were crying.
The mob wanted them to go out, they were frightened, and did not like to go out.
I heard the cry “the soldiers are coming.”
The room was soon emptied then.
One man struck me, it was Job Evans.
It was in the school-room.
I saw John Harries in the front of the house.
I did not see those in front of the house till they had been captured.
The back of the board-room was broken open.
I knew Isaac Charles perfectly well before this.
He came into the hall with the rest.
He jumped about, waved his hand, and was active amongst them.
He had no stick.
They cried “Hurrah!”
[Capt. Evans?]
— I am a magistrate for this county.
I was in Abernant church on .
[?]
I was in the church when it was cried, and I went [out to ask?] the crier what it was about.
He told me.
I [advised them?] not to go.
I addressed them in Welsh.
I [heard that?]
Harris and Thomas had been fined.
I sent for them and advised them to meet me at Cilwen that evening.
They did not come there.
I went out and afterwards met them.
I cannot be positive that Harris came, but Thomas did.
I went by the Plough and Harrow on my way to Carmarthen.
I saw Harris there; It was between 7 and 8. I desired Harris to come to town and get some of the magistrates to come and dissuade the people from coming.
I also dissuaded him and asked him not to come, and use his influence with them.
Harris said that if I spoke to Mr. Webb, a magistrate very much respected in town and country, and prevailed on him to come out, it might have great effect in preventing them from coming.
I met the band before I entered the town, and I told them the people were not coming, so as to persuade them not to come.
They said they were paid for coming and they would come.
I then came on to town.
I went out of town again and met them half a mile from the Plough and Harrow.
There was an immense crowd.
I did not distinguish Harris then.
I endeavoured to dissuade them from coming to town.
Mr. J.Ll.
Davies did so also.
They said that their motive was to go to tell the magistrates their grievances and not to do any harm.
A great many did stop with us, but the great body went on.
We said idle fellows in town would get them into mischief.
James Morse, Stamp Distributor.— On , I overtook a cavalcade of horsemen and footmen moving down King-street.
They came through Guildhall-square, and went towards the workhouse.
The foot had entered the workhouse before I got up.
I had got ahead of the horsemen.
There were from 300 to 500 horsemen, and from 1,500 to 1,800 on foot.
I got into the workhouse between two horsemen.
I saw the master, he appeared frightened.
I spoke to the mob and exhorted them to go home and petition parliament.
My address gave them satisfaction, as I touched upon the Educational bill — being dissenters they listened to me, and gave me three cheers.
I was interrupted by a man upsetting the iron bedsteads.
I spoke to him and he doubled his fists and said “come on.”
He did not strike me.
He desisted from upsetting the beds.
I afterwards gave him into custody.
I do not know his name.
I did not see either Charles or John there.
Eliza Evans— I am the matron of the union workhouse I was at the kitchen door when they came in.
A man said he would injure me if I would not give the key of the pantry.
He said he would kill me.
I refused the keys.
Another man held his fist in my face.
He said I had locked the children in the pantry.
There was a great deal of noise.
The house seemed coming down.
The bed-clothes were thrown out through the windows.
The children were about me crying, and praying the mob not to kill their mistress.
They said they would provide a place for them.
All of a sudden they all disappeared.
I then saw the military.
One board up stairs was forced up; it was sound before.
Daniel Levy, John Pugh, Thomas Hughes and others were examined.
The jury, after retiring for a short time, found the whole of the prisoners guilty, and sentence was deferred.
The Talog Rioters.
John Jones, Jonathan Jones, Howell Lewis[,] Jonathan Lewis, David Davies, and David Lewis, were charged with having committed a riot and assault at Tallog, in the parish of Abernant, on .
Mr. Chilton opened the pleadings, and stated that the prisoners were charged with having tumultuously assembled at the village of Tallog, and obstructed the levying of a distress upon the goods of John Harris, for non-payment of tolls at Water-street gate.
That the goods distrained upon were rescued by the prisoners, and the constables assaulted by the mob.
That Jonathan Jones had a hatchet with him, Jonathan Lewis carried a gun, and David Davies was loud in his abuse.
His lordship having summed up the evidence, the jury acquitted the prisoner John Jones, but Jonathan Jones, Howell Lewis, Jonathan Lewis, David Davies, and David Lewis, were found guilty, and ordered to be in attendance to receive judgment when called for.
The court then commenced the following case:— Thomas Lewis and Thomas Morgan were then indicted on the charge of having destroyed the turnpike gate and toll-house at Dolauhirion, near the town of Llandovery.
The Borough Calendar contains the names of nine prisoners, seven or eight of whom are charged with offences connected with the late riot at the Workhouse, and other offenced arising out of the recent disturbances.
There are twenty-two names on the County Calendar, the majority of whom are charged with riots, assaults, and depredations connected with Rebeccaism.
True bills against several of these prisoners were found at the last Assizes.
Several respectable farmers and others are implicated in some of the charges; from their station in society, their cases naturally cause considerable excitement and apprehension as to the result of the trials.
In four cases the defendants are Queen’s Bench traversers, having been at the last Assized removed by certiorari.
They are to be tried by Special Juries, and are precisely in the same position as Mr. O’Connell and the other traversers at the late Dublin trials.
The Workhouse Riot
Before a Special Jury. — John Harris, aged 50, miller, David Thomas, 28, farmer, David Williams, 27, weaver, Job Evans, 49, farmer, Isaac Charles, 19, tailor, and John Lewis, 40, fisherman, were charged in a lengthy indictment, containing several counts, with having, on , unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled at the Carmarthen Workhouse to the disturbance of the peace of our sovereign lady the Queen, her Crown and dignity.
There were also counts in this indictment charging several of the defendants with having committed assaults on different parties.
True bills had been found at the last Assizes, and the defendants had then put in pleas of Not Guilty.
Messrs.
Chilton, Q.C., Evans, Q.C., and E.V. Williams, were Counsel for the Crown.
Mr. Lloyd Hall defended the two last-named prisoners.
— The others were undefended by Counsel.
Mr. V. Williams opened the pleadings by stating the nature of the charge.
Mr. Chilton, Q.C., then addressed the jury for the Crown.
He had the honour to appear before them to conduct the prosecution on the part of the Government.
It was an honour which devolved upon him from the accidental circumstance of seniority, and he assured them it was to him an honour attended with no little anxiety.
To himself it gave no little pain, because that, during his long intercourse with the people of this part of the country, he had experienced nothing but kindness and courtesy from persons of all ranks and conditions of life.
For that reason, he repeated, it pained him exceedingly that the duty had been imposed upon him of substantiating charges of disregard of the law against a large body of people whom hitherto it had been his (Mr. C’s) part and boast to point out as being the most peaceable people, the most obedient to the laws, within the realm.
If the gentlemen of the special jury would glance over the calendars of that county during past years, and compare them with those of other counties, they would agree with him that it had been comparatively free from crime.
It also gave him pain to appear before them after so many trials which had been conducted by the Attorney-General, whose temperate conduct, and whose firm and vigorous, yet forgiving spirit he (Mr. C.), with his numerous infirmities, could not expect to emulate; though he hoped that in no portion of his address would he show any disposition to strain the law against the defendants.
His sympathies had always been enlisted in favour of the people.
It would be his duty to call evidence before them, and if, after they had heard and weighed it, they should find anything which would justify them in returning a verdict of acquittal as to all or any of the defendants, no person could feel more rejoiced at that than himself.
He had that moment been informed that only two of the defendants were defended by Counsel, but he (Mr. C.) was confident that would not operate prejudicially to the other prisoners, as they (the jury) would be their Counsel, and his Lordship would be their Counsel, and see that they should not be convicted unless the charges were well substantiated, and that they should be quite as well guarded as Mr. Hall, with all his zeal, would guard the interests of his client.
To gentlemen of their experience it was unnecessary for him to dwell upon the various points of law which would arise; he would leave that to his Lordship.
In some counts the prisoners were charged with a riot — in others with assaults, but all would be guilty of the acts committed by each of them, if it would be satisfactorily proved that they had assembled together for one common purpose.
He would now give them an outline of the case, the details of which will be given in evidence.
He (Mr. C.) charged the defendant John Harris with being a ringleader, or at least a very active promoter of the riot in question.
He was a miller, residing in the parish of Abernant, in that county.
This riot was unquestionably more or less connected with the disturbances which had arisen from the supposition that tolls had been illegally exacted.
It would appear that the defendant Harris had refused to pay tolls at Water-street gate, in that town, and the consequence was that be was fined, and a distress warrant was issued against his goods.
Considerable opposition was made to levying the fine, and a riot ensued, which he would merely refer to, as it was the subject of another prosecution.
In that riot, which occurred on , several of the defendants took part, and threats were then held out by the mob that they would destroy Water-street gate and the Workhouse.
On , Harris called at the house of Capt. Davies, one of the magistrates who had signed the distress warrant, and told him that unless the money which had been paid were returned, he would he visited on .
He also left a letter with Mr Davies, signed by himself, and purporting to have been signed by another party.
Mr. Chilton here read the letter, which was signed, “John Harris,” “Thomas Thomas,” to the effect, that as they had been illegally fined, they give notice that, if the money was to be returned, was the time so to do.
On , as would be proved, the Parish Clerk of Abernant had been compelled to make a kind of proclamation to the parishioners to assemble at Carmarthen on , or if any persons remained away, they would do so at their peril.
A Magistrate happened to be present, and he endeavoured to dissuade the people from listening to the proclamation, and he sent for Harris, and tried to prevent him from carrying his purposes into effect; but it would be shown that Harris continued very active in persuading the people to assemble: the farmers on horses, and their sons and servants on foot; and that they would remain away at their peril.
On , they accordingly assembled at the Plough and Harrow, which was four miles from Carmarthen.
The assembly was a very large one, and they marched through Trevaughan village, and reached the town of Carmarthen , at which time they amounted to some thousands.
They marched into the town, through the Water-street gate, in procession — the footmen being in the van, and the horsemen in the rear, bearing banners with various inscriptions on them.
Having proceeded through several streets, they went towards the workhouse.
He would show the jury that the appearance of the mob was so alarming that nearly all the shops in Carmarthen were closed.
It would also appear that the master of the workhouse had observed about a hundred idle people loitering about the workhouse until the procession arrived, and admission was then demanded in the most intimidating manner.
One individual, who had been at the Plough and Harrow in the morning, seeing the multitude at the door, suggested to the master that, if he did not open the door, he feared bad consequences would ensue.
The master then admitted the mob.
They went into the hall.
Their acts and general conduct while in the workhouse would be described by the different witnesses who would be examined.
Shortly after they had entered, a gentleman, named Morse, took the opportunity of addressing them.
They attended to him and that, happily, afforded time for the arrival of the military — a small body of the Fourth Light Dragoons, who were nearly worn out by fatigue consequent upon their exertion in travelling.
Immediately on the appearance of the military, the mob dispersed.
Many of those actually engaged in the riot made their retreat, leaving their horses in the yard of the workhouse.
That circumstance in the riot he thought was not unimportant, because it afforded a clue to what the ultimate object might be had they not been interrupted.
“Conscience made cowards of all,” for he could not accuse the Welsh of such cowardice had they not been conscious that they were engaged in a bad cause.
However, when the jury would take into consideration the time and circumstance of the assemblage, and the general character of their acts, it would be for them, under the direction of the Learned Judge, to say whether the defendants were legally justified in such a conduct or not.
— The following witnesses were then called and examined:—
Captain David Davies examined by Mr. Evans.
Q.C.:— I am a Magistrate for this county.
Harris, the defendant, called on me on , and delivered me this letter.
[The letter was put in and read — the substance of it is given in the Learned Counsel’s opening address.]
The defendant added that if the money were not paid on , it would be demanded on .
I was in the town on with the other Magistrates.
I saw a crowd of about 350 people on horseback, and others on foot.
They were more than a thousand.
I remained in the Townhall.
They passed the hall.
The shops were closed.
Those on foot were agricultural servants.
I was not alarmed.
David Evans, road-surveyor, examined by Mr. V. Willams: On I was sworn in a special constable.
On I assisted the police to levy a distress on the goods of Harris, the miller.
It was a distress for a fine imposed for non-payment of toll.
Our distraint was resisted by a mob who created a great riot.
The mob then said that they would destroy the Water-street gate, and pay the workhouse a visit, and take it down.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hall:— I do not think Isaac Charles or John Lewis were present at the Talog meeting.
They were not there.
Re-examined by Mr. Chilton:— There were about 500 persons present.
I could
not positively ascertain that those persons were not there.
I cannot mention a
fiftieth part of those who were present.
James Lewis examined by Mr. Chilton, Q.C.:— Is the parish clerk of Abernant.
I attended service on .
It is the custom after service to give public notice of any meeting, or of anything lost.
I cried the loss of a mare on that day.
After that, John Harris, the miller, Talog, desired me to make another proclamation.
It was a notice to the parishioners to come to town next day, and whoever remained home would do so at their peril.
I objected to crying it, but said I preferred having a written notice on the door.
Having made the proclamation I heard Captain Evans advising the people not to go.
That evening I heard a conversation between Harris and Capt. Evans.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hall:— I do not know whether Isaac Charles and John Lewis were present, at the Church, on that occasion.
Capt. Evans, Pantykendy, was called on his subpoena, but was not present.
Thomas Evans, Plasyparke, examined by Mr. Evans Q.C.:— Is a farmer, who lived at Plasyparke.
On , he was in this town.
Knows John Harris, the defendant; saw him that day in Carmarthen.
Harris asked witness, “If he would accompany Becca and her children to town on ?”
Witness said he would not.
Harris said (continued witness), I had better go, or Becca would destroy all I had.
I said I would not go, but send my servant.
He said, that was not Becca’s request — that every farmer must go on horseback, and his sons and servants on foot.
I mentioned to Capt. Evans what had taken place; I also spoke to the Rev. Mr. Evans.
That was on , before I left Carmarthen.
On , I went to the Plough and Harrow, where Harris told me they were to meet; that is a mile and a half from my house.
It was nine in the morning when I went.
There were a number of people there — about fifteen to eighteen hundred might be present.
I saw the defendant Harris there.
I did not stay there five minute, but went on business to Carmarthen.
I crossed the fields for part of my way.
I was in Carmarthen about two hours before the crowd.
I saw the crowd coming down by Darkgate, and passing the Hall.
I heard it talked in the country that it was the intention of the mob to visit the Workhouse.
I went there and saw some people kicking the door.
I did not see any of the people I had seen in the morning there.
I went to the door, and spoke to the Governor.
I thought they were inclined to break the door, and told him he had better open it.
I heard the Parish Clerk making a proclamation on , at Abernant.
I heard Capt. Evans endeavouring to persuade the people not to go to town.
I saw a written notice on the Church-door of Merthyr, which is the adjoining parish.
Cross-examined:— I fell some alarm in consequence of the threats used about the country — the threats that people’s goods, would be burned, &c.
Re-examined:— I felt alarm at the time I spoke to the Governor of the Workhouse.
Thomas Davies, a labourer, living in an adjoining parish to Abernant, proved having given notice in his parish to the people to meet at the Plough and Harrow.
The notice was, that all who had horses were to ride, and others to come on foot.
I also had notice, that all who remained home did so at their peril.
Joshua Hughes gave the order.
John Ray Evans, Master of the Workhouse, examined by Mr. Chilton:— On , my attention was attracted by seeing about a hundred people about the hedge, opposite the Workhouse, idling; the majority were country people.
There was about an equal number of women and men.
About one o’clock I saw a large body of people assembling; those in front were on foot, and others on horses.
There were at all events hundreds on foot.
I saw musical instruments with them.
When they came to the Workhouse, I heard them knock and kick the door, and demand admittance.
Mr. Evans, Plasyparke, requested me to admit them, and afterwards advised me to let them in.
I at first refused, but becoming alarmed, I requested the porter to open the gate.
The mob rushed in; a portion followed me to the dining-hall — the numbers filled the hall.
Many had sticks in their hands, others beat the table, others said they would turn the paupers out — that no workhouse was required, and that my services could be dispensed with.
I had two keys in my hands — those of the men’s wards and women’s wards; these were wrenched from my hand.
The mob wished the children to go out of the school-room — the children cried.
About this time an alarm of the soldiers coming was heard; all the mob disappeared.
A man named Job Evans struck me with a stick when in the room.
I know the defendant defendant John Harris; I saw him afterwards in front of the house.
The lock of the board-room was broken open.
I know Isaac Charles well; he was one of those who came into the hall.
I did not observe a stick in his hand.
Cross-examined:— I begged of them to desist.
The defendant Charles cried out “Hurrah.”
I do not think he was cheering me.
Capt. Evans examined by Mr. Evans:— I live at Pantykendy, and am a County Magistrate.
I was at Abernant Church on .
I heard of the notice given the people.
I endeavoured to dissuade the people from going to town.
I heard that John Harries and Thomas Thomas had been active.
I sent for them to meet me at the Vicar’s house.
They did not then come, but I subsequently met them.
I went by the Plough-and-Harrow on my way to town on .
I saw Harris there.
There were not many people there then, as it was very early.
I requested Harris to come to town to talk to the Magistrates, and endeavoured to get him to dissuade the people.
Harris said, that if I spoke to Mr. Webb, and if he would come out, it might have some effect in dissuading the people.
I afterwards addressed the people, and endeavoured to persuade the Band I met on the road to go back, by telling them the people would not come to town.
The Band said they were paid for their services.
I then went to Carmarthen, and called at Mr. Webb’s — could not see him.
I then returned homewards, and met the crowd, with the Band at their head — endeavoured to persuade them to return.
They said that they only wished to state their grievances.
I said that many idle fellows in town would get them into mischief.
Many remained with me and another Magistrate.
Mr. James Morse examined:— I am a distributor of stamps, residing in this town.
I overtook a large crowd in King-street, on the day in question.
The foot part of the procession had reached the workhouse before I overtook them.
There might have been three to five hundred horses there, and about eighteen hundred people on foot.
I went into the workhouse yard, and met the Master, who appeared to be very much frightened.
I addressed the crowd from one of the windows.
I endeavoured to persuade them to return, and make known their grievances to Parliament.
My address had the desired effect.
Knowing them to be principally Dissenters, I touched on the Education Bill.
They gave me three cheers.
My address was interrupted by a man in the room upsetting the iron bedsteads.
On my requesting him to desist, he put himself in a fighting attitude.
He was subsequently taken into custody.
I do not remember his name.
Mrs. Sarah Evans, matron of the workhouse, examined and said, that one of the mob threatened to kill her, unless she would deliver the keys to him.
Another man held his fist in her face, and said that he wished the children to get out, as she had locked them in the pantry.
Saw beds and bedding thrown out of the windows.
The children were crying, and requested the mob to leave their mistress alone.
The mob said that they would provide for the children.
The noise up stairs was dreadful; and suddenly the mob disappeared.
I then saw the military.
One of the floor boards was forced up.
Cross-examined:— There were provisions in the pantry when the mob asked me for the key.
Mr. Morse recalled:— I recognize none of the defendants as the man who put himself in a fighting attitude towards me.
At this stage of the proceedings, it was discovered that none of the defendants were present near the bar, with the exception of those defended by Counsel, but scattered about the Hall.
They were requested to come forward, and those portions of evidence given in English were interpreted to them from the Judge’s notes.
Mr. Ray Evans recalled:— I saw the defendant, Lewis.
He took an active part in the riot.
Cross-examined by defendant Job Evans:— I am certain that you are the man who struck me; a farmer interfered, or you would have proceeded further.
Defendant made a statement to the effect, that he was not farther than the workhouse yard.
Mrs. Sarah Thomas:— I am schoolmistress of the Workhouse.
I was on the plain in front of the Workhouse when the mob came up on .
I remained but a short time after I heard the noise of the mob, but went into the dining-hall.
A number of the mob came in.
They commenced making a great noise, beating the table, &c. I requested them to be peaceable.
The master, Mr. Evans, then requested me to go to the school-room — that the children were crying.
Two men followed me.
— The witness here corroborated Mrs. Evans’s evidence respecting the conduct of the mob, as it regarded the children.
I asked one of the men if he was the father of children himself, and requested him to have some compassion on the children, He said he was a father — that as he had commenced the work he would finish it, or lose every drop of his blood.
The people suddenly disappeared.
On going to her room, the door of which had been previously locked, she found that it had been burst open.
David Levi, jeweller, proved that, at the time in question, he acted as special constable; and described the appearance of the mob in similar language to the other witnesses.
He added, that he took several persons into custody, and took them before the Magistrates.
He took one person into custody at Capt. Hughes’s request.
I think it was the defendant David Williams. Had some difficulty in taking him, as some persons endeavoured to prevent me.
One man struck Captain Hughes, and I received several blows.
John Pugh examined by Mr. Chilton:— Was Inspector of Police on .
He gave a similar description of the procession to that given by other witnesses.
There were thousands on foot, and he counted 310 horsemen.
By the direction of the Magistrates, I took several persons into custody in the Workhouse yard.
I saw the defendant David Thomas engaged in a conflict, with a bassoon in his hand; he had also a large stone.
When I seized him, we both fell in the scuffle.
[Witness produced a great number of sticks found in the Workhouse after the mob.]
Cross-examined:— I have been employed to watch some gates — the toll-houses of which have been taken down.
I don’t know whether they were destroyed by sticks or not.
Thomas Hughes, a special constable, corroborated the other witnesses in the evidence relating to the conduct of the mob at the Workhouse.
He saw the defendant Thomas striking Capt. Hughes.
Saw the defendant Harris there.
Mr. William Davies Phillips, Clerk to the Board of Guardians, being examined by Mr. V. William, deposed to the riotous character of the assemblage of people.
He repeatedly saw the defendant Harris among the mob.
First saw him near the Lion in Spilman-street.
Saw the mob pass through King-street.
He then came down to Guildhall square, and there saw Harris among the mob on horseback.
He subsequently saw them turn up Red-street towards the Workhouse.
He attempted to enter the Workhouse, but could not go in.
He then gave information to the Mayor.
On returning to the Workhouse he saw several people in custody.
Among them the defendants Harris, Williams, Evans, and Thomas in custody.
The appearance of the mob was calculated to cause alarm.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hall:— Is not particularly aware of any widely spread dissatisfaction respecting the Workhouse.
I do not know that these feelings against the magistrates is general.
I have seen Oddfellows’ processions.
Cross-examined by the defendant Harris:— I believe the defendant’s daughter was on horseback behind him.
By the Court:— She might be three or four and twenty.
Re-examined by Mr. Chilton:— The procession did not resemble an Oddfellow’s.
Capt. William Garnons Hughes described the conduct and appearance of the mob.
I received a blow from a bludgeon.
The appearance of the mob was such as to create alarm in the minds of quiet persons not bred to arms.
Thomas Charles Morris, Esq., examined by Mr. Evans:— I am a banker residing in this town, and Mayor of the town.
Was a magistrate in .
I accompanied the military to the Workhouse.
Several persons were taken into custody.
Taking the state of the country into consideration, I thick the assembly was calculated to cause alarm.
This closed the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Hall then addressed the jury for the defendants Charles and Lewis.
He contended that in one count of the indictment, the defendants were charged with a riot.
He thought his Lordship would tell them that no riot had taken place, and that all the defendants must be acquitted on that count.
The utmost that could be made of it was that of an unlawful assembly.
He appeared only for two of the defendants.
He was happy to hear that the others would find a much better advocate in the Learned Judge who presided.
There was no doubt but that the riot charged in the indictment had some connection with the Agrarian disturbances which had taken place — disturbances alike indefensible in law or reason.
He could attribute them only to the poverty of the country and the general dissatisfaction with the New Poor-law and the conduct of the Magistracy, but Rebeccaism was not the means of procuring a redress of grievances.
He was confident that the gentlemen of the jury as well as the unfortunate persons who had been implicated in the disturbances must have suffered both in pocket and in peace of mind by the late disturbances.
No person could stand up and state that the country laboured under no real grievances, but yet they could not be redressed by such outrageous conduct.
Mr. Hall then proceeded to comment upon those portions of the evidence which apparently bore against his client.
He contended that there was not the least evidence that the defendants Charles and Lewis took part in the illegalities which he acknowledged had been on that day committed.
The evidence of the master of the Workhouse went merely to prove, that, like foolish boys, they entered the Workhouse at the excitement of the moment, for it was not proved that they took any part in the procession.
It was evident that on the day in question there was both a town and country rabble.
If the country mob contemplated committing any depredations, was it to be concluded that the town mob — among whom two defendants were — had the same objects in view.
He concluded by stating, that he confidently expected an acquittal for the defendants Charles and Lewis.
Mr. James Morse gave the defendant Charles a good character.
He is a married man and has several children.
The four other defendants declined saying anything to the jury, but Harries called Captain Evans, Pantykendy, to character.
He said that up to the present time he was a peaceable man.
He thought he was induced to join the assembly in consequence of having been fined by the Magistrates.
Mr. George Goode gave Harries an excellent character.
Cross-examined by Mr. Chilton:— I have since heard that he has been connected with Rebeccaism.
Thomas Evans one of the witnesses for the prosecution gave him a good character.
Mr. W.B. Swan, a Magistrate, and other persons, including several witnesses for the Crown, gave evidence to the same effect.
Other witnesses bore testimony to the characters of the other defendants.
Mr. Chilton waived his privilege as Counsel for the Crown, to reply to Mr. Hall’s address.
The Learned Judge then summed up the evidence.
The first question for the jury to ascertain was, whether any riot had taken place.
To constitute a riot it was not more necessary that all the parties implicated should be proved to act unceasingly in it from first to last than it was to prove that a man acted riotously throughout his life before being considered a rioter.
There might have been no riot, yet it might have been an unlawful assembly.
Looking at the conduct of the parties when the Magistrates were in conversation with them, they could not be called riotous, though the assembly might have been illegal, as they had met for an illegal purpose.
But the conduct of the mob at the Workhouse was certainly riotous, though it had not been so before.
His Lordship then read over all the evidence, commenting upon it and elucidating all legal difficulties involved in any parts, as he proceeded.
The jury retired, and after a short absence returned a verdict of Guilty against all the defendants.
— Sentence deferred.
The Riot at Talog.
The Queen v. Jonathan Jones and Others.
[Special Jury.]
— This also was an issue from the Queen’s Bench.
The defendants, Jonathan Jones, aged 21, Howell Lewis, 21, David Lewis, 25, David Davies, 60, Jonathan Lewis, 21. and John Jones, 24, were charged with having, on , unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled, together with divers other evil-disposed persons, at Talog, in the parish of Abernant, Carmarthenshire, and then and there made a great noise, riot, and disturbance, against the peace of our Sovereign Lady the Queen, her Crown and dignity.
In other counts the defendants were charged with having committed assaults on various persons.
Mr. Chilton, Q.C. (with whom were Messrs.
Evans, Q.C., and E.V. Williams, as Counsel for the Crown), stated the case to the jury, the circumstances of which must be fresh in the recollection of our readers.
The Learned Counsel said that he would merely give the jury an outline of the facts, which, according to his instructions, he was in a condition to prove.
He understood that only one of the prisoners had the advantage of being defended by Counsel.
This riot arose out of a refusal to pay toll on the part of a man named John Harris, who was not included in the present indictment.
He was a miller, residing at Talog, and in consequence of his refusal to pay toll a fine was imposed upon him, and a warrant issued to levy upon his goods, served by the Mayor and a Magistrate of the Borough, and endorsed by a Magistrate of the County, of Carmarthen.
On , a number of special constables, and about 30 pensioners were sent to levy the distress upon Harris’s goods.
As they approached Talog, they observed a crowd of disguised persons running towards the mill.
A horn was blown by one of the rioters, and the number continued increasing.
One man told the constable that if they persisted in going into the mill, they should be killed.
After considerable interruption, they entered the mill, and effected the levy.
On their road home, when about 300 yards from the mill, they were pursued and overtaken by a large crowd, many of of whom were disguised, and variously armed with hatchets, pickaxes, bludgeons, guns, &c. &c., who insisted upon their leaving the goods behind.
The constables were comparatively few and the pensioners rendered little or no assistance.
At last, a responsible person named Thomas, offered to answer for the payment of the fine, if the constables would leave the goods.
To this the latter assented, but they were not then allowed to return to Carmarthen.
One of them was knocked down, his pistol and staff taken from him, and thrown into the river.
Others were greatly abused, as the jury should hear from the various witnesses who would give evidence before them.
The constables were followed until they reached Troesmawr gate, when the warrant was demanded of them.
The mob also compelled the constables to pull down a piece of wall, stating “that they must do Rebecca’s work.”
Various threats were held towards them relating to Water-street gate and to the Workhouse.
Now, it would be shown that Jonathan Jones and all the other defendants had acted in the manner described, but Jones was particularly active.
Howell Lewis wore a kind of mask.
Jonathan Lewis took part in the riot, but he (Mr. C.) did not charge him with acting prominently.
Though David Davies personally committed no act of outrage, yet he encouraged the others to do so.
David Lewis carried a bludgeon, and was the person who knocked down one of the constables.
John Jones had merely a small stick in his hand, but took no active part in the affair.
He merely charged him with being present, countenancing the acts of the rest.
He had merely given the jury a brief outline of the proceedings.
Should they find that the charge was not clearly made out against any or all the defendants, he would rejoice to see them acquitted; but, if otherwise, it was their bounden duty to convict them.
Evidence was then adduced in support of the charge.
The witnesses who were principally the special constables sent to exercise the warrant, deposed to the circumstance of all the prisoners having taken the part stated in the riots, with the exception of John Jones, who on their arrival they found talking to Harris’s daughter by the door of the mill.
He merely had a small slick in his hand, but did not use it.
Mr. Richards then addressed the jury on behalf of Jones, contending that he was only accidentally present, as it was well known that he paid his addresses to Harris’s daughter.
The Learned Gentleman then proceeded to call witnesses to Jones’s character, when the foreman of the special jury interfered, and said that the jury were satisfied and had agreed to acquit Jones.
Witnesses to character were then called on behalf of the other defendants.
The Learned Judge carefully summed up the evidence, when the jury returned a verdict of Guilty, against all the prisoners with the exception of Jones.
Sentence deferred.
Dolauhirion Toll-Gate.
The Queen v. [Thomas] Lewis and [Thomas] Morgan.
— [Special Jury].
— In this case, the prisoners were tried at the late Winter Assizes, on a charge of riot and destruction of the toll-house, but Mr. Justice Cresswell being of opinion that the evidence did not support the indictment, as far as the riotous assemblage was regarded, directed the jury to acquit the prisoners on that charge.
A true bill had been found against them for misdemeanor, and the prisoners put in a plea of “Not Guilty.”
They were now tried before a special jury, on an issue from the Queen’s Bench.
Mr, Chilton, addressing the jury, observed, that the best course next to not committing an offence, was to acknowledge having committed it.
The defendants wished to retract their plea of “Not Guilty,” and consent to a verdict against them; therefore it would be unnecessary for him to call evidence.
His Lordship expressed a doubt as to the propriety of that course, as the pleas had been made at these Assizes.
Evidence was then called, but in consequence of the absence of a witness (who had left pursuant to that understanding), the case was adjourned to the next day.
. — the examination of witnesses in the case of the Queen v. Morgan and Lewis, was proceeded with.
The facts of the case appeared in our paper during the late Winter Assizes — it is therefore unnecessary to repeat them.
The Judge having summed op the evidence, the jury retired, and after an absence of a quarter of an hour, returned a verdict of “Guilty of being present, but no evidence is adduced to prove that they took part in breaking the gate.”
The Judge:— That amounts to a verdict of “Not Guilty.”
The defendants were accordingly acquitted.
The Queen v. Hughes and others.
— (Special Jury.)
— Counsel for the Crown, Messrs.
Chilton, Q.C., Evans, Q.C., and E.V. Williams. For defendants, Messrs.
Nicholl Carne and Lloyd Hall.
Mr. V. Williams opened the pleadings.
This was an issue joined between the Queen and the three defendants, Thomas Hughes, Benjamin Jones, and John Jones.
The defendants had pleaded “Not Guilty.”
Mr. Chiltlon addressed the jury for the Crown, and observed, that the three defendants were indicted under the statute 7 and 8 Geo. 4, c. 30, s. 14, which provided that if any person destroyed a turnpike gate wholly or in part, he should be deemed guilty of a misdemeanour.
The indictment also charged the defendants with a riot, and they were also indicted for an unlawful assembly.
He thought that, after the jury had heard the evidence, the proofs would be so clear, that they could convict the defendants without doubt or hesitation.
The three defendants had been very leniently dealt with, for they might have been indicted for the destruction of the house, which amounted to a felony, but they were merely indicted for a misdemeanour.
The defendant Thomas Hughes was a sawyer; John Jones was a farmer, of some property, and was generally known by the name of Capt. Jones; Benjamin Jones was a farmer’s son.
The toll-house and gate, which were the subjects of the present indictment, were called Pontarlleche gate and house, situated on the road leading from Llangadock to Neath and Swansea.
He would call a person named Griffith Jones, who had been appointed collector at the gate eight years ago, by a person named Anthony, who was entitled to receive the tolls.
He also carried on the business of a smith at a forge about a mile distant, and his wife generally attended to the gate.
After retiring to bed on , the toll-keeper and his wife heard a great and alarming noise, and had no time to dress themselves before the house was entered, and upon getting out, they observed about thirty persons, armed with guns, pickaxes, &c., disguised in various ways.
The mob so conducted themselves as to cause great alarm.
Both he and his wife well knew John Jones, and would swear that they had not the slightest doubt as to his identity.
He was partly disguised, and took a very active part in the riot, They would also, with equal certainty, identify the other defendants, Hughes and Benjamin Jones, who took part in the business.
The case mainly depended upon the evidence of the toll keeper and his wife.
They both, it appeared, went before the magistrates a few days afterwards, to lay an information against a person named James, who was not included in the indictment.
It was his duly to state, that on that occasion the witnesses did not inform against the defendants, for knowing them to be the ringleaders of the Rebeccaites, they were naturally afraid to mention any names; but it would be proved that on the next day they told a person, named Mary Jones, who the parties were.
In a few days afterwards, they communicated the same information to Anthony, the lessee of the tolls.
In addition to this, he (Mr. C.) should lay in evidence before the jury, certain conversations by which John Jones showed that he was a prominent actor in the Rebecca outrages.
He would not detail the conversations, but let the jury hear them from the witnesses, and after hearing what his learned friend had to say in defence, to which he should reply if necessary, he had no doubt the gentlemen of the jury would return such a verdict as would give satisfaction to the country at large.
Griffith Jones was then examined by Mr. Evans, and deposed to his being the toll-keeper of the Pontarlleche-gale, which is on the road from Llangadock to Neath and Swansea.
After having retired to bed on , he heard noises as of iron bars under the door.
The windows were broken.
He got out of bed, and immediately four disguised men came in, and dragged him in his shirt to the other side of the road, He did not know those four men.
On going out, he saw about thirty persons, some of whom were engaged in destroying the gate, and others in destroying the house.
He positively identified Thomas Hughes, who was partly disguised and engaged in sawing the large gate-post.
John Jones was breaking part of the house with a pickaxe.
Had known him for seven years.
The crowd appeared not to have been aware, for a considerable time, that witness was amongst them, as they had, in the first place, taken him to some distance.
He was afterwards taken to an upper floor in the opposite house.
He could distinctly see the people breaking up the gate into pieces, which they threw into the river.
Shortly after this, witness laid all information before the Magistrates against a person named Jones: but did not inform against the three defendants.
In coming out of the Magistrates’ room, he met the defendant Jones, who told witness that he might as well leave the country.
On another occasion, John Jones told witness’s wife that his furniture would not have been broken had not witness threatened to inform against any parties who might break the house.
Witness informed Mr. Anthony, in a few days, who the parties were who had broken the gate.
Cross-examined by Mr Carne:— There were more than a hundred shots fired, He was full half an hour amongst the mob in his shirt.
As they had white shirts about them, he supposed that they did not recognize him.
His wife was likewise turned out of the house in her night-dress.
Witness did tell some persons that he did not recognize any of the rioters, as he was afraid of them.
Heard of some rewards being offered for informations against Rebeccaites, but never heard the amount mentioned.
Never told any one “There is something for swearing now — I must think of my wife and children.”
Never told so to John Evans; for I have not spoken a dozen words to him for years.
Anne Jones, the last witness’s wife, was examined and cross-examined at great length.
Her evidence corroborated that given by Griffith Jones.
J. Anthony, the lessee of the tolls, stated in evidence that, soon after the gate had been destroyed, the collector’s wife informed him of the parties who had been engaged in the riot but, at her request, he did not tell the Magistrates.
He was also afraid.
Mary Jones proved that, on the day following the outrage, the collector’s wife told her the name of the parties.
Mary Anthony proved that John Jones was seen going in the direction of the gate on the night in question, but that road also lead to his residence.
Mr Nicholl Carne then addressed the jury for the defendants.
He contended that the jury could not rely either upon the accuracy or the veracity of the witnesses for the prosecution.
When it frequently happened that gentlemen had held conversations with country people, mistaking one for the other, how could the witnesses identify the parties at the gate, under the various circumstances of confusion, dread, disguise, and anxiety which must have haunted the minds of the witnesses, seeing that their house and furniture were broken — their lives, and that of their child in danger.
He then commented upon the fact of the witnesses not having mentioned the names of defendants before the Magistrates, and the reasons given for not so doing.
He also called the attention of the jury to the rewards offered upon the conviction of any rioters.
Isaac Morris, Elizabeth Jones, and John Jones were called to prove that the toll-collector and his wife, in conversation with them declared that they could not identify one of the rioters.
Benjamin Jones, father of one of the defendants, was examined but proved nothing important.
John Evans was called to contradict statements made by Griffith Jones in cross-examination.
This witness acknowledged being present at two Rebecca meetings.
He went with Mr. Foster, of the Times, to interpret.
—— Matthews, a constable, who had been employed in watching the gate, said, both the collector and his wife told him next day, that they did not know any of the rioters.
Witness had been dismissed after three nights’ watching.
Mr. Chilton replied to the evidence adduced for the defendants.
He defended the witnesses for the prosecution from the imputation of perjury, as insinuated by the Learned Counsel for the defence.
The Learned Judge then summed up the evidence, elucidating the various points of law arising in the case; after which the jury retired, and returned into Court in about ten minutes, with a verdict of Guilty against all.
Sentence deferred.
. — …Six prisoners, charged with riot and burglary, were arraigned, and pleaded Not Guilty.
— This charge arose out of the Rebecca disturbances, but as it was not probable the case would conclude , his Lordship took a nisi prius cause.
The Pembrokeshire Herald and General Advertiser gives an account of the trial of Rebeccaites accused in the Carmarthen workhouse raid, held on at the Carmarthenshire Assizes.
It gives some interesting background on how the demonstration was sparked.
The Rebecca Riot.
John Lewis, Isaac Charles, Job Evans, John Harries, David Williams, and David Thomas, for unlawfully assembling at the Union Workhouse, at Carmarthen, on , were first put upon their trial, and a special jury was sworn in.
Mr. John Evans, Q.C., Mr. E.V. Williams, and Mr. Chilton, Q.C., were retained on the part of the prosecution, and Mr. Lloyd Hall for the defence.
Mr. Chilton opened the pleadings and stated, that John Harries, a miller, residing at Talog, in the parish of Abernant, in this county, was charged with being the ringleader in this unlawful assemblage.
That the said John Harries, had refused to pay Water-street gate, in this town, which caused him to be fined, and his goods were distrained upon for the amount, and that the riot took place in consequence of the distress made by the constables.
That the distress caused an ill-will and an angry feeling, and that threats were held out that Water-street gate would be destroyed.
That the defendant John Harris had called upon Capt. Davies, of Green Hall, stating that unless the fine would be returned, they would pay him a visit, and handed him a letter to the same effect, signed by John Harris and Thomas Thomas.
The parish clerk of Abernant was compelled by Harris to make a proclamation on , demanding the attendance of all the neighbouring farmers at Carmarthen on , — farmers to come on horseback, and their children and servants on foot.
His summons was obeyed, and they attended in thousands, carrying with them banners with Welsh inscriptions, and a band of music playing before them.
That after parading the town, they arrived at the Union Workhouse, and demanded admission; the governor refused for some time, but seeing the crowd so great, he admitted them in, and the place was immediately filled, and were it not for the timely arrival of a detachment of the 4th Light Dragoons, the work of destruction which they had commenced would be carried on.
Several of the horses were left in the Workhouse yard, a number of the men were taken at the time, and that some of them were the prisoners at the bar.
Capt. David Davies.— I am a magistrate of this county.
I know defendant Harries — he is a miller, living at Talog mill.
He called on me on and delivered this letter to me.
I read it in his presence.
He said he had another for Mr. Morris for the same purpose, and away he went.
The letter was as follows:– “Talog, .— Sir— As we have been unlegally fined for refusing to pay Water-street gate, no refuse being made, we give you this offer if you are intending to pay the money to-day is the day.
John Harries and Thomas Thomas.”
He said unless paid they were coming to demand it on .
I was in the town of Carmarthen on .
I was with the magistrates in the Guildhall.
I saw a number of persons coming up towards the Hall from Lammas-street.
There were 350 on horseback, and a couple of thousands on foot.
There was a band of music on foot.
They came up part of the Hall and went up street.
They were a quarter of an hour passing.
The shops were shut.
The crowd did not alarm me.
Those on foot were agricultural boys and girls, farm servants.
I was not at all alarmed.
David Evans, road-surveyor.— On , I was sworn in as a special constable.
I live in this town.
On , I was required to assist the police to levy a distress on goods of Harries, the miller, for refusing to pay tolls at Water-street gate.
I went with other constables and police constables.
The attempt to distrain was resisted, and there was a great riot.
Towards the end of it they said they would pay Water-street gate a visit and take it down, and also pay the workhouse a visit and take it down.
Cross-examined.— I did not see either Isaac Charles, or John Lewis.
I do not believe they were there.
I believe they were not.
James Lewis.— I am the parish clerk of Abernant.
I have been so 14 years.
I attended Divine service there on .
It is the custom after service is over to cry anything that is lost, or give any public notice.
I cried a mare that was lost, on that day.
I was then desired by John Harries to give notice to parishioners to come to Carmarthen ; whoever stayed at home would do so at their peril.
I did not refuse to cry it, but I told him I had rather not.
He said there was no harm in it.
After I had made the proclamation, I heard Capt. Evans advise the people not to go.
Late in the evening, I heard a conversation between Capt. Evans and John Harries.
Cross-examined.— Isaac Charles and John Lewis were not at my church on that day.
Capt. Lewis Evans was called on.
Thomas Evans, fanner, of Placeparke, and Thomas Davies, of Bwlchnewydd, Newchurch parish, farm servant, confirmed the preceding statements.
John Rae Evans, master of the Carmarthen Workhouse.— On the morning of , my attention was attracted to a parcel of people idling and sitting about the hedge outside.
Perhaps 100 of them.
I had heard rumours that people from the country were to come to the workhouse that day.
Most were country people; about an equal number of women and men.
The gates were closed.
I afterwards saw a large body of people coming up.
We are on an elevation, and had a view of them.
Those in front were on foot, those behind on horseback.
There were hundreds on foot.
I saw musical instruments with them.
I did not hear any music.
They knocked and kicked at the door, and demanded admittance.
I was inside and can’t say who demanded admittance.
Mr. Evans of Placeparke begged me to admit him.
He advised me to open the door, otherwise it would be worse for me.
I said if they were respectable men I would admit them, but not such a rabble.
There was a great noise outside, and the knocking continued.
At last I told the porter to open the gate.
I was afraid, they were so numerous.
The mob rushed in.
I retreated to the dining-hall, they followed me.
The hall was full; some jumped on the table, others thumped the table with sticks.
I attempted to reason with them.
They said they wanted all the paupers out.
They said there was no further need of my services, nor the workhouse.
They demanded the keys of the men’s and women’s yard.
I refused to give them up, and they were wrenched out of my hand.
They got into the two yards.
I was requested to go to the workhouse, some of the pauper children were crying.
The mob wanted them to go out, they were frightened, and did not like to go out.
I heard the cry “the soldiers are coming.”
The room was soon emptied then.
One man struck me, it was Job Evans.
It was in the school-room.
I saw John Harries in the front of the house.
I did not see those in front of the house till they had been captured.
The back of the board-room was broken open.
I knew Isaac Charles perfectly well before this.
He came into the hall with the rest.
He jumped about, waved his hand, and was active amongst them.
He had no stick.
They cried “Hurrah!”
[Illegible]— I am a magistrate for this county.
[I was at Abernant?] church on .
I heard a [illegible] the crier what it was about.
He told me.
[illegible] not to go.
I addressed them in Welsh.
I [illegible] and Thomas had been fined.
I sent for them [and advised them to?] meet me at Cilwen that evening.
They did not come there.
I went out and afterwards met them.
I cannot be positive that Harris came, but Thomas did.
I went by the Plough and Harrow on my way to Carmarthen.
I saw Harris there; It was between 7 and 8. I desired Harris to come to town and get some of the magistrates to come and dissuade the people from coming.
I also dissuaded him and asked him not to come, and use his influence with them.
Harris said that if I spoke to Mr. Webb, a magistrate very much respected in town and country, and prevailed on him to come out, it might have great effect in preventing them from coming.
I met the band before I entered the town, and I told them the people were not coming, so as to persuade them not to come.
They said they were paid for coming and they would come.
I then came on to town.
I went out of town again and met them half a mile from the Plough and Harrow.
There was an immense crowd.
I did not distinguish Harris then.
I endeavoured to dissuade them from coming to town.
Mr. J.Ll.
Davies did so also.
They said that their motive was to go to tell the magistrates their grievances and not to do any harm.
A great many did stop with us, but the great body went on.
We said idle fellows in town would get them into mischief.
James Morse, Stamp Distributor.— On , I overtook a cavalcade of horsemen and footmen moving down King-street.
They came through Guildhall-square, and went towards the workhouse.
The foot had entered the workhouse before I got up.
I had got ahead of the horsemen.
There were from 300 to 500 horsemen, and from 1,500 to 1,800 on foot.
I got into the workhouse between two horsemen.
I saw the master, he appeared frightened.
I spoke to the mob and exhorted them to go home and petition parliament.
My address gave them satisfaction, as I touched upon the Educational bill — being dissenters they listened to me, and gave me three cheers.
I was interrupted by a man upsetting the iron bedsteads.
I spoke to him and he doubled his fists and said “come on.”
He did not strike me.
He desisted from upsetting the beds.
I afterwards gave him into custody.
I do not know his name.
I did not see either Charles or John there.
Eliza Evans— I am the matron of the union workhouse[.]
I was at the kitchen door when they came in.
A man said he would injure me if I would not give the key of the pantry.
He said he would kill me.
I refused the keys.
Another man held his fist in my face.
He said I had locked the children in the pantry.
There was a great deal of noise.
The house seemed coming down.
The bed-clothes were thrown out through the windows.
The children were about me crying, and praying the mob not to kill their mistress.
They said they would provide a place for them.
All of a sudden they all disappeared.
I then saw the military.
One board up stairs was forced up; it was sound before.
Daniel Levy, John Pugh, Thomas Hughes and others were examined.
The jury, after retiring for a short time, found the whole of the prisoners guilty, and sentence was deferred.
The Talog Rioters.
John Jones, Jonathan Jones, Howell Lewis[,] Jonathan Lewis, David Davies, and David Lewis, were charged with having committed a riot and assault at Tallog, in the parish of Abernant, on .
Mr. Chilton opened the pleadings, and stated that the prisoners were charged with having tumultuously assembled at the village of Tallog, and obstructed the levying of a distress upon the goods of John Harris, for non-payment of toll at Water-street gate.
That the goods distrained upon were rescued by the prisoners, and the constables assaulted by the mob.
That Jonathan Jones had a hatchet with him, Jonathan Lewis carried a gun, and David Davies was loud in his abuse.
His lordship having summed up the evidence, the jury acquitted the prisoner John Jones, but Jonathan Jones, Howell Lewis, Jonathan Lewis, David Davies, and David Lewis, were found guilty, and ordered to be in attendance to receive judgment when called for.
The court then commenced the following case:—
Thomas Lewis and Thomas Morgan were then indicted on the charge of having destroyed the turnpike gate and toll-house at Dolauhirion, near the town of Llandovery.
The court adjourned.
.
His lordship entered the court at , and the trial of the previous evening was proceeded with.
After the examination of several witnesses, the jury acquitted the prisoners.
John Jones, Thomas Hughes, and Benjamin Jones, were then indicted on the charge of having destroyed Pontarllechau gate and toll-house, near Llangadock, on .
His lordship, after the examination of several witnesses, summed up; after which the jury retired to consider their verdict.
In a short time they returned, and delivered a verdict of “Guilty” against the three defendants.
They were ordered to be detained in custody.
, the Learned Judge took his seat on the bench at nine o’clock.
The Court, from an early hour, was extremely crowded, in consequence of the trials of several parties upon charges of Rebecca riots and burglary.
Thomas Powell, John James, Evan Davies, David Evans, Thomas Thomas, John Thomas, and John Thomas were placed at the bar, on a charge of having, on [the Pembrokeshire Herald and General Advertiser says ], at the parish of Llanfihangel-ar-arth, burglariously entered the house of one Daniel Harris, and stealing therefrom various sums of money.
In other counts of the indictment, they were charged with assaults on various persons, and in others with having riotously, unlawfully, and tumultuously assembled, and creating a great noise, riot, and disturbance against the peace of our Sovereign Lady the Queen, her Crown, and dignity.
David Thomas was also charged with being an accessory before the fact.
The names of two other persons (not in custody) were also in the calendar.
Messrs.
Chilton, Q.C., Evans, Q.C., and E.V. Williams appeared for the Crown.
Mr. Richards defended the prisoners David Evans, David Thomas, and John Thomas.
The others were undefended by Counsel.
Mr. Chilton, Q.C., addressed the jury on behalf of the Crown.
May it please your Lordship, Gentlemen of the Jury,— The prisoners at the bar are indicted — seven of them as principals, and David Thomas as an accessory before the fact — for one of the most heinous crimes known to the law — the crime of burglary and, gentlemen, before I proceed to state facts, which will be adduced in evidence, I will observe, that I think it highly probable that, from the circumstance of the great publicity which has been given, and is invariably attendant upon offences of this description, and from the circumstance of myself and my Learned Friends appearing to conduct the prosecution on behalf of the Crown, that you are fully aware that this charge is, in some degree, mixed up with the gross outrages which have lately disgraced the country, under the name of Rebeccaism.
Were this an ordinary case of that description, I should, in the performance of my duty, feel it incumbent upon me to caution you against those feelings which it is natural, and in some points of view excusable, that men moving in your stations in life should entertain; for I will not attempt to deny but that there may have been heavy burdens which the agricultural population may have, for a length of time, endured, and which it may be difficult for them to endure longer.
I can make considerable allowances for this kind of feeling, but, gentlemen, in this case it will be my duty to lay before you one of the most melancholy instances of the great evil of listening to that most dangerous — most seductive doctrine, of “doing evil that good might come” — of doing that which in itself is wrong and vicious for the purpose of producing some real or imaginary good.
In ordinary cases, the evils of Rebeccaism may have this extenuation, though it cannot for a moment be considered either a justification or an excuse, that they have violated the law for the purpose of suppressing and extinguishing some real or supposed public grievance; but, gentlemen, so long as human nature is human nature, and so long as the feelings and passions of humanity are what they are, when once the law is set at defiance, there will, as disclosed in a former case, false Rebeccas arise, and take advantage of the prevalence of lawless violence, and pervert those feelings for the accomplishment of private purposes — either to satisfy private malignity and spite, or, what is worse, private cupidity and love of lucre, as I fear has been the case in the charge before us.
Therefore, so far from calling upon you to guard yourselves against feelings in favour of Rebeccaism, I shall call upon you to exercise the greatest care and caution before you convict either of the prisoners at the bar, to see that the charge is fully proved, and clearly brought home to them.
As to the commission of the offence, and its commission under circumstances which certainly admit of no excuse or extenuation there cannot possibly arise the slightest doubt.
Having made those few observations, I shall now give you a brief outline of the proceedings out of which has originated the present charge.
The house which was broken open and entered on , belonged to a very old man of the name of Daniel Harris, who had no more to do with turnpike-gates or turnpike tolls than you, the gentlemen of the jury or myself.
He had to pay them, but with that exception he was in no other way connected with them.
He resided — I say resided, for I must tell you that these outrages and violence were such — I will not tell you that they hastened his death, but, at all events, he is now no more, and I shall be obliged to put his written testimony in evidence against the prisoners.
He resided on a farm called Pantyfen Issa, in the parish of Llanfihangelararth, in this county, and, at the time of the outrage, the old man’s wife, daughter, his son-in-law, a boy, and a servant named Mary Titus, were the only inmates of the house.
It is beyond doubt, that in the dead of night, during the night of , they were aroused from their beds by a disguised mob, armed with fire-arms, reaping-hooks, bludgeons, and other implements, and who commenced violently beating the door, demanding admittance in the most intimidating manner, and by their threats compelled the inmates to open the door.
That they were compelled to open the door by intimidation could not he denied, when, as you shall hear from the witnesses, they were told by the armed mob that they “would not wait long for them.”
Having been admitted, they entered the house to the number of eleven or twelve, and inquired if the old man had received a letter from Rebecca.
I believe his son-in-law answered that he had not, when one of the mob replied that he had received more than one; they then demanded the sum of 20l. for a woman named Gwenllian Lewis.
The old man told them that he had got but a sovereign and a shilling in the house.
They then desired the son-in-law to procure them a candle, and Mary Titus, the servant, having lighted one, ran upstairs and hid under the bed.
She could therefore give them no further account of the transaction.
They searched the house, but could find no more than the 1l. 1s., which they compelled old Harris to deliver up.
One of the mob then drew a ready written stamped promissory note for 20l. from his pocket, and insisted upon the old man signing it for this Gwenllian Lewis; they also insisted upon his son-in-law signing it as a security.
This note they compelled them to sign, armed with guns and pistol.
Having given them the money, the old man told them they had taken all he had got, that he not even a farthing to buy tobacco, upon which the one shilling was returned to him.
You shall hear from the witnesses the enquiries made respecting the time the note became payable, and other details.
I have already told you that the mob were not only armed, but that they were all disguised.
Indeed, they were so much so, that the inmates of the house do not affect to identify any of them.
To prove these facts, I shall call before you James Davies, the son-in-law, and Mary Titus.
I cannot call the wife, in consequence of her infirmities, but of these facts there can be no doubt.
The next question that arises is, how do I affect the prisoners at the bar.
In the first place, it will be my duty to call before you two accomplices.
They will tell you that the prisoner, David Thomas, who is charged with being an accessory before the fact, was the prime mover and instigator of the whole transaction.
The prisoners first assembled at the house of David Thomas, on , having intended making the attack on that night.
But owing to circumstances which will appear by the evidence, they did not make the attack on that night, but met again on at the house of the prisoner, David Thomas.
There they disguised themselves, and went and did that which has been briefly detailed to yon.
The witnesses will describe to you the part taken by each of the prisoners in the affairs of the night, though I will tell you, under the direction of his Lordship, that it is not necessary to prove what each prisoner did for if it will be proved that they went out together with one common purpose, they are all equally guilty.
Now, Gentlemen, his Lordship will tell you, that you cannot with safety rely upon the evidence of an accomplice, unless his evidence be corroborated in some material points by the evidence of untainted witnesses, who have not participated in the crime.
Now. gentlemen, how do I corroborate their testimony?
In the first place, I shall show you the motive which had actuated the prisoner, David Thomas, throughout the whole transaction.
The money was demanded from the old man pretendedly for Gwenllian Lewis.
In fact, you will find that David Thomas had a kind of smattering in law.
On , he entered into an agreement with Gwenllian Lewis, for the purchase of a supposed claim which she had upon Daniel Harris.
He (prisoner) was to give her 13l., free of all expenses, for the amount of her claim, which was considerably more; but he was not to pay the 13l. until he had got the sum claimed from old Harris.
Now I conclude, from the circumstance of no proceedings having been taken , as he did not go to law, that he found the claim was not good; but in the meantime Rebecca had arisen, and he made use of the terrors of Rebeccaism to enforce a claim which he could not do by the law of the land.
The son-in-law will prove that he saw one letter upon the subject in the possession of the old man, Harris.
In addition to that, it will be proved by David Lewis, who will be called, that the prisoner, David Thomas, offered him 1l. if he would go that night to Pantyfen, bringing with him a pistol, a sword, or any other implement.
He made some excuse, and did not go.
I will also state, that another witness was offered 8s. by David Thomas, for going to the same place.
Another witness, John Jones, whose conduct I cannot commend as being entirely free from blame, yet who cannot be considered or treated as an accomplice, actually went to Thomas’s house on , and saw all the prisoners at the bar there.
After they had dressed themselves in disguise, he told them that he had seen a person on the road who would be a likely party to give information to Mr. Price, the Magistrate, if he saw them.
In consequence of that intimation, it was agreed that they should meet and proceed to Pantyfen on .
David Thomas then said — for it was often found that the ringleader shrunk from the danger — “I will not go with you, but shall show myself at Blaenpant, that Morgans might be a witness that I had nothing to do with the matter.”
There are, Gentlemen, many other facts connected with the case, which I have thought it unnecessary to state, but which you shall hear from the witnesses.
You shall also hear a confession which has been made by one of the prisoners, John Thomas, of Blaenrhidian; but that you cannot consider as evidence against any of the other prisoners.
You shall also hear the statement of a witness, to whom David Thomas gave an account of the proceeding.
He told him much of what had taken place, and added, that he thought they had acted too leniently — that he should again go there himself, and compel the old man to pay them 40l. in cash.
He had, ere that, discovered that a promissory note, obtained under such circumstances, could not be worth a penny, and that any idea of enforcing it would be futile.
In point of fact, he did go to Pantyfen, but as that will be the subject of another prosecution, I forbear dwelling upon it.
There is one circumstance connected with the prisoner, David Evans, that he fled the country; vigilant search had been made before he was discovered.
He was, however, subsequently found concealed under a rug.
I do not request you to give that circumstance more than its due weight.
I believe I have given you an outline of the most prominent features of the case.
You will attend and watch the evidence, and see that the charge is clearly brought home before you convict, and I am confident your verdict, whatever it may be will give satisfaction to the country.
James Davies examined by Mr. Evans:— I am the son-in-law of the late Daniel Harris, of Pantyfen.
I lived with him in .
He is since dead.
He died on .
Pantyfen is in the parish of Llanvihangel-ar-arth.
I remember , being the night before the Carmarthen August fair.
I, my wife, and father-in-law slept at Pantyfen on the night in question.
Mary Titus and a boy also slept in the house.
We were disturbed about twelve o’clock that night.
We had retired to bed about nine or ten o’clock.
I, my wife, and the old man slept in the same room.
We were disturbed by strange people beating the doors and calling out.
We were very much alarmed, and I rose and opened the door.
After I opened the door, they said they required money for Gwenllian Lewis.
Before I opened the door, they told me to open it in five minutes, or they would destroy the old man’s property.
It was a fine moonlight night.
On opening the door, I saw a number of people, about ten or twelve, strangely disguised — their faces were painted.
I cannot describe their dresses, as I was too much alarmed.
They told me that they had sent two ’Becca letters to the old man.
Several of them came to the house, there being two of them with guns, one with a pistol, and another with a sword.
They said they wanted money for Gwenllian Lewis.
There was one who had a red coat.
My father-in-law got up, and came to the passage.
He said he had not such a sum of money in the house, for they had then named 20l. as the sum required.
The old man had said he had only 1l. 1s. in the house.
They ordered me to light a candle.
They said, if I would not they would destroy the things.
I called on Mary Titus to light a candle; she did so, and then went up-stairs.
One of the men then pulled out of his pocket a ready-written note for 20l., After reading it, he requested the old man to sign it.
He did so.
They then said that I must sign it.
Those who had guns, &c., stood at this time each side of the door.
My father-in-law said he required two months to pay.
One man said he should have three months to pay.
The old man requested them to write the time he was to pay it.
One of them then wrote something on the back of the note.
Harris asked where he was to pay the money.
One of them said into Morris’s Bank.
Another told him to pay it into Wilkins’s Bank.
The old man had the shilling back, to pay for a quarter of tobacco, after he had paid them the sovereign and the shilling.
The mob remained in the house for about half-an-hour.
Cross-examined by Mr. Richards:– I can write, but that night I only put my mark to the note.
My father-in-law likewise only put his mark.
The undefended prisoners put the witness no question.
John Lloyd Price, Esq., is a Magistrate for the county — took the examination of Daniel Harries, in the presence of the prisoners.
The examination of Daniel Harries was taken in Welsh, and translated into English.
After it was written, it was explained to deceased witness the second time.
He signed it by attaching his mark to it.
By the Court:— The prisoners were taken into custody, and brought before me by warrant, in consequence of information received after the outrage.
Daniel Harries had given witness information of the outrage, and in three or four months time one of the accomplices informed against several of the prisoners whom the police, by the direction of witness, apprehended.
Cross-examined by Mr. Richards:— The party who gave me information, first gave evidence voluntarily, but understanding that he had been tampered with, I sent for him.
I do not remember whether the proclamation offering rewards for the destruction of gates and houses by fire was then published.
I did not offer the informant any money.
Cross-examined by John Thomas:– I never promised to keep the prisoner safe and give him work if he would make the same statement as Evan Davis.
Re-examined by Mr. Chilton, Q.C.:— [Handing a written statement to witness.]
John Thomas made the confession contained in this paper.
I did not offer him a reward, or held out a threat or anything else.
Cross-examined:— Prisoner made the confession before Mr. Prytherch, myself, and the Clerk, Mr. Spurrell.
He made it voluntarily, as he wished to become Queen’s evidence.
Daniel Prytherch, Esq., was called, said he was present when prisoner signed the confession.
No threat or reward was held out to him.
Mr. Richard Spurrel examined:– I am Clerk to the Magistrates.
I took the examination on .
This witness corroborated Mr. Price’s evidence as to the mode adopted in taking the examination.
The examination of Daniel Harris, the deceased, was then put in, but the Court objected to it, as it had not appeared by the evidence that the prisoners were present when it was taken.
Mr. Price was recalled to prove this circumstance.
The examination of the deceased was then put in, and translated to the prisoners.
It was in substance the same as that given by his son-in-law, the first witness called.
The confession of the prisoner, John Thomas, was then put in and read.
The deposition said that he had been induced to go there by the other prisoner, his master — that they went to Penlan, the house of one of the prisoners, and there disguised themselves.
He then named the parties present, and described the weapons carried by each of the prisoners.
Prisoner himself carried a gun, and the others various other arms, such as pistols, hooks, &c. The rest of his evidence corroborated the deposition of the deceased and his son-in-law’s evidence.
Mary Titus, the servant of the deceased Daniel Harris, of Pantyfen, was then examined by Mr. Vaughan Williams.— She corroborated the evidence given in part, but not as to all the facts detailed, as she had retired up stairs as soon as the mob appeared.
Evan Davies, one of the approvers, now gave evidence.
He said that John Thomas, one of the prisoners, came to his house, requested him to go with him to Pantyfen, to get money.
He said there was an agreement between him and Gwenllian Lewis, that he was to raise 40l. — that he was to divide 5l. between the company.
Witness assented.
He went to the prisoner’s (John Thomas’s) house, on .
There were several persons there — David Richards, Llethermelyn, John Thomas, Penlan, David Richards, David Evans, John James, of Groft, David Evans, of Penrhiwfach, John and Thomas Powell, John Thomas of Blanrhidian, and Thomas Thomas, of Cwmygor.
There were more there who were not at the bar.
There was a man named John Jones, a carpenter, there.
We blackened our faces, and disguised ourselves that night.
I can’t say how far the house is from Pantyfen.
It might have been 10 o’clock.
They did not go to deceased’s house that night, for David Thomas said they had better not go, as it was too late, and some person might tell Mr. Price, the magistrate.
They agreed to go on the next night.
David Thomas said, that as he was the most forward about the money, he had better not go, lest they should suspect him, but that he would show himself by going to Blaenpant, to buy a horse, and take Morgan with him as a witness to prove where he was on that night.
On , they again met at the house, and a number of persons, whom witness named [all who were there on the previous night with the exception of John Jones and David Thomas], then went to the house, and having blackened their faces and disguised themselves in various ways, commenced their journey.
Witness was dressed in a gown, and the others in various dresses — John Powell in a red coat.
David Thomas said he was going to Blaenpant.
They then went, all on foot, and when near Glangwilly they met a person with a cart, and also saw some boys in a wood near Glangwilly.
One of the party ran after the boys.
David Evans had something like a bayonet.
David Richards and John Powell carried guns.
I do not know who carried the pistol.
They arrived at Pantyfen, and knocked and kicked at the door, and threatened, if they did not open it, they would do some injury.
A candle having been lighted, several of them went in.
This accomplice’s evidence corroborated the evidence of the residents of Pantyfen in every particular, and was very similar, with the exception of his describing the names of of the various prisoners who took part in the transactions of the night.
Cross-examined:— I did not go for the sake of getting a share of the 5l. I was afraid of David Thomas.
I was examined before the Magistrates on , and in .
I think I told the Magistrates about 5l., but am not quite sure that I did.
[Mr. Richards then put in the witnesses depositions.]
Examination continued:— One of the guns was fired in Pantyfen yard.
He had not drank anything before going, but on returning they drank a little beer at Pencader.
They did no violence to the old man.
David Richards, Llethermelyn, gave the old man the shilling, and the latter thanked him.
He did not appear pleased.
His (witness’s) object in going to Mr. Price was, because he saw that the county was in a bad state — that there would soon be no order or law, and he was constantly troubled by his wife about it.
I know Margaret Richards, Abergwilly.
I never spoke to her about this business.
I remember I am on my oath.
I will swear, and swear an honest oath, that I never told her Mr. Price had offered 50l. for informing.
I know Benjamin Jones — I never spoke to him about this.
Never said to Margaret Richards, if I knew Talog as well as she did I would inform against some one.
I don’t know Thomas Stephen.
I never told him that I had money, and was subpœned to give evidence against the prisoners, but that I had nothing to say against them but what one of the prisoners told me.
[Mr. Richards here put in the depositions relative to a burglary alleged to have been committed by the same prisoners on the 22d, with a view of proving, that, in giving evidence relating to the second transaction, nothing relating to the first was mentioned by witness, but on reading the deposition it did appear that he had mentioned the former.]
This witness’s examination and cross-examination lasted for two hours.
John Jones examined:— I am a carpenter living in Abergwilly.
I know David Thomas, the prisoner.
Saw him on .
He asked me to come with him to Pantyfen.
I did not know where Pantyfen was.
He said he wished to get money from Gwenllian.
I said I did not like to go, but at last promised to go.
We were to meet at David Thomas, of Penlan’s house.
He said he was not going himself.
He went on ], and named the persons who were present.
They were the same as those mentioned by the last witness.
All the prisoners were there besides two not in custody.
Witness described the circumstance of their having blackened their faces and changed their dresses, but thinking it too late they left and agreed to meet the next night.
They did so all with the exception of John Jones, of Caerphilly.
He was not present on the second night.
The evidence relating to the arms and weapons borne by each of the prisoners was precisely the same as, and corroboratory of, the other evidence.
The description given of the conduct of the parties at Pantyfen was also the same as that already given.
Cross-examined by Mr. Richards:— The old man said that he owed nothing to Gwenllian.
I never heard of the proclamation offering a reward before I gave the information.
Never heard of Colonel Trevor’s proclamation.
Never told Mr. Benjamin Jones that Mr. Price, the Magistrate, had offered me 50l. reward for informing.
Re-examined:— Witness had been ill in bed from the time of the occurrence to the present time.
John Jones, Derllwyn, examined:— I remember hearing of people having been at Pantyfen.
I was on that night by a wood near Glangwilly.
There were two other boys with us.
We saw about ten people walking on the road.
This witness’s evidence was deemed immaterial, and he was dismissed.
David Davies examined by Mr. Chilton, said that, on one occasion, the prisoner David Thomas requested him to go with him to Penlan to get 40l. for a woman.
Witness refused to go.
He then wished to borrow two guns, which witness would not give.
On the following day, David Thomas told him they had been at Pantyfen, and had got 1l. 1s., and had given the old man one shilling back — that they had got the note signed.
William Lewis examined, said, that in , the prisoner, David Thomas, requested him to go with him to Pantyfen, to bring a gun, pistol, and sword with him, and that he should have a sovereign.
He also had asked him .
He did not speak about being armed on the second time.
Told him first time he would go.
The second time he requested me to go with him, and I said, no I would not.
Esau Daniel examined:— Remembers previous to August fair that prisoner, David Thomas, requested him to accompany him to Llanfihangel-ar-Arth, and would give him a share of 5l..
John Jones, Caerphilly, said, that at the request of John Thomas he went to the first meeting at his house.
He named all the prisoners as being present, and two others not in custody.
They all disguised themselves but witness.
He said that he would not go with them to Pantyfen, as he had seen David, of Bryn-amlwg, passing through the yard.
David Evans was disguised in a stuff-cloak and bonnet.
They left the house, and postponed going that night, and agreed to meet on the following night.
Witness did not go that night.
He refused to have anything to do with them.
John Guy, of the A division of Metropolitan Police, examined:– Had been a long time in search of David Evans.
Went in to his father’s house.
His sister denied his being in the house.
On searching, he found him concealed.
Edward Edwards, was called to prove his having seen the signature of David Thomas, the prisoner, and Gwenllian Lewis attached to an agreement.
The agreement was read.
It was one entered into between Thomas and the female, by which she agreed to sell the alleged legacy due from Daniel Harris to her for the sum of 13l., and if he could not recover it the agreement was to be void.
John Davies proved that shortly before the outrage, John Thomas told him to go where they had been to before.
Witness understood he referred to their having been at Pantyfen.
Prisoner said that they had dealt too leniently with the old man, and that they were going again, that he would go there himself, and make him pay in money.
He asked witness if he would come?
Witness said no.
He asked if his son should come.
Witness declined acceding to his request.
He then said, “I could procure enough of men, if I could get horses.”
At last witness consented to lend him a saddle.
Mr. Chilton now announced that this was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Richards then addressed the jury for the three prisoners, David Evans, David Thomas, and Thomas Thomas, and in doing so he wished it to be understood, that he perfectly agreed with the observations made, with becoming solemnity, by the Learned Counsel (Mr. Chilton), who led for the Crown, on the atrocious enormities which had been lately committed in that county; but he contended that neither of the three prisoners represented by him were present at the time alleged.
There could be no doubt but that a great outrage, as detailed in evidence, had been committed by some persons at Pantyfen, on the night in question, and he also agreed with his Learned Friend who represented the Attorney-General, that, on this occasion, the outrage was one of a private nature, under the garb of public utility.
Mr. Richards then commented upon the unreasonableness of the proceeding adopted to get the vote by David Thomas when he might have known that payment could never have been enforced.
The Learned Gentleman then commented upon the whole of the evidence.
He referred to the rewards offered by Government, and attributed perjury to the witnesses for the prosecution.
Having remarked at considerable length upon the evidence given for the prosecution, Mr. Richards proceeded to state that he would call evidence to prove that David Evans was at a distance of miles off on the night in question, having called at the house of a friend at Soar, which is nine miles distant from Pantyfen.
John Thomas, one of the prisoners, addressed the jury, and said that he had been in the same room in gaol as the witness Evan Davies for about an hour — that Davies wished the prisoner to turn Queen’s evidence, and state the same thing as he did, and that he should get a share of the 50l. which Mr. Price had given him — that he had got John Jones and another witness for the prosecution to swear the same things, and that he (prisoner) said he did not like to tell untruth about his neighbours, and that Mr. Price, the magistrate, said he would be quite safe if he would inform; but he would not do so, as he knew he had a soul.
[This is the prisoner who made the statement in confession to the Magistrates].
Evan Evans was then called as a witness to prove an alibi on behalf of David Evans.
He swore that the prisoner called at his house on the night in question, to make arrangements about going to Hereford.
In cross-examination witness said, that he was the prisoner’s uncle, and he fixed the time so exactly, because prisoner called at his house on the night previous to the fair at Carmarthen.
Evan Jones said he called at Evan Evans’s house on the night in question, and saw the prisoner there.
This witness contradicted the last in one very material point.
Enock Jones was called to prove the same thing.
Mary Evans was called for the same purpose.
Margaret Richards, sister of David Richards, one of the parties charged (but not in custody) with being one of the burglars, gave evidence to prove an alibi for Thomas Thomas.
She also proved that Evan Davies, one of the prosecution witnesses, said that he had been offered 50l. for swearing about Pantyfen.
Benjamin Jones was brought on to prove a similar thing.
Mary Richards, the wife of one of the parties charged, but since absconded, came to prove that one of the prosecution witnesses made to her a statement, but which had been contradicted in cross-examination by that witness.
Several witnesses to character having been called, Mr. Chilton was in the act of replying, when the Judge intimated that, as the case had occupied the whole day, and would in all probability occupy some hours longer, the Court had better be adjourned.
Accommodations for the night were then ordered to be provided for the jury, and the Court was adjourned.
. —
the burglary case was proceeded with.
— Several witnesses were called to give the various prisoners good characters.
Mr. Chilton then addressed the jury in reply.
He commenced by vindicating the characters of the witnesses for the prosecutions from the attacks made upon them by Mr. Richards.
He was extremely sorry that in his defence his Learned Friend had found it necessary so indiscriminately to attack all the witnesses, from the Magistrates who performed their arduous duties so fearlessly during the late alarming state of the country, to the policeman who did his duties, and acted under the direction of the Magistrates.
The Learned Gentleman then proceeded to point out the gross contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses who were called to prove alibis, all of whom, with the exception of Benjamin Jones, were relations either of the prisoners, or of those who, being charged with the burglary, had absconded.
Many of the discourses said to have been made use of about the proclamations, were stated to have taken place even before the rewards had been offered.
Mr. Chilton then dwelt at considerable length upon the evidence of accomplices.
It would be dangerous to convict upon the evidence of an accomplice, unless corroborated in some important points by the evidence of untainted witnesses.
Such, he contended, was the case in this instance.
The Learned Counsel for the defence had contended that it was extremely improbable that David Thomas should have committed himself into the confidence of so many persons as he was represented to have done; but it indisputably appeared that the offence had been committed by some people.
Some persons had committed themselves into the power of so many people.
Then came the questions, Who did so?
Who had a motive for doing so?
He (Mr. Chilton) contended, that a strong motive was proved by the agreement entered into between the prisoner Thomas and Gwenllian Lewis — that the former should pay her 13l. in case he should, by any means, procure a larger sum from Daniel Harries, the deceased.
How could the accomplices have known anything respecting that agreement, had they not been informed about it by the prisoner?
But even setting aside their evidence, the guilt of the two Thomas’s was proved by that of untainted witnesses.
Mr. Chilton went over the whole of the evidence, and concluded a very powerful address by entreating the jury to give the case that weight and consideration which its importance deserved and give the prisoners the benefit of any reasonable doubts.
The Learned Judge then summed up the evidence.
The first question for the jury to consider was, whether an offence of the nature of that described by the witnesses had been committed.
It was his duty to tell them that, if entrance was effected into a house by threat or intimidation, in law, it amounted to burglary, though the door might have been opened not by force, but by its having been opened by the inmates of the house.
However strong the evidence against David Thomas, as an accessory before the fact, might be, yet, if the others were not guilty, he could not be convicted, for he was charged with having abetted and procured them, and not other persons.
His Lordship then directed the jury how to receive the evidence of accomplices.
The law empowered juries to convict upon the evidence of accomplices only, yet it was never safe to convict upon their evidence, unless corroborated in some important points by other evidence given by untainted witnesses.
His Lordship then read over the most important portions of the evidence, and contrasted the various parts corroborative of, or apparently inconsistent with, the rest of the evidence.
The jury then retired, and after about forty minutes absence, returned a verdict of Guilty against all the prisoners.
You may note that this account tends to report the prosecution’s case as fact and often neglects to say what the defense witnesses actually said (summarizing instead, often in an unflattering way).
Maybe they just weren’t very credible, or maybe this is another case of bias in the English-language press in Wales.
One difference is that Evan Davies, one of the accomplices turned informer, made an explicit “Rebecca” connection, saying that during the robbery: “We told the old man that Becca had come there to get the money which he owed Gwenllian Lewis under a will.”
Another is the account of John Jones’s testimony.
In this version, he says that it was David Thomas who came to him to ask him to join the conspiracy.
Also, this version lists the people in attendance at the meeting: “John Jones, (one of the witnesses,) Thomas Thomas, Esau Davies, John Thomas, David Richards, John Powell, John James, David Evans, and John Thomas, Penlan, father of David Thomas, who was also there.”
The description of John Guy’s testimony of how he found David Evans is more detailed: “I then searched the house, and found the prisoner in a loft under some straw, with a rug wrapped around his head, to conceal his face.
There was no bed there.
His clothes were brought from below, by one of his sisters, I think.”
But this account is even more sparing on presenting the case for the defense.
It just gives this one-sentence summary: “Mr. Richards, for the prisoners, whom he defended, addressed the jury; and called witnesses, who gave several of the prisoners good characters.”
James Thomas and Thomas Thomas, were then placed at the bar, and charged with having, on , feloniously aided and abetted one John Jones, (Shoni Scyborfawr,) in discharging a certain loaded fire-arm, called a gun, at one Margaret Thomas, with intent to murder her, or to do her some grievous bodily harm.
[The Cambrian adds: “In other counts of the indictment the intent was varied, and also the individuals shot at.
— This case excited the greatest interest, in consequence of the respectability of the family and connexions of the former prisoner.”]
The prisoners pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Chilton addressed the jury for the prosecution, and stated that the prisoners were charged with shooting at one Margaret Thomas, with another person of the name of John Jones, called Shoni Scyborfawr, who had been convicted of Rebecca riots at the Winter Assizes.
Thomas Thomas was a most respectable man, and he was sorry to see him standing at the bar to answer the change of taking part in these disgraceful outrages.
He begged the jury to dismiss all prejudice from their minds, and give the matter full consideration; and observed that he would bring evidence before them, which would prove the guilt of the prisoners.
The prosecutor was one Evan Thomas, a weaver, at Porthyrhyd, whose house had been frequently attacked by the Rebeccaites.
On , the mob came to the house, and demanded admittance, put the muzzles of their guns through the window, and fired them into the room, at the wife and children; and a shot entered the thigh of one of the children, and it was a mercy the prisoners were not standing at that bar to be tried on the charge of murder.
The son-in-law would prove the identity of Thomas Thomas, as he knew his person and voice well, and heard him giving directions to the mob, saying, “Shoot him, shoot him.”
The women also knew his voice.
A paper of protection to Evan Thomas, written by Mrs. Thomas, wife of Thomas Thomas, the prisoner, was read.
It desired protection to him from the further molestations of ’Becca, as he expressed his contrition for anything he had done against her, and he would give up the office of constable.
[The Cambrian includes this part of the speech, which gives more details about the attack: “Were he calling the attention of the jury to a mere case of the destruction of a turnpike gate, or of a toll-house, he should feel himself called upon to offer some observations upon the awful and important responsibility of the oath which they had taken, and which called upon them to disregard all prejudices — aye, even if they considered that no very great crime was committed by pulling down a turnpike-gate or house, and so get rid of tolls… But, however much opinions might differ respecting gates and tolls, no honest man could, by any possibility, sympathize with such outrages as he should prove were committed on the night in question, under the guise of Rebeccaism.
The prosecutor in this case was a weaver and small farmer, who had also acted for a number of years as constable in the parish of Porthyrhyd, and the only offence with which he was charged was, that he honestly performed his duties as a constable, which rendered him very inimical to those who, calling themselves Rebeccaites, had resolved upon exterminating turnpike-gates.
In consequence of this, his life was in peril; he had received letter after letter containing all kinds of threats.
His house was attacked, night after night, so that it had become impossible for him longer to continue residing in it.
He had therefore left it on , his wife, son-in-law, two daughters and children remaining therein.
On , in the dead of night, after having retired to rest — they were aroused by a mob, in which were a great number of persons dressed after the fashion of Rebecca, armed with guns, pickaxes, bludgeons, and various other implements.
They demanded that Evan Thomas should be given up to them.
His daughter, alarmed as she was, got up, and assured them that Evan Thomas was not in the house.
They replied that they would have him, or destroy all who were in the house.
They then pulled down a temporary shutter — for the window had been destroyed on a previous night — and pointed three guns, which it would again appear were loaded with slugs, with their muzzles towards the half-naked woman.
This was repeated, and he should prove to the jury that some of the guns were loaded with shot; and it was almost a miracle that the prisoners had not to stand at that bar, and answer to a charge of murder — for murder it must unquestionably have been were any lives lost on that occasion.
Slugs were afterwards discovered in the furniture, and a shot had been extracted from the child’s thigh.
… He should tell them one circumstance, which showed that Thomas Thomas took part in the Rebecca disturbances, and had some influence with those people.
Attacks had been made on the house of the prosecutor, Evan Thomas, in , and he went to the residence of Thomas Thomas, with the hope of making a friend of him, and asked him for protection from the depredations of the Rebeccaites.
The prisoner promised to write him a kind of paper or petition, if he called next day.
He did so on a subsequent day, when the prisoner gave him a piece of written paper, and told him if he would get a few of the neighbours to sign it, the Beccas would leave him alone.
The paper was written in prisoner’s presence, by Mrs. Thomas, who undoubtedly, from the style of the writing, &c., was a person of respectable education.
The Learned Counsel then read the document; it was to the following effect:— ‘The undersigned, Evan Thomas, begs to inform those who call themselves Beccaites, that he is heartily sorry if he has done anything to injure any one, and sincerely hopes they will allow his family and self to rest in peace from henceforth.
He sincerely promises never again to act as constable in this or any other parish, as he is told that is one great objection you have to him, but will from hence endeavour to become a comfort to his family, and regain the friendship of the country, which he finds he has entirely lost.’ ”]
After the examination of the witness, his lordship directed the jury to return a verdict of “Not guilty” of that charge.
The Cambrian is almost as vague.
Apparently the prosecution presented one witness — George Thomas — who, in the Cambrian’s words, testified “in nearly the same words as given in the following charge of misdemeanor against the same defendants” but apparently didn’t give enough substantiation to the felony charge.
The judge seems to have ruled that if the defendants had actually had the intent to shoot to kill or wound the unarmed woman trapped like an animal in a cage, they would have probably actually hit the mark, and so the prosecutor was going to have too high a bar to meet.
So the prosecutor went with Plan B: misdemeanour charges.
The same persons were again put on their trial, and charged with having, on , riotously and tumultuously assembled together, at Porthyrhyd, in the parish of Llanddarog, in this county, and then and there made a great noise, riot, and disturbance, and then and there divers of her Majesty’s liege subjects put in bodily fear, against the peace of our Sovereign Lady the Queen, &c.
The prisoners were acquitted.
Here, again, the Cambrian gives more detail, with the testimony for the defense and prosecution.
I am the son-in-law of the prosecutor, Evan Thomas, who was a constable in , and lived at Porthyrhyd, in a cottage adjoining the road.
My wife, self, and child, slept in his house on .
Mary Thomas, Elizabeth Thomas, and Evan Thomas’s wife were in the house.
We had retired about ten o’clock.
Soon after retiring, we heard great noises of blowing of horns, &c. The mob were passing in the direction from Llanddarog to Swansea.
We heard firing.
In a short time after, when they were returning, I also heard firing.
The mob were calling for Evan Thomas.
Witness lighted a candle, when he saw three guns pointed between a board of the window and the wall.
The board was then pulled down, when witness perceived that it was a fine moonlight night.
I saw a large crowd of disguised persons; there were from thirty to fifty people outside.
After my mother-in-law opened the window, she said, “I know you, old fellow.”
They called his wife to come out, and go on her knees before them.
She said she would not, if she were torn to pieces.
Witness then went to the door, and the mob called on him to bring out Evan Thomas, or he should suffer instead of him.
They then commenced shooting at the house.
I saw the defendant, Thomas Thomas, there — I am sure he was there; had known him for two years, and seen him often before.
I went up to the defendant, about ten days before, to ask a favour, on part of my father, about Rebecca.
Defendant said, if he asked the favour for himself he would do it, but that all the country was angry to his father for being a constable.
Cross-examined by Mr. Wilson: Thomas Thomas wore a white gown down to his knees.
He wore a straw hat.
I well knew his voice.
He told them to shoot my wife.
He spoke English.
Witness could not speak English.
He spoke English, and said, “shoot him.”
(Laughter).
This took place on .
I cannot say when I gave the information.
I think it was a week before the Winter Assizes.
I have always been confident that he was there.
I never told Elizabeth Jones that it was impossible to recognize one of the parties, in consequence of the smoke.
I do not remember seeing her, in company with two others, by a school-room, when I told her, “I die if I knew one of them.
I could not, in consequence of the smoke.”
I never told her so.
I know David Jones, Llwynmor.
I might have told him that I knew none of them, as I suspected his servant was there.
I never told Margaret Roberts that the devil would not know them.
I never told David Davies, Pontfaen, on the evening after the disturbance, that “I could not know one of them, as I should answer judgment, because the house was so full of smoke.”
— Witness was cross-examined at considerable length as to his hiving told several people, in conversation with them, that he could not recognize them.
Reference was made to conversations with about a dozen, people.
I told some people, said witness, that I knew them, and to others that I did not, because I was afraid of them, and suspected that either they or their connexions were present.
Mr. Hall cross-examined witness on behalf of James Thomas:– The examination was principally directed to prove that, in conversation, witness had contradicted statements given by him in evidence.
Margaret Thomas, the last witness’s wife, next gave evidence:— She positively identified, first, John Jones, alias Shoni Scyborfawr.
She said to James Thomas, “Ah! old fellow, who gave you permission to come in here?”
He then smiled, and turned round.
I have known him, said witness, from a child; have spoken with him hundreds of times.
Could not identify Thomas Thomas’s person, but was sure of his voice.
He was at a distance, and had a white shirt and a straw hat about him.
Witness said, “If I have done anything wrong, send the law towards me.”
One of the mob said, “The law is is now nearly all in the hands of ’Becca and her daughters.”
Witness was examined at considerable length by Mr. Hall, who put in evidence the witness’s deposition, taken before the committing Magistrates.
Mary Thomas, sister of the last witness, slept in her father’s house on the night it was attacked by the mob.
Heard a person crying out, “Shoot, shoot him.”
I will swear it was Thomas Thomas’s voice.
Cross-examined:— I will swear I slept in my father’s house that night.
I did not sleep with Martha Vaughan on that night.
I had slept with her a week before.
I never told David Rees that I had that night slept with Martha Vaughan.
Elizabeth Thomas, the wife of Evan Thomas, was examined, to prove that the last witness slept in the house on that night.
Evan Thomas (the celebrated Porthyrhyd lion), was next examined:– is 56 years of age.
Has acted 16 or 17 years as a constable.
My house was attacked in .
I met Thos. Thomas and his wife on the road.
I told his wife that I wished to have quiet with the ’Beccas — that they destroyed my things.
Mrs. Thomas said the only objection the country had to witness was, that he was a constable, and she added, that he must give that office up, and they would leave him alone.
She also asked him to come to the house, and she would give him a paper.
He said he could not that day, but if they wished assistance at the hay-harvest, he would give it.
He went there, and worked a day.
In the evening, Thomas Thomas told him that he would give him a paper.
His wife called me in, and commenced writing.
She gave me a paper to protect me from ’Becca.
I have got the paper.
[Witness then produced the written paper, which is given in the Learned Counsel’s opening statement.]
Mr. Wilson now addressed the jury on behalf of the defendant, Mr. Thomas Thomas.
The jury had heard from his Learned Friend, Mr. Chilton, that his client, Mr. Thomas, was a man of respectable station in society, had borne an irreproachable character, and, in addition to being a considerable farmer and freeholder himself, he was the son of as respectable a freeholder as any in the county, and, therefore, the most unlikely to be connected with the outrageous attack which undoubtedly had been committed on the house of the poor man, Evan Thomas on the night in question.
The Learned Counsel read nearly the whole of the evidence, making comments thereon, and contending that the witnesses must either have been mistaken, or grossly perjured, in swearing so positively to the identity of the prisoner.
Mr. Lloyd Hall then addressed the jury for the defendant, James Thomas, contending that the statements and manners of the witnesses for the prosecution were not such as to entitle their evidence to the belief of the jury.
He then proceeded to state that James Thomas was a lime-burner, in the employ of R.M. Philipps, Esq., and that, on the night in question, he was engaged at his work at a distance off at the time of the riot.
Elizabeth Jones, servant to the defendant, Thomas Thomas, was then called.
She remembered the night of the riot at Evan Thomas’s house.
Saw the defendant and his wife shut the bedroom door.
She slept next door to Mr. Thomas.
No person could go out of the house without her knowing it.
He did not go out that night.
Cross-examined by Mr. Chilton:— She generally slept so lightly, that she could hear a cat go out of the room.
There was a seamstress and another person in the room.
By the Court:– got up about the same time the morning before and the morning after the riot.
I got up the previous morning at five, and retired at twelve.
The seamstress was called to prove that she slept with the last witness.
Remembers Mr. and Mrs. Thomas going to bed, about twelve o’clock.
Heard great noise of horns and shooting before Mr. and Mrs. Thomas came into the house — neither did go out afterwards.
Elizabeth Jones, David Jones, Margaret Williams, David Davies, David Jenkins, Esther Jones, Thomas Davies, John Thomas, John John, and others, were called as witnesses, to prove that various statements had been made by George Thomas and other witnesses, contradictory of the evidence given by them in Court, such as saying, “The devil himself could not know the people there, as they were so disguised” — “if I was to answer judgment at this moment, I could not recognize one, as they were so disguised,[”] — and that George Thomas said, “that he was ready to swear, before God and man, that he knew no person.”
John Thomas, father of the prisoner, James Thomas, was called to prove a similar statement.
Remembered he had a job about , which required the repairing of some tools, and that his son brought them to him at such a time, that he must have been engaged in repairing them on the night of the riot.
Mrs. Evans, wife of the Rev. Stephen Evans, Curate of some parish in Carmarthenshire, gave evidence relative to a conversation, during which Evan Thomas declared he did not know any person at the riot.
Several witnesses were then called to sustain the alibi on behalf of James Thomas.
Margaret Vaughan and David Rees swore — the former that Mary Thomas, one of the witnesses for the prosecution, had slept with her on the night of the riot; and the latter, that she informed him that she had slept at the woman Vaughan’s house.
Richard Rees, Esq., County Treasurer, and Eliezer Wiliams, Esq., Surgeon, gave the prisoner Thomas Thomas a good character, but admitted in cross-examination that latterly he had been a reputed Rebeccaite.
Mr. Chilton, Q.C., then replied to the evidence adduced for the defence, in a very able and energetic speech.
His Lordship then summed up the evidence, observing, that with respect to the first question for the consideration of the jury — whether any riot had taken place on the night in question — there could be no kind of doubt.
The next point was, whether the prisoner, or either of them, was present.
His Lordship observed, that there was nothing either in the evidence or manner of the witnesses for the prosecution, to induce an opinion that they had perjured themselves; but if the witnesses for the defence were believed, the jury must come to that conclusion as to some points.
With respect to the evidence of the witness Vaughan, she might have been mistaken as to the night on which Mary Thomas slept with her; but if it was on the night of the riot, the latter must have perjured herself.
His Lordship then pointed out the various points of evidence given in defence, rather corroborative than otherwise, of the prosecution.
His Lordship most carefully recapitulated the whole of the evidence bearing upon the case, and offered some observations relating to alibis.
After his Lordship had concluded the jury retired, and returned in less than ten minutes, with a verdict of Not Guilty for both defendants.
Back to the Pembrokeshire Herald and General Advertiser:
The following prisoners were then placed at the bar to receive the sentence of the court:
John Harries [Harris?], Isaac Charles, Job Evans, John Lewis, David Williams, and David Thomas, convicted of riot at the Carmarthen Workhouse, on , the former of whom was sentenced to 12 calendar months’ hard labour, and the others to eight calendar months’ each.
[The Cambrian adds these remarks from the judge: “The case of the defendant Harris showed, that there were to be found persons somewhat above the lowest grade in the ranks of the Rebeccaites, though he thought that there never had arisen a popular agitation produced by such gross ignorance.
As Harries ought, from his station in society, to have known his duty better than to allow himself to become the ringleader and instigator of this proceeding, some distinction must be made between the punishment awarded him and that awarded the other defendants.”]
Jonathan Jones, Howell Lewis, David Lewis, David Davies, and Jonathan Lewis, convicted of a riot at Talog, were sentenced to 8 calendar months’ imprisonment with hard labour.
The Cambrian adds another case here: of Thomas Hughes, John Jones, and Benjamin Jones, “convicted of a riot, and the destruction of Pontileche Gate” The judge said they had been convicted of a misdemeanor but were probably guilty of a felony, but hadn’t been charged with a felony because this would mean trying them before a common jury, which might have led to jury nullification — “It was a shocking thing to think that there were grounds for imagining that there were some persons of a disposition to sympathise with such depredations, even of the stations in society of persons eligible to serve on juries, who were bound by their oaths to support and vindicate the laws of their country,” he said, perhaps reflecting on the case decided that day.
He sentenced them to twelve months of hard labor apiece.
David Thomas, Thomas Powell, John Thomas, John James, Thomas Thomas, John Thomas, Evan Davies, and David Evans, convicted of burglary and robbery at Pantyfen, in the parish of Llanfihangel-ar-arth, were called on, and the first was sentenced to 20 years’ transportation, for being an accessory before the fact, and the instigator to this disgraceful outrage; and all the others were sentenced to 10 years transportation.
His lordship, in addressing the prisoners, observed that they had been found guilty of an offence of the greatest magnitude; that they had taken advantage of the disturbances which unhappily prevailed in this and the adjoining counties, to serve their own private and wicked purposes; but it would be shewn to them that they would not be allowed to trample upon the laws of the country with impunity, and he would send them to a country where they would have no opportunity of committing such a disgraceful & cruel outrage again.
The scene which took place in the court, after the sentences were delivered on the latter prisoners, baffles all description.
[?!]
Quite the lazy reporter.
Here is how the Cambrian described the scene: “Immediately after the last sentence had been pronounced, the scene in Court became most affecting — perhaps awful would be more expressive of the effect produced upon the minds of the spectators.
Nearly all the prisoners — who, though they had before shewn no carelessness or disregard, yet had manifested no great concern at their situation — now burst into fits of inconsolable agony, while in different parts of the Court, women were seen in hysterical fits, and others of both sexes gave vent to their grief in loud cries, and, in some instances, in terrific yells.
The officers had some difficulty in removing the prisoners.
A sentence of such severity was apparently quite unexpected, both by the prisoners and their friends.”
After the prisoners had been removed, his lordship observed that the persons charged with destroying a turnpike gate near Llanddarog [Thomas Davies, Phillip Thomas, and Joseph Clement] would be admitted to bail, until the next assize; and the civil causes not tried or settled out of court, would be left as remanents.
