Some historical and global examples of tax resistance → Wales → Rebecca riots, 1839–44 → David Jones

The government finally got a break in the Rebecca investigations when an informer came forward to finger some of Rebecca’s daughters… but it may have been less of a breakthrough than it seemed. From the Monmouthshire Merlin:

On , a considerable force of the gate levellers marched to Bwlgoed toll house, near Pontardulais, about seven miles from Swansea, on the Carmarthen road, forced the keeper out without making his toilet, and placing an implement in his hand, compelled him, under certain threats of death, to aid in the work of demolition, and lest he should take the liberty of tracing any of the Guerrillas home, they locked him in an adjoining stable, where he was shivering, en chemise, “till daylight did appear.”

Heretofore the seal of secrecy has been upon the lips of all sympathisers with the Rebeccaites, and none were found to give a trace to the homes of the termagant, or any of her myrmidons. On night, however, according to public report, a person named John Jones, or Lletty Fulbert, not having the love or fear of “Becca” before his eyes, but being moved and instigated by John Barleycorn, or the genius of cwrw dha, met a policeman at a beerhouse, and there showed symptoms that he would a tale unfold of the wicked lady’s visits to the glimpses of the moon.

Jones was whisked off to a safe place (and, so “the wicked Rebeccaites insinuated, his public spirit was kept effervescent”) and interrogated, whereafter warrants were issued against William, Henry, and Matthew Morgan, and David Jones, and the constable set out with three others to make arrests. All but Henry were arrested without much incident, but when they attempted to arrest Henry at home, his family attacked the officers and one of the family was badly wounded.

Later, Griffith Vaughan and Daniel Lewis were also arrested and charged with involvement in the Bwlgoed attack.

As news spread, huge crowds assembled, and attempted to get admission to the hearings, which were then closed to the public. Meanwhile, Jones’s wife was heard saying that her husband had gone a bit around the bend, had not been a witness to the gate destruction, and had fingered the Morgan family in order to satisfy a personal grievance and to collect the government’s reward.

The trial of the accused Rebeccaites fingered by the sketchy informant John Jones begins. From the Cambrian:

Anti-Toll Gate Agitation.

In our last publication we announced the destruction of the Rhydypandy and Bolgoed toll-bars, the latter of which had been re-erected but a short time before. On , information was communicated to the Magistrates, relative to the parties implicated in the destruction of the toll-bars, in consequence of which, they issued warrants for the apprehension of several parties of the highest respectability. This circumstance created the greatest excitement in this town and neighbourhood — so much so, that many old residents of Swansea have declared that, on no former occasion, have they seen the town in such a state of effervescence. Early on , Captain Napier, accompanied by Inspector Rees, of the Borough Police force, Sergeant Jenkins and Henry Lewis, of the Rural Police, proceeded to the neighbourhood of Pontardulais, with warrants for the apprehension of Mr. David Jones, son of Mr. Morgan Jones, of Tymawr (formerly of Court-y-Carne), who is a most respectable freeholder, and Mr. Wm. Morgan, farmer, of Bolgoed. After having brought these two persons to town and placed them in custody at the station-house, the same officers proceeded to execute a warrant, signed by J.D. Llewellyn and T. Edw. Thomas, Esqrs., for the apprehension of Matthew and Henry Morgan, the sons of Mr. Morgan Morgan, a freeholder, residing at Cwmcillau, near Velindre, in the parish of Llangyfeiach. The former resides on his own farm, which he rents from J.D. Llewelyn, Esq., and the latter, being a single man, in his father’s house. The officers arrived in the neighbourhood of Cwmcillau about , and apprehended Matthew Morgan at his own house, two or three fields distant from his father’s house. He was left in the custody of Sergeant Jenkins and Lewis, while Capt. Napier and Mr. Rees proceeded to Cwmcillau farm-house, for the purpose of executing the warrant against Henry Morgan. The nature of the warrant was fully explained in Welsh, by Mr. Rees, to the family, who positively declined allowing Henry to be taken by the officers. At last, Capt. Napier and Mr. Rees found it necessary to take him by force, when the whole family assisted in his rescue, and committed a serious assault upon Capt. Napier. As all particulars relating to the attack are detailed in the evidence given before the Magistrates on , a report of which is subjoined, it is quite unnecessary to enter upon them here, and refer our readers to the evidence adduced. However, the family succeeded in rescuing the person against whom the warrant had been issued, but not until one of them (John Morgan) had been seriously wounded by a pistol shot, which Capt. Napier was compelled to discharge in self-defence. With the assistance of Sergeant Jenkins and Policeman Lewis, who had been left with Matthew Morgan, at a distance of three fields from the house, they succeeded in bringing the young man who was wounded, with his brother, to Swansea. In , three vehicles, with a party of the 73d Regiment, and several policemen, proceeded to Cwmcillau, for the purpose of apprehending the rest of the family, who had joined in the attack on the officers. They succeeded in apprehending Esther Morgan, the mother, Margaret Morgan, the daughter, and Rees Morgan, one of the sons. Morgan Morgan was apprehended in town, having come to enquire after his son. All the family were now in custody, with the exception of Henry Morgan. Dr. Bird and Mr. Rogers, surgeon, extracted the ball from John Morgan’s body, and have done everything that was necessary for his recovery. The ball had entered the left side, below the navel, and was extracted from over the third lower rib, but the medical men were of opinion that it had not entered the abdominal cavity. On , Mr. Griffith Vaughan, formerly a draper in this town, but now landlord of the Red Lion Inn, Pontardulais, and postmaster of that place, and Mr. Daniel Lewis, known as a writer in the Welsh periodicals, under the name of Petris Bach, were taken into custody, on a charge of having been concerned in the destruction of the Bolgoed bar. During the whole of the town was in the greatest state of excitement, being filled with a number of respectable country people, farmers, and others, whose countenances betrayed the inward anxiety entertained to know the result of these proceedings. A private meeting of the Magistrates was held during the whole of , in the Petty Sessions-room, in the Townhall. It was the fullest meeting that had taken place for some time. The following Magistrates were present:– Sir John Morris, Bart. (in the Chair), John Grove, Esq., Rev. S. Davies, W.I. Jones, Esq., J.D. Llewelyn, Esq., L.W. Dillwyn, Esq., L.Ll. Dillwyn, Esq., C.H. Smith, Esq., H. Lucas, Esq., J.N. Lucas, Esq., Rev. John Collins, Thomas Penrice, Esq., Robert Lindsay, Esq., T. Edw. Thomas, Esq., J.H. Vivian, Esq., M.P., J.D. Berrington, Esq., and F. Fredericks, Esq. — Several Reporters made an application for admittance, but were told that the meeting was strictly a private one, to which Magistrates and the necessary officers only were to be admitted, but that reporters should be admitted at the proper time. Soon afterwards, all the prisoners were brought to the Town-hall and were taken to the Magistrates’ room. The large hall, was immediately filled, in the expectation that the examination would take place there. In a short time the Rev. S. Davies appeared, and announced that the examination would be a strictly private one, but when the parties were brought up for final hearing, the public would be admitted. Mr. Powell, the reporter for the Times, who had come that morning from Carmarthen expressly for the purpose of being present, applied for the admission of reporters. Messrs. W. Walters, J.G. Jeffreys, and J.R. Tripp, solicitors, who were respectively engaged to defend the prisoners, made a similar application in writing, and in reply, received the following resolution of the Magistrates — “That all meetings, with a view to the investigation of charges relating to the demolition of turnpike gates in this neighbourhood, be strictly private until the parties are brought up for final hearing.” — From enquiries made, we understand that the information relative to the destruction of the gates was given by a man named John Jones, who has stated that he was present at the destruction of the Rhydypandy gate. On , this man told Mr. Rees, the Inspector of police, that he knew all the parties concerned in the destruction of the gates, and could give their names and residences. This induced Mr. Rees to communicate the circumstance to the authorities, who subsequently issued warrants for the apprehension of the parties. It would be unsafe to offer any opinion as to the correctness of the information until the case is brought forward, but we deem it right to state, that the public place no confidence whatever in his testimony. His wife declares that he was in bed on the night of the destruction of the Rhydypandy gate, at which it is said that he was present. She also stated that, ever since a seizure of his effects for debt, his conduct has been such as to lead her to suspect that he is not altogether sane. It also appears that some of the Welsh have a notion, that if they can erect what they call Ty un nos — that is, if they can build a house on a common in one night unobserved until the following morning — that the house so erected becomes their property. Jones erected a house of this description on a common, belonging to the Duke of Beaufort, over which Messrs. Jenkins, of Cenhordy, and Morgan, of Cwmcillau, had a right of pasturage, and which house they demolished. This, coupled with the fact that the sum of 100l. has been offered for the apprehension of the destroyers of Bolgoed bar, tend to throw considerable suspicion on his evidence; for we understand that he is the informer respecting the destruction of both bars. Various rumours were afloat on , respecting the conduct of Capt. Napier and the police, towards the Morgan family, for which, as it appeared by uncontradicted evidence on , there were not the slightest grounds. Had the assault case been publicly investigated on , those injurious reports would not have been circulated.

Rebecca in North Wales

We find that pulling down toll-gates has become the fashion of the day, and that North Wales is imitating the South. On the turnpike gate of Brynefal, near Tre’ Madoc, was destroyed. It appears that there were from twenty to thirty of the Rebeccaites, some speaking with the South accent, and others in English. They told the toll-keeper that, unless he was silent, they would make him so, and tried to effect an entrance into the house, but he had the presence of mind to place four sacks of salt against the door, which prevented their effecting an entrance. Having pulled off the post, &c., they carried the gate about a mile, and then cut it in pieces, and left the fragments by the river side. We are given to understand that no clue has been obtained as to the perpetrators. We trust that the proper authorities will be on the alert. — Carnarvon Herald.

From the Cambrian:

Becca for Ever.

On , a party of workmen in returning from hay-making in a field above Mount Pleasant, amused themselves in pushing before them one of the party, a mason, named Williams, who covered his face with his apron, at the same time crying out “Becca for ever.” The Mayor, who was accidentally passing at the time, immediately seized him by the collar, and gave him in custody to two soldiers. Mr. Morris, joiner, meeting them, told the Mayor that he would answer for Williams’s appearance on . He was then liberated. On , he entered into recognizances to appear before the Magistrates on .

The Monmouthshire Merlin rushed to print on with early reports of the Cwmcillau (or “Cwm Cille” in this account) brawl:

Serious Collision with Rebeccaites.

On a gentleman whose family are at present stopping in Glamorganshire, conveyed to us the intelligence that serious outrages had been committed by the followers of the Amazonian Great Unknown in the neighbourhood of Swansea; that the police had been violently handled; and that Captain Napier, the chief constable of the county, had been dangerously wounded.

We deemed it well to proceed to Swansea, and on our arrival found the town a scene of great excitement, and on seeking information from sources likely to prove authentic, learned that a conflict had certainly taken place, but fortunately on a small scale; that several Rebeccaites had been captured, and were then prisoners in the town; and that Captain Napier had been injured, after manifesting the humanity and forbearance which become a brave soldier.

It appeared that the anti-toll-gate campaign having widened the circle of operations, and frightened some of the good and peaceable people of Swansea, the active and intelligent head of the constabulary force of the county was vigilantly on the look-out. On , a considerable force of the gate levellers marched to Bwlgoed toll house, near Pontardulais, about seven miles from Swansea, on the Carmarthen road, forced the keeper out without making his toilet, and placing an implement in his hand, compelled him, under certain threats of death, to aid in the work of demolition, and lest he should take the liberty of tracing any of the Guerrillas home, they locked him in an adjoining stable, where he was shivering, en chemise, “till daylight did appear.” Disorganization was increasing with impunity, and as toll-gate keepers looked upon each coming night with fear and trembling, as probably the last of their road-side reign, the authorities of Swansea were not wanting in efforts for prevention and detection. Heretofore the seal of secrecy has been upon the lips of all sympathisers with the Rebeccaites, and none were found to give a trace to the homes of the termagant, or any of her myrmidons. On , however, according to public report, a person named John Jones, or Lletty Fulbert, not having the love or fear of “Becca” before his eyes, but being moved and instigated by John Barleycorn, or the genius of cwrw dha, met a policeman at a beerhouse, and there showed symptoms that he would a tale unfold of the wicked lady’s visits to the glimpses of the moon.

Inspector William Rees, of Swansea, was duly acquainted with the circumstance, and deemed this a favourable opportunity of obtaining information touching the names and whereabouts of the persons who razed the toll house and bar of Bwlgoed. Pursuing this intent, Rees had the informer conveyed to a place of safety, where no person was allowed to interfere with his expressed intention of rendering the State some service, and where, the wicked Rebeccaites insinuated, his public spirit was kept effervescent. Be that as it may, whether such report arose from malevolence or otherwise, we know not. Inspector Rees applied to the county magistrates, who, having minutely scanned Jones’s story, issued warrants against persons charged with the commission of Rebeccaite outrage at the Bwlgoed gate. Four warrants were confided to Captain Napier for the apprehension of William Morgan and Henry Morgan, farmers, of the parish of Llandilo, Talybont, and Matthew Morgan and David Jones, of the parish of Llangerelock. At the gallant chief constable, accompanied by Inspector Rees, and William Jenkins and H. Lewis, policemen, proceeded well armed to execute the warrants.

Matthew Morgan was taken at home, about . — David Jones was a prisoner soon after, and both were brought to the lock-up house at Swansea. After the performance of this duty, they again set out to take Wm. Morgan and Henry Morgan. William was found in a field, captured, and left handcuffed in the custody of Jenkins, the policeman; and the remainder of the party proceeded to Cwm Cille, near Velindra, the house of Morgan Morgan, farmer, in order to take Henry Morgan.

Inspector Rees first entered the house, and told who was outside. He then sent for Captain Napier, who, on entering, was handed a seat by Esther Morgan, mother of Henry Morgan. The object of the visit was then told, the warrant produced, and the signatures of the magistrates — Dillwyn Llewellyn and T.E. Thomas, Esquires — were pointed out. Morgan Morgan, the father, said Henry was lame, and could not come then, but would do so at some more convenient time. Morgan, the father, said he would lose his life before his son should go out of his house. On this, Captain Napier ordered Rees to lay hold of Henry Morgan, and a scene of the utmost violence ensued, which will minutely appear in the evidence which we give below.

Old Morgan, his wife, his sons, Rees and John, the latter of whom was shot, and Morgan’s daughter Margaret, fell upon Captain Napier and Inspector Rees like tigers and tiget cats. An iron bar, a reaping hook, a hatchet, a crutch, a hammer, scalding water, and a saucepan, were actively used against Mr. Napier and the policemen; one would almost suppose that the gallant captain must have a charmed life to survive the affray. As it was, he escaped with a severe cut on the head, and other injuries; and no doubt he would have fallen a victim in the discharge of his duty, had he not, when the power of enduring forbearance could go no further, and when they had endeavoured to discharge a pistol, which he had, against him, he fired, by which one of his assailants, named John Morgan, was wounded in the abdomen. Rees was sadly pummelled, and Jenkins, who came to their assistance, rescued both from further violence, by some dexterous passes of his sword against some neighbours of the Morgans, whom the cry of “Lladderch Nwynt,” — kill them! — had brought to the scene of action. Henry Morgan and John Morgan, the wounded man, were then brought to Swansea, where the eminent Doctor Bird skilfully extracted the ball from John; and, be it observed, to the credit of Captain Napier, that though covered with blood, and suffering severely, he declined the medical relief of Dr. Bird, until that gentleman had first performed the offices of humanity for John Morgan, and assured him that Morgan’s life was not in danger.

The news of the capture of Rebeccaites, and of the affray — magnified into a pitched battle, with reports of the killed and wounded — spread like wildfire over the town and neighbourhood — the streets became densely crowded — hundreds assembled at the station house, and the most feverish excitement prevailed; but we did not hear of any breach of the peace.

Doctor Bird and Surgeon Rogers paid close attention to the wounded man, and succeeded in extracting the ball, which had entered the abdomen, passed up, struck the edge of the ilium, and glanced up til it lodged backwards between the second and third ribs, the abdomenal cavity not having been entered in any part.

On a detachment of the Seventy-third Regiment, accompanied by several very well armed policemen, marched to the neighbourhood of Pontardulais, for the purpose of apprehending the parties who had offended against the law in the morning, and the Morgan family, and others, were conveyed to prison without resistance.

On two additional prisoners were brought in, and the rush of anxious crowds to catch a glimpse of the new-comers — for whom we heard repeated expressions of sympathy by the people — rendered the streets through which they came almost impassable.

Mr. Griffith Vaughan, a man of some property, and landlord of the Pontardulais Inn, and Mr. David Lewis, of, we believe, the same locality, are the two persons in question. [Actually Daniel Lewis, I think — ♇]

The current of the population flowed to the Town Hall, where a numerous bench of magistrates, Sir John Morris, chairman, assembled. The court was filled in every part, immediately after the doors were opened; and several members of the Press — London and provincial — were ready to take the proceedings; but after the lapse of a considerable period, the Rev. Samuel Davies entered the court, and addressed the meeting to the following effect:–

“I suppose you have assembled here for the purpose of hearing the examination of witnesses in the case which now occupies the attention of the magistrates. I have to inform you it will be a private hearing, and therefore you may all depart; but before the investigation is brought to a close, when the prisoners are brought up for their final hearing, the public will be admitted.”

This announcement was received with marks of disapprobation. Mr. Powell, of the Times, applied for permission to be present. The solicitors who had been engaged to defend the prisoners, made a similar application, and in reply received the following:–

Resolved unanimously — That all meetings with a view to the investigation of charges relating to the demolition of turnpike gates in this neighbourhood be strictly private, till the parties are brought up for final hearing.

John Morris, Chairman.

The people dispersed from the hall slowly and complainingly, but the rumours of fresh arrests, and the current of reports prejudicial to the character of Jones, the informer, gave food for gossip and speculation.

It was said that a rev. gentleman met Jones’s wife in Castle-street, when she assured him “That her husband could know nothing of the occurrences at Bwlgoed and Rhyd-y-pandy, having been at home every night for the last two months. She added that his conduct of late had been very singular, so as to induce her to believe him insane. About twelve months since his effects were seized by the officers of the law for debt, which circumstance, she added, had a most powerful effect upon his mind. Some time ago, he build a house upon the mountain, in the neighbourhood of his former residence, in a bleak and barren spot, where it was scarcely possible for a human being to reside, more especially in such a house as he erected. The country people have a notion that if they can erect a house in one night upon a common, that house becomes their freehold property. One of those houses Jones attempted to erect for himself, his wife, and five children; but Mr. Morgan, of Cwm Cille, and Mr. Jenkins, of Cynhordy, conceiving their rights to a sheep-walk invaded by this building, took steps for having it demolished. Jones’s wife fancies that this act of Mr. Morgan’s so irritated her husband’s mind, already weakened by previous misfortune, that it must have caused him to have sought his revenge, by stating that Morgan’s sons were engaged in the destruction of the Bwlgoed bar. However, this is mere conjecture on her part. One thing she seems certain of, that her husband has not been from home during any one night for the last two months.”

Consequently, if her statement be true, her husband’s story must be untrue, as we believe he states he was present at the demolition of the Bwlgoed bar, which occurred a considerable distance from his residence, and during the night. Jones was in town early on , and called at Mr. Davies’ house. Having sat there a considerable time, he beckoned to Mrs. D., and begged her to as Mr. Davies to lend him five shillings; but Mr. Davies having some knowledge of his character, refused to lend him any money. This circumstance plainly shows he was considered unworthy of being trusted with five shillings by persons who knew him.

It is well known that the magistrates have offered a reward of one hundred pounds to any one who will give such information as will lead to the conviction of any person engaged in the destruction of Bwlgoed bar and toll house.

The statement of Jones’s wife is given as being much relied upon by the friends of the Morgans, who are very numerous.

A couple of interesting details show up in this version: one, that among the weapons the Morgan family used was a “crutch.” No crutch is mentioned during the initial presentation of the prosecution’s case against the Morgan family (though some of the other weapons are brought out for display to the Magistrates), and this may perhaps be because it would bolster the idea that Henry Morgan was injured and that the father had offered to bring him to town to face charges once he’d healed up. Another detail is that neighbors of the Morgans came to their aid and joined in their vigorous defense of their household.

From the Cambrian comes this account of the examination of Rebeccaite prisoners who had been rounded up after being fingered by a fairly sketchy informant, and then subjected to a very irregular proceeding in which the witnesses and defendants were interrogated in the presence of the judges while their own counsel was denied the ability to be present. The examination mostly concerns the desperate actions the prisoners took to resist arrest, and so doesn’t concern the main Rebeccaite activity directly, but that act (and the sympathy for it shown by members of the public attending the trial) says a lot about the state of Welsh public opinion towards the authorities:

On , the Magistrates commenced their public sitting soon after nine o’clock [the Monmouthshire Merlin, by contrast, says “The doors of the Town Hall were not opened till nearly ”]. The following Magistrates were present:– Sir John Morris, Bart., in the chair; J.N. Lucas, Esq., H. Lucas, Esq., W.I. Jones, Esq., J. Homfray, Esq., High Sheriff, J.D. Llewelyn, Esq., John Grove, Esq., Rev. S. Davies, Rev. J. Collins, Howel Gwyn, Esq., C.H. Smith, Esq., J.D. Berrington, Esq., J.H. Vivian, Esq., M.P., T. Edw. Thomas, Esq., N.E.V. Edwards Esq., and Col. Cameron.

The following persons were then placed in the dock:– William Morgan, and Esther Morgan, his wife, Rees Morgan, and Margaret Morgan. There was also a charge against John Morgan, who was in the Infirmary.

Mr. Wm. Walters appeared on behalf of the prisoners.

The Chairman stated, that the Bench had, on , taken down the evidence as to the facts connected with the assault, and they had been engaged a long time about it, as they thought it would be best to explain to the prisoners the nature of the charge against them, for the sake of giving them every opportunity of offering any explanation. Whatever explanation they had offered, was not taken down in writing at the time, so that it could not be used in evidence against them. They were desirous of having the evidence explained to them in Welsh, which was done. He (the Chairman) would read over the depositions of Captain Napier and the other witnesses; and Mr. Walters could cross-examine them as to any of the statements made.

Mr. Walters begged to make one observation. He was somewhat surprised at the course the Magistrates meant to pursue, and at that which they had pursued on . He had then applied to be present, which was refused, and that was the first intimation he had received that any examination had taken place. He would say, that the fairest way would be to go over the evidence orally. He had the opinions of several Judges by him, who said that such a course was the best to pursue. He also thought the way proposed to be adopted by the Magistrates would be prejudicial to the prisoners’ case.

After a short consultation with his brother Magistrates, the Chairman observed, that they had no objection to the course Mr. Walters proposed to pursue. If he wished that all the evidence should be taken de novo, it should be done, and what was taken down on considered as mere waste paper.

Mr. Walters said, that he felt obliged to the Magistrates for the option given him. He should certainly give a preference to the course of going over the whole of the evidence de novo. He would not unnecessarily lengthen the examination. Considering that the case was connected with some of the unfortunate disturbances which had lately been so prevalent in the Principality, it appeared to him that it was decidedly better to have a public examination, for if the depositions which had been taken in a private meeting were merely read over, some evil disposed minds might think that the parties had not been fairly dealt with. — (Loud cheers, and other manifestations of public feeling, followed these observations as well as on two or three previous occasions).

The Chairman observed, that the Magistrates wished to make their proceedings as public as possible, but those demonstrations would not be allowed. They were not bound to make the examination public, and if people could not behave themselves, the Hall must be cleared. If the prisoners could be exculpated, either through their own innocence, or by the ingenuity of their advocate, that should be done; but those demonstrations could not be allowed there, more than in any other Court in the kingdom.

After some further conversation between the Magistrates and Mr. Walters,

Captain Napier, having been sworn, made the following deposition:– I am chief constable for this county. On I proceeded to Cwmcillau, in the parish of Llangafelach, in this county, for the purpose of executing a warrant upon two persons.

Mr. Walters:– Don’t say upon whom, but produce the warrants.

Captain Napier left the Court for a short time while getting the warrants.

Mr. Walters:– I take this opportunity of applying, that the witnesses for the prosecution should be sent out of Court. — The witnesses were then ordered out.

The Chairman:– You would, I presume, not wish Dr. Bird to be sent out.

Mr. Walters:– I do not know why any distinction should be made, as the evidence of the other witnesses might influence him.

Captain Napier now returned, and produced two warrants, signed by T. Edw. Thomas and J.D. Llewelyn, Esqrs., for the apprehension of Matthew and Henry Morgan, for the destruction of Rhydypandy gate.

Examination continu[ed:– portion illegible] warrants signed. I was accompanied by Inspec[tor Rees portion illegible] of the Swansea Police, Sergeant Jenkins, and H.L. [portion illegible] the Rural Police. We arrived at Cwmcillau at , and apprehended Matthew Morgan on the road near his own house, which is about three hundred yards distant from Cwmcillau. I left Matthew Morgan in the custody of Sergeant Jenkins and H. Lewis, and then proceeded, accompanied by Inspector Rees, across the fields to Cwmcillau farm-house. On arriving there, I directed Inspector Rees to ascertain if Henry Morgan was in the house. He went into the house, and in a few minutes the prisoner Margaret Morgan came out, and I went with her into the house. The family offered me a chair. I do not remember which of them did so. When I sat down, Inspector Rees spoke to them in Welsh, and told me–

Mr. Walters:– I beg you not to proceed further. As Captain Napier is going to say what Rees told him in English, I apprehend it cannot be evidence against my clients, who could not understand what was spoken in that language.

Examination continued:– I heard the old man speak English, but not the rest. Rees told me that he had informed them that I was Chief Constable of the County. The other three prisoners must have heard him. I then produced the warrant against Henry Morgan, and desired Mr. Rees to explain to the parties the nature of it, and tell them the name of the Magistrate who had signed it. Mr. Rees spoke to them in Welsh, and told me–

Mr. Walters objected to hearing witness describe what Rees said, as Rees himself could say that.

Mr. Attwood was of opinion, that as all the prisoners were present at the time, that what Rees said in their presence could be taken as evidence.

A long discussion ensued, after which the examination was proceeded with.

Inspector Rees informed me that the father stated that his son was lame and could not walk. I desired him to tell him that he (the son) must come with us, as we were bound to take him into custody. Rees spoke to them in Welsh, and seemed to have some discussion with them. At last he proceeded to lay hold of Henry Morgan by the arm, and the whole family surrounded him, and endeavoured to prevent his taking him from the corner in which he sat. Morgan Morgan, the father, and Esther, his wife, John Morgan, the young man in the Infirmary, Rees Morgan, and Margaret Morgan, the daughter, attacked him, and Henry finally succeeded in disengaging himself from Mr. Rees, and attempted to run towards the stairs. I laid hold of him by the collar, upon which the old man and his wife attacked me. The old woman jumped on my back, put her two fingers to my eyes, scratched my face, and bit my ear, while the old man took a stick [“a crutch,” wrote the Merlin] and struck me repeatedly upon the head, my hat being then off. The old woman then took an iron bar from the fire place, and struck me several times on the head with the middle part of the bar. Immediately afterwards, Margaret Morgan and the young man in the Infirmary, attacked me. Margaret, after striking me on the head with a stick, took a saucepan, containing some boiling water from the fire, and poured it over my back. Eventually, I was compelled to let Henry Morgan go. They continued struggling with me until I got outside the door, when I fell. Previous to my falling I had taken a pistol from my pocket. When I was on the ground, the old man laid hold of my hand by the wrist and turned the muzzle of the pistol towards me, while John Morgan, who is in the Infirmary, put his hand over mine and pressed the trigger with his finger. The pistol was not cocked at the time, the hammer being on the cap. The father had his right foot upon my thigh, and his left upon my groin, while John Morgan had his foot on the right side of my thigh, and was kicking me with the other foot, and by their endeavours they succeeded in turning the muzzle of the pistol towards my stomach, and kept pressing it to my body while John Morgan continued pressing the trigger. At that moment, I received a cut on my head with a reaping-hook from Margaret Morgan. Had the pistol been cocked it would most certainly have been off. I had seen Margaret Morgan approach me with a rusty reaping-hook. Considering my life to be in danger I turned the pistol, cocked it with my thumb, and fired. I hit the young man, John Morgan, who is now in the Infirmary. He stepped backward on receiving the ball, and again attacked me. I at last succeeded in getting on my feet, and observed Rees Morgan, who had a hammer in his possession, and Morgan Morgan, who had a reaping hook approach me [the Merlin says this testimony fingered John with the hammer and Margaret with the reaping hook]. I fired a second time into the air. No person received the shot. Henry Morgan had a hatchet in his hand. Rees Morgan struck at me with a hammer, and I knocked him down with my fist. Observing Henry Morgan running away, I directed Inspector Rees to follow him, which he did. I was following Mr. Rees, while Rees Morgan again interrupted me, and endeavoured to prevent me. I again knocked him down with my fist. Inspector Rees then returned, having failed to apprehend Henry Morgan. Observing a mason’s hammer in Rees Morgan’s pocket, I attempted to get possession of it, but he resisted and struck at me with it. At length I succeeded in wrenching it from him, and struck him on the head with the hammer. He then left me alone. I afterwards directed Sergeant W. Jenkins and H. Lewis, who had arrived on the spot with Matthew Morgan, who had already been taken into custody, to bring John with them in custody to Swansea.

On Mr. Walter’s application, the Magistrates allowed Morgan Morgan to come out of the dock and sit by him.

Examination continued:– During the whole time Henry Morgan took no very active part in the assault, but appeared desirous of getting away.

In his cross-examination by Mr. Walters, Capt. Napier said– When I went into the house, and asked for Henry, I did not understand that his father said that he would appear on . The old lady, Esther Morgan, did not receive a shot in any part of her dress. The only two shots fired were those fired by me — one at John Morgan, and the other close by his head, but not at any one; it was fired in the air. I saw Morgan Morgan, the father, lay hands upon me; he also put his foot on my thigh. Inspector Rees was engaged in struggling with Margaret Morgan, who endeavoured to throw the remainder of the hot water over him. When on the ground, my face was towards the door of the house. I observed the girl, Margaret Morgan, approach me with a hook; she had procured it from the cart-house, the door of which I could see. Rees Morgan struck at me, but the blow did not take effect.

Mr. Tripp, at this period, made an application to the Bench, on behalf of Messrs. Jones, Morgan, and Lewis, who were in custody. The application was twofold — first, he requested the Magistrates would grant permission to inspect the warrants upon which they were taken into custody; and, secondly, that they would allow him, as their attorney, to have access to the prisoners as often as necessary. With respect to the first, the law provided for it — the Magistrates had no discretion to exercise; and with regard to the second, he trusted the Bench would afford the prisoners every opportunity and facility for making their defence.

The Chairman, after consulting with the other Magistrates, said that they would accede to the first request, but the second could not be then granted, as all the Magistrates were not present.

Mr. Tripp stated, that he had not been able to ascertain the nature of the charge against the prisoners, and without that it was impossible for them to make any defence. The prisoners had already been in custody. Could he be informed when the Magistrates would decide upon the other application made to them?

The Chairman, after a pause, during which he consulted the other Magistrates, said, that the Magistrates themselves did not yet know the extent of the charge against the prisoners, but they had come to a decision to accede to Mr. Tripp’s application, though not instanter, but within twenty-four hours.

Mr. Tripp:– I am then to understand that to be the answer of the Magistrates. May I ask the reason why the request is not now granted?

The Chairman said, the Magistrates were not bound to give reasons for the course which they pursued.

Mr. J.G. Jeffreys made the same application on behalf of Mr. Griffith Vaughan, who was in custody.

The Chairman gave him a similar answer.

Mr. Tripp asked if any evidence relating to the charge against his clients had been taken in their presence.

We understood the Chairman to answer in the affirmative.

The assault case was then proceeded with.

Inspector Rees examined:– On , I accompanied Captain Napier to Cwmcillau. We arrived there at , and having apprehended Matthew Morgan, we proceeded to Cwmcillau farmhouse. Mrs. Morgan offered me a chair; I told them that I wished Henry to accompany me to his brother’s house. The father said that his foot was bad, and that his brother must come to him. I then told Morgan Morgan (the father) that Captain Napier was outside, and I asked Margaret to request him to come in, which she did. Captain Napier, at my request, produced the warrant against Henry Morgan. I explained the nature of the warrant to Henry and his father, and told them that it was a warrant against the former, signed by J.D. Llewelyn and T. Edw. Thomas, Esqrs. I spoke to them in Welsh. I also told them that Captain Napier was the Chief Constable for the county. Morgan Morgan said that he would lose his life before he would allow his son to be taken out of the house. I told Captain Napier, in English, what the old man had said, and asked what was to be done. Captain Napier said, “Lay hold of him.” I took him by the arm, upon which Rees, John, and Margaret Morgan, took hold of me, and succeeded in taking the prisoner from me. He then went towards the stair, and Captain Napier laid hold of him. Esther Morgan struck Captain Napier on the head, with a piece of iron. I was pushed out by Rees, Margaret, and John Morgan. After I got out of the house, Rees Morgan took up this [producing a three-pronged fish-spear], with which he prevented my returning to the house. Margaret and John returned to the house, and left Rees with me. In a short time I saw them bring out Captain Napier, who bled profusely from the head. They threw him against a wall, which was before the house. Margaret Morgan then brought the saucepan from the fire, and threw some hot water at me, and then aimed several blows at my head with the edge of it; I warded them off with my club. Margaret Morgan went to the carthouse, from which she brought a reaping-hook [produced], and aimed a blow at the head of Captain Napier, while the father, mother, and the person who was wounded (John), kept him on the ground. I cannot say whether the blow took effect or not. At this time, I observed in Captain Napier’s hand a pistol, the muzzle of which was turned towards his own body. Morgan and John Morgan struggled with him, as if to get the pistol out of his hand. I then heard a shot fired, upon which Captain Napier rose from the ground, and Henry Morgan came out with this hatchet [produced], or one similar to it. — After describing some other unimportant particulars, witness went on to say — Rees Morgan came after me with this hammer [produced — it was a large mason’s hammer], which Captain Napier afterwards wrested from him, and with which he struck him on the head. We then went to the field, near the house, and Morgan Rees, Margaret Morgan, and the old woman, followed us. Rees had a pike, and Esther Morgan a stick, with which they aimed several blows, which I warded off. [The Merlin adds: “Margaret Morgan had the sickle in her hand.”] Sergeant Jenkins then came into the field, and drew his sword, with the flat part of which he struck Rees Morgan on the body. We then returned to Swansea, with Matthew Morgan and John Morgan, who was wounded.

Cross-examined:– The first thing Esther Morgan did was to strike Captain Napier with an iron bar on the head. The old man did not say that Henry should come on the next day. He did not object to his coming on the ground of his not being properly dressed, or because he had had no food. He said that he would lose his life before he would allow him to go. During the assault upon Captain Napier, I was engaged with Rees Morgan, who fenced me with his pike. I could command a view of the entrance to the carthouse.

G.G. Bird Esq. M.D., examined:– I examined Captain Napier’s head, at , and found a cut on the left side, about two inches long, and down to the scalp-bone. There were also scratches on his face, and a mark on the right ear, which appeared to be that of a bite. There were other bruises on the head. He also complained of a pain on the hip, and walked lame. — [Dr. Bird corrected himself, and said that the mark was on the left ear].

Cross-examined:– The cut appeared to have been made with an edged instrument.

Sergeant W. Jenkins stated, that after taking Matthew Morgan into custody, he was left in charge of witness and Henry Lewis on the road, while Captain Napier and Inspector Rees proceeded to the house. In a short time (observed witness), I heard a shot fired, and went towards the house. Upon getting into the field before the house, I observed that Captain Napier was bleeding; his face and clothes were covered with blood. The four prisoners, and Henry Morgan, followed him. Margaret Morgan threw a stone. The old woman used a stick to me, as soon as I approached them. Margaret tossed the hats of Captain Napier and Mr. Rees towards me, at the same time saying, “Go home, you scamps and vagabonds.” Captain Napier gave John Morgan, who was wounded, in charge to myself and Lewis. We handcuffed him to his brother Matthew, and both were conveyed to Swansea.

It was then announced that no more witnesses were to be examined on behalf of the prosecution; and the Chairman told Mr. Walters that he was at liberty to produce any witnesses whom he might think proper to call on behalf of the prisoners.

Mr. Walters replied, that it was not his intention to offer any evidence, or of making any defence, at that time. He perceived that a primâ facie case had been made out against his clients — sufficiently strong to warrant their committal for trial. The only application he had to make to the Bench was, respecting bailing the prisoners. He apprehended that there was nothing felonious in the rescue of Henry Morgan, consequently the prisoners would be committed for a misdemeanor, as the rescue of a prisoner could not be a higher crime than that with which the party rescued was charged. Mr. Walters quoted an opinion from Archbold’s Pleadings in Criminal Cases, as his authority.

The Chairman observed, that the crime for which the prisoners would be committed, depended, not upon the nature of the charge against the party rescued, but upon the means adopted for effecting the rescue. He understood that, if Henry Morgan were in custody on a charge of misdemeanor, and if the prisoners were simply charged with rescuing him, without having committed any act of violence, in that case, their crime would amount to no more than a misdemeanor; but here the parties had committed an aggravated assault.

After a short consultation, the Chairman informed Mr. Walters that the Magistrates had determined on liberating the prisoners on their finding bail. The bail required would be, each principal in the sum of 200l., and also two surities in the sum of 100l. each. — The Chairman also stated, that the case would not be further proceeded with that evening, but the prisoners would be remanded until .

Mr. Tripp now applied to the Bench for the liberation of Mr. David Jones, on his finding bail to appear whenever required.

The Chairman asked if there were any distinction between his case and that of the other persons who were in custody?

Mr. Tripp replied that there was not, but he applied on his behalf first of all, as the decision of the Bench, in his case, would govern that in the cases of the other prisoners.

Mr. Walters made a similar application on behalf of Matthew Morgan, and Mr. Jeffreys on behalf of Griffith Vaughan.

The Magistrates were of opinion, that the parties could not be admitted to bail before committal.

Mr. Tripp observed, that Jones was in custody upon a charge of breaking a turnpike-gate, which was simply a case of misdemeanour, and he submitted that it was a case of great hardship that enquiry into the charge should be so long delayed. He (Mr. Tripp) could produce most unobjectionable surities for the appearance of the party whenever called upon. Mr. Tripp proceeded to contend that, in point of law, the Magistrates were bound to liberate persons charged with misdemeanors on their finding bail. At common law, all offences were formerly bailable but murder, and were still so, excepting in those cases specifically excepted by subsequent statutes, and by the present law he contended that misdemeanour was an offence for which it was provided that bail should be accepted. Mr. Tripp quoted several authorities, among others, an opinion from the fourth volume of Mr. Justice Blackstone’s commentaries, and from the third volume of Burn’s Justice, and also an opinion expressed by Lord Denman, in the case of O‘Neil, the chartist, who was charged with misdemeanor.

After a consultation, the Magistrates declined acceding to the application.

The prisoners were then remanded until . Henry Morgan, one of the party for whose apprehension the warrant was originally granted, and by rescuing whom the assault was committed, surrendered in the course of by the advice of Mr. Walters, and was in the dock during the latter part of the examination.

The report in the Merlin adds a few things to this description, and many more judgments. Here, for instance, is that article’s description of the Morgan family:

The following prisoners were placed in the dock: Morgan Morgan, Esther Morgan, his wife (a sharp-looking lady, who though upwards of 70 years of age, had jumped on the chief constable’s back, bit his ear, and clapper clawed his face), Rees Morgan who appeared with his head bound up. Margaret Morgan, daughter of Esther, a pretty and innocent looking Welsh damsel, who seemed more suitable to trim roses than to cut men’s heads with reaping hooks.

The Merlin reports also that “[s]ymptoms of dissatisfaction were apparent” as the chairman of the inquiry explained that they had taken testimony and interrogated the prisoners in closed court, and out of the presence (and over the objections) of their counsel, “only… that they might be better enabled to do justice to all parties.”

When their attorney objected again to this practice at the current hearing, according to the Merlin, “[c]onsiderable excitement pervaded the court, and loud cheers and clapping of hands followed the learned gentleman’s remarks. It was quite evident that the sympathy of the people was strongly with the persons in the dock; and the magistrates throughout the day had considerable difficulty in restraining popular ebullitions unusual in courts of justice.”

The Merlin also reported, in another brief article, about the attack on the Tyllwyd gate and toll-house on :

Rebecca.

Destruction of Another Gate and Toll-House within Two Miles of Carmarthen.

A letter from Carmarthen on , says: “You will be astonished to hear, that notwithstanding our vigilance and precaution, notwithstanding the presence of forces which might well be supposed to frighten Rebecca and her family out of the county, or, at all events, into decent behaviour, that ubiquitous person and her vagabond family came last night within two miles of our county town, and on the main road, destroyed the Ty Llwyd gate.”

From the Cambrian comes this account of the examination of Rebeccaite prisoners. This part of the examination mostly concerns attempts to bail out the prisoners, but also touches on the national publicity and local concern about the proceedings.

Wednesday.

, the hall was as densely crowded as on the preceding day. The following Magistrates were present:– Sir John Morris, Bart., in the chair; J.D. Berrington, Esq., Colonel Cameron, Rev. S. Davies, Rev. John Collins, L.Ll. Dillwyn, Esq., John Grove, Esq., W.I. Jones, Esq., H. Lucas, Esq., J.N. Lucas, Esq., J.D. Llewelyn, Esq., C.H. Smith, Esq., and J.H. Vivian, Esq., M.P..

The prisoners were placed at the bar, and the charge read over to them.

Margaret Morgan, the daughter, was charged with having feloniously and maliciously assaulted and wounded Captain Charles Frederick Napier, with the intention of preventing Henry Morgan from being lawfully apprehended. [The coverage of this hearing in the Monmouthshire Merlin says that this charge was against Esther Morgan.]

Morgan Morgan and Esther Morgan (the father and mother), and Rees Morgan, were charged with aiding and abetting Margaret Morgan, in the commission of the felony.

The nature of the charge was explained to the prisoners in Welsh, and the usual questions put, whether they intended making any statements — at the same time they were cautioned by being told that whatever they said would be used in evidence against them if necessary.

The prisoners, by the advice of Mr. Walters, declined making any statements. They were then committed to take their trial at the next Assizes.

Morgan Morgan, and Esther, his wife, then bound themselves in the sum of 200l. each, and the two surities, Messrs. Isaac Jones and Robert Williams, in the sum of 100l. each, to produce the two former at the next Assizes.

Rees Morgan and Margaret Morgan, also bound themselfes in the sum of 200l. and the two surities, the Rev. Daniel Davies, of Swansea, and Mr. Wm. Thomas, of Llangafelach, in 100l. each, to produce the prisoners at the next Assizes. — The parties were then liberated.

[The Merlin adds: “The whole family were then discharged out of custody, and left the hall accompanied by large numbers, who pressed to shake hands and congratulate them.”]

Captain Napier was then bound over to prosecute, and Inspector Rees and Sergeant Jenkins to give evidence against the prisoners.

The Chairman then announced, that the Magistrates had come to a decision to liberate the parties who were in custody on a charge of destroying Rhydypandy and Bolgoed toll-bars, on their binding themselves respectively in the sum of 100l., and two responsible surities in 50l. each, to appear on

Mr. Walters applied to the Bench, for the liberation of John Morgan, the young man who had been wounded, and who was then in the Infirmary of the House of Correction, on his finding surities to the same amount as the others.

Mr. Attwood observed, that he was charged with a more serious offence than those who were in custody at the station-house, and who were charged with misdemeanor only.

The Chairman observed that as far as his own opinion went, unless there was a technical objection, the young man might be discharged on entering into the same recognizances as the rest of the family who were charged with a similar offence.

Mr. Attwood suggested that the only objection to the adoption of that course would be, because the rest of the family had been committed, whereas the case of John Morgan had not been heard.

Mr. Walters then stated that the medical men were of opinion that the young man was in a fit state to be brought forward, and that the investigation of the case should be proceeded with. He (Mr. W.) would certainly prefer the adoption of that course, if bail could not be taken for his appearance whenever required.

The Chairman expressed his readiness to accede to Mr. Walters’s proposition of proceeding with the examination. He would have admitted him to bail before examination were not that course informal. The Government and the whole kingdom watched their proceedings, and it was necessary they should avoid any technical informality in their proceedings. The Chairman then expressed his readiness to proceed to the Infirmary, and take the examination on .

After a lengthened conversation, the Chairman’s suggestion was agreed to.

The Chairman, and several of the other Magistrates, then proceeded to the Station-house, for the purpose of receiving bail for the appearance, on , of the parties charged with the destruction of the toll-bars. Should the investigation be then proceeded with, we shall give a full account of the proceedings in our next publication. — Each of the principals then entered into recognition in the sum of 100l. each, and the following surities in the sum of 50l. each:–

For Henry Morgan, Messrs. Thomas Glasbrook and Joseph Rees; the same persons were surities for Matthew Morgan. For Mr. William Morgan, of Bolgoed, Messrs. Morgan Jones (Courtycarne), and Griffith Griffiths. For Mr. David Jones, Messrs. Isaac Thomas and Jacob Lewis, draper, Swansea. For Mr. Griffith Vaughan, Messrs. John Cadwallader and Wm. Sayer, of the Bush Inn; and for Mr. David [Daniel? –♇] Lewis, Messrs. John Alexander and Edward Williams.

The Chairman, and several of the Magistrates, then proceeded to the House of Correction, to take the examination of John Morgan, the young man who had been wounded. After remaining for some time in the Committee-room, it was suggested that the Magistrates had better proceed to the bedroom, to avoid disturbing the invalid; to that suggestion the Chairman readily assented. On our entering the room, the young man, who is fast returning to a state of convalescence, and did not appear very ill, though he was much paler than when in health, was preparing to meet the Magistrates, who desired him to return to his bed, when the depositions made on were read over to him, and explained in Welsh, by his attorney, Mr. Walters. When asked if he wished to put any questions to Captain Napier, he stated in Welsh, that he did not attack Capt. Napier, but merely ran towards him, after having been wounded, to prevent his shooting him the second time. That being a mere statement, Mr. Walters did not give it in English, but advised his client to say nothing at that time — His father, Mr. Morgan Morgan, then entered into recognizances in the sum of 200l., and Messrs. Jacob Lewis and David Bevan, in 100l. each, for his appearance at the Assizes. — The Magistrates then left.

The preliminary hearing in the first big Rebeccaite criminal trial began on . Here’s how The Cambrian covered it:

The Rebecca Riots.

The Bolgoed and Rhydypandy Gates.

The examination of the parties charged with having been concerned in the destruction of the above toll-bars took place at the Town-hall, Swansea, on . In consequence of an announcement, that the proceedings would commence at , the hall was completely filled long before the Magistrates, who held a private meeting previous to the examination, had taken their seats.

Soon after , Capt. Napier announced to the prisoner’s attornies, reporters, and others who were anxiously waiting in the large hall, that the Bench was ready to proceed with the examination in the small petty sessions room. An instantaneous rush took place from the hall to that room, so that every avenue was immediately filled. The Magistrates occupied the whole of the table, and consequently there was not the slightest accommodation either for the attornies engaged or the individuals connected with the press.

Mr. Tripp, after remarking upon the inconvenience of conducting the examination in that confined room, expressed a hope that the Magistrates would consent to adjourn to the large hall.

J.D. Llewelyn, Esq., on behalf of the Magistrates, expressed their willingness to do any thing for the accommodation of the public, but they had come to an unanimous decision of holding the examination in that room, in consequence of the very unseemly manifestations of feeling evinced by the crowd at the last examination, which had a tendency to defeat the ends of justice. Still, the Magistrates were quite willing to adjourn to the hall (though they were not bound to give publicity to their proceedings) provided no similar demonstrations would recur.

The Magistrates then adjourned to the Hall. The following gentlemen formed the bench on the occasion:—

Sir John Morris, Bart., in the Chair.
J.D. Berrington, Esq. J.D. Llewelyn, Esq.
Col. Cameron. Griffith Llewellyn, Esq.
The Rev. John Collins. Robert Lindsay, Esq.
The Rev. S. Davies. J.N. Lucas, Esq.
L.Ll. Dillwyn, Esq. Henry Lucas, Esq.
Richard Franklyn, Esq. C.H. Smith, Esq.
John Grove. Esq. T. Edw. Thomas Esq.
The Rev. W. Hewson, D.D. Henry Thomas, Esq.
W.I. Jones, Esq. J.H. Vivian, Esq., M.P.

Mr. Maule, the Government Solicitor, said that he would not trouble the Bench with a statement, but go through a regular examination, and leave the prisoners, by their attornies, exercise their right of cross-examining; but, in addition to the depositions against the defendants, David Jones, Wm. Morgan, Daniel Lewis, and Griffith Vaughan, there was another circumstance which affected one of them — that was Vaughan. That circumstance had recently come to light, and until it was satisfactorily explained, be would call upon the Magistrates to give it its due weight and effect. The fact he alluded to was, that a few days ago, a case arrived by steam-packet from Bristol; the agent to the steamer had received it from the railway carriers at Bristol. It was addressed to Mr. Griffith Vaughan, and after he had been taken into custody, the order for the contents of the case had been countermanded. That circumstance excited suspicion, and the case was consequently detained and examined, and upon examination it was found to contain fire-arms and ammunition — there were about a dozen guns, some of which were double barrelled, a brace of pistols, and a number of percussion caps. Now, that seemed to him (Mr. Maule) to be rather an alarming fact, and unless it could be explained, it was a fact which must affect the defendant. He should submit that circumstance, together with the depositions, to the attention of the Magistrates.

Mr. Tripp requested Mr. Maule to state the charge. Mr. Maule stated, that he charged the defendants under a statute of 7th and 8th Geo. 4th, which was to the effect that, if any person broke down or destroyed any turnpike-gate, bar, chain, or any toll-house, so as to prevent the collection of tolls, and allow passengers to pass without paying, such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and punished accordingly. He charged the four defendants with having been concerned in the destruction of the Bolgoed Gate, on ; and if that charge should be brought home, the statute enacted, that they should be guilty of a misdemeanour.

Mr. Maule then called John Jones.

The Chairman:– Can you speak English? Witness (in English): “No, Sir” (laughter.)

Mr. Tripp said he understood English well, and it would be a convenience if he gave evidence in English.

The Chairman observed, that a Welshman who spoke English imperfectly always preferred giving evidence in his native tongue. He (the Chairman) could understand and speak French, still, if in a court of justice, he would insist on his right of giving evidence in English.

Mr. Glasbrook was then sworn interpreter.

John Jones was then examined:– I live in Cwmsciach, in the parish of Llangafelach, in this county. I am a labourer, and the place where I reside is about two miles distant from Bolgoed gate, which, I believe, is in the parish of Llandilo-talybont, in this county. I was out on the night of when the gate was destroyed. I saw the gate destroyed . The house was pulled down with pickaxes, and the gate cut with saws. The parties engaged in the destruction of the toll-house and gate were counted previous to leaving, and they amounted to some hundreds. I know there must be hundreds of men there. I did not see any women. I believe there were both old men and young men present. There was something peculiar in the dress of all. Some had white shirts on, and others had women’s bed-gowns about them. They also wore women’s caps on their heads. Some of them were armed. I cannot say how many. There might have been a hundred guns there. They were principally single-barrel guns, but some of them were double-barrelled. They had several hand-saws, a cross-saw, and pickaxes. They cut the toll-bar with cross-swords and hand-saws, and the toll-house they destroyed with pickaxes by undermining it, and taking out the lower stones with pickaxes. When the toll-house and gate were being destroyed there was a continual firing of guns. They were occupied for about ten minutes in destroying both the toll-house and the toll-bar. Some of the parties also had their faces disguised by having some kind of handkerchiefs tied around their heads, and hanging like veils over their faces. I did not observe that any of them had their faces blackened. One of the persons rode on a white horse. The men addressed the person on horseback by the name of “mother.” I was near enough to the person they call “mam” (mother) to hear them talk lo him. They were consulting with each other if it was time to go. That was before the gate and toll-house were demolished. It was the man on horseback that asked the men if it was time to go. They replied that they thought it was time for them to go. The person on horseback had a white shirt put over his clothes. He had also a cap and bonnet on his head. He gave them directions, and made a short speech. That man was the prisoner Daniel Lewis. I should know him if I saw him. This is the man (pointing to Daniel Lewis.) I had known him before that night. I know him to be a weaver, and that he lives near the Goppa, but I do not know in which house. The Goppa is near the Pontardulais road. I had seen him frequently before, but do not know how often. I had been acquainted with him for three or four years. I saw more persons whom I knew among the mob. I saw Mr. Griffith Vaughan, of the Pontardulais Inn. I see Mr. Vaughan now. He was among the crowd. He had a gun in his hand. I do not know whether it was a double or single-barrelled gun. He was dressed in some kind of a white shirt, a cap, and a bonnet. He fired several shots from the gun. It might be twice or thrice during the time the others were destroying the gate. I saw nothing in Daniel Lewis’s hand. I saw others whom I knew besides Lewis and Vaughan. I saw David Jones, of Dantwyn, present. His father is a farmer. Dantwyn is about a mile distant from the Bolgoed bar. He was also dressed in a while shirt, a cap, and a bonnet, and had a double-barrelled gun. He fired more than once, but I cannot say how often. That was during the time the others were engaged in destroying the toll-house and gate. I also saw John Morgans, of Bolgoed. I know his name is Morgans. I know him well. [Mr. Tripp observed that his name was William.] — He is a farmer, and lived at Bolgoed. He was dressed in a similar manner to the others. He fired a gun three or four times. There were neither shoutings or noise then. They were not speaking, only firing. I became acquainted with David Jones in the last winter, when I met him out sporting. I have known William Morgans for the last ten years. I partly know from where the crowd came. I first met them on the lowest part of Goppa mountain. This was . I accompanied them to the gate, but did not speak to one of them. Their numbers increased as they went on. They sat down on the mountain, and others came from all parts to join them. I understood where they were going to. They said they were going to break the Bolgoed bar. I had my coat turned inside out. I also put a handkerchief about my face. I did it for the purpose of being like the others. I had been on an errand, and saw two persons who were going there. I had previously heard that they intended destroying the gate, but I had not heard the night. They did not remain a minute after they had destroyed the gate. They went together to the side of the Bolgoed mountain. They then pulled the bonnets, &c. from their heads and dispersed throughout the neighbourhood. I then went home. I do not remember that I saw Lewis after I saw him by the gate.

Cross-examined by Mr. Tripp, who appeared for David Jones and Wm. Morgans, and, in conjunction with Mr. Walters, on behalf of Dl. Lewis:— I was with my father during a part of that day. I was at home during a very short portion of the day. I was not at home after seven or eight o’clock in the morning. I will swear I slept at home on the preceding night. I then went to Gellywran-issa, where my father resides; I remained there until the evening. I do not remember the hour I left. I did not return to my own house when I left Gellywran-issa. From my father’s house I went on an errand to my brother’s. My brother’s name is Richard Jones, he lives at Llanedi, in Carmarthenshire — that is about four miles distant from my father’s house; it may be five miles distant, or more. I reached there about dusk. It may be six, seven, or eight o’clock; I should think it might be about seven o’clock; I do not know when. I will swear it was not nine or ten o’clock it was not quite dark. I had left my father’s house between four and five o’clock. I did not call at any house between my father’s and my brother’s house; I went direct from my father’s to my brother’s house. I met several persons on the road, but I do not remember who they were. I did not speak to one. I do not recollect having met any person whom I knew; I will not swear I did not. When I arrived at my brother’s, I saw my brother and his wife, his daughter, and the servant — the latter was in the kitchen; the child was with her in the kitchen, and no other person. My brother was not in in the house when I arrived, but came in there about an hour afterwards, accompanied by his wife. I remained there until it was dark. I might have remained in my brother’s house for about three hours. When in my brother’s house I saw no person but those named.

The Chairman now asked Mr. Tripp, what course he intended pursuing with the defence?

Mr. Tripp, in reply, said, he did not exactly know at that period of the proceedings, but if the Chairman’s object in putting the question was for the purpose of sending all the witnesses who might be called for the defence out of Court, on the part of his clients he was very willing it should be done.

Mr. Maule observed, that it was usual to do so.

The witnesses were then ordered to leave the Court.

The cross-examination was then proceeded with:— The errand, to perform which I left my father’s house, was to consult with him about my going there to mow hay. I went there on my own account, and not for any one. I consider that to be an errand. When I left my brother’s, I went to the Hendy-gate, and thence to Pontardulais, and from thence to the Farmer’s Arms, and was on my way home. I had heard that the Bolgoed bar was to be destroyed on that night, but I did not know for a certainty. I saw the two persons, who were going to break the gate, going through the fields before me — I did not speak to them. I thought they were going to Bolgoed, because one had a white dress on, and the other a bedgown. When first I saw them, they had those dresses about them. I did not walk with them, but after them. I followed them until the wooden bridge, near the factory. I do not know that I saw them afterwards. I will swear that I did I not see their faces. I then went to Goppa Mountain; I saw scores of persons there. I have disclosed to the Magistrates the names of all the parties whom I knew were present at the destruction of the gate and toll-house. When I first saw them, they were sitting down — some were standing. I sat down above them all. I did not hear them talk, as they were talking in a subdued tone. I was near enough to hear, if they had spoken aloud. I remained there for about half an hour. During that time the numbers increased. Becca was calling upon them, throughout all the neighbourhood. When they left the mountain, they amounted to some hundreds; I was then in the midst of them. I well understood that they were going to destroy Bolgoed. One rose upon his feet, and said to me, “You know where we are going — it is to break down the Bolgoed-gate.” It was Becca that said that. I knew who Becca then was, but not so exact as afterwards. I suspected it was Daniel Lewis; I knew him by his voice, but at the gate I saw his face. I had heard all the neighbourhood say that Daniel Lewis was to act Rebecca’s character. I had not heard that he was generally Rebecca, but that he was to be so on that night. I heard that a week or a fortnight before, but cannot name any person who said so. I will positively swear that I heard Daniel Lewis was to be there, on that night, from a great number of persons. I do not remember one of the persons who told me so. I turned the sleeves of my coat by the factory, about three quarters of a mile from the Goppa mountain. I disguised my face when first I saw them; I used my neckcloth for that purpose. I turned my coat after I saw the two men disguised. I did so because I had heard they had done so in Carmarthenshire and I went to see them breaking the gates. I think all those assembled on the mountain were disguised. I named all I knew to the Magistrates; I cannot say how many I knew, but I knew many of them — perhaps about six, including the four prisoners. I did not positively recognize one of them on the mountain. While on the mountain, one of the persons stretched his hand towards me, but I did not know him. No person spoke to me. I heard conversations between several of them. I was within three or four yards of the toll-house when it was demolished. I was standing near, looking at them. I have said that they were about ten minutes destroying the gate and toll-house; it might have been fifteen minutes. I had seen and known David Jones previous to last winter, but not so well as afterwards; I never spoke a word to him in my life; I only know him by sight. I first knew Morgans when he was in the employment of Mr. Griffiths, of Penrhiew, at Swansea. I reside in a house in the Sciach valley; it is a poor house. I cannot name the day or week I heard that a reward was offered for the apprehension of the Rebeccaites — I cannot say how long before last Saturday week; I had heard some days before. I first mentioned what I have sworn to to-day, to Mr. Rees. Inspector of Police, last Saturday week. I had business at Swansea. I intended buying plates there. Near Mr. Attwood’s office. I had heard speaking about the Rebeccaites.

Mr. Tripp:— What did you tell Mr. Rees?

Mr. Maule objected to that question. It was quite unusual to ask witness what they had told any person with a view of comparing it with his evidence.

The examination was proceeded with after a short discussion.

I did not name to Mr. Rees the parties whom I have mentioned to-day. Mr. Rees desired me to accompany him to Mr. Attwood’s office. Mr. Attwood sent for two Magistrates, who arrived there. I was examined before them, and I believe my examination was taken down in writing. When speaking to Mr. Rees, I believe not a word was spoken about the reward. I then knew that a reward was offered. I think I had asked Rees if I would be free if I informed about others. Mr. Rees said I would have the reward if I could make out who had broken the gates. I do not remember all the conversation between me and Mr. Rees, but I think something might have passed about the reward. I have no doubt of it. You must have heard if I said that not a word had passed between us. — [The witness was also cross-examined as to whether any person had influenced him to become informer on this occasion, which he strongly denied, and stated that he gave the information of his own accord, uninfluenced by any one. — During his examination, the witness said, that if his word was doubted, the Magistrates might sign two warrants, and he would produce two witnesses who would confirm his statements in every particular.]

Mr. Jeffreys, on behalf of Mr. Vaughan, cross-examined the witness:— I have known Mr. Vaughan for some years. I do not remember that I ever spoke to him. I believe I was in his shop some years ago. I think his shop was in a street called High-street. I have been often in Swansea. I do not know the names of the streets. On the night in question I was within two yards of Mr. Vaughan. I did not exchange a word with any one by the gate — nor on the mountain. In leaving the gate I spoke to two men after they had taken off the covering from their faces. It was a dry light night. I do not remember that it was a moon light night. It might have been. I know Mr. William Jones, of Rhyd. I spoke to him in coming from the lime-pits a few days after the destruction of the gate. It might have been a week after. I spoke to him on two occasions, but only once upon that subject. I will not swear it was not on the next day. I did not tell him whom I saw, but that I witnessed the destruction of the gate. I did not say I was close to them, or that I was at a distance from them. I did not tell him that I knew any of them, We had no conversation as to the parties who were present. William Jones did not ask me where I met the Rebeccaites, but I said I had seen them breaking the gate. He said, “where were they? If I knew where they were, I would go with them.” I did not say I did not go near them as I was afraid of them, or any thing to that effect. I did not say I turned off the road as soon as I had a place to turn. I did not tell him that I could not recognize one of them, nor did I say they had come from Carmarthenshire, as I knew better. I was brought before the Magistrates about six years ago for cutting birch. I was compelled to pay a fine on that occasion.

Cross-examined by Mr. Walters, on behalf of Daniel Lewis. I do not hold any land. I was working with my father for three or four days in the week I gave the information. On the previous week I also worked with my father, perhaps during the whole week. I was working with Mr. Williams, of Penyfidy, on the week before. I used to mow for my brother, and my brother for me. I lived for the last six weeks in a barn belonging to Morgan Pugh. I had left Pwllfa. I was turned out of that house. I had not occupied the farm since Michaelmas. I wished to have a house near the mountain for the purpose of keeping cattle, otherwise I had the offer of many houses. I wished to live in a house near Rhosfawr, and Mr. Powell told me that he intended making the two houses into one. I went to bed about . That was the first time I returned home after leaving on the previous day. In leaving the gate I met a man on Goppa Mountain. When I returned to my house I saw no person, as they had all gone to bed. I did not see Morgan Pugh. I know Mr. John Williams, of Penyfidy. I had some conversation with him shortly after the gate was destroyed. I did not tell him that I was at a distance from the gate. I named to Mr. Williams, at that time, the persons whom I have named to day. I did not tell him that I did not know one of them. In coming to the gate the four defendants turned the covering they had on their faces on one side, and afterwards returned to shoot.

Re-examined by Mr. Maule:– Mr. Williams, of Penyfidy, is a farmer. I do not remember whether he or myself commenced the conversation. What I told Williams was in reply to questions put by him. Mr. Williams did not express his regret that this disturbance had taken place. Mr. Williams seemed rather to advocate the parties who had broken the gate. — William Jones is a small farmer and a publican, and is generally called William, of Rhyd. The information I communicated to him was in answer to questions put by him to me. He made no observations expressive of regret at what had occurred, but appeared very partial to Rebecca’s doings.

Mr. J. Naish Smart was then called by Mr. Maule.

Mr. Jeffreys stated, that if the witnesses were called to prove the arrival of a case of arms, he would object to his evidence, as Mr. Vaughan denied having anything to do with the arms in question. It was also irrelevant to the case, for the arrival of arms would be no proof that Mr. Vaughan had destroyed the gate.

Mr. Maule insisted upon the necessity of calling the witness. It was most important that an explanation should be offered if that were possible, for it appeared in evidence that Mr. Vaughan, and a multitude of others had riotously assembled, armed with guns, and at the very time he was in custody on that charge, a case of guns and pistols arrived by packet and addressed to him and the order for which had been countermanded since he had been taken into custody upon the charge. He would say that the Magistrates were bound to receive such evidence, though it was not yet complete as the order had not yet been proved; still he maintained, that it was closely connected with the circumstances of the case, inasmuch as it was evident that he collected arms for some purpose, though it might be no proof that he was present at the particular riot in question.

Mr. Tripp observed, that the evidence might effect his clients, and contended that it was no evidence relating to the destruction of the gate. It was merely of a general character.

Mr. Maule said that it would not be made evidence against the other prisoners, but thought it of importance as far as it regarded Vaughan. If the evidence would not be taken as it then stood, the only course would be to adjourn the investigation for the purpose of ascertaining the whole of the facts connected with the transaction. The only evidence he could at present offer was, that the case had been addressed to Mr. Vanghan. He was aware that it was necessary to prove some connection between Mr. Vaughan and the case, either by means of a written order or otherwise, as a case of arms might have been addressed to Vaughan by him (Mr. Maule) or any other person, though that would not be a very probable circumstance.

After some further discussion, the Magistrates admitted the evidence.

Mr. Smart’s examination was proceeded with. He deposed to the following effect:– I am the agent for a Steam Packet Company in this town. On , we received a case addressed to Mr. Griffith Vaughan, of Pontardulais. It was received from Messrs. Bland, who were the railway carriers. It reached this town on the same day as it was put on board. The witness read the extract from the manifest relating to the case as follows:– “Bland and Co., shippers, one case, Vaughan, near Swansea.” Then follows amount of freight. 1s. 6d.; charges, 3s. total 4s. 6d.. The Mayor took possession of the case. On I received a letter. It was half-past eight o’clock on Sunday evening when I received it. — [Letter produced]. It arrived by post, and was given me by Mr. Turner, who is also a steam-packet agent. — [Mr Jeffreys having glanced over the letter, objected to its being admitted in evidence.] — [The case was then produced]. It was addressed “G. Vaughan, Red Lion Inn, Pontardulais.” Witness said that the first word after the name appeared Rich. Upon the receipt of the letter, I wrote to the Clerk of the Magistrates. Within five minutes afterwards, he came to the house where I board, and returned in company with the Mayor and Capt. Napier. There were three or four policemen present. Mr. Rees was one, and there was a Mr. Jones present. The case was opened in my presence, and contained twelve fowling-pieces, one brace of pistols, a bullet-mould for the pistols, and ten or twelve boxes of percussion caps. There were three or four double-barrelled guns, and the rest were single-barrelled. The contents after they had been inspected were replaced in the case, which was fastened up. It is the practice to keep goods in the warehouse until called for. I do not know in whose writing these letters are. Some of the policemen took away the case.

Cross examined by Mr. Jeffreys:— The box was opened about [Mr. Jeffreys handed the witness a letter.] This letter is in my hand-writing. it was written on . [Mr. Jeffreys wished to put the Magistrates in possession of the letter, to show the course adopted towards Mr. Vaughan.] I received no communication from Mr. Vaughan direct or indirect. I received no answer from the letter addressed to Mr. Vanghan. The letter referred to was to the following effect:–

County of Pembroke Steam Packet Office, Swansea,
.

Sir, — A case arrived per County of Pembroke steamer on , addressed to you. As we have but little room to spare in the warehouse, probably you will call or send for same at the earliest opportunity.

I am, Sir, yours, obediently,
John Naish Smart.
Mr. G. Vaughan, Pontardulais.

Mr. Tripp asked if there were any additional evidence against Vaughan?

Mr. Maule answered in the negative.

Mr. Jeffreys again begged leave to urge the objection made by him before, against admitting, as evidence, the circumstance of Mr. Vaughan being in possession of arms weeks after the occurrence had taken place upon which the charge was founded.

Mr. Maule:— “Weeks after.” We must see what time the order was sent.

Mr. Jeffreys said, that be would be able, at a future period, to give a full and satisfactory explanation of circumstances attending the case of arms being addressed to his client.

The above was all the evidence offered on behalf of the crown.

Mr. Tripp, on behalf of David Jones and Morgan, submitted to the Bench, that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution was not sufficient to warrant a committal. The evidence given by John Jones fully established that, in point of law, he was an accomplice in the case, having formed a part of the company when they first started from the mountain — having accompanied them to the spot, and remained present during the whole of the time that the gate and toll-house were demolished. It could, therefore, be safely said, that Jones was an accomplice to an equal degree with any of the other two hundred and fifty, stated to have been present, with the exception of those who were actually engaged in breaking up the gate, and pulling down the house. It was therefore clear that Jones was an accomplice and it was equally clear that he was also an informer, and, in that character, he hoped to receive the reward offered for the apprehension of the parties. He (Mr. Tripp) would therefore submit, that the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice would not justify the Bench in committing the parties for trial. In support of that opinion. Mr Tripp quoted a case from Carrington and Payne, and opinions given by Baron Alderson and Mr. Justice Bailey.

Mr. Walters urged similar objections, and contended that Jones was an accomplice in whatever aspect the question was viewed. He had accompanied the party, disguised his face, and turned his coat. It was evident that he had considered himself as such, for the first question he put to inspector Rees was, — Whether he should be free, if he informed on the others? Supposing that Jones had been instructed by the Magistrates to disguise himself, and appear among the crowd for the purpose of bringing the offenders to justice, he would appear in quite a different character. In that case, he would not have been an accomplice; he would have been present from understood pre-arrangement, but in that case there was no such arrangement. He would not trouble the Bench by quoting any cases, as Mr. Tripp had quoted several high legal authorities, shewing with what caution the evidence of an accomplice should be taken. The Magistrates ought not to be satisfied with a committal, on a primâ facie case, from the evidence adduced, but they should also be satisfied that the evidence was accredited.

Mr. Jeffreys, on behalf of Mr. Vaughan, contended that no primâ facie case had been made out. Supposing Jones’s testimony to be creditable, there was no evidence that Vaughan was concerned in the demolition of the gate and house, but merely that he was present, as the witness himself was.

Mr. Maule replied to the observations made by the gentlemen who defended the prisoners. He agreed with some of the remarks made, but the Magistrates could not assent to all of them, unless they had made up their minds to think that Mr. Smart and Jones were not creditable witnesses. The gentlemen who defended the prisoners were entirely mistaken in the cases they had quoted. If, instead of being before the Magistrates for examination, the prisoners were tried at the Assizes, the Judge had no power, in point of law, to reject the evidence of an accomplice, even though uncorroborated; but it was usual, unless circumstantially or directly corroborated, to recommend the jury to acquit the prisoner; yet that was a rule of discretion rather than a rule of law. The question was, not whether there was sufficient evidence to convict the prisoners, but whether the account given by John Jones was sufficiently satisfactory to warrant the Magistrates to send the prisoners before another tribunal. With respect to the witness being an accomplice, he (Mr. Maule) would observe, that there might have been accomplices in various degrees. If that argument were to operate, there were many persons, besides John Jones, whose evidence would be rejected. He alluded to parties, who might be mere spectators, encouraging others who were intent upon mischief.

Mr. Walters observed, that there was no difference between the case of Daniel Lewis and that of the witness Jones, with respect to the parts taken by them in the riot.

Mr. Maule was of opinion, that there was a material difference between the two cases. Had Jones ridden on a while horse? Had he acted the part of Rebecca, which Daniel Lewis seemed to have done to admiration? Had the mob consulted Jones as to their manner of proceeding? He had only turned his coat at that moment, but they were better prepared, having white shirts, caps, bonnets, and gowns. Mr. Maule quoted several authorities, to prove that the evidence of an accomplice was sufficient to commit, and that it would be legal evidence before a jury. The Magistrates would necessarily adopt one of three courses — either to acquit the prisoners, to commit them, or to adjourn the proceedings. Mr. Maule proceeded at considerable length, replying to the observations made by Messrs. Tripp, Walters, and Jeffreys.

Mr. Walters repeated his objections to committing on the evidence of an accomplice.

Col. Cameron read an opinion from a legal authority, to the effect that any person could be convicted on the evidence of an accomplice, provided the jury thought him worthy of belief.

Mr. Tripp observed, that prisoners formerly were convicted on the unsupported evidence of an accomplice, but that old rule was entirely abrogated.

Mr. Jeffreys hoped the Magistrates would entirely exclude from their minds the circumstance of the possession of fire-arms by the defendant Vaughan.

The Magistrates then retired to an adjoining room, and in a short time returned, when the Chairman said that the Magistrates had come to a determination to commit the prisoners.

Messrs. Walters and Tripp then proposed calling witnesses for the defence, when Mr. Maule objected to hear, in a preliminary investigation before Magistrates, evidence to contradict statements made on behalf of the prosecution. They could call evidence to prove that the witness was not worthy of credit, but not to contradict circumstances stated by the witness, for if the Magistrates decided upon the credibility of witnesses, they would be assuming the functions both of judge and jury.

After some further observations from Mr. Tripp and Mr. Maule, the following witnesses were called on behalf of the prisoners.

William Jones deposed to the following effect:– I reside at Rhyd. I remember the time when the Bolgoed bar was broken. I heard from some sort of a friend of mine that the gate was broken. It was from John Jones, whom I met on the following day. I was returning from the lime, and he was coming from Llandilo. We were on the road between Glamorganshire and Carmarthenshire. I had a conversation with him about Rebecca. John Jones said that he had seen Rebecca on the previous night. He said that she went before him from Pontardulais to Bolgoed. I asked him if he did not go near them. He said he was afraid to go near them — that they were walking before him, and he following. He said that he was looking for a place to turn, and that at last he turned up by the Fountain Inn to the Goppa Mountain. He said he looked down from the bank, and saw Rebecca on a white horse with a white dress. I asked. “Did you know none of them?” He said. I did not, and added, [“]I was glad to get out of their way.” I asked. “Did you not know one of them?” He said, “No, not one of them. I saw them going before me to Pontardulais, and heard them firing from Llandybie.” — Mr. Jeffreys:– Are you sure that he is the man who was called as a witness to-day? — Witness:– Good God, yes; do you think I would commit such a blunder as that. (A laugh.)

Cross-examined by Mr. Maule:– I was returning from lime at the time. I had not known before that time that the gate was broken down. I believe I commenced the conversation about Rebecca by asking how it came on about Llandilo? I was just asking for news. I had been in Llandilo in . I was curious to know how matters got on. I had never heard of the intention of breaking down Bolgoed gate. Jones might have been lagging behind me on the road for about two miles. I mentioned this conversation to Mr. Llewellyn, of Cardinen, and to Mr. Williams, Clyn Castle, and another person. I told Mr. Jeffreys the circumstance on . Mr. Jeffreys sent for me. I might have told a dozen more. I cannot name any of them, but my wife. I had a boy with me. He was about eight years old, but did not appear to take notice of any thing.

John Williams, of Penyfidy, examined:— I am a farmer, and reside in the parish of Llangafelach. I first heard of the destruction of Bolgoed gate from John Jones. He spoke to me upon the subject . In the conversation John Jones had with me he told me he had been with them breaking down the gate. I asked John Jones if he knew one of them, and he said he did not know one living being. I asked him if there were any gentleman present? and he answered that he could not say. He did not name any of the four defendants.

Cross-examined:— The conversation took place at different times. He spoke to me on two successive days. He told me the same story both days. I will swear he did not name either of the defendants. I reside three miles distant from Bolgoed gate. I will swear I had not heard of the destruction of the gate before he told me. I mentioned the circumstance to my own family on that day, but not to any one else. I think I was in Chapel on the Sunday following the destruction of the gale. I attend Salem Chapel, which is between three and four miles from Bolgoed.

Mr. Tripp stated, that the next witness he intended calling, would prove that, from Jones’s general character, he was not worthy of credit.

Mr. Maule objected to evidence of that description being adduced before Magistrates.

Mr. Tripp replied, and quoted Phillips on Evidence in support of his opinion.

The following witness was then called—

Evan Roberts said:– I live at Llandimor, in the parish of Talybont. I have known John Jones for the last twelve or fifteen years. From his general character I would not believe John Jones on his oath.

Rees Morgan, who stated that he lived in Glyn Castle, in Llangafelach, said:— I have known John Jones for twenty-five years, and would not believe him on his oath.

Cross-examined:— I live about three miles from Bolgoed. I do not remember the day of the month on which I first heard or the gate being broken down, but I was going to meet the boys coming from lime. I am generally at home at night, and I think I can swear I was at home on the night the gate was destroyed. I do not know what time of night I went home. I will swear that I saw no person going to destroy the gate, until it was destroyed. None of my family were out on the night the gate was destroyed.

John Joce Strick, Esq., examined:— I reside at Clydach. I have known John Jones for three or four years. I cannot say whether I would believe him on his oath. I think that, from so much as I know of him, I would not believe him on his oath but I am not sufficiently acquainted with him to say so positively.

Richard Jones examined:– I reside in the parish of Llandilo, and am a brother to John Jones. I heard of the day the gates was destroyed. I do not remember seeing my brother on that day. I do not think my brother was in my house on that day. To the best of my recollection the last time previous to the time mentioned I saw my brother was about . I saw him then on a Sunday. I did not see him in the week the gate was destroyed.

Cross-examined:– I swear I did not see him — that he was not seen or my family would let me know. I am a tenant of the Rev. Samuel Davies, to whom I pay ground-rent. I also pay rent to Charles Vaughan. I am not aware that he is any relation to Griffith Vaughan. I am come here at the request of the young men. I felt for them, as I thought they were not guilty. They told me to swear nothing but the truth. I had previously told them that my brother had not been in my house. — There was nothing elicited in the remaining part of his cross-examination.

Mr. Tripp, on behalf of David Jones, offered to call witnesses of the highest respectability, who would prove that David Jones was at Neath on the night in question. He knew the Magistrates were not bound to hear such evidence it was entirely at their discretion, but he hoped they would exercise that discretion in a favourable manner.

Mr. Maule stated at considerable length his objections to such evidence, which he had never known to have been received by Magistrates, who were not to decide upon the guilt or innocence of parties, but to send them before another tribunal. In cases which were summarily disposed of by Magistrates they heard evidence for the prosecution or from the complainants, and also for the defence. They also decided upon the guilt or innocence of the parties, and passed sentence. In those instances Magistrates performed the functions of Judge and Jury, but such evidence could not be admitted in a case like that which was to be sent to the Sessions or Assizes.

Mr. Wallers replied, after which the Bench decided that the evidence offered to be adduced by Mr. Tripp could not be received.

The Chairman then slated that the Magistrates had come to the determination of committing the parties for trial at the Quarter Sessions.

Mr. Tripp hoped the Magistrates would allow the prisoners to chose the tribunal before which they should be tried, and that they would commit them for trial at the Assizes, where they should not only be tried before one of the Learned Judges of the land, but where they should have the assistance of able Counsel, who would do justice to their cases. — The Bench assented to Mr. Tripp’s request.

On the usual question being put, each of the defendants declined making any statements, as they left the matter entirely to their attornies. They were then committed for trial at the next Assizes; and having entered into recognizances to appear at that time, were liberated.

The Monmouthshire Merlin was also on the case:

Swansea, . we attended at the Assize Court, at nine o’clock, in anticipation of an early commencement of the public business, but the magistrates remained in their private room , when it was officially announced to those in the great hall that the court was opened, that is, that the proceedings against the parties charged with the demolition of the Bwlgoed gate, were to take place in a small apartment, inconvenient to the magistrates, and insufficient to accommodate more than about 50 of the anxious public, when closely packed. The assigned cause for this very unpopular arrangement, against which we heard the good citizens of Swansea and the visitors from distant parts, strongly and loudly declaim in the precincts of the court, where several “rate payers,” in the peace of our sovereign Lady the Queen, were constitutionally holding forth on the liberty of the subject, was, that on the former day of hearing, the feelings of the public in court were so loudly and irrepressibly expressed, that it was resolved to avoid such unseemly interruptions and annoyances this day, and thus give the people a “great moral lesson.” No sooner, however, were the magistrates assembled, than the overwhelming heat produced by the closely-packed audience in a small apartment, rendered a motion by Mr. Tripp, the solicitor, for an adjournment to the capacious court, favourably entertained, and Colonel Cameron strongly expressing his disapprobation at the very limited accommodation, seconded by other gentlemen in the commission, the Assize Court was resorted to, which in a few minutes presented an exceedingly dense mass; the far greater proportion of which were farmers, and their country’s pride, a “bold peasantry,” here and there relieved by bright-eyed Cambrian mountain maids.

Pontardulais and its neighbourhood poured its almost entire population into Swansea; and as a “great demonstration” was expected to conduct the defendants (some of whom are great favourites in their respective localities) to the court house, a procedure properly prevented by their legal advisers, the streets were thronged from an early hour of .

The report (since authenticated) that on the previous night, Llanon toll house and gate, together with another “trust” in that locality, had been levelled with the dust, gave an additional interest to the proceedings of the day; whilst the presence, to prosecute, of Mr. Maule, of the Treasury, assisted by the able Mr. Haven, of the same Government department, brought to the Court House the most intelligent gentlemen of Swansea and its precincts.

The following magistrates took their seats on the bench… [omitted; the list is the same as above except that it contains “J.N. Miers” instead of J.N. Lucas, “J.W. Dilwyn” in place of L.Ll. Dillwyn, and adds F.E. Leach, Esq.]

The following defendants were placed at the bar:– Griffith Vaughan, an exceedingly well-looking rustic, Daniel Lewis, an unsophisticated young farmer, charged with being the Rebecca of , and who would certainly look more effeminate than masculine as a petticoated and capped heroine, David Jones, a staid good humoured looking yeoman, and William Morgan, a merry-countenanced blade, who seemed anything but a fellow addicted to deeds of darkness.

All the reputed Rebeccaites were accompanied and cheered to the court by numerous friends, and seemed to think that it would be “all right.”

J. Ralley Tripp, — Jeffreys, and — Walters, Esqs., solicitors, defended the prisoners.

Mr. Maule rose and addressed the Bench to the following effect:– He had the honour to be engaged by the Crown in the conduct of the present proceedings against the persons who stood there charged with having taken part in the breaking down and destruction of a toll gale at Bwlgoed, distant about eight miles from Swansea. The four persons then at the bar, named David Jones, William Morgan, Daniel Lewis, and Griffith Vaughan, had been liberated on bail, but this morning had surrendered, in order to have the charge against them investigated. The witness, upon whose testimony proceedings had been taken against the defendants, would be placed in the box and examined before them, that being the most regular course. The gentlemen who appeared on behalf of the defendants would then have an opportunity afforded them of cross-examining the witness, and of using every other means of defence which 1 the law placed at their disposal. In addition to the facts which the witness Jones would prove, he (Mr. Maule) would be in a position to prove a circumstance of a peculiar nature affecting defendant Vaughan. The circumstance he alluded to was of a most extraordinary character, but as it had only transpired within the last day or two, he (Mr. Maule) was not able to enter very fully into the details of the case. He would, therefore, merely state that a day or two ago a case, containing arms, and addressed to Mr. Griffith Vaughan, Pontardulais, had been found at the warehouse of the Bristol Steam Packet Compaqny. It would appear in evidence that after the case had arrived in Swansea, a letter, countermanding its delivery, was received at the packet warehouse. That case was found to contain from ten to twelve guns, ammunition, caps, bullet moulds, &c., and a brace of pistols. The defendant Vaughan might be in a position to explain satisfactorily the reason for having arms in such quantities directed to him, and he (Mr. Maule) hoped he would do so; but as the case stood, he was bound to ask the magistrates to admit that fact in evidence. The degree of importance to be attached to it, he, of course, would leave to the Bench. The prisoners stood charged with having been concerned in a public outrage committed some short time since. The statute 7 and 8, Geo. Ⅳ., c 30, s 14. enacts— “That if any person shall unlawfully and maliciously throw down, level, or otherwise destroy, in whole, or in part, any turnpike gate, or any wall, chain, rail, post, bar, or other fence, belonging to any turnpike-gate, set up or erected to prevent passengers passing by without paying any toll, directed to be paid by any Act or Acts of Parliament relating thereto, or any house, building, or weighing engine, erected for the better collection, ascertainment, or security, of any such toll, every such offender shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof, shall be punished accordingly.” The several defendants were charged with having been participators in the destruction of a toll gate, called the Bwlgoed, on , and if the charge was substantiated, it would become the duty of magistrates to commit them for trial.

The learned gentleman then called John Jones, the informer, and on his appearance the indignation of the persons in the body of the court could scarcely be repressed by the officers; hisses were first loudly heard, and when calls of “order” and silence were authoritatively called, a slight under current of sibilations was muttered.

Jones was very firm and collected, and gave his evidence without apparent embarrassment. He was examined by Mr. Maule. The examination took place in the Welsh language, which was cleverly interpreted by Mr. Glasbrook, a respectable trader of Swansea.

Witness said that he lived at Cwm Skeach, in the parish of Langafelach, in this county: is a labourer, lives about two miles from the Bolgoed gate. I was out when that gate was destroyed. It was destroyed on . I saw the gate destroyed between twelve and one o’clock somewhere. It was calculated that there were about 250 people there. I saw no women there. Every one of them had something remarkable in their dress. Some had white shirts on, and some had women’s bedgowns on. They had women’s caps upon their heads. I observed that some of the men were armed. Perhaps there were a hundred guns there, some were double-barrelled. They had pickaxes, handsaws, and cross saws with them. They destroyed the toll-house by pulling it down with pickaxes. While this was going on there was firing of guns all the time. It took them about ten minutes to destroy the toll-house and toll-bar. Besides the dresses which I have described, some of them had their faces disguised with some sort of handkerchiefs tied round their heads, and hanging over their faces like veils. I did not observe that any of them had their faces blackened. They were not all on foot, one was mounted on a white horse. I heard the people address the man upon the horse. They called him “mother.” (Laughter.) I was so near to them as enabled me to hear them talking. I heard the people address the man upon the horse saying, “Is it time for us to go?” I heard that before the house was pulled down. The man on horseback asked them, “Is it time for us to go?” An answer was made to that question. They thought it was time for them to go. The man on horseback had a white shirt over his clothes, a cap on his head, and a bonnet over the cap. (A laugh.) He spoke a few words to the people. I know who that man was. It was Daniel Lewis. I should know him again if I were to see him. [Witness then stood forward and pointed out the prisoner Daniel Lewis, who smiled derisively at witness.] I knew him before that night. He is a weaver, and resides near the Goppa, but I do not know in what house. I saw Mr. Griffith Vaughan, of the Inn, there. I mean the Pontardulais Inn. I see Mr. Vaughan now in the hall. He was in the middle of the crowd. He had a gun with him. He was dressed with some sort of a white shirt over him, and a cap and bonnet. He fired the gun off two or three times while the people were destroying the toll-house and bar. I saw David Jones, of Tantwm, there. I see him here now. He had a double-barrelled gun in his hand. I saw John Morgan, of Bolgoed there; I see him here. He was disguised like the others, and had a gun with him. There were no shoutings or noises. They were not speaking; only firing. I joined them on the lower part of Mynydd-yy-Goppa, by Velin-ucha. It was I joined them. People came from all directions. I learned where they were going to. They said they were going to break the Bolgoed bar. I had my coat turned inside out, and a handkerchief about my face. After they had broken down the bar and the house they did not stop a minute, but every one went away to [t]he side of Bolgoed mountain again. I went with them. When they got to the side of the Bolgoed they drew off the things from about their heads, and scores of them went home. They spread all over the neighbourhood, and dispersed. I went home. I do not remember having seen Daniel Lewis after I saw him by the gate.

Cross-examined by Mr. Trapp (who appeared for David Jones and William Morgan, and who throughout distinguished himself by evincing the ability of a lawyer, with the zeal of an advocate.)

I was with my father during ; that is not my home; I was not at home scarcely any time . I was at home about but not afterwards that day. I will swear I slept at home . I reached my brother’s house in the evening. Perhaps it might have been six, or seven, or eight o’clock. Perhaps it was seven, I cannot say exactly. I am prepared to swear it was not so much as nine or ten, it was something in the dusk of the evening. It was not dark. I left my father’s house between four and five o’clock. I did not call at any house between my father’s and my brother’s. I went direct from one house to the other. I know I did. I met some people on the road, but I cannot say whom I met. Do not recollect having met a single person that I know. I will not swear that I did not meet some person that I knew. When I arrived at my brother’s house I saw the servant. I also saw my brother and his wife. I saw no one else except my brother’s daughter. I saw the servant in the kitchen doing the work of the house. Only the child was in the kitchen at the time with the servant. My brother was not in the house when I first arrived there, but came in about an hour afterwards. He and his wife came in together. I remained at my brother’s house till it was night, I remained there in all two or three hours. I believe I was there three hours. During the time I was in my brother’s house I saw no other person except my brother, his wife, daughter, and servant.

The witnesses were ordered to leave the court, but to remain within call. Cross-examination resumed–

I had a message to my brother, when I left my father’s house on the night in question. It was a message to talk to him about mowing hay. I left my brother’s house for the purpose of returning home. I had heard the Bolgoed bar was to be destroyed that night, but I did not know exactly. I did not know what night it would be destroyed. I saw the two persons who told me the bar was to be destroyed that night, going before me on a field near the Pontardulais factory — did not speak to them. Knew they were going to the Bolgoed bar, because one had a white dress, and the other a bedgown on. I do not know whether I saw them afterwards. I did not know them, nor see their faces. I afterwards found scores of people on the Goppa mountain. I have disclosed to the magistrates the names of all the parties present at the Goppa that night, that I knew. Stayed there as long as they stayed — perhaps half an hour. Becca was calling upon them all the while. There were some hundreds there when we left the mountain. One rose on his feet and said– “You know where we are going? We are going to break down the Bolgoed gate.” Becca said that — Becca was Daniel Lewis. I saw his face at the gate, and suspected his voice on the mountain — had heard all the country say it was Daniel Lewis to be there that night as Becca. I disguised my face when I was near to them — when I saw them. It was after I saw two men I turned my coat sleeves. I thought I should see the Rebeccaites — it was night, but not very dark. I knew many of them. I went with all of them to the gate. I could not swear to one of them on the mountain. I was within a few yards from them when they commenced breaking down the toll house. I stood by looking at them — it was all done in about ten or fifteen minutes. I live in Cwm Skuach, in some sort of a little, poor house. I first mentioned this to Mr. Rees, the inspector of police. I left home last Saturday week, to transact business in Swansea, and I wanted a scythe. I told Mr. Rees, Becca broke the gates of our country, but did not tell him the names I mentioned here . Went with him to Mr. Attwood’s office, and two magistrates came there, who examined me. In speaking to Rees not a word passed about the reward — knew one had been offered. Believe I asked him if I should be free if I were to inform on others. He told me I should have it if I could make out who broke the gates. No doubt something was said about the reward, when talking with Mr. Rees.

Cross-examined by Mr. Jefferys on behalf of Griffith Vaughan–

I have known Mr. Vaughan for some years, but do not remember having ever spoken to him. On the night in question I was within two yards of Mr. Vaughan. It was a dry, light night — not moonlight, I think — the stars were shining. I know Mr. William Jones, of Rhyd, and had a conversation with him after the gate was broken down — did not tell him whom I had seen in the night, but told him I saw the breaking of the Bolgoed gate. I did not tell him I knew any of the men — he did not ask me. I did not say I did not go near them, because I was afraid of them. He said — The devil! if I was to find them, I would go near them. I was brought before the magistrates for cutting birch about six years ago, and paid a fine.

Cross-examined by Mr. Walters, on behalf of Daniel Lewis–

I was working with my father before I gave this information. I worked with Mr. Williams, of Penyfiddy, the week before the week I worked with my father. I was working two days in exchange with my brother — he came with me two days to mow hay, and I went with him two days to mow hay. I have lived in Morgan Pugh’s barn six weeks. I went to bed about two at morn after the gate was broken — all were gone to bed. I did not tell Mr. Williams I was at a distance from the gate at the time it was broken.

Re-examined.

Mr. Williams is the son of Ynisfawr, and is a farmer. William of Rhyd told me that he was very willing for the gates to be pulled down.

The whole of the evidence was then read over and explained to the witnesses.

The same paper also covered the part of the examination concerning the arms shipment. It is similar to the coverage in The Cambrian, although much less extensive about the nature of the objections from the defense. It also reports the testimony about whom the case was addressed to as “G. Vaughan, Rich Lyon, Ponterdulais, near Swansea” while The Cambrian reports it as “G. Vaughan, Red Lion Inn, Pontardulais” but adds “Witness said that the first word after the name appeared Rich.”

That article also covered the examination of the witnesses called by the defense to impeach the credibility of the prosecution’s main witness. It is more perfunctory in general than the report in The Cambrian. The way it reported John Joce Strick’s brief testimony was different in a somewhat interesting way:

I reside at Clydach, and have known John Jones for three or four years. I would not credit his oath after the way in which he has treated me.

The night of this trial (if I have the difficult-to-interpret chronology correct), there were more toll gate attacks. A later issue of the Monmouthshire Merlin reported:

Alarming Progress of Rebeccaism.

From our Second Edition of last week.

Important News.

Swansea, . The Rebeccaites have brought the anti-toll-gate war literally to the gates of this town, and the audacity of the movement has astonished the natives. Notwithstanding the strong garrison of soldiers, and numerous police force, with us, the midnight levellers , in considerable numbers, destroyed the Ty Coch gate and two other bars, situated about half a mile from the Town Hall. On going to the scene of Rebecca’s misdeeds , the work of ruin appeared effectively done: the heavy posts were sawed down nearly to the level of the road; bars were wrenched from their hinges, and cast upon a neighbouring lime-kiln, where they were partially burned, and every part of the “trust” evidenced the determined purpose of the malefactors, whose display of wantonness of power has annoyed the authorities exceedingly.

Ty Coch, which is a sort of suburb, is separated from the town of Swansea by the river, which is crossed at the ferry side by a floating bridge. In the very centre of this village, completely surrounded by habitations, is a toll house, to which two gates are attached, called the Ty Coch gates. It appears that at nearly , the woman who is the toll-keeper, was alarmed by a noise outside, and immediately afterwards the window of the toll house was broken in; being very much frightened, she remained in bed, but shortly afterwards the door was violently burst open. She then rushed out of the house, and saw 30 or 40 men in the road, and found that the gates had been broken down. She screamed out murder! as loud as she could, when a man rushed at her with an iron bar, and struck her a violent blow on the arm, which inflicted a serious wound. She then succeeded in re-entering the toll-house, and closed the door, which was endeavoured to be forced, and was split in pieces. She again rushed out and screamed, on which the men all ran away.

It was then found that the posts of the gate had been sawn off, and the gate itself thrown on a lime kiln, where it was burnt. They not only demolished these two gates, but also a bar about one hundred yards from Ty Coch. They were not disguised, but dressed in their usual dresses, those of workmen. No person came to the poor woman’s rescue, although, as before observed, Ty Coch is a populous village, and the noise must have been great.

No one appeared this morning to be cognizant of the outrage, except from seeing the gates down, and it is quite evident that Becca has friends at hand.

Destruction of the Furnace Gate, Near Llanelly

Official intelligence has just reached me, that these depredators made an irruption into Llanelly, about , and totally demolished the Furnace Gate, on the road leading from that town to Carmarthen, and burned the toll-house to the ground. This is a new — a very formidable feature in this servile war. They also destroyed the Sandy Gate on the road leading to Pembrey, as well as a private gate, the property of a gentleman named Lewis, of Stradey.

The Welshman for published the depositions given on concerning the prisoners captured during the Rebeccaite action at the Pontardulais gate:

Charles Frederick Napier examined: In consequence of information I received, I proceeded, accompanied by Superintendent Peake, two serjeants, and four police constables to Pontardulais. We arrived there a little before . Just before we entered the village I heard a noise as if of a body of men on the other side of the river which separates the two counties. I also heard horns blowing and a great many guns fired off. I also heard a voice like that of a woman call out — “come, come, come,” and a voice like the mewing of cats. Those sounds appeared to me to proceed from the direction of the Red Lion Inn, which is at a short distance from the Pontardulais turnpike gate. Immediately after this I heard a voice call out aloud — “gate,” and in a very short space of time afterwards I heard a noise as if the gate was being destroyed. I then proceeded with my officers and men towards the gate, and on coming in full view of the gate, I observed a number of men mounted on horseback and disguised. Some had white dresses over them; others had bonnets on. Most of them appeared to be dressed like women, with their faces blackened. A portion of the men were dismounted, and in the act of destroying the gate and the toll-house. About three of the number, who appeared to take the lead, were mounted having their horses’ heads facing the gate with their backs towards me. At this time there was a continued firing of guns kept up by the parties assembled. I immediately called to my men to fall in, and proceeded towards the parties who were on horseback, and who appeared to be taking the lead, and called upon them as loud as I possibly could to stop. I used the word “stop” three or four times. Upon coming up to them, one of the mounted men, who was disguised as a woman, turned round and fired a pistol at me. I was close to him at the time. I moved on a few paces and a volley was then fired by the parties assembled in the direction of myself and of my men. I should say the volley was fired at us; this was my impression at the time. I then endeavoured to take the parties — the three mounted in particular — into custody; and myself and the men met with considerable resistance from them and other parties. The three men on horseback rode at us as if they intended to ride us down and get us out of the way. The three prisoners, John Hughes, David Jones, and John Hugh, were amongst the parties assembled on this occasion and were taken into custody, after very considerable resistance on the part of John Hughes, and David Jones. When taken into custody John Hugh was dressed in what appeared to me to be a gown and a bonnet, having something stuck in it, which then had the appearance of a feather, and his face was blackened. The other two prisoners were dressed in white. I had seen the prisoner, David Jones, with a stout stick in his hands, with which I saw him aim a blow at Lewis Llewelyn Dillwyn, Esq., a magistrate who had accompanied us; but whether the blow took effect or not, I cannot state. After the pistol had been fired at me, and the volley in the direction of myself and my men, I discharged a pistol at, and shot the horse, upon which the man was mounted who had fired his pistol at me; and my men returned the fire of the parties, and a general skirmish then took place, in which a number of shots were fired on both sides, but in a short space of time the rioters dispersed. Three of the horses ridden that night, by some of the parties assembled, were detained, and are now in my custody. After the parties had dispersed, I found that the turnpike gate, with the exception of the posts, had been broken down and destroyed. The gate-house was gutted; the windows, win[dow] frames, and door driven in, and a portion of the wall of the house pulled down. I found the marks of small shot on the sash of one of the windows of the toll-house. I also found on the ground, near the toll-house, amongst the ruins of the gate, two sledge hammers, two crow bars, a pick axe, and a number of sticks, which I directed my men to take possession of.

Cross-examined by John Hughes: To the best of my belief the prisoner, John Hughes, is the person who fired at me. I believe him to be the man who took the most active part from the commencement of the affray, from his dress, and the appearance of his figure altogether. There was but one man completely covered with white that I saw, and that one was the prisoner John Hughes, to the best of my belief. To the best of my belief the prisoner, John Hughes, is one of the three persons who rode at us.

Cross-examined by David Jones: The prisoner, David Jones, had on what appeared to me to be a white smock frock. I did not observe his head-dress. I saw him very violently resisting Mr. Lewis Dillwyn, the magistrate, and the police officers. He was struck several times on the head before he was taken.

Cross-examined by John Hugh; I did not see the prisoner, John Hugh, do any thing.

The examination of William Jenkins, of the parish of Oystermouth, in the county of Glamorgan, taken upon oath , before, us six of her Majesty’s justices of the peace acting in and for the said county, in the presence and hearing of John Hugh, David Jones, and John Hughes, who saith:— On , I accompanied Captain Napier and others of the police force to Pontardulais. We halted within a field of the turnpike gate, and in about a quarter of an hour I heard horns blowing, and trumpets playing and all sorts of noises, and the sound of a great many horses coming over the road. They halted opposite to the Red Lion Inn, where they fired a volley, and then advanced towards the gate. I then heard a noise as if the gate was being broken down, and the sound of fire-arms. We then advanced towards the gate, and when we arrived there the magistrates and Captain Napier called out “Hold, hold,” Some persons in the crowd then called out “Fire away,” when John Hughes, who was on the Swansea side of the turnpike gate, and who was on horseback, fired off a gun towards us, and others of the party then fired a volley. The flashes were in the direction towards us. We were then ordered to fire, and we fired two rounds at them. The prisoners David Jones and John Hugh were apprehended between the turnpike gate and Pontardulais bridge. The prisoner John Hugh was delivered over to me, and he wished me to let him go, stating that we had done plenty to them already.

Cross-examined by the prisoner John Hughes: The prisoner John Hughes fired with a gun. We were in the field where I first heard them coming, about a hundred yards distant from the gate. I never saw him before, to the best of my knowledge, before that night. I saw him shoot towards us. I know it was him, because I never lost sight of him until I left him with Captain Napier. I did not apprehend either of the prisoners. I was on the bridge when the prisoner John Hugh was delivered into my charge. I cannot say who apprehended John Hughes. I cannot say whether there was any other person dressed in white or not. They were dressed in all colours. I cannot say whether he was on horseback or on foot when he fled. He was horseback when he fired. I never lost sight of the prisoner John Hughes, from the time he fired until I left him in the crowd struggling with Captain Napier. In about five minutes afterwards I saw him in custody on the Carmarthenshire side of the bridge. Soon after the prisoner John Hughes fired his gun, his horse sprung round twice or thrice, and the prisoner got off, but whether he was pulled off or not, I cannot state. This was about a yard from the gate, on the Glamorganshire side. He came to the ground on his feet. I did not see the prisoner John Hughes strike Captain Napier at all. I saw them scuffling together. I did not see Captain Napier strike the prisoner John Hughes. I do not know who was next to John Hughes when he came off the horse. It was in the county of Glamorgan that I saw the prisoner and Captain Napier struggling together.

Cross-examined by David Jones: I do not recollect having seen him at all until he was in custody.

Cross-examined by John Hugh; I cannot say that I saw anything in his hand.

The examination of Henry James Peake, of the town of Neath, in the said county, taken on oath, , before us, six of her Majesty’s justices of the peace, acting in and for the said county, in the presence and hearing of John Hugh, David Jones, and John Hughes, who saith:– I am superintendent of police of the Swansea districts, in the said county. On , I accompanied Capt. Napier, the chief constable of the said county, to Pontardulais, in the said county. We arrived in the neighbourhood of Pontardulais . Shortly before we arrived at Pontardulais, I several times heard the sound of fire arms and horns blowing. When we got to the field in the immediate neighbourhood of Pontardulais, we heard shouting and the sound of firearms, which appeared to me to proceed from the direction of Pontardulais inn. Soon after this I heard a noise as if the turnpike-gate was being broken down. Shortly afterwards Captain Napier and the magistrates told me it was time for us to go there, and Capt. Napier gave us orders to keep together, and when within a short distance of the gate, I heard some person call out to them to stop firing, but who it was I don’t know. Immediately upon this three or four of them rode to us, and a volley was discharged. The policemen and myself then fired, and a regular scramble then ensued. I was close by when the prisoner David Jones was taken, and I believe I wounded him on his head on the bridge. On a white dress and two powder flasks, each being about half full of gunpowder, a large flannel sheet, a red handkerchief, and some letters and papers, two sledge hammers, two small hammers, a pickaxe, two crowbars, one gun, a plaid cloak, two canvass sheets, a coat with the sleeves turned inside out, two straw hats, a black hat with a piece of white cloth tied round it, another hat, an old flannel apron, a shirt and some other articles were delivered to me by Thomas Jones and other police officers, who were present at the affray at Pontardulais, the whole of which articles are now in my possession.

Cross-examined by the prisoner John Hughes. One of the policeman also delivered to me written paper, containing five shillings, which I delivered to Captain Napier this morning.

Cross-examined by the prisoner David Jones: I did not see the prisoner David Jones raise a staff to strike Mr. Dillwyn. I did not see a staff in his hand. I did not see him doing anything about the gate.

Cross-examined by the prisoner John Hugh: I did not see the prisoner John Hugh do any thing about the gate. I did not see anything in his hand.

Re-examined: When I first got near to the toll-gate, there were from one hundred to one hundred and fifty persons assembled there, most of whom were on horseback. It was a moonlight night. As we were proceeding on our way to Pontardulais, about two hours before we arrived there, I saw a rocket explode in the air, and heard guns firing and the sound of horns. When we got near to Pontardulais, I saw another rocket explode in the air.

The Cambrian notes that the press had been refused admittance to this examination. It adds these details:

We saw the prisoners previous to their entering the room in which they were examined. The two wounded men, John Hughes and David Jones, appeared to be in good health, although the arm of the former had been severely shattered. The other prisoner, John Hugh, appeared dressed in an old flannel gown, with a kind of straw bonnet on his head, as he was when first apprehended.

On , a number of suspected Rebeccaites were examined at the Swansea Town-Hall. Here are some excerpts from the examination, as reported in the Monmouthshire Merlin:

Mr. William Cox, governor of the House of Correction, at Swansea, sworn: The prisoners John Hughes, David Jones, and John Hugh, were delivered into my custody on . It is customary to search prisoners when brought into the House of Correction, consequently I searched the prisoners present, commencing with John Hughes, who is wounded in the arm. A quantity of coarse gunpowder fell from his clothes to the ground as I took them off. I gathered it together and produce it now. I then searched his pockets, and found a quantity of silver and other money — ten half crowns, twenty-four shillings, nine sixpences, one penny, four halfpence, and a half sovereign. I also found a piece of paper with something written upon it in Welsh, a piece of an old Welsh hymn-book, twenty-one copper percussion caps, and a little bag. I next searched the man wounded in the head, David Jones, and found a knife in his pocket. I did not search John Hugh, but I believe he had 8d and a knife.

The following is a correct translation of the writing on the paper taken from Hughes:–

Daniel Jones, Brynhir, — Come with your armour (or covering) to Lanbystia, to assist us, on , or else you shall not have another (or further) notice.

Becca.

PC Thomas Jones examined: I live at Ystalyfera, in the parish of Llanguicke. I accompanied Captain Napier and others of the police force of this county, to Pontardulais, on the night of . We arrived at Pontardulais , and proceeded to the turnpike gate. When we arrived there we saw a man on horseback, on the Swansea side of the turnpike gate. There was a great crowd of people upon the other side of the gate, most of whom were on horseback. They were dressed with white sheets over their bodies, their faces were blackened, and upon their heads they had straw hats. In the hats were stuck pieces of fern. I ran on, and took hold of a gun from a man on horseback, but the man escaped. A great many guns were fired before we reached the gate. On I delivered that gun to Sergt. Jenkins. It was then in the same state as when I took it from the man.

Mr. Superintendent Peake produced a quantity of arms, implements, ammunition, female apparel, &c., which were taken at the scene of the outrage. One of the articles produced was a woman’s cap, which was given to him by the prisoner Jones.

PC Peter Wright examined, proved that he was on duty at the Pontardulais gate riot, where he saw the prisoner J. Hugh discharge a gun at the police. He afterwards fell off his horse, and ran away, taking his horse with him. Prisoner threw his gun down, when he came off his horse, and the witness picked it up.

PC William Robertson Williams examined, stated that he was on duty at the riot, where the prisoner David Jones struck him a violent blow on his shoulder. Witness, being injured in the leg, went into the toll house, while the police were dispersing the rioters, and there saw a man with David Jones, the latter flourishing a bar, with which he again struck witness on the shoulder. Witness struck him a blow with his cutlass, on which he dropped the iron bar and ran out and was taken by Sergeant Jones.

PC John Price, examined, stated that in the affray at Pontardulais gate he saw a man on horseback this side of the gate, and a large mob. Witness took John Hugh off a horse in front of the mob, with a while cloak over his body, a white cloth over his hat, and a red handkerchief round his neck — he had a gun in his hand, which he fired at the police — he bad also a tin horn. Witness gave him and Hughes into the custody of Sergt. Jenkins.

William Abraham Lewis, toll collector at Pontardulais, examined: I am a shoemaker, and have been collector at Pontardulais gate for upwards of a twelvemonth. On , I moved my goods out of the house, because people told me Becca was coming there. After I moved my goods I stopped there, and I saw a party of men coming down over the bridge, most of them being on horseback. I instantly hid myself in the fields behind the house. While the crowd was opposite the Inn, I heard some shots fired. In about three quarters of an hour, I went back to the toll house, and found the doors and windows broken, part of the pine end wall demolished, and the gate in pieces — the posts were standing.

Police Sergeant George Jones stated that in the attack upon Pontardulais gate, where the rioters were firing guns and blowing horns, he pursued and captured Jones, while running out of the toll house.

(There is a somewhat more extensive account of this testimony in The Cambrian.)

The four prisoners taken by Mr. Chambers and the military in Carmarthenshire, on , were then placed at the bar. Three of them were mere boys — one apparently only thirteen years of age, and the fourth seemed a young man of the age of five-and-twenty. [The Welshman, in another article, lists them as “William Hugh, a lad of 15 years of age, the son of a very respectable farmer of Talyclew, dressed in woman’s clothes — Thomas Williams, a servant to a farmer at Llangennech — Henry Rogers, a farm servant at Penllwyngwyn, and Lewis Davies, farmer of Scybor Ucha, near Pontardulais.”] The following evidence was produced:–

William Chambers, jun, Esq, examined: I am one of her Majesty’s justices of the peace for the county of Carmarthen. In consequence of information I received, I proceeded on to Pontardulais, accompanied by a party of soldiers under Captain Scott. We set out from Llanelly  — Llanelly is distant from Ponlardulais six or seven miles. On the way, I saw a rocket explode in the air, in a direction between Llanedy and Llanon. On arriving at Gwilly Bridge, which is about half a mile distant from Pontardulais, I heard some horns sounded. There was one particular note which I noticed, which was repeated several times. Immediately after I heard the last note, I heard the report of fire arms in the direction of Pontardulais bridge, upon which I requested Captain Scott to load. I then advanced to Gwilly bridge, and having arrived there, I was in advance of the men, and saw the prisoner Lewis Davies come in from Pontardulais, over the railway, towards the place where I was. I immediately followed and saw him put something which he had in his left hand either under his coat, or into his pocket. I put my hand there, and pulled from under his coat, or out of his pocket, a woman’s cap. He was dressed in his usual clothes. The bottom part of his face appeared to be blackened. I asked him where he had been, and he said, “I’ll be quiet — I’ll come with you.” He was then given in charge to Sergt. Gibb. Up to this time I had heard the discharge of about forty or fifty shots within about seven minutes. I then went with the rest of the soldiers in the direction of the road leading towards the Hendy bridge, imagining that an attack was to be made on the gate. When I arrived at the gate, I heard the galloping of horses, and I immediately concluded that the Dragoons were approaching from Swansea. About the same time I heard persons approaching from Hendy bridge towards Pontardulais, and the prisoner William Hughes was taken shortly afterwards. He was dressed in woman’s clothes, — a straw bonnet on his head, and his face blackened. I went on to Pontardulais, accompanied by Captain Scott and some of his soldiers. Upon arriving at the bridge, the Dragoons galloped on, and I thought were going to charge us, but on perceiving who we were, they desisted. I proceeded to the gate — found the gate destroyed — the internal partitions of the toll house destroyed — and the windows smashed in. I saw three men there in custody. On my way back to Llanelly, the prisoner, William Hughes, told me he had a horn, and he would show me where it was. I went with him to a certain spot, and there found a horn, close to the spot where he was taken.

Sergeant Henry Gibbs, of the 73rd regiment, examined: I was on duty on , between Pontardulais and Llanelly. I was stationed on the railway near the Gwilly bridge. Whilst we were there I heard some men coming along the railway; I stopped them. I see them here now. They are the prisoners, Henry Rogers and Thomas Williams. They were not disguised at all or armed. They seemed to be very much frightened because I brought the bayonet down as if I was going to run it through them, and told them to slop. I told them I would let them go if they would tell me where others were gone to. They said they had nothing to do with the gate, but merely went out to see.

On , a coroner’s inquest was held concerning the death of Sarah Williams, the toll collector at Hendy Turnpike Gate, who had been shot in the course of that gate’s destruction. This inquest rather incredibly would find the death of Williams to have been from an “unknown” cause — thus precluding a homicide investigation. It seems to have been an act of jury nullification meant to shield Rebecca and her followers from the authorities.

Here is how the Monmouthshire Merlin covered the inquest:

Coroner’s Inquest

On the body of Sarah Williams, the toll collector at the Hendy Turnpike Gate.

On , an inquest was held at Pontardulais, before William Bonville, Esq., coroner, on the body of Sarah Williams, aged 75.

The Jury.
Griffith HenryJenkin Henry
Thomas SamuelJohn Bowen
John ThomasJohn Pugh
Walter HopkinsDavid Davies
John Bowen, jun.Samuel Griffith
John ThomasDavid Evans
John JonesRichard Davies
The Evidence.

John Thomas, labourer, sworn: Is a house carpenter, residing near the Hendy gate toll house, in the parish of Llanedy, in the county of Carmarthen. Knew the deceased, Williams, who was the toll-collector at the Hendy gale, and has been so for about a week. On , or early on Sunday morning, I was alarmed by report of five or six guns near the Hendy gate. I was then in bed, and soon after the deceased came to my house, and called me and my family to assist in putting out the fire at the toll-house, which had been set on fire and was then burning; but we did not go, as we were afraid to do so. In about a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes afterwards I heard the report of another gun; and about a minute after deceased came to my house, and my wife went to the door and saw deceased coming towards her. She (the deceased) was crawling along by the wall to support herself until she came to the door, when she cried out, “Dear, dear,” and fell down, and I found she was dead. The deceased has been a toll collector at many gates for years.

Margaret Thomas, wife of the last witness, said that , the deceased came to our house, and asked my husband and me to get up directly, as some one had set the toll house on fire. I went out to the door and told her to carry her things out of her house. She went back to the toll house, and took her furniture out on the road. I asked her several times to come into our house, but she did not come. I heard the report of four or five guns afterwards, and the deceased, in about three-quarters of an hour after I had first spoken to her, came towards my house, at which time I was standing within the door, which was open. The deceased did not speak a word that I heard, and seeing that she was exhausted, I laid hold of her round the waist, and she sank down at my door, on the outside. My husband came out, and we took her into the house, but she did not speak a word. My husband held her, and put her in a silting posture on the floor, and she died in about two minutes. I did not see any blood, except a little on her forehead. I thought at first that she was frightened to death. I did not hear the noise of horses, nor footsteps, nor did I see any persons from the beginning to the end. I did not hear any horns blown, or any shouting. My husband was in the house all the time.

By the jury: I did not think from the blood on the forehead that she had had a blow, and that that had been the cause of her death. I did not think she died from a blow, but by suffocation from loss of breath.

By the Coroner: About I saw the toll house and gate still standing, and in the course of the night I saw the toll house on fire. That was when the deceased called us up to put it out, and in the morning I found the house and and gate both pulled down, there being only the walls standing. The house had a thatched roof, and contained two rooms. The toll board had fallen down some time back, and was then in the house in pieces.

Mr. Benjamin Thomas sworn: I am a surgeon, residing at Llanelly. I have, with Mr. Cooke, inspected and made a post mortem examination of the body of the deceased Sarah Williams, now lying at the Black Horse, Pontardulais. We examined the body externally and internally. On the anterior view of the body, whilst the corpse was lying on its back, from the feet to the breast there did not appear to be any mark of violence. The marks of shots were seen penetrating the nipple of the left breast, one in the arm-pit of the same side, and several shot marks in both arms. On the external end of the left clavicle there were two shot marks, one on the left side of the wind pipe, several on the forehead, and one in the external angle of the right eye. There was blood on the cloths covering the breast, and the marks of blood having escaped from the mouth. In moving the body to a sitting posture, a considerable quantity of fluid blood escaped from the mouth. The back view of the body did not shew any mark of violence. On moving the integuments of the scalp, the shot marks observed on the surface were found in the bony structure of the skull, but not penetrating through it. Upon removing the bone covering the brain, the external covering of the brain, or dura mater, was exposed entire, and appeared slightly vascular, as did also the entire structure of the brain. The lateral ventricles contained no more fluid than is generally found in them. On opening the chest the left lung pressed higher up than is natural, and was darker in colour, and on cutting into it, the substance was found considerably congested, with marks of some shots on the surface, two of which we found in the substance of that lung. In the right lung, there was an adhesion to the side, on nearly the whole of its external surface, with a considerable effusion of dark coloured blood into its substance. In the cavity of the left pleura there were about three pints of blood, a large portion of which was in a coagulated state, and the remainder fluid. The head was natural, and we did not proceed further with our examination, being satisfied as to what was the cause of death, which was the loss of blood and the state of the lungs and pleura arising from the shot found in the substance of the lungs, and which had caused this extravasation of blood.

Mr. John Kirkhouse Cooke, of Llanelly, surgeon, corroborated Mr. B. Thomas’s evidence.

The jury then retired to consider their verdict, and in about a quarter of an hour returned the following:– “That the deceased died from the effusion of blood into the chest, which occasioned suffocation, but from what cause is to this jury unknown.”

Other newspapers went into more detail about Cooke’s [or perhaps Cook’s] testimony, which more than merely corroborating Thomas’s conclusions, backed them up with additional details. Here, for instance, is the Cambrian’s version:

I examined the body of the deceased with the last witness — found no external marks of violence, excepting some gun-shot wounds. The shots were found in the bony structure of the head, and in the breast. The lungs on the left side protruded considerably, and also had the appearance of having a considerable effusion of blood; and, on removing them, we discovered an immense effusion of blood into the cavities of the chest — the greater portion of it in a fluid state, but a considerable quantity was coagulated. It amounted altogether to about three pounds of blood. On tracing the surface of the lungs, on the interior part of it, I discovered distinct patches of effused blood, also opening, which had the appearance of being made by shot, which I traced into the substance of the lungs, and extracted two. They were the ordinary sized shot. This examination was sufficiently satisfactory to shew the cause of death, which would have been produced from the large quantity of blood effused into the chest, and which impeded the motion of the lungs, as well as by the large quantity of blood lost, destroying vitality. There was also a large quantity of blood escaped through the mouth. There was no other cause to attribute this effusion of blood into the cavity of the chest, but by the shots penetrating the lungs and injuring its vessels.

The Welshman reports that on , a policeman insulted a woman in the company of a soldier, the soldier later caught up to the policeman, and “a furious collision took place” between cops and soldiers “for some time — the combatants amounting to 30 or 40 persons.” This gives some clues as to the state of morale among law enforcement, as do these details: “Every evening since the station house has been literally besieged with persons, yelling and hooting the police, and cheering the military… Several persons are in custody for withholding their assistance to the police when called upon ‘in the Queen’s name.’ ”

The examination of the suspected Rebeccaites captured around Pontardulais continued on .

On a hunch, I cross-checked the newspaper account of the list of 12 Magistrates who were conducting this investigation with the earlier newspaper account of the meeting of 23 trustees of the Swansea Turnpike and Wych Tree Bridge Trusts. The names J.H. Vivian, Samuel Davies, T. Edward Thomas, John Grove, J.D. Berrington, and J.D. Llewelyn appear in both lists. So it seems that the magistrates acting as grand juries to investigate the tollgate attacks were largely the same set of people who were profiting from the tollgates. At least half of the people in this grand jury were also trustees of that one trust. No wonder the Rebeccaites didn’t trust the local authorities to rectify things.

Here are some excerpts from the coverage of the examination as given in the Monmouthshire Merlin:

At the Hall was crowded by persons, most of whom had evidently travelled a considerable distance, for the purpose, of being present at the adjourned examination.

The prisoners, John Hughes, David Jones, and John Hugh having been placed at the bar, were told that they stood charged with having, on , with divers evil-disposed persons, at the parish of Llandilo-Talybont, in this county, unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled together, to the disturbance of the public peace; and being then and there assembled, did feloniously and unlawfully begin to demolish and pull down the dwelling-house of one William Lewis, there situate.

The Chairman having cautioned the prisoners, and informed them that anything they said would be taken down in writing, and probably used against them, asked them if they wished make any statements in reply to the charge.

The prisoners severally replied — “I have nothing to say now.”

Mr. Attwood then informed them that there was a second charge against them — namely, a charge against John Hughes of having feloniously, unlawfully, and with malice aforethought committed an assault upon Captain Napier, with intent to kill and murder him [the coverage in The Cambrian makes this more specific: “charging him with having, on the night in question, in the parish of Llandilo-Talybont, a certain pistol loaded with gunpowder and shot, which he held in his right hand at and against one Charles Frederick Napier, feloniously and unlawfully did shoot, with the intention feloniously, willfully, and of malice aforethought, the said Charles Frederick Napier to kill and murder”]; and the prisoners David Jones and John Hugh were charged with aiding and abetting John Hughes.

The prisoners severally said — “I have nothing to say till the trial.”

The prisoners, William Hughes and Lewis Davies, were informed that they stood charged with having unlawfully thrown down a turnpike gate — to which they replied that they had nothing to say.

The Chairman then addressed the prisoners as follows:– “John Hughes, David Jones, John Hugh, William Hughes, and Lewis Davies, I have now to inform you that you are committed for trial at the first Assizes held for this county.”

On the application of Mr. Hugh Williams, William Hughes and Lewis Davies, were admitted to bail.

The grand jury deciding whether to bring an indictment against several Rebeccaites, including those accused in the Pontardulais gate attack and in the attacks on the constables trying to arrest members of the Morgan family, met on to hear the prosecutor’s opening argument. The Cambrian was there:

Special Commission

For the Trial of Parties Charged with Rebeccaism.

 — Mr. Baron Gurney addressed the Grand Jury, and, after making a few preliminary observations, congratulating them on the good attendance of Magistrates, Grand Jurors, &c., said–

We are assembled at this unusual season of the year, under her Majesty’s Commission of Oyer and Terminer, to enquire into the cases of persons charged with felonies and misdemeanours arising out of, or connected with, the disturbances and outrages lately committed in this county, and to deliver the gaol of persons who are detained therein under such charges.

It is but too notorious that, in other parts of South Wales, there have been, for several months past, tumultuary proceedings — large assemblages of persons, generally by night, for the destruction of turnpike gates.

These proceedings did not receive a check at their commencement; and, therefore, they gradually increased, until they attained considerable height.

It might have been expected that the exposition of the law, the salutary cautions, the solemn warnings of the Learned Judge who presided in South Wales, on the Summer Circuit, in the two neighbouring counties of Carmarthen and Pembroke, would have been effectual in bringing the people to a sense of their moral duly, or if that failed, of their personal danger, from a perseverance in these practices; but I lament to say that, instead of decreasing, these offences have increased in number, in extent, and in enormity, and have at length reached the county in which we are assembled.

Excesses of this kind are never committed without some grievance, real or pretended.

The alleged grievance on account of which they commenced, and have been continued, was heavy tolls at turnpike gates.

When turnpikes were first established in England, about a century ago, it is matler of history that a large proportion of the farmers were hostile to them. They, with short sighted policy, preferred bad roads, imperfectly repaired by the parishes, to good roads, which were attended with the exaction of tolls. Wiser councils, however, prevailed, and to those wiser councils we are indebted for those roads, which have been gradually improved, and have at last, in many paris, almost attained perfection.

By the turnpike roads, many districts have been made accessible, which were not so before. They have stamped an increased value on thousands and thousands of acres of valuable land.

But good roads could not be constructed except by means of a large outlay; for that outlay money was necessarily borrowed, for the payment of the principal and interest of which, tolls were necessary, and gates for their collection.

The Principality has, I believe, largely benefitted by this system.

The improvement in the roads has been beneficial to all classes. It has opened important communications for trade, for agriculture, and for pleasure. The facility afforded to travelling has brought into your country, so rich in scenery, numbers of persons who would otherwise never have visited it.

If, in the execution of plans for the improvement of the roads, any error has been committed — if the tolls imposed by the Act of Parliament have been too heavy; or if, where trustees had discretion vested in them, they have erred in the exercise of it, it was equally the duty and the interest of those who felt any burthen which they thought they ought not to bear, peaceably to prefer their applications to the legislature or to the trustees (as the case might be) for relief.

And if they believed that any illegal exaction took place, they had in their own hands a prompt remedy, by application to the magistrates in petty sessions, or, if they preferred it, either by indictment or by action, when a trial would have taken place at the assizes; and I will venture to say, that the appeal for justice, by even the poorest member of the community, would never have been made in vain.

I have always found that the claim of an oppressed man was listened to with favour in a court of justice, and ample redress afforded.

If, therefore, any grievances existed in the shape or oppression or illegal tolls, there was a legal remedy.

If, indeed, there are persons who, after money has been lent for the making the roads, and tolls imposed for repayment, have wished to break faith with the creditors by destroying their security, they must be dishonest characters. Many a widow and many an orphan are dependent on these securities for their subsistence.

Instead of that peaceable application for redress, which I have pointed out, there have been large and tumultuous assemblages of persons, generally in the night, disguised so as to escape identification; armed in a manner to defy resistance, provided with implements for the destruction of gates, and even houses, and have carried their unlawful and wicked purposes into execution by terror and by violence, extending even to an attack upon the lives of peace officers, in the actual execution of their duty.

In a country which is governed by law, such excesses as these must be put down with a strong hand. They are sure, sooner or later, to bring ruin on on those who engage in them.

I am happy to say that the cases which will be brought before you, though heinous in their character, are not numerous.

I learn from the depositions which lie before me, that on , an attack was made upon the turnpike house and gate at Pontardulais, on the road from Swansea to Llanon, by a tumultuous assemblage of persons, amounting, it is believed, to 150, blowing horns, armed and disguised, provided with implements of destruction. The gate was broken down, and the house partly demolished, when the chief constable and other constables, accompanied by a magistrate, arrived.

There can be no doubt that the demolition would have been completed, but for the interruption by the constables.

The constables, it is deposed, called on them to desist — upon this one of the leaders fired a pistol at the chief constable, and was followed by a volley from the rioters.

The fire was returned by the constables, and three persons were apprehended. These three are John Hughes, David Jones, and John Hugh. Two charges against them are stated in the commitment — the one of beginning to demolish the house, the other of firing at the chief constable and the other constables. It will be your duty to decide on the evidence that will be laid before you whether the guilt imputed be or be not brought home to them, or to either of them.

If the proof be as, were it remain unanswered, would induce you to pronounce a verdict of guilty (if you were the trying jury) in that case you will find a true bill, and doubtless you are well aware that they who concur in the verdict must not consist of a less number than twelve.

To prove the guilt of the persons accused, it is by no means necessary to show that they were the very persons who wielded the pick-axe or the crow bar, or did, with their own hands, any thing in the demolition of the house.

The crime is the crime of the riotous assembly, and all who formed part of that assembly, all who, by their presence, swelled their number and augmented their force, more especially all who by their disguises had prepared to avoid detection, and all who by their arms had prepared to over-power resistance, and resist apprehension — all in short who, by their conduct, shewed that they were concurring and assisting in the execution of their unlawful purpose are in law equally guilty.

You will, therefore, attend to the evidence that will be adduced, and find a true bill or not, according as the evidence fixes or fails to fix guilt upon each of the persons charged.

The same observation applies to the charge of firing loaded arms at the peace officers — it is not necessary to prove that the person charged was the very man that pulled the trigger — all who banded themselves together in such numbers with such weapons — indicative of such a purpose, are equally guilty.

Had any of these shots taken fatal effect, they would have had to answer for the crime of murder — and this consideration should lead rash and unthinking people to some reflection as to the danger they incur by engaging in such enterprizes which may and continually do involve them in more atrocious crimes, and more condign punishments than they had anticipated.

Another case is a charge of assault upon the chief constable, for the purpose of preventing the apprehension, or of rescuing from his lawful custody a member of the family, against whom a warrant on a charge of felony had issued, of maliciously and feloniously cutting and wounding him.

The depositions state that the chief constable, accompanied by others, had apprehended Henry Morgan, on a charge of felony, when the mother, the father, the sister, and the brother, fell upon him with great violence; assaulted him with different weapons — and the mother assaulted him with a weapon which cat his head to the bone.

In his own defence he was compelled to fire a pistol, by which one the family was seriously wounded; for the preservation of his life he was justified in so doing.

You will hear the narrative of each of the officers, and find a true bill or not, according as the evidence proves or fails to prove the participation of these parties in this crime.

As in the other case, it is fit that I should state that, where all the parties are equally engaged, the act of one is the act of all.

The grand jury deciding whether to bring an indictment against several accused Rebeccaites met again on to decide on the cases of John Hughes, John Hugh, and David Jones. The Cambrian was there:

They first considered the charges against John Hughes (who appeared in court with his arm in a sling from injuries suffered during his arrest). Hughes’s lawyer tried to challenge the method by which the jury was composed, without much success.

The prosecutor addressed the jury, saying in part:

He would forbear from making any observations upon the state of the adjoining counties, were it not for the purpose of accounting for their being assembled together on that extraordinary occasion, for the trial of this, and other cases which would come before the Court. The disturbed condition in which many of the counties of South Wales were at the present time, rendered it, in the judgment of those whose duty it was to advise the Crown, imperatively necessary that the resolute and immediate administration of the law should take effect, and justice be promptly administered, in consequence of the great increase in the number and magnitude of offences committed under circumstances of considerable violence.

He went on to describe the Pontardulais Gate attack as follows:

He would relate what took place on , by a mob, consisting from one to two hundred persons, many of whom were on horseback. They appeared to have come from some of the roads leading from the county of Carmarthen over a bridge, known by the name of Pontardulais bridge, which crossed a river, called the Loughor river. At a short distance from the bridge, on the Glamorganshire side of the river, there was a toll-house and gate, and he believed they had existed beyond the memory of most persons acquainted with that part of the country. He would next call the attention of the jury to the general appearance of the mob, and the manner in which they had provided themselves with arms and other implements of destruction. The majority were disguised in some garments resembling female attire, and having their faces blackened. Several of them had arms. Shots were fired, and in some instances it would be proved, that the guns were loaded with shot, one having been taken, and when examined was found to be loaded. What were the contents of the guns which had been discharged could only be proved by the effect taken by them, and it would be stated in evidence, that the marks of shot were visible on different portions of the toll-house, and he was not confident whether such was not the case in some of the neighbouring houses. They advanced towards the bridge, which they crossed, and went to the toll-house and gate. They appeared to have with them implements of a destructive kind, and when it was considered that there were taken possession of, on the following morning, some guns, cliff, pickaxes, sledge-hammers, and some other instruments, the jury could have no doubt what was the object of the party whom he had just described. The work of destruction soon afterwards commenced — all the windows of the toll house were broken, and part of the frame work destroyed, together with the door, and the house entered. The partitions of the room were destroyed, and from one part of the house there were several stones removed, making a breach or aparture in one place, in height about two feet, and eighteen inches in length, and posts which some of the witnesses would tell them were the props of the house. In their work of destruction, it would be found they were interrupted. That would be proved by the witnesses. When examined, it was found that the gate post was cut one-third through with a cross saw, and the jury would learn the slate in which the toll-house and gate had been left, from the evidence of the magistrates, chief-constable, and officers, who went there with the intention of apprehending some of the rioters. It appeared to him to be idle to suggest any doubts as to the general character of the assemblage — that it was riotous, tumultuous, and in every way illegal. When the large weapons made use of were taken into consideration — when the disguised appearance and the violent conduct of the mob were considered — there could not be the least doubt but that it was, in the eye of the Act of Parliament [the law forming the basis for the criminal charge], a riotous and tumultuous assemblage of persons for the disturbance of the public peace. It appeared to him, that was beyond dispute. What had actually been done, would be borne testimony to, by a variety of witnesses, upon whose evidence no doubt could be thrown. There remained for the juey but one additional enquiry, and that was — what participation the prisoner at the bar had in the proceedings. He believed it would be laid down from the Bench, that when any riotous assembly tumultuously met together, every person who, by his presence, contributed to swell their number, which gave them that formidable appearance and character, calculated to inspire terror and alarm, would, in the first instance, be deemed guilty of participation in the riot. It would devolve upon the accused to show that he was present, with an innocent purpose. But the case against the prisoner did not rest upon his mere presence among the mob. When apprehended, it was found that he was armed, disguised by having his face blackened, and under circumstances from which they would draw the conclusion as to the part taken by him in the affair. It appeared that Capt. Napier, accompanied by a superintendent and some policemen, with a few others, to the number of eleven or twelve persons, in consequence of having received information of an intended attack upon the gate, proceeded there from the Glamorganshire side of the Pontardulais bridge, with the view of apprehending some of the parties concerned in the tumult. They were on a spot not a very great distance from the gate, and from where they were enabled to see, hear, and judge of what was going on among the crowd. They would be called before the jury. and would describe the number assembled, the frequency of the gunshots fired by them, the noises they made, and the signals given by means of blue lights. The work of demolition having been manifested by crashing noises, Captain Napier and his party advanced towards them, and desired them to desist. The conduct of the persons assembled he would leave the witnesses to state. Capt. Napier remarked the dress of the prisoner, and when apprehended, recognised him as the person who wore that dress. It was Captain Napier’s object to wound the horses, so as to apprehend the riders. He accordingly fired, and the prisoner descended; the police and the prisoner came into personal conflict, and in the conflict the prisoner was wounded, as the jury would observe, from his arm being in a sling. Upon a shot being fired by one of the mob, an attempt was made to ride down the party headed by Captain Napier. The prisoner’s identity would be distinctly proved. He was recognised by his dress — he was also recognised by his wounds, and was taken to the toll-house. There was also found on his person a quantity of gunpowder, with a shot belt in addition to copper caps, and papers, which were evidently intended for threatening notices, found upon him, and which he would call their attention to. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then read a Welsh notice, to this effect:— “Come with your armour or covering to     on Wednesday next, to assist me, or you shall have no further notice — (signed.) — Becca.” There were other papers found upon his person, but parts of which were torn, which might render their meaning doubtful, so that he would prefer the jury to read them for themselves. Those notices would prove the prisoner to be closely connected with the operations of the night in question, He (the Attorney-General) did not consider it necessary to name every individual act of the persons present on the occasion, neither had he a desire to raise any legal discussion, but be thought it clear that all the acts of that assembly showed what were the objects for the accomplishment of which they had assembled together.

The Monmouthshire Merlin quotes the note somewhat differently in their coverage:

Daniel Jones, Brynhyr, — Come with your armour (or covering) to Llan Ty Issa, to assist us, on Wednesday night next, or else you shall not have another (or further) notice. — Becca.

The chief constable who led the raid, Charles Frederick Napier, testified first:

On I received information, which induced me to go to the Pontardulais gate. I first went to Penllergare. I was accompanied by Mr. J.D. Llewelyn, and L.Ll. Dillwyn, two county magistrates, Mr. Moggridge, Mr Sergeant Peake, and six police constables. We went across the country, starting from Penllergare, about . During the time of our proceeding, I heard a great noise of horns blowing [“as if for signals,” the Monmouthshire Merlin adds] in different parts of the country, and firing. I heard those noises repeatedly in the course of our proceeding. When arriving at the gate, we halted in the field about 600 yards from the gate. While in the field, I heard first of all great noise of voices, then shots were fired, and I heard a number of horses trampling from the opposite side of the river. I heard the voices on the Carmarthen side. The noise increased considerably, and came from the direction of the Red Lion Inn. I heard a volley fired, and also cheering, in the neighbourhood of the Red Lion Inn. I heard a voice say. “Come, come,” three times. They then proceeded towards the Pontardulais gate. Some of the mob cried out, “Gate, gate.” It was now . When I heard these voices I heard sounds of gate-breaking, and smashing of glass. I then ordered my men to follow me, and proceeded across the lane, and then to the main road. I saw three men mounted, disguised, with their horses facing the toll-house. There were other persons dismounted, and in the act of destroying the gate. There were about 150 [“about 100” says the Merlin] there. One had a white loose dress, with a loose handkerchief, and their faces blackened. The men on horseback appeared to be directing the other parties. I ordered the men to fall in, and advanced towards the party, and cried out “Stop, stop, stop,” as loud as I could. One of the men on horseback appeared to hear, fired at me. I then said, “Mark that man.” I advanced with my pistol, and fired at the horse. The muzzle was close to him. The horses turned, and the party appeared as if they rode over us. The man on the horse I shot fell, by what means I know not. The man that fell I believe to be the same as the man I fired at. I then advanced to him, and we struggled. He was then wounded in the arm, but by whom I know not. There were several others who fired. I did not take that person into custody then, as I was struck with a stick on the back of the bead. The person I was struggling with had a straw hat and a loose white dress, similar to a Druid’s dress [the Merlin says just that “he was disguised, and his face blackened”]. Others were disguised, but not in the same way. Some had their coat sleeves turned. I afterwards saw the same man in the custody of one of the police. To the best of my belief, he was the same man. The mob then retreated over the bridge to the county of Carmarthen. I know the prisoner at the bar to be one of the persons who was taken that night, and, to the best of my belief, who I was scufiling with. There were two other persons taken one had the straw hat, and his coat sleeves turned inside out. They had their faces blackened. The other had a woman’s straw bonnet, with a piece of fern stuck in it, as a feather. After the mob had retreated, I observed what was done to the house. The door was broken in, the window broken, and part of the walls demolished. Part of the sills were remaining. The boards on the floors broken up. About two feet ot the pine end of the toll-house were taken out. That is, a part of the walls of the building. I observed one person, with the but of his gun, drawing up the windows. There were several instruments found on the following day — crowbars, blacksmiths’ sledges, hammers, &c. There is a blacksmith’s shop adjoining the turnpike. It was damaged. I had seen a light when about five miles from Pontartlulais — it was a blue light, thrown up into the air. I observed it twice.

On cross-examination he added that he’d gotten the tip that caused him to go to the Pontardulais gate at . Next to testify was county magistrate John Dillwyn Llewelyn. He told more-or-less the same story, adding the detail “It was a moonlight night.” His brother, and fellow-magistrate, Lewis Ll. Dillwyn, testified next, to much the same effect, though he described “noises, similar to the mewing of cats” coming from the mob. H.J. Peake then briefly gave his similar description and produced some physical evidence:

I produce two flasks of powder given me by Thos. Jones, who also delivered me some papers. On the same morning he delivered me some articles of dress. [Pouch containing shot produced]. They are large shot. (Handed in). I produce a shirt covered with blood delivered me by Sergeant Jenkins. I produce straw hats and one covered with cloth [like a veil]. I produce two sledges, a cliff, some iron bars, a gun, a coat with sleeves turned.

He was followed by police sergeants Jenkins and Jones, and constables Jones, Price, Williams, and Wright. Price claimed he heard a shout of “fight till death” during the melee (the Merlin says that Jones heard this as well, and attributed the shout to “one of the mob,” while the Cambrian was more ambiguous about who did the shouting). Some of the witnesses reported on which of the prisoners they’d tangled with, what damage was done to the toll house, and what evidence they’d found at the scene, but nothing particularly worth repeating here.

George Evans, proprietor of a blacksmith shop near the Pontardulais gate, testified that his shop had been broken into on the night of the attack and identified some of the tools recovered at the gate as having been among the items taken from him.

The papers, &c., found on the prisoner’s person were then put in evidence — one contained 5s. in silver, and was addressed “Mrs. Rebecca,” and contained writing, but in consequence of its being torn it was not very intelligible. There was also a threatening letter saying, “That the worthy mother would call on some one, and visit him for his wicked deeds, and giving him notice to prepare for the day of judgment,[”] and signed “A Hater of Tyranny, and one of Rebecca’s daughters.”

The Monmouthshire Merlin also covered the hearing. It added the detail that “The court was densely crowded in every part.”

The grand jury deciding on the case against several accused Rebeccaites met again on to decide on the cases of John Hughes, John Hugh, and David Jones. The Cambrian was there to report on the proceedings.

The toll collector, William Lewis, and John Morgan, a surveyor, started by testifying about the extent of damage to the Pontardulais toll house. Then:

The papers on which there were writings in the Welsh language, was also put in evidence. A translation had been committed to writing by Mr. Powell, the Court interpreter.

Mr. Wm. Cox, Governor of the Swansea House of Correction, was also examined, and produced a small quantity of powder, some percussion caps, 5s. wrapped in a piece of paper, addressed “Mrs. Becca,” and stating that it was 5s. from Thos. Thomas, of some place, in addition to 5s. given by him before.

This summed up the prosecution’s case. The defense attorney, a Mr. Hill, then offered his rebuttal. Excerpts:

The Attorney General had told them that this was an unusual course of proceeding. He referred to the Special Commission — a similar one he (Mr. Hill) had not heard to have ever taken place in the history of the county of Glamorgan. They also heard it said that the cases were extremely few. Was that any reason for conferring upon the country the unenviable distinction of a Special Commission. He could not devise what cause existed for one, but that did not prove that a cause did not exist. Why was it not sent to a neighbouring county, where there were apparently greater reasons for sending it? For this they had had no explanation. It was no part of the Attorney General’s duty to give the explanation; but if the object was that a great public example should be made in the vindication of the power and majesty of the law, he could say, that the effect produced would not be that which was intended. Be that as it may, he admitted that it was no part of their duty to enquire into it. He thought that all good men, in every district, deprecated the outrages which had been committed; but he did not remember any instance in which the penal law, even when justly incurred, had succeeded in staying disturbances consequent upon notions of the existence of public grievances, whether real or supposed. He did not know whether any grievances existed; but if they did, it was beyond the power of the law to restore tranquillity merely by the infliction of punishment. In making these observations, he did not rest upon his own authority alone, but he spoke the opinion of Edmund Burke, one of the brightest stars of political opinions. In that immortal speech or his, in favour of the consolidation with America — a measure which it would have been good for this country to have adopted, he illustrated his argument by a reference to the Principality [Wales].

He said that in former times, when the grievances of the people used to be answered by the application of force, either of the penal law or military power, crime multiplied to such an extent, that an Englishman passing through Wales could not go five yards from the highway without incurring the risk of being murdered. Special Commissions, with the Attorney and Solicitor General, a number of Queen’s Counsel, and a host of lawyers, were things never suggested by the wisdom of their ancestors, very justly so called. But when just legislative measures were adopted, they were successful beyond even the anticipation of those who, like himself, had almost an unlimited confidence in the power of moral force. So great was the effect produced by such means in the reign of Henry the Eighth, which was not very auspicious for mercy and justice, that it had been likened to the “sudden stilling of the storm.”

Hill went on to criticize the way the prosecutor had made his case, and along the way characterized the guns seized at the bridge and presented as evidence in this way: “He was glad the guns were produced, for he believed that, if the choice were offered him of firing them, or having them fired at him, he would choose the latter alternative, but he might be wrong.” He suggested that, contrary to the testimony the prosecution had offered, perhaps the police had fired unprovoked on the Rebeccaite crowd, and not in response to having been fired upon.

The instances were not new, but were in the memory of all, in which soldiers and police, in similar transactions to the present, both exceeded their duty.

It was no new thing to find that their conduct was not always such as resulted from united bravery with forbearance, and which indeed participated of the sublime, for there was nothing more sublime than the conduct of men armed with great power, with command to exercise it, and yet submitting to insults and injury rather than exercise it towards their erring fellow-creatures. The Learned Counsel then proceeded to make some general remarks upon the conduct of the assembly — they had advertised their projects on the night in question by firing arms, while the police had hid themselves in their retreat, having pistols loaded with balls, while the mob foolishly and innocently fired without any such implements, as if merely to cheer and arouse their comrades, for there was no evidence that they had injured a single individual. There had not a single hair from the heads of either of the police been singed, and yet it would seem, though strange, that it should be represented that ferocity had been exhibited on the part of the mob, and that justice demanded that they should be placed for trial at the bar of their country. What did the evidence prove? Nothing more than that there was an idle firing of guns — not loaded with bullet or ball. Certainly there had been a few shots produced, and the Attorney-General had asked if they were large? What number were they? Why, it was only necessary for them to be looked at to enable any person to see that they were small bird shot — and that they were fired as a mere feu de joie — for to suppose that with those they intended resisting the police, who were armed to the teeth with pistols loaded with balls, in addition to other weapons, would be the height of absurdity. Capt. Napier had said that there were marks of shots on the windows, and near the lamp on the toll-house door, which evidently proved the use of the small shot — to break the glass. He did not, for a moment, mean to contend that they were justified in doing so, but the question was whether they were guilty of the particular act charged in the indictment. The question was not whether they were guilty of some breach of the law, but whether they were so upon that indictment. He was glad that shot had been produced, for it afforded further proof that there existed no intention to injure. For with shot, though the injury done would be less than with balls, yet it would be more general — the chances of inflicting wounds with shot being at least fifty to one. How could the jury suppose that any shots had been fired, while not one had even penetrated the garments of any of the police or magistrates. — On the other hand, if the conduct of that body were glanced at, it would be found that information of the intended attack upon the gate had been given, as early as , and that after a delay, respecting which no explanation had been given, the police had proceeded armed, not with sparrow-shots but with pistols, each carrying balls, each of which would be fatal to man’s life. They were found coming to the field, and though knowing by the blue lights, firing of guns, &c., that a crime was contemplated, instead of making any attempts to prevent the riot, they were found hiding in the field until the gate had been broken. He confessed it was to him a novel part off the duty of the police of this country to watch until mischief had been accomplished before attempting to prevent it. Here the Magistrates and police had an opportunity of preventing a great outrage of the law, but instead of doing so, they had waited to see it committed. Mr. Hill, after making several additional observations upon the conduct of the police, remarked that in conducting the case against the prisoner, the first maxim of law had been overlooked, which was not to punish the guilty, but to protect the innocent. He hoped that he did not exceed his duly expressing a hope that the spirit which seemed to actuate some of the Glamorganshire authorities would not become general throughout the land. He had never before heard of a prosecution for a flight on one side, while the attack was upon the other. It was something new to him to see persons coming to that Court under the auspices of the Attorney and Solicitor General, to vindicate their conduct in shooting at British subjects with pistols loaded with balls. Such proceedings, in his opinion, exceeded those of the French revolution. Instead of appearing as prosecutors and witnesses, the wounded and injured men appeared at the criminal bar. He could give no expression to any feeling but that of astonishment.

He then called eleven character witnesses for John Hughes. The Solicitor-General then gave a rebuttal and the prosecutor summarized his case. The Monmouthshire Merlin goes into a little more detail here, and reveals the prosecution’s idea of the importance of the five shillings wrapped in the note:

There was also another paper found on prisoner, which was important. On it was writing, directed to Mrs. Rebecca, to the effect that 5s had been paid at some time before by a person named Thomas, and that he now paid another 5s, and two half-crowns were found wrapped up in this paper. It will be recollected that on the person of the prisoner, when apprehended, there was a large number of half crowns, besides other monies, and hence it would appear that he had been collecting subscriptions for some purpose.

Then the jury considered the evidence and came back with its verdict:

The jury then retired, and in the course of fifteen or twenty minutes [“about three quarters of an hour” reported the Merlin] re-entered the Court, and returned a verdict of guilty, with a strong recommendation to mercy on account of previous good character. Sentence deferred.

The Court was then immediately adjourned.

True bills have been returned against the Morgan’s family, of Cwmcillan; against David Lewis, for assaulting the Tycoch toll-collector; against Lewis Davies for a misdemeanor, in aiding in breaking the Pontardulais gate. No true bill against the boy, Wm. Hughes, upon the same charge.

Which confuses me, as I thought this was a grand jury designed only to decide whether charges could be brought, but this seems to indicate that at least in the John Hughes case, it was acting as an ordinary criminal jury.

The special commission trying the Rebeccaite cases continued on , starting by considering the cases against David Jones and John Hugh, who were captured during a Rebeccaite attack on a toll booth. They chose to plead guilty, probably as the evidence against them was pretty near identical to what the same jury had been convinced by a couple of days earlier in the trial of John Hughes, who had been captured alongside them.

A report of the pleas and sentencing appears in the Monmouthshire Merlin.

The court sentenced Jones and Hugh to be exiled to a penal colony in Australia for seven years. Hughes, however, got sterner treatment:

He appeared to be one in a station of society far above the rest — one not likely to be misled by others, and upon evidence proved to be a leader, if not the leader of this lawless multitude.

He got 20 years of penal colony exile. The court then moved on to other cases. The charges against David Lewis were dropped. Lewis Davies was charged with destroying a turnpike-gate, and pled guilty, but was not yet sentenced.

Morgan and Esther Morgan pled guilty to assisting in the assault on the man sent to take Henry Morgan prisoner, but the prosecutor, “[c]onsidering their advanced age and other circumstances connected with the case,” declined to pursue the felony charge. Margaret, Rees, and John Morgan also pled guilty, Margaret to the assault itself, and the others similarly with abetting. The prosecutor again declined to pursue the felony charges, “and observed that, having ascertained the circumstances under which this aggravated assault had taken place, he did believe they were under a mistake with respect to the right to resist. Under these circumstances he was not disposed to press for a severe punishment in this case…” Margaret was sentenced to six months in prison, and Rees & John to twelve months each.

The Rebeccaites were “bad cops” that allowed peace-loving, law-abiding, innocent Welsh farmers to play “good cop” and use the implicit threat of Rebecca to get more attention for their grievances. Here is an example (from the Monmouthshire Merlin):

High Rate of Turnpike Tolls at Nash, &c.

To the Editor of the Monmouthshire Merlin

Sir, — I am sorry no abler pens than mine have undertaken to draw the attention of our neighbourhood to the monstrous high rate of tolls, as well as the unequal system of collecting them. For instance, from Nash or Goldcliff we only travel one mile on the turnpike road, and have to pay 9d a horse, while in many districts it is only 3d or 4d, and where, too, materials are much more expensive.

Again, the toll to Caerleon from Newport, I understand, is 17d or 18d for one horse. Surely, the tolls might be arranged so that a person might pay in proportion to the distance he has to travel, for under the present system he might go thirty or fourty miles for the same money he is obliged to pay for one — As we small farmers find great difficulty in scraping our rents together for our landlords, I hope and trust the proper authorities will look after these local burdens, as they were advised to do by Lord Granville Somerset at the last Quarter Sessions, in order to prevent tumults and outrages like those which are disgracing South Wales, for we ar really very desirous that Rebecca and her children should never come among us to create an anti-toll rebellion — we would rather have our grievances redressed after a lawful fashion.

Should you think these few remarks deserve a corner in your intelligent paper, till some abler advocate may come forward you will greatly oblige,

Several Poor Little Farmers.

PS. Would not our monthly agricultural meeting do a good service to us, by taking the matter into consideration, with a view to assist.

Nash,

John Hughs, David Jones, and John Hugh, who were convicted of Rebeccaite activity, published the following confession, which reads to me like the work of a lawyer trying to work a clemency angle:

Confession of the Convicts under the Special Commission.

To the public generally, and to our neighbours in particular:

We, John Hughes, David Jones, and John Hugh, now lying in Cardiff gaol, convicted of an attack on Pontardulais turnpike gate, and the police stationed there to protect it, being now sentenced for transportation, beg earnestly to call on others to take warning by our fate, and to stop in their mad course before they fall into our condemnation.

We are guilty, and doomed to suffer, while hundreds have escaped. Let them and every one take care not to be deluded again to attack public or private property, and resist the power of the law, for it will overtake them with vengeance, and bring them down to destruction.

We are only in prison now, but in a week or two shall be banished as rogues, to be slaves to strangers in a strange land. We must go in the prime of life from our dear homes, to live and labour with the worst of villains, looked upon as thieves.

Friends, neighbours, all — but especially young men — keep from night meetings, fear to do wrong, and dread the terrors of the judge.

Think of what we must, and you may, suffer, before you dare to do as we have done.

If you will be peaceable, and live again like honest men, by the blessing of God you may expect to prosper, and we — poor outcast wretches — may have to thank you for the mercy of the Crown — for on no other terms than your good conduct will any pity be shown to us or others, who may fall into our almost hopeless situation.

Signed,
John Hughes,
David Jones,
The mark ✗ of John Hugh.
Cardiff gaol, .
Witness, John B. Woods, Governor.

On , the turnpike trustees of the Swansea road district held their monthly meeting. This was supposed to be the meeting at which they would hold their annual auction of the rights to collect tolls at the district’s gates. Here are some excerpts from the account of the meeting from the Monmouthshire Merlin:

At the last letting, those tolls produced the sum of £3,325, at which sum, according to Act of Parliament, they must be again put up [at auction]. Several gates and bars had been either removed or abandoned by the trustees, so it was not probable the tolls would produce so great an amount as they did last year.

Mr. [Thomas] Grove said (with respect to the charges on horses drawing coal) the trustees could not charge less than 1½d for one horse drawing coal. — To Mr. Bullen: What do you charge for two horses?

Mr. Bullen: I have not charged more since I was fined [see ♇ ] than 1½d each horse. I used to charge a shilling.

Mr. James thought Mr. Bullen might legally have charged a shilling for two horses drawing coal, as the toll board did not state that the charge for each horse drawing coal was 1½d, but merely that for one horse drawing, &c., the sum of 1½d was payable, and consequently, if more than one horse was attached to a cart of coal, Mr. Bullen might exercise his discretion, and if he thought proper, the full tolls allowed by the Act of Parliament. He thought Mr. Bullen was right.

After further conversation, the tolls were formally put up by auction, but no offers were made, although Messrs. Bullen and Lewis were present.

The late Rebecca outrages having become the subject of conversation, Mr. M. Phillips said: The expenses incident to this insurrection, will be, to those who took part in it, more expensive than the amount of tolls paid in ten years.

The trials of accused Rebeccaites continue. From the Monmouthshire Merlin:

Carmarthen, .

The Workhouse Riot, &c.

On , an information was laid before David Danes, Esq., one of the borough magistrates, by Henry Evans, one of the rural police, against Jonathan Jones, of Brynbach, in the parish of Abernant, in this county, charging him with having, on , unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled, with divers other evil-disposed persons, at the Carmarthen workhouse, in the county of the borough of Carmarthen, and then and there created a riot and disturbance, by which said riot and disturbance divers of her Majesty’s liege subjects were put in bodily fear.

On this information a warrant was issued, and entrusted to Howell, another of the rural police, who captured the prisoner at his residence, at an early hour on , and afterwards placed him for safe custody in the hands of Woozley, the station-house keeper, by whom he was brought before William Morris, Esq., mayor, and Dr. Stacey, at .

The prisoner, Jonathan Jones, is a young man, and the individual who assumed the character of Rebecca, at the great procession of Rebeccaites through the streets of this town, on , when the mob broke into the workhouse, where their designs were fortunately interrupted by the arrival of the dragoons, under the command of Major Parlby, and at which time the ringleaders in this riot contrived to escape.

At his examination at the guildhall, , the informant, Henry Evans, was re-sworn to the information he had previously made, in the presence of the prisoner, and which information was read over and explained to him in Welsh. Subsequently, on the application of the prosecutor, who said there would be further evidence to be adduced as to the charge, the prisoner was remanded for further examination, to .

On , John Evans, of Abergwilly, in this county, carpenter, was committed by Daniel Prytherch and John Lloyd Price, Esqrs., to take his trial at the forthcoming winter assizes, charged on the oaths of David William Joshua and others, with having on riotously and tumultuously assembled with other evil disposed persons, at Glangwilly gate, near Carmarthen, and then and there demolished, pulled down, and destroyed the gate and toll-house, occupied by the said David William Joshua. The prisoner offered bail for his appearance, but it was refused.

John Thomas, of Velincwm, smith, was charged with having, on , created a riot and disturbance with other persons at Llandilo-rwnws gate, in the parish of Llanarthney, in the county of Carmarthen. Remanded to .

David Jones, was taken into custody at the county gaol, soon after the remand in the above case, charged with having, enticed one Daniel Lloyd, to commit willful and corrupt perjury in a prosecution against John Thomas, smith, for a riot and assault. This case also stands over to for further enquiry.

Today, some bits from the archives about American suffragette tax resister Anna Howard Shaw. First, from the San Francisco Chronicle, :

Dr. Shaw Calls Upon Women to Resist Tax

Suggests Concerted Action in Protesting to Forward Propaganda of the Suffragists.

Special Dispatch to the “Chronicle.”

New York, . — In a letter which she issued to unfranchised American women, Dr. Anna Howard Shaw, national president of the woman suffragists, calls upon all suffragists in America to follow her lead and refuse to give to the assessors of the voting precincts in which they live an account of the personal property they own. By refusing such a statement, Dr. Shaw says, the women of the country can voice their protest against a Government which taxes women without giving them the privilege of voting.

, the Vancouver Daily World also covered this story:

Advises Women to Resist Tax

New York, . — Militancy is not involved in the appeal issued by Dr. Anna Howard Shaw, president of the National Women’s Suffrage Association to suffragists who refuse to pay income taxes until they are given the right to vote. Dr. Shaw asserted that she advocated only a passive resistance to the government’s agents.

Dr. Shaw said she would refuse to make returns to her tax assessor and if fined by a court would refuse to pay the fine. If sent to jail, she will not start a hunger strike, she said, adding, “I should not thus destroy my health. I’m of more worth to the suffrage cause while I’m in good health than I would be if I was starved.”

In explanation of her letter to the suffragists, Dr. Shaw said:

“I hold it is unfair to the women of this country to have taxation without representation, and I have urged them to adopt a course of passive resistance like the Quakers, instead of aggressive resistance.”

Washington, . — Resistance on the part of the women of the country to the federal income tax law, despite the government’s announced intention of imposing a fine of $1000 for each failure to report income, will receive the encouragement of the Suffragists’ Congressional Union, it is announced in a statement issued by the organization headquarters here.

The Charlotte, North Carolina Evening Chronicle picked up the torch with this somewhat contradictory article:

Dr. Anna Shaw Declares That She Does Not Refuse To Pay Tax

Philadelphia, . — Declaring that many statements published in connection with her refusal to aid tax assessors in fixing the value of her property were erroneous, Dr. Anna Howard Shaw, president of the National American Woman Suffrage Association, issued a statement today in which she explained her attitude toward taxation and “militancy of which I have been charged without any foundation whatever.”

“There was nothing in my statement that could have been construed as a refusal to pay my taxes,” said Dr. Shaw. “Neither was there any thought of militancy in my refusal to fill out a bill of particulars of my personal property for purposes of taxation.

“I have always paid my taxes, but never without protesting against the tyranny and injustice of it. I will do so again but I refuse to aid the government to impose a personal tax by making out a specific bill of my possessions in order to assist in imposing this tax upon me.

“The law upon this subject is clear, even though unjust. It states that if a person refuses to fill out the bill the assessor will do so. In declining I violated no law but I stated a principle. If there is any militancy involved it is the militancy of the government, not mine.

“I am and always have been unalterably opposed to militancy.”

, the Logan [Utah] Republican carried this story, which seems to indicate that Shaw refused to pay her tax after all:

Dr. Anna Shaw to Lose Auto

Noted Suffragist Refuses to Pay Tax on Ground of Non-Representation

New York, . — Dr. Anna Howard Shaw president of the National American Woman Suffrage association probably will not attempt to save her little yellow automobile from sale at auction at Media, Pa., to satisfy a tax assessment according to a statement she issued here .

The car was presented to Dr. Shaw by her followers here. It was seized at Moylan, Pa., Dr. Shaw’s residence, on and is to be sold at auction to pay a tax assessment of $120 levied upon Dr. Shaw in .

The suffrage leader declined to make out a list of her property subject to taxes on the ground to tax her without giving her the right to vote “would be heaping injustice upon tyranny.” “In the spirit of ,” her statement read, “she declined to become a party to any act which violated the national constitution.”

From the Cambrian, continuing the reporting on the Assizes:

Sentences

John Jones alias Shoni-Scyborfawr and David Davies, alias Dai-y-Cantwr, were then placed at the bar, for the purpose of receiving the sentence of the Court.

In passing sentence his Lordship addressed the prisoners as follows:–

John Jones, you have been convicted of shooting at a fellow subject with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm; and you have also pleaded guilty to a charge of having riotously and tumultuously demolished a house. I have too much reason to suppose that you have been guilty of other offences of the same character as those which I have mentioned. And you David Davies have pleaded guilty to a charge of demolishing a house, with others who were riotously and tumultuously assembled, and I know from your own statement that you have been guilty of many similar outrages. As far as I have been able to judge from the facts laid before me you are both strangers in this part of the country. What motive induced you to come into this county I know not; but I assume from your appearance in this part of the country shortly after those riots had begun, which have so much disgraced, and entailed so much misery upon the inhabitants, that your designs were highly inimical to public order and tranquillity. Whether you came here in pursuance of your own wicked objects, following out that which you have done elsewhere, intending to make profit for yourselves by the existence of the disturbances in this part of the country, I know not. It may be so; or, it may be that you were known to be men capable of outrage and violence; that you were known to be men who disregarded the law, and to be ready to brave its vengeance. You may have been the instruments of others in committing the offenses which you have committed. If you have been, what must their feelings be at this moment when they see those whom they have employed brought into this dilemma — about to receive sentence, they themselves as yet unknown and unharmed! You need hardly envy their feelings, if they have any, when they reflect on the sentence that is about to be passed upon you; and when they reflect, and tremble under the reflection, that although the law is slow it is for the most part sure; when they think that they will never go to sleep at night without feeling that their guilt may be discovered before the morning. I know not whether or not there are such persons; if there are, I am sure no one can envy their position or their feelings. It matters not for you whether there are not. It can make no difference to you, for it is plain you were willing agents, and not seduced into a breach of the law, but perfectly knowing all that you were about to do and its consequences. As for you John Jones you may be grateful for one thing — most thankful for it — that that gun which you fired at Walter Rees did not take effect on him, otherwise instead of sentencing you to banishment from this country, it would have been my painful duty to have pronounced upon you the punishment of a dreadful and violent death. But after the proof that you have given of your utter disregard of the law — of the rights of property — of the personal safety of your fellow subjects, it is utterly impossible I can allow you any longer to remain in this country, or ever to return to it. You David Davies may not be sent away for so long a time, but still a long term of years — probably the greater portion of those which remain to you — must be passed in a foreign land. How different will your position there be from that which it has been here. Here you were at liberty to choose your own master — sort of service — and to quit it if you did not like it; earning wages which you might enjoy and dispose of at your own option. No such liberty remains for you. You will be placed under a task-master, not chosen by yourself. You will hate to do the work which you are ordered to do, and not work chosen by yourself. You will not be allowed to quit it however irksome to you. Payment for it you will have none, except as much food as will preserve your strength, and enable you to continue your forced and unpaid labour. You will be not in name but in fact slaves; for to that I must sentence you for your guilt and for the protection of the public of this country. The sentence of the Court upon you John Jones is, that you be transported beyond the seas for the term of your natural life; and the sentence of the Court upon you David Davies is, that for this offence to which you have pleaded guilty, you be transported for the term of twenty years. — The prisoners heard the sentence with smiles of indifference. — They were handcuffed and removed from the dock.

The Riot at Pound.

Philip Philip and William Philip father and son, who were convicted on of having committed a riot, beaten the bailiffs, etc., at Pound, were then placed at the bar to receive sentence.

The prisoners having been called upon by the clerk of the arraigns, were addressed by the Learned Judge as follows:—

 Philip Philip and William Philip,— You are now to receive the sentence of the Court for the very serious offence of which you have been found guilty;– of a riot and an assault upon the persons of the bailiffs that came to distrain for rent on the premises of you, William Philip.  A sad thing it is to see an old man like you — a father and his son — brought up together to receive sentence for an offence of this description; an offence not committed in haste or unadvisedly, but an offence committed after mature deliberation, and which you had prepared yourselves for.  You Philip, the father, warned the bailiff the day before, that if he dared to come to execute the process which he told you he was armed with on the part of the landlady of your son’s farm, that this attack would be made upon them.  Instead of bringing up your son in obedience to the law, and to respect the rights of his landlady, you, no doubt, encouraged him in the commission of this offence.  And you, William Phillip, if you have any feelings at all, what must be your feelings at hearing your aged father sentenced to imprisonment for that offence which arose out of your own delay and neglect to pay the just debt due to your landlady, and which claim you attempted to resist by force.  It is a shocking, shocking thing to see father and son in such a disgraceful position — disgraced and degraded in the face of the whole country — and to be still more disgraced by the punishment that you must now undergo.  If people, taking advantage of the disturbed state of the country, forget the duty they owe to the law — to themselves — and to their Maker, they must be taught to remember it by the example of suffering in others — which suffering is the result of disobedience to the laws of their country and to the dictates of honesty and virtue.  You Philip Philip and William Philip availed yourselves of the disturbances in the county — of the heat and excitement which then reigned predominant in men’s minds — men who went prowling about reckless of order and of disgrace, assuming names which have become a bye-word of alarm and violence — and by their means sought to evade the payment of a just debt, but whether just or otherwise the means you adopted were highly discreditable and dangerous, as you had a right to question the legality of the demand in a court of law, but in no other manner.  For this offence, the sentence of the Court upon you Philip Philip (the father) is that you be imprisoned for twelve calendar months and the sentence of the Court upon you William Philip is that you be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for the term of twelve calendar months.

The Pantycerrig Outrage.

David Evans, farmer, and James Evans, labourer, who were found guilty of the assault on the person of the late Mr. Thomas Thomas, of Pantycerrig, were then brought up to receive sentence. His Lordship addressed them as follows:—

 David Evans and James Evans, you are brought before the court to receive sentence for a riot — a riot attended by circumstances of great cruelty to a very old man, who has since that time by some means or other, lost his life.  You behaved with great cruelty to him and to his family, for you went with others armed and disguised, conducting yourselves in such a manner as to cause terror in the minds of the peaceable inhabitants of the old man’s residence.  You dragged that old man from his house in the dead hour of the night, and took him to a distance from his wife and family.  You James Evans personally ill-used him during the progress of this riotous proceeding.  What must have been that poor old man’s state of feelings when be found himself in the hands of such people, in such a place, and at such an hour of the night; and what must have been the feelings of his aged wife when he was dragged from his bed and from his house by an armed and disguised rabble!  I have seldom seen or heard of an instance of greater cruelty — of a more total want of feeling than in this particular case.  The jury who tried your case recommended you to mercy.  I wish I could think that that recommendation rested on satisfactory grounds.  The Learned Judge then commented in strong terms on the conduct of the witnesses for the defence (a brother and sister of the younger prisoner), in deliberately swearing a willful falsehood, and sentenced the prisoners severally to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for the term of twelve calendar months.

Other sentences included:

David Jones was then arraigned on the charge of attempting to suborn and instigate one Daniel Lloyd to commit perjury, or to withhold his evidence against John Thomas, then under charge for riot and assault. — The offence was clearly proved against the prisoner, and he was sentenced to Twelve months’ imprisonment.

William Williams, for destroying Pentreback Gate, six calendar months’ imprisonment. His Lordship intimated that he gave the prisoner this lenient punishment by the recommendation of the Attorney-General.

Today I’ll reproduce some excerpts from the Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry for South Wales (1844) which looked into the causes of the Rebecca uprising, and which was released on .

There is much in the reports about the nature of the turnpike Trusts, their financial conditions, the laws concerning tolls (and how toll collectors sometimes violated them to increase their take), the grievances at the root of the uprising, and so forth. I’m going to stick to excerpting things concerning the tactics of refusal and of tollgate/toll house destruction — how they played out, how they were organized, and what resulted from them.

The resistance to the payment of tolls, and the destruction of turnpike-gates, began in the Whitland Trust, in the confines of the counties of Pembroke and Carmarthen. This Trust was established in : the Act was subsequently renewed, and several parish roads were then included which had not been named in the original Act. One of these roads (nearly eight miles in length), leading from St. Clears to Maesgwynne Gate, had been made and upheld in good condition by the parishes. The trustees did not, on the passing of the Act, take the road into their charge, or provide for its management and repair; it continued for several years to be maintained as a parish road, when suddenly the trustees resolved to place turnpike-gates at each end of it.

In , says Mr. Baugh Allen, some people from England, for the first time, gave intimation that if certain new gates were erected on roads where considerable lime and culm traffic passed, they might be induced to farm the tolls at a higher rate than that which had been previously obtained. Their proposition was accepted; the tolls were let to Mr. Bullin, an extensive toll-contractor, and four new gates were erected. But the country people thinking it wrong that the trustees should take tolls where they had incurred no expenditure, assembled “in the midst of summer, at about six o’clock in the afternoon, and those gates were pulled down amidst all sorts of noise and disturbance and great jollity, and were destroyed without the interference of anybody.” “I do not think,” says Mr. W. Evans, the clerk of this Trust, “they were a week standing.”

The trustees gave notice of their intention to re-erect the gates. A meeting was held for the purpose at St. Clears, but at that meeting a number (from 30 to 40, as it is said) of the leading magistrates of the county of Carmarthen qualified to act as trustees, and they decided, by a large majority, that the gates should not be re-erected.

“This act of the magistrates,” says a very intelligent witness, “gave satisfaction to the country for a time, but it strengthened the hands of the discontented, and, in some measure, prepared them for further violence. The trustees continued to call upon the parishes to repair the roads, without laying out anything upon them themselves, though the income of the Trust amounted to 500l. a year, which made the matter more galling.”

The rioters, however, gained their point, the gates were not re-established; no one was punished for the outrage which had taken place, and there can be no doubt (as we are assured by Mr. W. Evans) “that with the erection of those gates originated the disturbance.”

At the time of our inquiry no one gate or bar was left standing, and the receipt of tolls on account of the [Whitland] Trust was altogether suspended.

The [Main Trust] trustees, as we were informed by Colonel Rice Trevor, put up a new gate, called the Mermaid Gate. It was leased with others, but by some oversight the trustees omitted to direct that a payment at this gate should free the gate five miles off at Carmarthen. Discontent was created, and the gate was five times in succession pulled down by a lawless mob.

When the contagion of discontent spread from its focus in the Whitland Trust, the inhabitants of the parishes lying north and west of Carmarthen (who, from local position, were constrained to travel as heretofore over the old and hilly road), were displeased at paying this increased [by 50%] toll on account of the new road, the benefit of which they did not enjoy. Excitement prevailed, tumultuous assemblies took place, the gates, one of which stood at the very entrance of the town of Carmarthen, were destroyed with the greatest violence and outrage. At the time of our inquiry, out of nine gates established by the Trust, three only were standing.

At the time of our inquiry neither [Rhynws Bridge] gate nor bar were standing, nor was any toll collected at the bridge…

The trustees [of the Three Commotts Trust] had established 21 gates or bars, of which two only were left standing at the time of our inquiry.

In this [the Kidwelly] trust, 14 gates and bars, exclusive of that on the [Loughor river] bridge, had been destroyed; and 13 bars and one gate had been ordered by the trustees to be permanently discontinued.

As this road [in Llangadock Trust, “on which there were at one time 13 gates and bars”] exists chiefly for the carriage of lime, and as a high rate per horse was taken, the gates became objects of attack; all of them had been destroyed, excepting four. Some, we were informed, were about to be abandoned by the trustees, on the condition that the parishes would maintain the roads, and all the bars had been put down. The toll on lime appears to have been since reduced, without the authority of the Act of Parliament, from 6d. to 3d. on each horse drawing. But the trustees were unable to let such gates as they still upheld, and they had appointed persons to collect the tolls.

In the Llandovery and Llampeter Trust there are 40 miles of road, and on which, in there were 13 gates and bars… Four gates and all the bars had been destroyed.

Every gate and bar [in the Carmarthen & Lampeter, and Tiveyside trusts: “six gates and nine bars”] had been destroyed. When the first was broken, the trustees put it up again, but it was broken down again in the course of a few weeks.

[In t]he Llandilo and Llandebye Trust… [t]here were also seven gates, of which four had been destroyed. Some of these had been re-erected; one had been altogether discontinued.

[In t]he Brechfa Trust… three gates and two side-bars had been destroyed.…

No meeting [of trustees] had been held to consider what should be done with the gates which had been thrown down, and Mr. Rees, the Treasurer for the County of Carmarthen, who still discharges the almost nominal duty of clerk to the Trust, expressed to us his belief, with respect to the gates, that the trustees had no intention of putting them up again.

There are two gates on this road [under the Pembroke Ferry Trust], both of which were pulled down, and one only was restored at the time of our inquiry. The tolls had been let for 111l. per annum, but there seemed to be no hope that so large a sum could continue to be received.

In this district [Cardigan] there had been ten turnpike-gates, but at the time of our inquiry nine had been pulled down.

In the Northern District of Cardiganshire… four gates had been attacked, three of which were utterly destroyed.

[In the Rhayader and Llangerrig Trust] both the gates had been attacked, and that which it was most difficult to protect, has been twice pulled down.

There are five gates and one bar belonging to [the Radnorshire Trust], closely surrounding the town of Rhayader. Two of these gates are upon the old roads to Aberystwith and Llanidloes, which the creation of the new line of communication by Llangerrig, to which we have already alluded, has rendered nearly useless. These roads have been practically abandoned by the Trust, though the turnpike-gates continue to exist upon them. Both these gates, together with one at the eastern end of the town, which became obnoxious because it was so placed as to require payment of tolls from persons who came upon the turnpike-road at a short distance only from the toll-bar, were destroyed by an organized mob, and the toll could only be collected under the protection of police and a military force.

In [the Breckonshire] Trust one gate only had been destroyed. Such as were likely to become obnoxious had been taken down by order of the trustees.

In [the Llantrissant] Trust three gates [of eight] had been destroyed by acts of violence…

We met with no one, however deeply interested he might be in the continuance of the system, who was sanguine enough to entertain a belief that the same amount of tolls could be collected, or the same number of gates, chains, and bars be sustained, as before the disturbances began.

In appendices to the report, the commissioners included some transcripts of testimony they collected during their inquiry.

Here is some testimony of John Lloyd Davies, concerning the Carmarthen and Newcastle Trust:

How many gates are now standing?
Four this week; three, I believe, last week
Which of the gates have you re-erected?
The gate at Pontwilly, by Llandyssil, on the new line. The house stood, because they did not touch the house; nor did they touch this gates; they felt the justice of the proceeds of that gate being applied to pay for the new road, which was a great accommodation. During the whole of the outbreak it was left untouched, till some miscreants in the neighbourhood, whether out of wantonness or not, went there, and broke a little of the gate, and that led to a further spirit of destruction, and in a few months afterwards the whole was demolished, but not the house.
In restoring the gate, do you feel any confidence that there will be a sufficient sense of justice in the public mind to maintain it?
I think so. I have very good intelligence who the parties are who were privy to it, and who are morally criminal, though perhaps not legally. I mean to see them, every one of them; some of them are respectable people, I am sorry to say.
Are there not parts of roads in your Trust which you have turned over to the parishes, and, as it were, cast out of the Trust?
Not until now; we have done so recently.
Can you explain under what view of the law you have been able to accomplish that?
At the eastern end of Newcastle there are two turnpike-gates, the one communicates with a mountain road, the other with the Llangeler road. They broke the mountain gate, called Bwlehydomen. Such being the case, I proposed that we should let that gate remain, as they had broken it down, and let them travel the mountain road; but inasmuch as we received no toll from it, that we should make no expenditure upon it; if they chose to have a bad road free from toll, let them have it; or if they chose to repair it at their own expense, be it so.
Have you anything that you wish to add to what you have stated?
I would add this, rather in vindication of my brother trustees, — there are strong opinions gone abroad that there has not been a sufficient degree of sympathy on the part of the trustees and magistrates of the country with the country people to relieve them when a case demanding relief presented itself. Now, I give this as an instance, and a very strong one: it is three years ago a great number of gates stood upon the Whitland Trust. The parties in that neighbourhood assembled and broke the gates down. Our county member, Mr. Jones, then spoke to a great number of his friends among the trustees, and intreated many to go with him to a large meeting, assembled at St. Clear’s, of Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire magistrates. I went, at some inconvenience, down there; and Mr. Jones proposed that these gates should, by an order of the trustees, be abated, stating that they were a great burden upon the county, that they were unproductive, and that the parishes had to maintain the road. … When the Act of Parliament passed, those roads were in being as parish roads, and the power in this Act was only of adoption; but it first stated that the trustees, before they erected gates, should repair the whole of those roads, which condition precedent they had not performed. I, therefore, took an objection that they had erected the gates illegally; and as the parishes had ever since repaired the roads, I thought, in justice and law, the gates ought to be taken down… At that meeting there were, I dare say, 35 or 40 magistrates; and the view I took of it was coincided in by every one, with the exception of four or five, and the gates were taken away. Now that does not evidence the least want of sympathy with the country people, for we were of all grades of politics, Whigs and Tories and Radicals, and everything else, assembled for the express purpose of affording relief, and the country was completely relieved. I will give another instance, which led to the whole of this outbreak: it was a bar upon one side of St. Clear’s, upon the main trust… the moment I heard of the bar being erected I gave notice of a Trust meeting, to propose that it should be taken down again; and at the expiration of that notice there was an immense assembly of trustees again, and they all perfectly coincided with me that it ought to be taken away: but there was a little want of moral courage on the part of some of them; they said, “We must put it off a month or else it would seem a giving way to clamour.” I replied, “You have done wrong and you cannot do right too soon.” However I was over-ruled, it was not done, but it was to be done in a fortnight; and in that unhappy fortnight the whole of that outbreak took place; and at the end of the fortnight it was so done under circumstances betraying apprehension, much more than would have been the case if we had done it the preceding fortnight.
At the commencement of this spring, the moment the gates were being broken, I sent round to my tenants, and I said, “Have nothing to do with the gate-breaking, I will pay for every load of lime at every gate that you pass through;” and in defiance of that I am satisfied that a great number of their servants joined the gate-breaking, from a mere spirit of wantonness, which required but a slight force to repel at once. We were perfectly quiet in Cardiganshire. There was a rising in Carmarthenshire to come and break the gate at Newcastle, on the Cardiganshire side. I saw their object, and I sent round to my tenantry and neighbours, and collected about 150, some of them armed with whatever they could bring, on the Cardiganshire side, and gave it to be understood on the Carmarthenshire side, that if they came the men would resist them; they never came, which is a proof that the people would act if they could act in a body.

William Evans, clerk of the Whitland Trust:

With respect to the road from St. Clear’s to Maesgwynne Gate, the misfortune is that they did not take that road early enough under management… The road had existed many years. They set up a gate at each end, and proposed taking one toll throughout its whole length, that length being six miles and seven furlongs. The gates were approved of by the public in the locality; they were riotously destroyed, and those were the first riots, the riots which destroyed that gate, and destroyed another, called Evel War, upon another branch of the road. The erection of those gates no doubt originated the disturbances.
How long is it since the gate on the Maesgwynne branch was demolished?
In .
And that gate was not re-erected?
There were meetings of the trustees, at which a great number of new trustees qualified, from Carmarthenshire principally, who had never interfered at all with the management of the Trust before. They qualified in a body, and swamped the order that had been made by those trustees who usually managed the Trust, and who had ordered the gates to be put up.
Are all the gates in your Trust destroyed now?
Every gate.
How many?
There is one at Plain Dealings; there are two gates at Narberth, called Narberth East Gates; they are close to each other. There are at Penblowing two gates, Llether Gate, Robeston Wathan Gate, Pulltrath Gate, Trevan two gates, one of which is a side gate. There are ten gates altogether.
The gates were destroyed. The trustees who revoked the order for setting up the gates, directed that Bullen should be compensated for giving up his agreement, and accordingly, a good part of the resources of the Trust went to buy him off. After all those new gates were set up, including those on the road from St. Clear’s to Maesgwynne, and after they were let to Bullen at 800l. a-year, the ex-officio justices qualified, the gates having been destroyed by rioters, and directed that they should not be again erected. But Bullen said, of course, “Those gates are let to me, and I will not relinquish them.” And then the trustees made an order, that in order to induce him to waive his agreement as to the gates they should pay him out of the Trust Fund 150l. It was made a subject of reference.
What did he pay you for tolls?
They destroyed the gates immediately after his taking.
In point of fact, you have never spent from the fund of the Trust any money whatever upon the repair of the road from Maesgwynne to St. Clear’s?
Not a farthing.
How long were those gates on the line standing?
I do not think they were a week standing.
…14l. 4s. 8d., those were costs paid to an adverse attorney, Mr. Cozens, who was attorney for the appellant Howell, in an appeal against two justices, and Benjamin Bullen, who was the toll contractor of the trust, in respect of a conviction for making forcible opposition to the collection of the toll. The destruction of gates and opposition to the tolls having previously commenced, the trustees felt it their duty to defend the conviction, and so ordered at a meeting on ; the conviction was quashed, and those taxed costs ordered by the Court to be paid. Having defended the appeal, the trustees thought it right that they should pay the costs of the adverse party, and that they should not call upon the justices, or upon Bullen, and therefore, whether right or wrong, they ordered them to be paid.
What was the conviction for?
The conviction was for forcible opposition to the collection of toll under the general Turnpike Act. If I recollect rightly, it failed from not having made sufficiently clear the demand of the toll, previously to the forcing through.
Was the appeal to the county sessions, or to the borough sessions?
To the county of Carmarthen. It was tried here. No 4, 16l. That was cash advanced to John Mens and Henry Rees, poor men, who having assisted Benjamin Bullen, the toll collector, in apprehending Daniel Luke and William Phillips for forcing through the bar, without paying toll, and having from fear of a rescue, as they alleged, handcuffed them, were with Bullen, sued for trespass in an action by each. The trustees thought it their duty to stand by the collector, and those men who assisted him, and at a meeting of , they ordered the clerk to defend the actions at the expense of the Trust. They were defended accordingly, but the plaintiffs obtained a verdict, in each action, for 6l. damages, on the ground that the handcuffing was under the circumstances excessive. Mens and Rees were imprisoned for the plaintiffs’ damages and costs, and this 16l. was advanced to them to assist them to take the benefit of the Insolvent Act, which they did.
…60l. were given by way of compensation to a person who had built a house for the Trust, by way of a toll-house, under a stipulation that they were to take it at a certain rent. The house was destroyed by rioters; the trustees did not wish to be at the expense of building it, and they agreed to pay 60l. by way of compensation…
Were these gates all broken last year?
Yes, we have had them down a long time now; we have hardly been able to get the tenants of last year to pay us anything. They say they will not pay us anything, and we shall only be able to recover anything by law proceedings, if at all. We let them the tolls for the year, which expired last Michaelmas, but every now and then the people came and knocked the toll-houses about their ears, and therefore they say, “We are poor people, we depended for paying you upon the receipts of the toll, and therefore we are unable to pay on account of the riots, and therefore we throw ourselves upon your mercy, but if you sue us we are too poor to be able to pay.”

John James Stacey, clerk to the main Trust:

The [turnpike-]house which has been destroyed between here and Llandello cost 55l. at Penyguarn.
What has taken place to induce the trustees to increase the payments?
They have discontinued the gate at Penygarn which has been destroyed, and they have made other alterations with a view to relieve the farmers, and they wish to make up for the loss by putting an additional toll upon strangers, so that they shall pay two tolls in coming from Llandillo here instead of the one to which they are now subject; that was a proposition of Lord Cawdor’s.
You are not able to state what number of gates are now prostrate?
In this Trust there is only that one at Penygarn, and one side-bar at Abergwilly. Both those have been pulled down by the mob; and they are now, by the authority of the trustees, discontinued. There was a gate at Abergwilly, and there was also a side-gate, and that has been pulled down; and the trustees have ordered that it shall be discontinued. There was also a chain near the palace. It was not customary to take tolls at that chain, but only at fairs and weddings, and that has been discontinued.
How many gates have been destroyed upon the main Trust?
Seven.
How many of those have been put up again?
They have all been put up again except two.
How many times have those that have been put up been destroyed?
One has been destroyed twice.
Can you tell the exact number of gates [in the Kidwelly Trust] before they were broken down?
Yes, there were 14 toll-gates, exclusive of the bridge; there is a toll-gate upon the bridge also. One toll-gate and 13 bars have been discontinued by the order of the trustees lately.
How many are remaining?
All the toll-gates except one are to be continued, but great numbers of them are now in ruins, they have not been re-erected yet.
Is there any claim against you by the lessees for the loss incurred by the destruction of the gates?
Yes; it was agreed to allow the lessee of those tolls 350l., in consideration of his consenting to the immediate abolition of those bars which I have mentioned, and also in consideration of certain gates being made to clear each other which heretofore did not do so.
How many gates have been destroyed upon this [Kidwelly] Trust?
I think about 10 or 12 have been destroyed out of 15 or 16.

Lancelot Baugh Allen, magistrate for the counties of Pembroke, Surry, Middlesex, Essex, and Kent; and trustee of the Whitland and the main Trusts:

You are aware that turnpike-gates and side-bars have been destroyed in both of those Trusts within the last few months?
Very few upon the main Trust. Upon the Whitland Trust I know that the gates and side-bars have been destroyed; but I am not aware, with the exception of one at Haverfordwest, that any gate upon the main Trust has been destroyed. I mean not in that part.
Can you at all account for the different course which has been pursued by those discontented persons with reference to the two classes of gates — what has induced them to destroy those in the Whitland Trust, and to leave those in the main Trust?
It is an attack of the consumers of lime and culm, all of which comes from the south part of the country from Pembrokeshire, and goes northward. There is no lime or culm to the northward of Narberth, and the attack has arisen in consequence of those persons who live in the upper part of the county being anxious to get their lime and culm toll free.
To what cause do you attribute the discontent with reference to these turnpike-gates on the roads along which lime and culm is drawn, seeing that most of them have existed for a considerable time?
There was no objection made to the toll in any way till a meeting that took place about four years ago, and it is to that unfortunate business that I attribute the whole. My opinion is, that the outrages have arisen from the mismanagement which took place in reference to the transactions about which that meeting was called.
After the breaking down of the gate at St. Clears?
Yes; there has been very considerable mismanagement in bringing forward the last Act of Parliament respecting the Whitland gates. The first Act comprised within the limits of the Whitland Trust a very much less extent of road than the subsequent Act has done. The subsequent Act took in a great part of the road in the neighbourhood of Llanboidy and northward; upon those roads at that time there were no turnpike-gates; those roads which were parish-roads, and kept in very good order, were then put into the turnpike Trust. The general belief is, that the gentlemen of that part of the county thought that a toll might be a grievance, and instead of putting up a turnpike according to the Act prescribed, they intimated to the parishioners that if they kept the road in good order, no turnpike-gates should be put up.
Is that notice on the book?
No; I am now stating what I understood to be the case. I wish particularly to guard myself in saying that. This went on so; those roads being parish roads, and in no way obtaining any other assistance from the Trust, but occasionally getting stones which the Trust paid for. The Trust paid for no repair, but they paid for some of the stones that were expended upon those parish roads, and that was the extent to which they went. About four years back Mr. Bullen, the person who was the contractor for the tolls, took gates upon both lines of road; he stated there was considerable evasion of toll by the people coming northward into St. Clear’s, and recommended that a gate should be put up at a place of which the Commissioners have probably heard, Pevernwen. The consequence was, that persons taking lime from St. Clear’s, northward, had to pay an additional toll, which was felt by them as a very considerable grievance. In the course, I believe, of the early part of the following spring, the gate at Pevernwen was destroyed in the night by a considerable mob of persons, and in some months afterwards the gate at St. Clear’s was destroyed, in the midst of summer, at about six o’clock in the afternoon, amidst all sorts of noise and disturbance, and without any sort of interference of anybody. Upon this a meeting or two took place, and it was stated by a number of persons belonging to the Whitland Trust, who met at Narberth, that those gates ought to be reinstated. A communication took place with the Secretary of State, Lord John Russell, respecting it, and about the reinstating of the gate there seemed to be considerable division of opinion between the gentlemen who came from Pembrokeshire and from Carmarthenshire; a meeting was called for the purpose of reinstating the gates at St. Clear’s, at which meeting I attended; upon the proposition being made, it was carried against the re-erection of the gates by a considerable majority. It is true that at that meeting a great number of gentlemen in the county of Carmarthen qualified to act, who never attended before nor since; they came from a very considerable distance, gave a very ready vote, and there was an end of the thing; the gates were not re-erected. At the same time an opinion was produced which possibly you may have seen, that it was imperative upon the Trust to erect the gates in the district where they had been pulled down, but it was carried that they should not be re-erected.
What interval of time elapsed between the destruction of this gate and the destruction of others?
I think about three years; but that will be easily seen from Mr. Evans’s book. Mr. Evans is clerk of the Trust.
The Commissioners understand that, since that time, every gate in the Whitland Trust has been destroyed?
Every gate upon the Whitland Trust, I believe, has been destroyed, or partially destroyed.

John Lloyd Davies again:

I think the Commissioners are taking for granted that the gates have been the origin of this disturbance. It is no such thing; it is merely the means by which the feeling of the people has become apparent; for the breaking of gates has taken place at Newcastle, in a portion of the road where the gates were scarcely paid or felt; and people have been the breakers of the gates, who, I am satisfied, never paid 2s. toll in the course of two years.
When did the agitation in Cardiganshire begin?
It began when the Newcastle Gate was broken, what is called the Adpar Gate.
The Commissioners have been told that individuals who might have known better, have lent themselves to exciting and instigating the population of Cardiganshire to acts of violence. Has anything of that sort come to your knowledge?
No; but I think that individuals who ought to have known better, I mean persons of education, have gone round the country, giving a very high colour to circumstances, which of themselves were not grievances and converting them into such.
Has that been done from political motives at all?
Yes; from Chartism.
Have not meetings taken place in the day which have apparently borne an unobjectionable character, but which have really led to mischief, which was not apparent to those who observed them cursorily?
Yes.
Were not persons of station in society induced to preside at those meetings with a view to prevent mischief?
They were.
Have you reason to believe that they were deceived in the character of the proceedings, and that things were done at those meetings which were not known to the persons who presided over them?
I have reason to think that after the apparent business of the meeting was over resolutions were entered into of a most injurious description.
Can you at all specify what was the nature of the mischief that they resolved upon at those meetings?
I have been told that after the Cardiganshire meeting resolutions were entered into to interdict any tenant from taking two farms under the usual penalty, fire, in case of non-compliance; and also I have been told that resolutions were entered into to pull down the weir, and I have understood that some portion of those assembled entered into a combination to attack the clergyman’s house or his haggard.
From the circumstances of the country and the difficulty which exists amongst those people of communicating with one another, are you led to believe that if this meeting had not taken place the opportunity for this combination would not have existed?
I think not, because those meetings drew parties from opposite directions who could not have had a pretense for meeting otherwise.
Have you yourself discouraged such meetings?
I have; I called together as many of my tenants as I could, and told them that I made them responsible for their labourers and workmen and undertenants, and if they had any cause of grievance let the mention it to me and I would redress it, but that I thought that the probability was that the only real grievance was poverty, and that the relief to be afforded to that I was willing to extend to them by a reduction of rent, and which I had practised some time before, two years, indeed, at intervals at different times, and the effect of this has been, I am happy to say, very good. I think I can safely say that not a single tenant of mine has ever been near those meetings.
You were understood to say, the other day, that one or two of your tenants, to whom you had behaved kindly, and for whom you had paid their lime tolls, had actually attended those meetings?
I have since had reason to believe that that was not the case.
When was the last meeting of that kind held?
.
Where?
Near Lampeter.
Was it largely attended?
I have been told that there were 3000 people, but I allow something for exaggeration and bring it down to 2000. It is so large an assemblage, that it is alarming, I think, in this country, where I never saw 200 people assembled in my life for any such purpose.
What was the professed purpose of the meeting?
To petition for redress of grievances and to enter into resolutions. I have heard that it was the most Chartist meeting that has ever taken place in Wales, in its complexion, actions, and words.
Do you know who was in the chair?
I do not, it has resolved itself into a Chartist business. They are persons of no good character that get up the meetings.
Does it occur to you that anything can be done beyond the influence which you exercise very properly and judiciously as a landlord to discourage this?
Nothing, but every landlord calling his tenants together, and making them morally responsible to him for the quiet within the district in which they live. Suppose a man lives within an area of four or five miles, I should say to him, “If I hear of any disturbance I shall take for granted that you or your sons or your servants know of it, and you must take every means in your power to prevent it.”
Do you think that persons come from great distances to those meetings?
Yes, they do. The meeting was in Carmarthenshire, and Cardiganshire people came there; they came from Pembrokeshire to the nightly meetings for breaking gates.

George Spurrell, clerk to the Three Committs Trust, and Richard Spurrell, clerk to Llandilo Rynnws Trust:

The return states that there are 21 gates. Does that include side-bars?
[GS] Yes.
Are they all down?
[GS] I think they are all down with the exception of two gates.
Are any of them in progress of being re-erected?
[RS] Yes; the farmers wish to have them re-erected. They see their folly in pulling the gates down and letting strangers pass toll free; and they support the gates now.

Lewis Evans, Thomas Thomas, and John Harris:

Will you tell the Commissioners what has been the cause of disturbances which have taken place lately in Tallog, where you live?
[TT] The policemen came there with a distraint upon John Harris’s goods.
How did it begin?
My carter went, with two others, through Water-street gate without paying it; when he came back that night he told me of the thing, and I sent the man the next morning to tell the gateman that I should pay next Saturday, and to leave everything quiet. That was on Tuesday or Wednesday. I sent to the gateman to say that I would pay on Thursday. I was summoned to appear here on Friday before the magistrates, but no magistrate appeared: and we were persuaded by Mr. Philip Jones to attend that day week. As we were coming to the fair the next day we wished to come on that day, and we came here on Saturday. I saw two magistrates, Mr. Morris the banker, and Mr. Stacey the mayor; I told them that I had sent to the gateman, and the gateman refused to take any notice of it, and they fined me the same as others.
Was there any question with respect to yourself except that which arose from the man having gone through without paying, or did you say that the toll was illegally demanded, and that you wished to try the right?
I think it was illegally demanded.
Had your servant paid when he went into the town in the morning?
No, he had not. I thought it was illegal.
What did your cart bring into Carmarthen that morning?
Nothing but grass for the horse.
What did it come to Carmarthen for?
For lime.
And you had nothing in the cart but grass for the horse?
Nothing.
Did your servant pay in the morning?
No.
Was he asked to pay in the morning when he came into Carmarthen?
Yes.
Did he refuse to pay?
Yes.
Did you tell him not to pay?
No.
Why did he refuse?
He joined with others.
For what reason did he refuse?
It was reported over the country that the toll was illegal, that it was overcharged.

He goes on to testify that he sent a message to the toll collector indicating that he would quietly pay to make the whole thing go away, but he was nonetheless summonsed, whereupon he again stated that he would pay but that he thought the charge was illegal. The magistrates fined him two pounds, eight shillings, sixpence (the toll was 2½ pence; the dispute being that it ought to have been 1½). John Harris and Samuel Bowen were also summonsed for refusal to pay and also fined, but they refused to pay.

Did any disturbance take place at Tallog in that week?
Not at Tallog, but there was a disturbance.
How did that disturbance arise? Did officers come over to seize your goods?
Not my goods, but Harris’s; I had paid.
Was the gate broken down shortly after you had refused to pay toll?
It was broken before.
Did you think that, because the gate was removed, you were not liable to pay toll?
I took no notice about the breaking of it.
Did the sheriff’s offices coming over to seize make a disturbance there?
Yes.
State what took place?
Half of them were tipsy.
Who were tipsy?
The policemen, and went a way that was not leading to John Harris’s house, and kicked up a row.
Did they go to distrain the goods?
Yes; they took four boxes.
What did they do with the boxes?
They took them with them.
How far did they take them?
About 200 yards.

But then he told the police that he would guarantee the fine if they would return the property, so they left the boxes behind.

Had there been any disturbances about the toll upon lime at the Water-street gate before that?
I heard of nothing before that.
How long before this had the gate been broken?
I do not know, indeed; I think about a fortnight.
What had been the cause of breaking that gate?
I think it was because the toll was illegal.
Was it reported, whether truly or not, that it was some people from your neighbourhood that had broken the gate?
I do not know.
Had many gates been broken down at that time, besides that gate?
Yes, I think there were.

There then was some confusing testimony about some people pulling down a wall at “the entrance to a gentleman’s house” — perhaps that of a Mr. Davis (a county magistrate) who signed one of the distraint warrants and participated in the fining of the resisters. After that they begin to discuss the Carmarthen Workhouse riot:

How soon afterwards was any notice given that a demonstration was to take place?
I think about a week or a fortnight.
[Captain Evans.] The word used was not “a demonstration” but that they were to meet, and that everybody was to attend under Rebecca’s orders, and that was carried to all the chapels and churches throughout the neighbourhood.
Was there a demonstration which took place afterwards when a number of people rode to the workhouse?
Yes, that was the very day when that occurred.

David Evans, surveyor to the Carmarthen & Newcastle Trust and to the Three Commotts Trust:

What number of gates have you now?
Four.
What number of gates have been destroyed and not restored, excluding bars?
Five.
Were there any particular circumstances that led to the dissatisfaction that induced the people to pull down the Water-street Gate? Had not the toll been raised there to prevent the people coming along that in preference to the new road?
Yes. That was what the people complained of.
They thought that as that road remained in the same state as it had been, it was hard that they should pay the toll there to provide for making a new road to Conwyl, which in going through Water-street Gate they did not travel?
Yes.
Was there any impression that the maintenance of that gate was illegal, with reference to the Act of Parliament, that provides that no gate shall be set up in the borough of Carmarthen?
I have heard several speaking of that; some of the parishioners in this parish.
Is there anything in that in your opinion?
I do not think there is.
Upon this trust [Three Commotts] there were 6 gates and 11 bars destroyed?
Yes
How many were not destroyed?
Three.

James Mark Child:

Are you aware of any particular instance in which gates are oppressive, in your opinion?
From the town of Narberth to the colliery at Bushmore, the property of Sir Richard Phillips, a distance of five miles, there are four gates, all of which you pay. At the last Trust meeting I proposed to my brother magistrates (this is on the Whitland Trust) that one gate should clear another; that we should only pay two gates. They said, “We will wait a day or two;” but they said, “Here is the difficulty, two of the gates are upon the Whitland Trust and the two others are upon the Tavernspite.” I said “Yes; but the Act gives us the power to confer with one another,” and I pointed out the section; and at the same time I said, “Every magistrate, or every man that is now here as a trustee upon the Whitland Trust, is also a trustee upon the Tavernspite Trust, consequently you have only to go through the form of sending the notices required.” A gentleman of the name of Phillips, a very intelligent man in Pembrokeshire, said, “We will wait till I can confer with Lord Cawdor.” I saw him three or four days afterwards; he said, “I have been talking with Lord Cawdor about it, and he thinks it is better not to disturb it, as no person has taken down the gates.” I said, “In my idea that is the very reason why we should interfere, because if it is an oppression and extortion it is better to do it before any step is taken.” He said, “I think we had better not interfere till it is pulled down.” A man had to pay at Plain-dealings Gate 9d., at Lower Narberth Gate 9d., at Kates Hook Gate 9d., and the fourth gate was Begelly; the two former upon the Whitland Trust, and the two latter upon the Tavernspite Trust; and the parish are called upon to maintain the road into the bargain.

Stephen Evans, farmer from Llangendeirne, near Pontyberem:

Should you like to have the tolls done away with, and to have all the roads repaired by the parish?
We do not wish to have the gates done away with, but only to have the bars done away with. The bars were put there rather from spite. They leased the gates there to one person, and we were obliged to pay the utmost farthing in every direction, and we made a little road to go to the mill and to other places without paying the full charge. The trustees have erected bars in every place to catch us; and now they have erected one upon the private road, and one of the neighbours went through toll free; they pulled him up to the Hall and he was obliged to pay half-a-crown fine and 15s. 6d. costs.
What was the name of the man?
William Williams, of Carclover.
When was that?
I believe it was on .
Who were the magistrates who heard that complaint?
I cannot say. They were at the Town Hall. The people went in spite at seeing the man pulled up at such expense, and they went and burnt the house. It was a small house with wheels, and they broke the posts.
And the reason of that house being burnt down was that the man was fined half a crown for breaking it, and 15s. 6d. costs?
Yes.
Do you think they would have done that if the man had only been fined without the costs?
I think not. That is the very thing that caused any disturbance in my neighbourhood. Now they are erecting the Penffoesfelen Bar, but it will be a difficult thing to maintain it. I think it cannot be maintained without a lot of soldiers or police, and it is nothing but spite to the neighbourhood. There is a road comes in at that place. They erect a bar to prevent any one going through. The road comes round from the colliery; the people go there to purchase fire-coal for fuel.
If there was no bar at Benffoesfelen they could come into the road and go seven or eight miles along the road without paying any toll?
If the trustees would not interfere more than for people going to get coal, the people would not complain of it, but they charge for lime and for everything.

Thomas Lloyd, surveyor to the main Trust:

Have you had any gates upon that part of the Trust broken?
Yes.
How many?
There have been three destroyed in my time.
Have they been put up again?
There is one that is not to be put up again.
Which is the gate that has not been put up?
The Mermaid Gate on the Carmarthen side of St. Clear’s village.
Are your turnpike-gates that have been pulled down and put up again watched now by the police?
I cannot say. St. Clear’s has been taken down, and Masholland has been taken down. Masholland is not watched; but there are soldiers at St. Clear’s.
Do you think the thing is dying away?
I think it is dying away in our neighbourhood.
Do you think the gates upon the main Trust will remain standing?
I think so; but there are rumours in the neighbourhood. If you ask a person, “Who told you so?” we can never find out. They say about the village that the people that burn the lime in the lower country threaten the Maesholland Gate.

John Garner, clerk to Llandovery & Lampeter Trust, Llandovery & Langadock Trust, and to the Towy Bridge Branch:

It is stated also that you have 13 gates and side-bars, including one gate on the branch road. Is that the case now?
There were eight gates, but at present there are only seven gates. All the side-bars have been done away with.
How many of them were pulled down by violence?
Four gates were pulled down, and some gates were taken down twice or thrice at different times.
Can you name them?
Dolauhirion was pulled down two or three times.
Does it remain down now?
No, it is up again. The gates were destroyed twice, and the toll-house once.
Are you taking now at the gates nearly as much as you let them fore last year?
No, for several reasons. The Rebeccaites have taken some of them down; and besides, they can evade the gate now by going another way.
Because the side-bars are down?
Yes.
On the Lampeter Trust?
Yes.
Do they evade the tolls much, now that the side-bars are taken down?
Yes, especially there is a gate near Lampeter that belongs to the Tivey Side Trust. Now they go about a mile and a half of road, and evade the gate entirely.
Is the road a good or a very bad road?
Very bad.
What is the toll on that gate that they go round to avoid?
3½d.
Do you believe that the evasion of those gates is by the servants by the direction of the masters, or that it is done by the servants without the knowledge of the masters, with a view to pocket themselves the toll which they evade?
I think it is often done by the servants without the knowledge of the masters, and also those that drive the cattle take the same advantage.
And the masters for whom they work allow them the toll, although it is not paid?
Yes, that is my opinion; but I cannot say that it is correct. But I can say that it is so with regard to some of them.
Can you form any conjecture what reduction will be made in the receipt of the toll in consequence of the alteration that has taken place in the number of gates. How much do you think you shall lose by it?
I cannot say; but there is a great loss in consequence of the Rebeccaites.

John Garner was joined in his testimony by John Williams, surveyor to the same trusts:

Will the renters of the gates pay the rents they have undertaken to pay, or will they require compensation in consequence of the gates being down?
[JG] They will not get any compensation. The trustees erected the gates as soon as possible after they were taken down.
Are the gates which were taken down under the protection of the constables now?
[JG] Not the whole of them. Some of them are.
[JW] Some of them are totally abandoned.
How many gates and bars are there upon the [Llandovery & Llangadock] road at present?
[JW] There are seven.
How many have been destroyed?
[JW] They have all been destroyed except four.
How many have the trustees put up?
[JW] The trustees have put up three of them again.
Do you think you will be able to maintain those seven?
[JW] Not the whole of them perhaps.
Have you had any application made from the gate-keepers for reductions on account of the gate-breaking?
[JG] Yes, at the last meeting.
What answer did the trustees give to such applications??
[JG] I think they would not give anything to them, because the gate-keeper neglected to employ men to receive the toll when they were taken down. The trustees got the gates up again for them, and the gate-keepers neglected to employ any one to receive the tolls.
How many days were the gates down?
[JW] They were put up in general on the following day, but they could not get any person to remain there the night.

William Thomas Thomas, clerk to the clerk of the Newcastle Trust:

Do you know how many gates have been destroyed?
There are nine gates and bars down altogether; five have been destroyed.

George Rice Trevor, vice-lieutenant of the county of Carmarthen:

Your attention must have necessarily have been directed to the disturbed state of this county, what is your opinion as to the causes which have led to these disturbances?
The causes appear to me to be so numerous, and yet in many cases so trifling, that it is difficult to say which of them predominates. In the first instance, taking a view from the commencement as far as I know, about a year ago this disturbance, with reference to turnpike-gates, first showed itself; that was in the neighbourhood of St. Clear’s, in ; and on that occasion it appeared that the grievance complained of (which I should state is a grievance that was not made a ground of complaint before any of the trustees of the turnpike Trusts, as far as I am aware,) was the existence of one particular gate upon the main Trust road. That gate was repeatedly destroyed. It was at the Mermaid gate, in the immediate neighbourhood of St. Clear’s, about a mile on this side of the Blue Boar. That gate was placed there after the regular notices were given, and no person present at the turnpike meeting at which it was agreed to be put up, raised their voice against the erection of that gate. It was placed there, I believe, in consequence of the representations of the toll-collector, who said that the farmers and persons could come down certain roads to the north side of the turnpike-road, which are parish roads, and that also they could come off the Whitland road, which is a turnpike-road, and they could travel the whole distance to Carmarthen if they chose to stop short of the gate coming into Carmarthen without paying any toll, and he therefore begged to have a gate put there as a catch-gate. That gate was erected, and by some oversight it was not made to clear the gate coming into the town. The consequence was that parties who had heretofore paid but one gate were made to pay two, and of course it caught such people as stopped short of Carmarthen. This gate was, I think, pulled down as many as five or six times. The next gates that I am aware of that were attacked were the gates upon the Whitland road, (a Trust about which I can say but little, as I am not in the least connected with it,) as well as some gates upon the main Trust to the westward of St. Clear’s. Efforts were made, of course, to re-establish those gates; but there was some difference of opinion among the magistrates residing in that district as to the proper mode of restoring peace in that part of the country; some imagining that by talking to the people, and showing them the folly of their proceedings, they might be brought to a state of tranquillity; others thinking that more active measures were necessary. The evil afterwards spread into other parts of the country. The next part that became infected with this disorder was a portion of the county called the Hundred of Elvet, which lies to the northward in a line drawn from this town, or from St. Clear’s up to the Tivey. A great number of gates were pulled down there, as I am informed, and in that case also, as well as in the former, no remonstrances or complaints had ever been made, as far as I am aware, to the trustees of the Trust for removal of any of those gates. I think the next occurrence in point of time was the arrival of a large procession in this town, who came in, many of them, collected by means of threats, and whose appearance here ended in an attack upon the poor-house, which I am inclined to think was not generally the intention of the parties who joined the procession, which was formed some two or three miles from here, and in which procession I understand there were people from very distant parts of the county, some from the neighbourhood of Newcastle, and the rest from the parishes immediately round the town, and towards St. Clear’s and Mydrim. Trelech was one of the parishes from which a great number of people came, a parish about eight miles from here, and Abernant and Newchurch. All this I have obtained from information. I was not in the county at the time, nor at the time when many of the earlier occurrences took place. Then after this attack upon the poor-house I was sent down here by Sir James Graham, and on my arrival here I found it was stated that there was the greatest possible organization existing amongst those parties of “Rebeccas,” as they were called. It was stated, and I believe it to be true, that those men were assembled by signals, by letters put under their doors, and, generally speaking, under some degree of influence from terror. They were threatened with an evil they hardly knew what, but they were told to come upon their peril, and they assembled, generally speaking, to the sound of horns; they were all disguised, and they were partially armed, and their operations seem to have been in this manner — that they came down to the gate which was the point of attack; that they usually surrounded the gate; that they very frequently supplied themselves with tools for the purposes of demolition from some neighbouring smith’s forge; and on some occasions they pressed carpenters to come out with their tools; that they surrounded the gate, and they posted sentries to prevent the approach of strangers, and kept up a sort of irregular fire up and down the road during the time that the gate was being destroyed. In many instances the toll collectors were informed before hand of the approach of Rebecca. A letter was sent to them to say that Rebecca was coming at such a time, and that they had better clear their goods out and get out of the way. Generally, I should say, that there was no violence used to those toll-gate keepers, but in some instances very gross violence was perpetrated. Some of them were beaten; some have been put upon their knees, and forced to promise never to gather toll again. Some have been fired at; the windows have been fired into. This system of gate-breaking spread gradually over the whole of the county, and I do not think now there is any portion of the county where it has not spread more or less. There is not a parish, certainly, where there were turnpike-gates, where those outrages have not taken place.
Do you think that the unwillingness to submit to the payment of the tolls arose from the frequency of the toll demanded, or from the high rate of toll in each instance, or from the demands for payment of toll when the people thought that was not due?
It is difficult for me or for any magistrate to give the Commissioners information upon that subject, for this reason, that no complaints were made; certainly no complaints were ever made before me; but I have heard complaints of parties exacting toll beyond what they were entitled to. Such complaints, I believe, have been made before the magistrates in the Newcastle district, for example, and the parties, when found guilty, fined. I have also been told, with regard to the isolated case of a Trust called the Llandilo Rynnws Bridge Trust, that there perhaps they exacted higher toll than the Act of Parliament authorized. But I should state this, which I believe is pretty notorious, that even farmers in this county, or drovers who use the road very much, are in the habit of evading the toll wherever they can; that there is a positive dislike against paying toll, whether it be high or low. They will go any distance round to avoid a turnpike-gate. That feeling being prevalent, and there being a great number of cross-roads in the country, I believe has led to a very general placing of side-bars upon all the roads.
Do you think those side-bars have been considered as harassing and vexatious?
I do not know it of my own knowledge, but I believe it to be so; but I have never heard a complaint. That has been the difficulty we have had in remedying these evils. But we have now great complaints against the side-bars since they are broken, and therefore it is fair to suppose that that is one of the causes which has led to this disturbance.
Has there been a great increase of those side-bars of late years?
I believe so upon the Trusts in the neighbourhood of lime quarries; but of my own knowledge I know nothing, except with regard to the main Trust road, and a little with regard to the Llandybie, where I used to attend the meetings.
Were there no disturbances and no apparent disaffection till it arose in connexion with the turnpike-gates?
None that I know of. At the time of the Newport riots there were certainly a great number of Chartist emissaries endeavouring to make the best use they could of their lecturing and so on in this county, and we had the satisfaction of believing at that time that they had made very few proselytes. We believed that they had made very little way in those parts of the county where you might have expected that they would have made most, namely, among the colliers. A good many of those hireling orators came from Merthyr, and they made very little progress indeed, and I remember hearing it stated that some of those colliers had threatened to put those fellows down the pit if they did not leave that part of the county.
But the discontent having once been excited by the unwillingness to submit to the payment of toll, did it gradually extend itself to other objects?
Yes; and my belief is that a great deal of the dissatisfaction that has been prevalent in this country has been fostered by the efforts of certain newspapers. I think the articles published in the “Times” newspaper have done the greatest possible injury, and have fomented discord and discontent to a very considerable degree in this county.
Do you believe some of the statements in the “Times” to have been unfounded?
Certainly I believe that to have been the case; I do not know it of my own knowledge, but I have heard of a case connected with a person who is the magistrate’s clerk in this town, and I know that a gross misrepresentation appeared in the paper connected with myself; that was with regard to my magisterial business, in which it was stated, amongst other things, that Mr. Maule, the solicitor to the Treasury, had given out that we ought never to have committed the man. That was completely a gratuitous assumption on the part of the “Times” editor, and it led to my furnishing a contradiction to that statement, though it was not under my own name. Then, after this turnpike business had been going on for a considerable time, we began to hear in complaints against the tithe, which was stated to be exorbitantly high, and much more onerous under the present law than under the old system. We also had complaints made with reference to the Poor Law, and then one heard general complaints as to the weight of rates and taxes, parties stating their own poverty to be so great that they could not pay those imposts. Then there were complaints about the rent, and there were complaints with regard to the magistrates, stating that they were haughty in their manner, and also there were statements of the incapacity of the magistrates in many cases, and a wish expressed that there were stipendiary magistrates instead.
Were there not complaints of the amount of fees taken by the justices’ clerks?
There were also complaints of the amount of fees taken by justices’ clerks, and the payments made to constables for conveying parties to prison.
Do you think that the opinions which were entertained upon these subjects were such as would have led to outrage and outbreak, if they had not been combined with the violence connected with tolls?
I do not know. I think that probably, single-handed, none of those causes would have produced anything like the scenes that we have had here; but they were combined with the very deep state of distress, which certainly has had a good deal to do with it. I think our people are much poorer than they were, and that, in consequence of their suffering from deprivation and from poverty, they have been led to listen to persons who have been active in ascribing their distress to bad government.
Was it not said that the procession which came into Carmarthen, and afterwards attacked the poor-house, on , had its origin in the conviction of some parties for not paying a toll which was alleged to be illegal?
I have heard that it arose out of a conviction which was supposed to be illegal by the parties. As I understand, it was this:— there was a party summoned for non-payment of toll at one of the gates near this town. He was fined, and he refused to pay the fine, and a warrant of distress was issued. Parties were sent to seize, and a riot took place, which ended in the goods being given up; and the constables and special constables returned to the town, having many of them been a good deal ill treated, and all of them threatened and very much abused; and it has been stated that the procession in question was meant to be a demonstration of the force and number of those who were engaged in endeavouring to get rid of turnpike-gates and tolls.
Have you found the magistrates generally during these disturbed times, as active, and as willing to do their duty, as you thought they ought to be?
I think so; taking the whole of the circumstances into consideration, I have seen no desire on the part of the magistrates generally to shrink from performing their duty; but from the beginning I have felt, because I have had ample cause to see it, that we have not had, till quite lately, any proper force in our hands to repress that tumult. The parties creating the disturbance have been organized very completely; they have been armed, — they have been disguised, — they have been in great numbers, and they have by these means, and by means of threatening letters, very generally circulated, create a very complete panic in the public mind; and in consequence of that it has been perfectly impossible to get together in any portion of this county any ten men that you could rely upon to act as constables.
Did the magistrates show an anxiety to swear in constables during these unfortunate disturbances?
They have shown every anxiety to do it, but they have invariably told me what I believe to be strictly true, that it was quite useless to attempt it; and I know that in many cases the people absolutely refused to be sworn at all. In other cases they did not come, and when they did come, in one case they said, “Oh yes, we will be sworn, but we will not go to the gates.”
Would that have been the case, had there been a good understanding between the magistrates and the people generally?
I do not attribute it to the want of a good understanding between the parties. I believe that it is to be attributed entirely to two causes, operating at the same time upon men’s minds, namely, that a great proportion of them sympathized with Rebecca, and wished to get rid of these gates; and the rest were literally afraid for their lives: and I do not believe that if you take other persons who are not in the habit of coming into this town you would hear much complaint of the magistrates not treating persons with civility or with proper regard. I hear it more from people about here than I have heard it in other directions.

Richard Rees, treasurer for the county of Carmarthen, and clerk to the trustees for the Brechfa Trust:

What is the length of that Trust?
21 miles.
How many gates are there?
There were three gates and two side-bars.
Have those gates and side-bars been all destroyed?
They have been all destroyed in the present year, . I cannot answer to the upper one, near Brechfa, being destroyed; but I know there is nothing collected at it.

William Chambers, who coins the term “Rebeccaized”:

Can you give the Commissioners any information with reference to the grievances which are complained of, or the disturbances that have lately occurred, in this county?
There are some grievances which have been remedied, which were the causes of disturbances in the county, I mean particularly in regard to the number of toll-bars. Many of them have been removed by order of the trustees. Some of them were Rebeccaized first of all, and then removed by order of the trustees.…
…Between the Sandy Gate and the town there is also a bar, which is to prevent persons going to the brick-kiln, which is between the Sandy Gate and the town. Persons who would go to the brick-kiln would drive about 300 yards upon the Trust road. This Sandy Gate was Rebeccaized and pulled down, and has been rebuilt. The Furnace Gate was pulled down in the same way and burnt, and that was rebuilt.
Is it your opinion that the farmers are becoming more quiet?
Yes. I attended a public meeting at Llannon, , at the request of the farmers, at which they passed tranquillising resolutions. The relations of John Hughes and David Jones (the men who have been transported) came to me the other day, and asked me to do what I could to get the sentences remitted. I told them it was nonsense their trying to do it at this moment; that, in the face of the attack that was made upon the Sunday, at Pontyberem, in the parish of Llannon, a day or two before, any protestations on their part, that they would be quiet, would not be listened to; that, before they sent up any petition based upon their being tranquil, they must become so in the first instance, and show a disposition to be quiet. I told them that they would all be sworn in as special constables in the whole neighbourhood, every one of them; and then they said, “Could we send a petition to the Queen, to get the punishments of those men mitigated?” I said, “No, I do not think it would be worth while; you had better wait a little. Then, if you are quiet, you perhaps will be attended to.” They said, “We will be quiet if they are held as hostages for good behaviour.”
Have you not had your own or your father’s ricks burnt?
Yes; there have been five fires in one week upon my father’s property, and a horse shot; and I had some machinery at a pit, that was broken and thrown into the pit twice.
Do you think that the readiness to be sworn in as special constables arises from the hope of getting off those people who have been sentenced?
Yes, that is the real reason. It is not from their great love of their country, but they feel the inconvenience of these disturbances, inasmuch as a great number of the farmers upon whom black-mail has been levied do not like the paying part, especially in these distressed times; and I am sure that many of them, in the parish of Llannon, are exceedingly glad that those men have been transported.
What do you mean by “black-mail” having been levied?
They used to write a note to a man to say “You must send such and such contribution to Rebecca, on such a night.” That was received by the Rebecca of the night, and then he paid the labourers who went out at night to break the gates. He paid them 2s. 6d. a-night.
How have you ascertained this?
From farmers who told me that they had paid the money.
How did you ascertain that the leaders in the riots had paid the labourers 2s. 6d. a-night?
From men who have been present at the breaking of the gates. Farmers who have been present at the breaking of the gates told me that the labourers who went there received 2s. 6d. a-night.
Those who did the working part?
Yes. A neighbour of mine heard a farmer and a collier fighting; and the collier struck the farmer, and he swore at him, and said, “Damn you, do you think I will go out to be shot for you for 2s. 6d. a-night any more?” This was lately, when they began to quarrel among themselves.
Are not those observations likely to arise henceforth, in any disputes that may arise between the farmers and their servants?
Yes, there is no doubt about that. I have no doubt that things will come out on the changing of servants. I know in my own district, if I could get evidence, almost every man that was at the breaking of the gates; but you cannot get them to give evidence. But there is no doubt they had a great deal to complain of in the erection of those gates; but the influence that such men as that John Jones, or Scybor Vowr, got over the minds of the farmers arose from his having been employed by them in that way; and, being rather a sharper fellow, the others all felt that they were in his power, and then he ran riot over that part of the country. He went to a farmer’s house, lived there as long as he pleased, and knew a man that he went to (a farmer), and because he would not go out at night, he went to him, and cocked his gun at him, and said, “Now, if you do not go out at night, I will shoot you;” but the man did not go. There were some others of his friends behind, who said, “Come on, and leave the fool alone;” and he went away; but he threatened to shoot at this man; and he did shoot another man because he offended him. He was the most despotic governor that they ever had.

Madock Jones, clerk to the Llandilo and Llandybie Trust:

What is the length of the road??
About 37 miles.
What number of gates?
Five now.
How many have been destroyed?
Four have been destroyed, and there is one discontinued now.
How many were there altogether before the destruction?
Seven.

John James Stacey, clerk to the main Trust, again:

I find that I misinformed the Commissioners as to William Lewis having been fined for having put up a bar. I saw yesterday the brother of the man who brought the information against him. He told me that his brother took out a summons; his wife attended, who of course could not prove the contents, and the thing was compromised by Lewis paying the expenses and giving some trifle to the wife; and so the matter dropped. The man came to me to ask me what he had better do, for that Lewis had set up the bar again without any authority, and demanded toll thereat. There are three toll-gates upon the line that have been destroyed by the mob, and he cannot collect toll at the place where he has a right to do it, and so he puts it up there.

Philip Griffith Jones, clerk to the magistrates for Carmarthen:

Will you now turn to the conviction of Thomas and Harris, and the other people from Tallog, who were convicted of evading toll at the Water Street Gate?
Henry Thomas, toll collector, against John Harris. The cause of complaint originated a day or two after the Water Street Gate had been taken down, and the conviction took place a week after that. The complainant swore that “On the defendant brought to Water Street Gate, in this town, a cart and one horse; I asked him for the toll; he said if he would pay the toll he was in danger of his house being set on fire, and he had no other objection to the toll. I said, If you won’t pay I must have your name, to which he said he had no objection but fear of his house being set on fire. He gave his name, but did not pay the toll. The defendant put in a letter as the ground of his defence, by which he was intimidated and induced not to pay.” He admitted that he had not paid the toll. He was then fined 40s., and 8s. 6d. costs. The costs were these:— information 1s., summons 1s., hearing 1s., service three miles distance 3s., conviction 2s. 6d. The conviction was very long indeed. In the second case against Thomas he made the same defence. He produced a letter, saying that he was intimidated.
Did he offer to pay the toll?
No; he never offered to pay the toll.
Is 40s. the extreme penalty?
No; I think it is 5l. for evading tolls. The third case was Samuel Bowens. The case against him was this:— The complainant was sworn, and stated, “On the defendant brought a cart and one horse to Water Street Gate; I asked him for the toll; he said if he was to pay he was afraid his house would be set on fire; he did not pay the toll, but said he was afraid; he was afraid his life would be taken from him, and that he had no other objection against paying; he passed through without paying the toll.” Then the defendant says,— “He saw a notice on a door of a stable at Blaenycoed village, saying that the lives of all persons paying tolls at Water Street Gate would be taken from them. He has no farm of his own, but lives with his father.” They would not pay the penalties, and we were obliged to enforce them. They said, if distresses are sent upon our goods we will pay them, but not till then.
When those men were before the magistrates they were not contumacious about it; they merely presented those letters, and said that this was the reason why they did not pay the toll?
Yes, they were not at all contumacious.
Was not 40s. rather a high penalty?
It was done after the gates were taken down; and unless the magistrates had taken it with a high hand there is no telling what would have been the consequence.
Then there was no allegation on the part of the defendants that the object was to try the right to the particular amount of toll that had been demanded?
Nothing of the kind; I heard exactly what they stated; I was rather particular in taking their statement at the time.
Were there any refusals after that conviction?
Not one, till the gate had been put up there there was not one.
Do you happen to know whether this was before or after the toll had been reduced at the Water Street Gate?
The toll had not been reduced at that time. I believe it has been reduced subsequently.
Were there many other informations for evading the toll about this time?
Not one.

John Davies, clerk to Carmarthen & Lampeter and Tivy Side Trusts:

How many turnpike-gates and bars are there altogether upon your Trust?
Six gates and three bars.
Has Rebecca been amongst them at all?
Yes, and destroyed them every one.
When they were destroyed did the trustees put them up again?
Not at first. The one they broke first they put that up, and it was broken down again in the course of a few weeks.
Have they put them all up?
No; the Glan-gwili they left pulled down till they could see something settled.

Richard B.P. Phillips, member of Parliament for Haverfordwest, and “the Lord-Lieutenant” of the county:

Has any turnpike-gate been destroyed in the neighbourhood of Haverfordwest?
One has been destroyed; it is called the Haroldston Gate, on the Pembroke Ferry Trust. That has been re-erected, and no attempt has since been made to destroy it.

John Henry Phillips, magistrate for Pembroke county, and trustee on the Whitland Trust.

Do you remember a turnpike-gate keeper, and some man who assisted him, who were said to have assaulted some persons intending to evade the toll, having actions brought against them?
Yes. I will state the history of that affair. These riots had taken place; the gates had been pulled down; the attention of a great number of people had been called to these gates who had never before taken a part in the Trust. After this riot had taken place a trustee, Mr. Baugh Allen, wrote to me. He said, “There is going to be a meeting at St. Clear’s for the purpose of rescinding the original order for erecting those gates;” and he said, “It seems to me mischievous; you, as a magistrate, may qualify and attend; if you think so, will you come and oppose it?” On this representation, thinking that to have a meeting to rescind the order for the erection of the gates, subsequently to the riot and the demolition, was giving the sanction of the magistrates and gentlemen to that mode of getting rid of the gates, I went up upon that occasion to St. Clear’s, and qualified as trustee in order to oppose it. I merely went up there because I thought that it would have a bad effect if, after people destroyed the gates forcibly, the trustees met and officially rescinded the order for their erection. Therefore I went up with Mr. Allen. The resolution for rescinding the gates was brought forward, and I think I moved a counter resolution, that we should take the opinion of the Attorney-General, or something of that sort, merely in order to stave it off; but I was left in a minority of six out of a great number; and I remember Bullen, the tollkeeper, at the time said, “You will not be able to keep a gate in the country after this.” I agreed with the majority of the trustees in thinking that those gates ought not to have been erected; but having been erected, I thought that they ought not to have been got rid of in that way. But I was left in a minority of six; and after having done that I came away. But I hear a complaint made of an order in the minutes of the Trust for defending the constables at the expense of the Trust; and I find in the minutes of the Trust, in the account of that meeting, that of course my name is down as having been present at that; but there is not a word said of a counter resolution. I find that an order, of which I have hardly any recollection, was given for defending the constables; but I think it was almost part of the bargain with Bullen, for which he gave up his gates. They were obliged to come to some agreement with him, as he was the lessee of the tolls; and there was a committee appointed to award a sum which they considered a fair compensation for giving up those gates; and I think that defence of the constables was a part of the stipulation, so that it was a consideration for having the gates removed. There is one great difficulty which has been felt in this country, with respect to which I made a suggestion to the Under Secretary through my brother-in-law, the member for Carmarthenshire. I allude to the difficulty we have in getting compensation from the hundred, indeed the impossibility, according to Mr. Evans’s law, in cases under 30l. He thinks that, where the damage done is under 30l., the Trust cannot get compensation from the hundred; and, therefore, the expenses of repairing the gates must be met by themselves.
What is Mr. Evans’s difficulty about that?
The difficulty is, that the Trust may sue and be sued; but cannot, like an individual, make an application before a magistrate. It is a technical difficulty; but it is one to which we have submitted. Some months ago I wrote to my brother-in-law to suggest, as the Government were bringing in a Bill, that some clause should be inserted upon that subject; but his answer was, that Mr. Manners Sutton said that the Bill was not upon that subject. If the people had understood that by breaking the gates they were damaging themselves, that would have had as good an effect in stopping the breaking as anything could have had. In consequence of Mr. Evans’s opinion, there was an opinion taken from the law officers of the Crown; and they divided their answer into two parts. It was said that the lessee could be described as the party damnified; but that they did not think that they could get compensation under 30l. That was their opinion as far as I could understand it.
Then Mr. Evans considered that all damage under 30l. is irrecoverable; that the right of action against the hundred is done away with when the damages are under 30l.; and that the means of enforcing a remedy where the damage is under 30l. will not apply to the trustees?
Yes. I should incline to say decidedly that the difficulty with regard to compensation from the hundred ought to be removed. I do not know whether the Legislature mean to say that in cases under 30l. there ought to be no remedy; but if they do not mean that, the difficulty ought to be removed. The trustees are asked, “Why do not you put up the gates again?” The answer is, that where the funds are very small they cannot afford it. The mere putting up a gate will cost 7l. or 8l., and perhaps it will be down again in a fortnight; and where the funds are very small they cannot afford it. It is clear that the state of the law at present is rather holding out a premium to rioters. I think that one mode of relieving the farmers with respect to the payment of tolls which is worth consideration is, by allowing the farmers of the parish, who perform labour upon the roads within the parish, to compound for the tolls at a lower rate.

Saunders Davies, member of parliament:

Were there any gates pulled down in Cardigan?
Yes, three were pulled down in that Trust; one at the New Inn, about 12 miles from Cardigan, between Cardigan and Aberystwith; the other two gates were close to the town of Cardigan.

Charles Arthur Pritchard, a magistrate of Cardiganshire:

Has your attention been much drawn to the causes of the disturbances which have so unhappily prevailed in this and adjoining counties?
It has; for they happen to have been more about my residence than in any part of the country.
In what way has the evil shown itself?
In various outrages, such as large bodies going about disguised and attacking the house of Dr. Jones and others.
What has been thought to be the cause of the outrage upon Dr. Jones?
Dr. Jones was a man rather free in his remarks; he said that he knew this man and that man, and that he would have them punished. He did not mean any harm, but I think that was the real cause of the attack upon his house, by which he himself was very nearly killed, for he went to the window and they fired at him.
Did they fire a bullet?
It appeared to me as if an old iron pot had been broken into pieces and put into the gun; and in the parlour there were a great many of those pieces upon the wall and on the floor, and Mrs. Jones was unfortunately there, and she is an English woman, unaccustomed to these riots.
They do not prevail generally in this country, do they?
I never heard of them, and I have lived here 25 years; they are generally as quiet and inoffensive a people as can possibly be.
Do you speak Welsh?
Only a little; enough to find my way about the country.
What was it, in your opinion, that led to the outrages upon the turnpike-gates?
The first attack upon the gates was in Pembrokeshire, and of course we all knew that such things were going on, and if the magistrates in Cardiganshire had been more active, I think we might have suppressed them. It was publicly known that they were going to attack the gates in Cardiganshire on a particular night, and I volunteered to go out with 20 men. I think 20 resolute men would have stopped them; that if 20 such persons had gone they would have run away. From what I could learn, I should say that the people were led on by three strangers who came into the neighbourhood of Cardigan, and who we knew were there at that time.
Were the names of those persons known?
I have tried to find out their names. I was in that neighbourhood lately, making inquiries of the people, but they said they did not know their names. I said to them, “You must have known their names, for you saw them every day;” their reply was, “We did see them occasionally, but we do not know their names.” Those men came down into this country, and I have no doubt worked up the people to attack the gates.
Can you form any conjecture as to whence they came?
Not for certain; it is merely from report that I can say anything; they are supposed to have come from some part of Carmarthenshire or from the Whitland district, the same two men were at Cardigan who were afterwards at the Aberdare Gate; one is a tall man and the other a short man, that is well known, and the same people seem to have gone through the country afterwards.
You say that it was publicly known that there would be an attack upon the gates. Upon what authority do you say that?
Three or four of my tenants came to me one day bringing with them notices, which notices were, — If you do not attend at such and such a place to night we will burn your house down, and they asked me what I would advise them to do, and I said, I would not go if I were you on any account, and they said they would not go, they would rather be murdered in their beds than go out.
Did they go out?
No, I do not think any of my tenants went out.
Do you think that there was any sympathy on the part of farmers with those people who attacked the gates?
Yes; at that time there was, but since that they have changed their feelings.
The farmers’ labourers were engaged in those outrages, were they not?
Yes, and young boys; they went for a lark.
Do you think that there is still a very bad spirit afloat?
Yes, I think it is the same as ever it was; I am speaking of my own immediate neighbourhood.
The same disposition to violence?
Yes, I am quite sure that if the police were removed from here and the troops from the different stations, there would be the same violence if not more; that is my own private opinion and the opinion of many other persons.
From what do you suppose that?
From conversation; I should say that they are merely checked by fear of the soldiers and police.
Suppose that that check were removed, seeing that the turnpike-gates are most of them removed, in what way would the outbreak show itself?
All the gates are down in the Cardigan Trust except one, and they have been down three or four months, but some are to be replaced immediately. There is a gate near this town in the Cardigan Trust that I am sure they would pull down if it were put up again. The tolls are reduced one-half, and the grievances the people complained of are removed.
The third toll is felt to be a grievance, is it not?
We have got rid of that; but the complaints they make are of this character. A farmer, who lives on the outside of this gate, wants the gate removed to the other side of his house; the consequence of that would be, that the next farmer would want the same, and there is no pleasing them. I had a letter lately put into my hands signed “Rebecca,” which I gave to one of the policemen, in order to endeavour to recognise the writing, threatening to pull down the gate if it were put up again. Several of the farmers now say they are very sorry that the gates are down, because they could get their lime and coal with great ease, and they did not pay more than 10s. or 12s. a year, and now they shall have to pay some pounds. I am speaking of the most reasonable farmers.
They would rather have the tolls than have to maintain the roads themselves?
Reasonable men would, because they get a certain allowance from the Trust, and that is paid to the parish officers and expended upon the road.
Do they pay the men by the day or by the load?
Some are paid by the day and some are paid by the load; many are paid by the load. There is another very great cause of complaint — the tithe, and unfortunately I am very much concerned in that. A friend of mine, Major Rice, who is now abroad, appointed me trustee to manage his affairs with another gentleman in Carmarthenshire, and this Major Rice owns a portion of the tithes in the parish of Pembryn. The chief accusation has been against the clergyman of that parish, and I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that it is in fact an attack upon the church; there is no doubt of that in my opinion, because they have been so very angry with the clergyman, and he is one of the most inoffensive men in the country. He is a man who has been educated at one of the Universities; he came to my house and told me he expected to be murdered, and on one occasion I had the marines at his house from 11 at night till 5 the next morning, and I know as a fact, that the people had assembled to do him an injury, because I saw myself one or two in disguise, and when we got near the place lights were thrown up and horns were blowing, but after we came up they were as quiet as possible. I have myself received several threatening letters. Owing to this the clergyman has not been able to get one shilling of his tithes; he wanted me to assist him as trustee, but I did not like to provoke the people. I was in hopes they would come round, but we cannot go on any longer; we must take some proceedings. There was a request made by the parishioners to meet them and take into consideration the state of the tithes. We met them, and offered them a reduction of 167l. The people were very violent, and one or two got up as spokesmen for the rest, and said, “We will not pay even if you give us 20 or 50 or 100 per cent.” I said, “Then you do not mean to pay anything.” Some of the party said, “Oh yes we do,” and they cried the man down. There was a shout at first, “We will not take any reduction at all, we will have it on our own terms.” They wanted to have it 2s. in the pound. I said, “I suppose you mean upon the landlord’s rent.” They said, “No, we mean on the parish rate.” Now the habit is to value on two-thirds of the rent.

Edward Lloyd Williams:

Has the clergyman got his tithe?
He has been paid by some; in fact the clergyman has been afraid to ask for it, for he has had soldiers in his house; they have threatened his life, and that was the state of the parish when I got them to meet, and I wrote to the Secretary of State, anticipating that mischief would happen; it was before the country was excited, but I knew that it was a very excitable parish, suggesting that if a short Act could be introduced for the purpose of opening commutations where manifest error or fraud could be proved, it would appease a great deal of the feeling that existed in many places. The parish are paying a great deal more now under this rent-charge, to say nothing of the difference in the average, than they did before when they had the option of paying in kind.

Herbert Vaughan, magistrate of Cardiganshire:

…I think the turnpike gates were an excuse for the disturbance, but that the real cause was something deeper than that. Now they have gone to the weir and attacked that. I was told immediately after that a stranger came into that neighbourhood and located himself at one of the houses in the parish of Mount, and soon after that the people took down the weir.
Have you any idea who he is?
No, I have not; I saw him in the town, and marked him, but of course I could do nothing. The morning after the New Inn turnpike gate was taken down he went off, and the Monday night following the other gate was taken down. He used generally to go into the blacksmith’s shop, or any place of that kind, and talk of the people’s grievances. He said they ought to have more for their labour, and other things; he was a remarkably well dressed man. I saw him in a church, and asked who he was, and they said he is lodging with So and so; I did not think much of it at the time, and I saw him again, and then I asked who he was, and they said he walks about the sea-shore a good deal. I have not the slightest doubt that he organized this party hereabouts; he was in Cardigan for some time, and the very next morning after the attack upon the gates I saw him in a regular blackguard dress; he wore one of those loose velvet jackets, and his boots were of the commonest description, nailed and laced, and dirty, as if he had been at some work; he went that week from Cardigan, and was traced up the road to the New Inn.
Do the people with whom he lodged know anything about him?
No; I do not think he let them know.

Lewis Evans, treasurer of the Cardigan Trust:

What number of gates have you upon the Trust?
Only one now; we had ten, but nine have been pulled down.

Richard Jenkins:

…In this case it is a tax upon industry: it prevents parties from manuring their land as they would otherwise do; and if that [Cardigan] gate were to be rebuilt there, I do not believe they would be able to keep it up without having the military or police constantly to watch it. When the gate came down I happened to be mayor, and I could not get the people to act.

The Rev. Eleazar Evans:

I merely wish to state that I have been exceedingly annoyed, and my life threatened in the parish, for a long time; I cannot conceive for what cause; merely because I wished to demand what has been my due. I have letters in my pocket which I have received, most shameful letters, and my life has been really miserable for months past, and if I am not protected of course I must leave.
Have you with you any of the threatening letters that you have received?
I have.
What do they indicate?
They desire me to give back the money that was subscribed to the school-room, as otherwise I should be destroyed and ruined in my property and everything. I subscribed 15l. a-year myself towards the school-room.
Will you read the threatening letters you have received?
This is dated . It is in Welch: “Reverend sir, — I, with one of my daughters, have lately been on a journey to Aberaron, and amongst other things have heard many things respecting you, namely, that you have built a school-room in the upper part of the parish, and that you have been very dishonest in the erection of it, and that you promised a free school for the people, but that you have converted it into a [Church of England] church, and that you get 80l. by the year for serving it. Now if this is true, you may give the money back, every halfpenny of it, otherwise, if you do not, I with 500 or 600 of my daughters will come and visit you, and destroy your property five times to the value of it, and make you a subject of scorn and reproach throughout the whole neighbourhood. You know that I care nothing about the gates, and you shall be like them exactly, because I am averse to every tyranny and oppression.” That is signed “Rebecca and her daughters.”
What is the purport of the letter which you now hold in your hand?
This is upon a different subject, it is signed “Becca,” and dated “.” It is not very intelligible, it is in very bad Welch: “I send you this letter in Welch that you may understand it in the language in which you were born.” They request me to send back the advance in tithes and the law expenses by such a day, and that Becca and her daughters are sure to take notice of me if I do not do so; that Becca had found a place for my body, and they desired me to find a place for my soul, and the place for my body was to be at the end of the National Whore, that is at the end of the Established Church, that is the title they give to it; and that I have been a great oppressor since I have been in office; and then they refer me to the 6th chapter of the book of Judges, and the 27th and 28th verses, which is the account of “Gideon taking ten men of his father’s house and throwing down the altar of Baal, and because he was afraid to do it by day he did it by night, and when people got up in the morning the altar of Baal was cast down and the grove was cut down that was by it, and the second bullock was offered upon the altar that was built.” The meaning I suppose was, that the men were coming to destroy my house, and I was intended for the second bullock, because my curate had been attacked; and they desired me to read much of the Old Testament, to see whether my conduct was like that of Pharaoh, and that I had doubled the tasks of the people. “Do not you suppose that I am an idle old woman. I have not been brought up in idleness, nor do I bring up my daughters in idleness, and I am determined to have justice done, in spite of the world, the flesh, and the devil,” signed “Becca.” That is the substance of it, and then at the bottom it is addressed, “To the Minister of the National Whore.” I also received an English letter between those two letters, which is in the possession of the Inspector-General of the Post-Office.
How long have you been in that parish?
15 years.
Has any conjecture been formed as to the writer of that second letter?
Yes, it is strongly suspected who the man is, but I do not know his writing; he has had a little better education than most, having been in a family where a little attention was paid to him. I have been obliged in consequence of this to sell my farm and stock and everything I had except my household furniture, and the day of my sale that man was there, and he summoned the parishioners to come to a meeting at the New Inn against my tithes, otherwise if they did not go there they should be destroyed, and their houses should be burnt.
How did he summon them, by word of mouth?
Yes, he said he was there as a delegate.
By whom was he delegated?
There is not the least doubt by Rebecca; who Rebecca is it is difficult to find out.
You think it did not originate from himself?
No, I am certain it did not; he must have been put on by somebody.
Have you any idea by whom?
By the farmers.
Do you mean to say that he publicly threatened to burn the houses?
He threatened that they must abide the consequences if they did not come, and some he threatened to burn. I have seen a letter to a tenant in the parish who held a little land of me, part of the glebe, that unless he attended he should be burnt.
Was that letter written by that man?
By somebody, I cannot say; it was written from St. Clear’s, and demanding that man to give up the land to me, saying that they were coming to destroy him because he did not give up the land.
Can any evidence be produced to show that this man had threatened any persons if they would not attend the meeting?
There is not the least doubt that there could if they were willing to give evidence. And more than that, he demanded something for his trouble, 1l. from each of the people.
Who are the magistrates near you?
Mr. Jordan is the only magistrate near me; he lives close to me. My house was threatened to be attacked, and he came to the house to protect it.
Do you keep fire-arms?
I only keep a gun for shooting crows.
Have you any police in your parish?
Yes, and military.
Was that upon your application?
No, I suppose it was done by the magistrate; the people met three nights successively.
Has Mr. Jordan seen those letters?
Yes.
Has he ever taken possession of them for the purpose of following it up and trying to discover the authors of them?
No, he took possession of the letter that was written to my tenant and Mr. Saunders Davies has it, but Mr. Saunders Davies himself came up to the parish and called his tenants together. They were the principal tithe-payers, to me at least more than half, and reasoned with them, and said that they might rely upon it that the law was powerful enough to meet them in the end; that they must consider that, the obligation was upon the land and not upon themselves; that if they did not pay he must pay; and then they said they would not pay more than 2s. in the pound, (I do not know whether they said on the assessment of the parish or on the rack-rent,) otherwise the people from Carmarthenshire would come and burn them down. Of course that showed at once that they were in league with some persons somewhere. With respect to the amount of tithe I have with me a valuation of the parish by the parishioners themselves to the county stock 2112l.; the gross amount of tithe commuted is 240l.; that will amount to 2s. 3d. in the pound, and I believe 2l. 18s. more.
Were the tithes paid with tolerable willingness before this addition was made to them?
They were paid till the last six years, but not since that; in the last six years I am certain, I have been losing at least 6s. in the pound regularly by long credit.
Do you ultimately get the whole sum?
No, I have lost a great deal; I have lost since I came to the parish nearly 400l.
Is that by persons refusing?
No, by not paying; they would not actually refuse to pay, but I did not like to go to law for it.
It was not from open avowed resistance to the payment that you lost that sum of money?
No, they did not actually say that they would not pay; but I gave up the tithes rather than go to law for them.
The people now refuse to pay?
Yes.
What reason do they give?
That they should be destroyed by the people of Carmarthenshire if they paid according to the present average.
Do you believe that to be an excuse, or to be the real reason?
I believe it to be the real reason in many cases.
Do you believe that there is any system of terror?
Yes, I do, because some who have paid me, have paid me under a charge of secrecy; and another thing I should state, that I gave them back 2s. in the pound because the times were hard, and I would take no advantage of the rise in the average. In the last three years I have paid 37l. and received only 27l. I have paid 10l. 16s. 1½d. more than I have received for my tithes. I believe there is a promise that they will pay me some to-morrow, but I do not know whether they will pay. I have not asked for what is due to Michaelmas, but only up to Lady-day.
Do you think that the evil disposition which is afloat in your parish, and which you have been made the victim of, diminishes at all?
I do not think it does; they are only kept under by the military and police.

Thomas Jones, of Llangranog:

Have you had much disturbance in your parish?
Yes.
Have you any turnpike-gate in your parish?
Yes, it was made on my premises; it was nothing to me, because I did not pay anything. The turnpike-road from Cardigan to Aberystwith went through the middle of my farm.
Is the gate now pulled down?
Yes.
Who pulled it down?
I do not know; they say that it was Rebecca, but who Rebecca is I do not know.
Did you see it pulled down?
No.
What did the people say who pulled it down?
They said it was not right to remove the gate to the place where it had been removed to. The farmers go to fetch culm and lime as manure from the shore, and they say that they took the gate about a mile from the place where it was before to this place to catch those farmers because the other gate was not on their way when they came from the shore.
Have you received any threats from Carmarthenshire, that if you pay the tithe it shall be worse for you?
I have never received a threatening letter.
Are you under any fear that, if you pay the tithes to the clergyman, people will come and attack you?
No.
Do you feel at liberty to pay what is justly due if you please?
Yes; but I think that it is very heavy.

James Morris, John Williams, and Mr. Smith:

Have you ever summoned the toll gate-keeper for exacting an illegal toll?
[JM] Yes, I have.
When was he summoned?
[JW] Thomas George was summoned for the non-payment of toll.
[MS] The toll-keeper was John Davis, and the magistrate adjudicated in favour of the toll-taker. I will explain what the circumstances were:– the trustees, in the first instance, after the erection of Catherine-row, put a chain there, seeing that several houses were licensed there as public-houses that had stables attached to them which took in horses and carts, and the gate stood below the row, so that the inhabitants of Catherine-row were obliged to pay going up and likewise to pay coming down.
Was there more than one payment?
[MS]I believe so; it was understood that they were obliged to pay at both. One Thomas George, a respectable farmer, came one Saturday-morning, and seeing a chain there, told the girl that stood at the chain, “There is no sign or anything here, I will pay at the old gate where I have been in the habit of paying;” “No,” she said, “You must pay here.” This farmer taking hold of one end of the chain, and the girl of the other, the neck of the padlock gave way, and for the breaking of that he was summoned before the magistrate, not for non-payment of the toll, and it was suggested by the magistrate, that if he paid for the lock the thing might be settled; at the same time, the sitting magistrate observed, that he was a very proper subject to make an example of.
The toll-keeper has never been summoned for exacting what you considered an illegal toll?
[MS] No, that has never been done.

John Hughes, surveyor to Aberyslwith Trust:

How many turnpike-gates have you upon your road?
Eleven.
Does that include side-bars?
There is one side-bar at Lampeter; that is a little distance from the gate, and that should be added, that makes 12; but there are 100 toll-houses.
Of those how many have been attacked?
Four; the Lampeter, Tregaron, and Llanon toll-houses and gates destroyed; but the gate only at Aberyron destroyed. With respect to the side-bars at Lampeter and Llanon, the trustees came to the resolution to remove them, and also resolved to take away the Cromystwyth Gate, within two miles of the extreme end of the county, on the road to Rhayader.
What do you believe to the the loss by the disturbances?
I should say 500l. or 600l. a year.

John Hughes, lawyer:

…The tolls have been reduced from 1½d. to 1d. a horse; the country did not expect that, and they are very much pleased with it; it was done because our gates were in jeopardy, and it had the effect of quieting the country.…

Lloyd Phillips, chairman of the board of guardians:

Are you at all acquainted with the circumstances which led to the destruction of Llannon Gate?
I am.
What were they?
There was a side gate there, which I do not think ought to have been there. A person of the parish of Llanarth, wrote a letter to the clerk of the magistrates at Aberaeron, begging him to call a meeting of magistrates to hear these grievances, and the meeting was called, but, before we had the meeting, both gates were taken down, but not the toll-house. Of course we held that meeting, and we did away with the side gate, though it had been taken down; the magistrates were aware of this. We had a meeting here, and lowered the toll on a horse from 1½d. to 1d., and on a cart from 4d. to 3d.; carriages the same as they were before. We lowered the toll on cattle going through to one half, and we put down lime carriage free; notwithstanding that deduction they went immediately and pulled down the toll-house.
Was it publicly known that you had proposed to do away with the toll on lime?
Yes, I had mentioned it myself.

David Oliver, acting treasurer of the Rhyader and Llangerig turnpike Trust:

Have either of the gates been pulled down?
The upper gate was pulled down in , and it was put up again the next day.
Is it now standing?
It is, but it is continually watched by the Montgomeryshire police force.
Was any attempt made to pull down the other gate near this town?
Yes, an attempt was made, but they were interrupted by the gate-keeper.

Harry Lingen, London barrister who sometimes resides in Rhayader:

Were you resident in this neighbourhood when the disturbances took place respecting turnpike-gates?
I was.
Have you had opportunities of forming any opinion as to what it was that led to those disturbances?
There appeared to be a general feeling in the country that they were labouring under great grievances of different kinds. I do not by any means attribute it altogether to the turnpikes, for there are many other things that they feel to be grievances; the chief cause, perhaps, is the great depression that they are suffering under, but the turnpikes were a tangible thing for them to lay hold of.
Your opinion is, that the extreme poverty of the farmers rendered them desirous of throwing over any payments that they could get rid of, provided they thought that those payments were harshly or unjustly demanded?
Precisely.
Was it under that feeling, and hearing what had taken place in other parts, that they were led to make an attack upon the turnpike-gates here?
No doubt of it.
Are there any particular circumstances relating to the turnpike-gates at Rhayader which excited the disturbances hereabouts?
Yes, I think so. There are six entrances into the town of Rhayader, and a gate at every entrance, and a toll-bar besides, so that the town was completely surrounded; and what makes the grievance a great deal worse is that three of those gates were upon roads that are in a most abominable state, and which have never had any outlay whatever upon them; one of them is under indictment now. I indicted it myself four years ago; that is the old road to Llanidloes.
Have you any other observations to make?
It has unfortunately happened, that we have not been able to agree with the authorities in the place as to the proper means that should be taken to restore peace and order in the district; all have the same end in view, but we differ in the way in which it is to be carried into effect. The authorities have been determined to carry their point with a high hand, and we are satisfied that grievances exist, the getting rid of which is a sine quâ non to the restoration of the district to its former state. We consequently advised concession, that advice has been disregarded, but neither of us has been able to convince the other of error. Now as a part of the proceedings here, I do not state this at all with an intention of showing that intentional wrong has been done, but I do say that the magistrates have acted with indiscretion in reference to these late disturbances, and in one case I would mention that a man in this town was seized by a magistrate without a warrant and taken from his team, and his team left in the middle of the street to take care of itself; the offence for which he was seized was passing through the gate without paying toll. It has been charged against us that we have frustrated their intentions, and to some extent, a limited one, I would plead guilty to the charge, but I say this, that although the magistrates, by following the course that they have been endeavouring to pursue, may have done what would appear to heal the wound, yet if the cicatrice were examined it would be found festering in the core; we have been desirous of performing a radical cure by removing the cause of the disease. Now this is part of what we content is bad policy in the magistrates using such means as I have just alluded to; this state of extraordinary coercion is working badly in this district. This very case I allude to has done the magistrates more harm in the opinion of the people than I can describe to you.
What was the case to which you allude?
I would rather that the party himself should state it. Another thing that I think we should speak of is what appears to us improper, if not vindictive, towards the hundred of Rhayader. On , this present month, four gates in this neighbourhood and one toll-house were destroyed, and almost immediately proceedings were adopted against the hundred for a much larger sum than the damage could really have come to. That we think a very great hardship, and particularly when the toll-house destroyed was really a disgrace to a public body such as the trustees to put a human being with his family to reside in.

John Jones:

Were you taken up for passing through the gate without paying toll?
Yes, the gate was broken down on the night that we passed, and I told the person there I would pay at the gate I had been used to pay at.
How did you get through?
The gate was wide open.
You did not open it yourself?
No.
What took place when you came down into the town?
Nobody asked me at the gate where I was used to pay.
Did anybody stop you afterwards?
No.
Did you go home?
Yes.
What charge have you against anybody?
We were fined in Rhayader for doing that.
When?
About a week after.
Before what magistrate did you go?
Before Mr. Whitaker.
Was any other magistrate present?
Yes, Mr. [David] Oliver.
What passed when you were before the magistrates?
We were fined 26s. for not paying the gate. I had hauled 100 loads of lime, and nobody had asked me at that other gate before.
Was that gate where you were in the habit of paying down?
No, it was up; nobody asked me to pay.
You pay when you come back?
Yes, and the gate was up; it was 11 o’clock.
Did you not know that the gate was pulled down till you got back to it?
Yes, somebody on the road told me it was broken down before I came.
(To Mr. Oliver.)—What is the explanation of this case?
[David Oliver] Mr. Jones went through this gate; he was on his way to the Radnor lime-kilns, 26 miles off; when he went through the gate, the first gate was up, and he brought down his load of lime, and in his way up he met somebody who told him the gate had been broken down; he passed through that gate, and then when he came to the gate at the lower end he refused to pay.
(Mr. Jones.) I did not refuse, nobody asked me for toll at that gate before. I said I will do anything that is fair; that is what I told the collector.
(Mr. Oliver.) This man has been dealt with very leniently; he was fined upon this for refusing to pay; he was coming up a second time through the gate, and in his way up he and another, when they came to the gate, took the liberty of breaking the gate open, and breaking the lock; that was the charge sworn to before us, and the lock was produced and put upon the table.
(To Mr. Jones.)—Did you hear that sworn to?
No. I did not.
(To Mr. Oliver.)—At the time this charge was made, and the lock was put upon the table before you, and it was sworn that this man and the other man had broken the lock, was this man present?
He was. I prevailed upon Mr. Whittaker to join me in not inflicting the second fine, but fining him upon the first, and excusing him upon the second ground that it was a very different charge breaking the lock. I said I think these people have done it in ignorance, and therefore the fine was upon the first charge.
(Mr. Jones.) The boys broke that lock in the night.
Did you find the gate open when you went through the second time?
The little girl had shut the gate against me.
What did you do?
I only touched the chain and the lock fell in two.
You opened the gate?
The gate did open, and I did take sheep through the town and paid the gate, and they tried to fine me 5l. after.
(Mr. Oliver.) I got Mr. Jones clear of that.
(To Mr. Jones.)—Why did you not pay this gate?
Because we had never been used to pay this gate, and they wanted to put the costs upon me.

James Davies, clerk of the peace:

How many gates have been destroyed?
In the Radnorshire Trust there have been five gates destroyed.
Before the destruction of the gates, how many were there?
In there were 32; there must be 33 now.
How many of those gates that were destroyed have you restored?
We have restored all; at least we are taking toll at all. I do not know whether the gates are entirely up.

John Benn Walsh, parliamentary representative for Radnor county:

…The first outbreak occurred on ; I happened then to be at Pentybont, ten miles from Rhayader; and I was informed that the two bridge gates had been cut down the previous night. I immediately proceeded to Rhayader and inquired into the transaction, and ascertained the particulars upon the spot. I did not that day meet any of the magistrates, but I communicated with Dr. Venables and Mr. Oliver on the following day. I was not very well acquainted myself with the locality of the gates, but I immediately requested those gentlemen to communicate to me any grievances, or any well founded objections which might exist in that neighbourhood to the existence of any gates, as I was extremely anxious that we should, before taking any measures for vindicating the law, show every disposition to redress the grievances of the people in that part of the country, and those gentlemen particularly mentioned the lower gate doing to Cwmtoyddwr, a gate on the old Aberystwith road, at the top of the hill towards the Devil’s Bridge, in the confines of the county, the New Bridge Gate and Saint Harmons Gate; they mentioned those as gates against which objections might be entertained, and particularly pressed upon me the New Bridge Gate, and stated a very strong case as regards that gate. I was extremely desirous of showing every disposition to enter into the discussion of the grievances of the people, and I immediately consented to bring forward the case of New Bridge Gate at the following turnpike meeting. The feeling I think was, that at that time the cutting down of those gates was the work of a party who are not inhabitants of that immediate neighbourhood; it was supposed that they came from Brecknockshire and Cardiganshire. The steps that were taken then, were an order for the re-erection of those gates. We then proceeded to call a general meeting of the magistrates of the county, who passed resolutions declarative of their determination to repress any attempt at outrage; and at the same time their willingness to give every facility for hearing all complaints which might properly be brought forward, and to redress grievances which might be proved and established. They proceeded to appoint special constables for the protection of the property in Rhayader. The magistrates in the neighbourhood of Rhayader, made a very strong representation to the meeting of the inadequacy of such a force, except under the control and direction of some competent police sergeant, or person accustomed to the organization of such a force. They expressed the strongest conviction that it would be impossible to procure persons who would do their duty, except under some such superintendance, and they likewise very strongly represented that a force composed of special constables, would be a very inadequate one under any circumstances. An application was in consequence made to the Secretary of State, and a sergeant of police was sent down for the purpose of organizing that force. There was no further outbreak until about a month afterwards; the New Bridge Gate was in the first instance attacked and was destroyed, that was the gate the question of the removal of which was brought forward at the meeting, but it was considered that it would be illegal to remove that gate, which formed part of the security which was pledged to the creditors for the interest of their debt. This gate was the first which was destroyed. On receiving information of its destruction, I immediately repaired to New Bridge, and with Dr. Venables, Mr. Oliver, and another magistrate swore in special constables, and ordered that that gate should be re-erected. I likewise considered that it would be necessary to strengthen the special constables, by employing a portion of the military force which had been placed at my disposal by General Brown, which was stationed at New Bridge as a guard in aid of the special constables. Two days afterwards, I received intelligence of a more serious outbreak at Rhayader. Immediately on being made acquainted with it, I signed a requisition to the commanding officer at Builth, to move a detachment upon Rhayader in aid of the civil power, and I then proceeded to Rhayader and made myself acquainted with the particulars of the outbreak which had there occurred. It appeared that three parties had simultaneously approached the town of Rhayader, in the direction of the adjoining parish of Cwmtoyddwr, and Saint Harmons, and Nantmel; they joined as it appeared at the Saint Harmons gate, which they levelled and proceeded to the Penybont, or East Gate, which they likewise demolished. A metropolitan sergeant of police, accompanied by six special constables, met them marching from the Penybont Gate towards the main street, through the town upon the main road. The sergeant drew up his men in a line and called to them to halt. The party walked forward in defiance of this appeal, and ordered him to stand back. When they came up to the special constables, they diverged to the right and passed them. The front rank pointed their guns at the police officer and special constables, and threatened to shoot them; the rear ranks fired several guns in the air, but the front rank always kept their guns pointed at the police officers without discharging them. They defied them to take them; the police constable and special constables being unarmed did not venture to interfere with them. The police officer, who has been in the army, computed their number at from 120 to 150 persons. He observed that they marched in military array, that they maintained good order, and that they were obedient to the word of command, which was given to them by one of the party. They walked through the town to the two bridge gates which had been restored since the former attack, and again demolished them, and proceeded to demolish the turnpike toll-house. The constables were entirely overpowered and intimidated, and did not venture to pursue them further than the bridge. In consequence of the representations which had been very strongly made to me, of the entire inefficiency of the special constables as a force to deal with disturbances of this character, and after communicating with Mr. Davies, the clerk of the peace, and other magistrates, I made an application to the Secretary of State for the assistance of a body of metropolitan police, who arrived on the following day, two days after this affair had occurred. They have since been employed in protecting the gates, and also in endeavouring to trace and detect the perpetrators of this outrage. From the reports which they have made to me, as well as from the observations which I have been enabled to make, I have no doubt of the existence of an organized system, and that the greater part of the inhabitants of the parishes in the immediate neighbourhood of Rhayader, particularly those of Cwmtoyddwr, and Llanwrthll, and Cwm Elau, in Brecknockshire, and Saint Harmons, and a portion of the parish of Nantmel, and a portion of the parish of Llanyre are confederated together. I have every reason to suppose that the heads of this Rebecca confederacy in those parishes, are the principal farmers and occupying tenants of those parishes. The police have entirely failed in their attempts, to bring home any legal evidence of the guilt of any parties; at the same time the general report of the neighbourhood and other circumstances, leave me in no doubt whatever, that the inhabitants of those parishes are almost all cognizant of the persons who committed those outrages, and that in point of fact the inhabitants of those parishes are the parties who were guilty of them.
Would it not appear, then, from the statement which you have made, that if the gates were to be replaced upon their former footing, and the military and police were withdrawn, attacks upon them, similar to those which have already taken place, would be renewed?
I entertain no doubt that at the present time, with the present disposition of the inhabitants of those parishes, unless some measures of protection or repression were adopted, the obnoxious gates would be immediately destroyed again if the military and police were withdrawn.
Does it not appear, from the mode in which they proceeded, that they discriminate between one gate and another; that it is not a rebellion against all gates, but against some gates only?
Yes, they spared two gates and they destroyed four; whether that was discrimination on their part, or whether they had not time to destroy the others, I do not know, but I should conceive that they certainly did intend to destroy those gates particularly, against which a strong complaint existed in the neighbourhood. I am inclined to think that their object was to attack those gates which were previously obnoxious to the neighbourhood, and against which they conceived that they had just cause of complaint.
The conclusion, therefore, to which you come is, that if it were possible so to modify the gates as to remove the particular cause of complaint, the system of collecting tolls need not be abandoned from any apprehension of resistance on the part of the country?
I am not prepared to say what the ultimate objects of this sort of combination are. It certainly appears to me, from a conversation which I had with the parties at Rhayader, that they have other objects in view, not immediately connected with gates, but particularly directed against tithes, and in some respects against the poor-law. I conceive that this confederacy has other and more important objects in view, and that the gates are only in the first instance attacked as being the most prominent, and perhaps the least defensible. I would add, in respect to the principle upon which I have acted throughout these outrages, that my anxious wish has been to give every possible facility to parties pursuing any legal and proper modes of obtaining redress for grievances and preferring complaints in a respectful and proper manner, but that I have felt a very strong impression of the absolute necessity of vindicating the authority of the law, by the adoption of firm and energetic measures at the outset. I entertain a strong persuasion that there are elements in other parts of the county which might very easily take fire, if a certain degree of firmness was not shown at Rhayader. Rhayader is a part of this county which is more immediately in connection with those portions of other counties which have been, unfortunately, the scenes of these Rebecca outrages lately. From the disposition of the people, from the small divisions of property, and from, perhaps, the backward state of that part of the county, I always feared that it would be in the first instance visited by these disturbances, if they appeared at all among us. I felt, therefore, that it was necessary to make every exertion to repress them in the outset at Rhayader. I have been at the same time extremely anxious to win back the people to a respect for the laws, and to invite, and, if possible, to obtain their co-operation in repressing these outrages, and in rendering their services as special constables for the preservation of the peace. I entertain hopes that they are themselves now sufficiently convinced of the folly, as well as the criminality, of these proceedings, and that there is a disposition at present in that locality, if we can at all conciliate the feelings of the better disposed to come forward, to give the authorities an assurance that these excesses will not be repeated, and I should myself deprecate very much any withdrawal of the force which is at present provided for the preservation of the peace, and for the maintenance of the authority of the magistrates and of the law until some such disposition was evinced on the part of the population of those parishes. I think it would be wise, as soon as such a feeling shall appear to be displayed, to confide in it. Of course there must be a certain discretion reposed in the magistrates of the hundred, and those who are immediately in contact with the persons, as to the guarantee which they give, but the disposition of my mind is to repose a confidence in those parties as soon as they come forward in such a manner and intimate their wish to preserve the peace, and I think that we might, after the display of force, and the decided measures which we have adopted at the outset, hope in that case that peace might be restored in the county, and that these disorders would not further encroach upon it.
The Commissioners understand that no actual outbreak took place at Knighton, but that the moving of troops there was in apprehension of an outbreak?
Exactly, and as the question is put to me, I may be permitted to state, very shortly, the circumstances which led to the application for military force. I received from a highly respectable individual, resident in Knighton, a gentleman of great local knowledge, a communication informing me that an attack upon the workhouse had been threatened, that he had received information of that fact from a source which he considered entitled to credit, and submitting to me the propriety of sending a military force for the protection of the workhouse and the town. I immediately considered it my duty to repair to the town of Knighton to investigate the circumstances upon the spot, before I gave any such order, and I there convened a meeting of the magistrates of the hundred, and although considerable doubt was expressed by some of the magistrates of the correctness of the information which had been given to me, yet upon the whole they unanimously voted for an application to the authorities for a military force for the protection of the workhouse. I forwarded that application, and the force was immediately sent there at the request of the magistrates. I have received communications since from the magistrates of the hundred; they have instituted a very complete inquiry, I believe, into the sources of the information which created this alarm, and I am perfectly satisfied upon their communication with me, that the danger does not exist, and in consequence of receiving a communication from them to that effect, I have forwarded a letter to the commander of the district recommending that the military force should be withdrawn.

Edward Williams, clerk of the Breknockshire Trust:

Were any gates taken down by the Rebeccaites?
Only one gate, that was the Ceffnllandewi Gate.

Francis McKiernin & George Laing:

Have any of those gates been pulled down?
[McKiernin] Yes, we are both out on bail, charged with having pulled the gates down.
[Laing] And that a gate we never wanted to come through.
[McKiernin] I was never out of my house that night, but a drunken fellow informed against me, and I was admitted to bail.

Thomas Penrice:

Have you anything to say to the Commissioners?
Lately the magistrates have ordered two gates in Gower, the gates of Kilvrough and Cartersford, to be guarded, which gates do not interfere with the parish at all, but they happen to be placed in two parishes which are nearly all my own property; and now, in consequence of a letter from the Secretary of State, the parish constables are ordered to be paid by the parish; they say that is the law; they read the Act of Parliament in a different way from what I do; but the parishioners are very much discontented about it, and in fact I am almost afraid we shall have Rebeccaism there, where nothing of the sort ever existed before, for they are all English people.
Was any gate pulled down in Gower?
Yes, one gate in the Welsh part of Gower was pulled down, that was the Poinfalt Gate. I wrote to the magistrates’ clerk to beg that the magistrates would take the constables away, for I knew there was no fear of anything, but they remained for five weeks, till the expenses of guarding those gates now are 15 guineas each week, and I consider it to be perfectly useless, as a magistrate, knowing the disposition of the people.
What led to the guarding of those gates; was there any attack upon the gates?
No; it was only because the chief constable chose to recommend it; and the hardship is that the parish should pay for it, where there is not one person in the parish that has occasion to go through the gate except my own tenant, who lives at my farm, and I am sure he would not attack it, and all the other parishioners live on the other side.

Thomas Arnold Marten, clerk of the Swansea & Wych Tree Trust:

Were any of the gates in the Trust pulled down?
The Pontardulais Gate was, and the Bolgoed Bar, the Pomfalt Gate in Gower, the Rhydypandy Gate, and the Red House Bars.
What have the trustees done with respect to those gates that were taken down, have they restored them?
They have restored the Pontardulais Gate and the Red House Bars; they removed the other gates and bar.

Thomas Bullin, who rented and supervised collection at many toll gates:

…there were four gates on this Whitland Trust put up, and I rented them, and I gave 800l. for the whole of the gates there. I do not think that many people knew we were going to take tolls (there were notices given, but there are not many newspapers taken in that part of the country) till the gates were put up. After they were put up the people seemed very uneasy; they were put up at the time the lime season began; they had no sooner been put up than one was taken down one night, and then another the next night; and Mr. John Jones, a gentleman well known in the county, and a few more gentlemen residing in Carmarthenshire, met at St. Clear’s as trustees, who had never acted before, at least I never saw them. I found I should have some difficulty in collecting the toll; I had paid 200l. in advance, and I wished to get my money back and give up the gates, and they said they had spent all the money; and I was left therefore in the lurch, and I have never had the money till this day.
Did you give up the gates?
Yes, I did, because Mr. Jones and the rest wished me, as being the renter, to give them up, so that they might do away with all those gates which had been taken down; so I told them that I would willingly give up, because I knew that I should have great difficulty in taking the toll; but I thought that they were doing wrong all the time, because it was an encouragement to people to do wrong, and I thought it would be a great advantage to have good roads; but however it was determined to do away with them, but not by the commissioners in that part of the country, but by persons who came from different parts of Carmarthenshire.
Were you present at the meeting when it was agreed not to re-erect those gates?
Yes, I was.
What was said at the meeting, and what did you prophesy about the effect of it?
My belief was, that there would not be many gates in that part of the country if they gave way to the people in that sort of manner.
Did you say that the consenting to keep down those gates would be the cause of pulling down the gates generally?
I did.
Where was the meeting?
At the Blue Boar, St. Clear’s.
When?
How soon after that meeting was there any outbreak?
After these gates were done away with, and the people were rejoicing at what they had done, the name Rebecca originated in the neighbourhood of St. Clear’s, because they used to ring that in my ears, “Rebecca will come to you.”
As long ago as that?
Yes.
Was that after the meeting?
Yes, after the meeting the person that took the lead was called “Becca.”
Who was that person?
I do not know. I have no doubt it was some respectable man in that part of the country, but I do not know who it was.
When did you first hear that name used?
As soon as ever the first gate was taken down, this leader was called “Becca and her daughters.”
How soon was it after the trustees had taken down this gate in consequence of the resolution of the meeting, that any gates were pulled down by the mob?
It was in ; there was a bar put up near St. Clear’s, and they took that down.
Was that in the same district?
No, on the turnpike-road; they then returned to this Whitland Trust again, and took down nearly every one on the Trust, bars, gates, and all into the town of Narberth.
When was that?
In ; whether there was one left standing I do not know.
There have been some re-erected, have there not?
Yes. Then the people began to be excited in the county through the reports, particularly the reports which appeared in the “Times” and other papers, for my belief is that this was excited by the papers more than anything else; that that was the cause of it, from the newspapers giving the accounts and exciting the people. It was supposed, from the accounts in the papers, that they were doing right, and were backed on by different people where they had their grievances, or had a spite against different people.

Robert Cook, assistant clerk of the Llantrissant Trust:

There were two gates removed by violence, and persons were convicted for taking one away, one gate at a place called Cwmnar; there was only a chain there, no gate.
Was not the Cross Vane Gate taken off?
Yes, and destroyed.
And never seen again?
No.
That is a gate at the very entrance to your Trust, about six miles from Cardiff?
Yes, about six or seven miles, between Cardiff and Llantrissant.
Were any parties taken up for that?
They were not found out; and Chapel Gate, and toll boards were demolished.
That is a third one?
Yes.
Was that a gate or a chain?
A gate.
The toll boards were destroyed?
Yes.
Were not the toll boards also destroyed at Newbridge?
I believe one of the toll boards was split through.
When were those three gates on the Llantrissant district destroyed or removed?
About .
Which was the first taken down?
Chapel Gate.
Which was the next?
Cross Vane, and that was a week or nine days afterwards.
The third?
The third about , the parties were brought before the magistrates.
Was it done in the night?
That was done in the night, and the other was done in the night.
Was part of the toll house taken down?
They began unroofing the toll house at Cwmnar; it is a very low toll house that might be reached with their hands from the ground.
Was it done violently and outrageously, and in defiance of the law?
I suppose it was done in a fit of drunkenness.
Were any people seen disguised about there?
There were two men seen; the toll gatherer saw them.
Were their faces blackened?
No; they did not disguise themselves; they were found near the toll house; they had been to a public house close by.
Have the gates been set up again?
They have not; at the one at Chapel they have put a chain.
At Cross Vane?
No.
Do they receive any toll at Cross Vane?
Yes; they demand toll regularly, but there are several who go through without paying; some will pay and others will not.
How long has that gate been placed there?
About six or seven years.
And it has been a good deal objected to, has it not?
Only lately. I have never heard any complaint before.
The toll is not now regularly taken?
It is demanded, and refused sometimes by some parties.
Do they take them before the magistrates?
They keep a list of them.
Do you know any party who refuses to pay?
No.
Has any party been summoned for refusing?
Not yet, but they are to be. It is proposed to be abolished on .

When I was digging up old articles about the Rebecca Riots at Welsh Newspapers Online, some of what I found comes from after the main period of the Riots (). Today I’ll share some of what I found from newspapers in .

First, an update on John Jones, from the issue of The Cambrian:

A Rebecca Informer

John Jones, who rendered himself so notorious during the Rebecca disturbances, by informing against several respectable parties, who were committed upon his evidence, after which the Attorney-General entered a nolle prosequi, is now in the custody of the police of this town on a charge of felony. He was taken before the Magistrates, and remanded to a future day.

The Cambrian had a followup in its edition:

The Rebecca Informer

John Jones, the informer during the period of the Rebecca disturbances, whose apprehension by our police on a charge of stealing a brass pan at Pontardulais, we announced in our paper , was tried at the Carmarthenshire Quarter Sessions, held last week, and acquitted by the jury, the evidence being defective. Jones admitted his guilt to Sergeant Bennett, of the Swansea police force, who apprehended him on suspicion, having detected him while offering the article for sale to a marine store-dealer in this town. Through some oversight Mr. Bennett was not subpœned as a witness.

Oops!

The Cambrian of included a lengthy letter from Cantab Cadwallader concerning the need to reeducate the ignorant population of Wales. In the course of the letter, he quoted from the testimony of Rev. R.B. Jones, vicar of Killymaenllwyd, at a committee of inquiry into the troubles in Wales:

“Are the bastardy clauses very unpopular?” — “Yes; there was a man taken up at Narberth; he is a parishioner of ours; he has been writing a Rebecca letter; I asked him how he came to write this letter. ‘He thought,’ he said, ‘it would do good; here was a poor woman starving; and here was this Mr. ——, who was very well off, and he ought to give something to this poor girl to help her to nurse the child she had by him.’ ”

Then says Mr. Jones– “This poor man though he was doing God service when he sat down to write this letter. He was a schoolmaster of a chapel in the neighbourhood.”

The Cardiff and Merthyr Guardian of gave this news of some of the convicts who were transported for their Rebeccaite activity:

The Rebecca Riots

Letters have been received from John Hughes, one of the men who was sentenced to transportation at the Special Commission held at Cardiff in , for the attack on Pontardulais Gate, during the Rebecca Riots. He and some others sailed in the London convict-ship for his destination in . Amongst other matters, the writer says— “As God has been so good, sparing my life and continuing my comforts, although I am not deserving of the least of his benefits, yet, in the events of his providence, he has taught me the uncertainty of life, by the death of one of my fellow-sufferers, David Jones, Cliwnwg Fach, Llanelly, who departed this life on the 19th of the said month, in Ober Town. I think the cause of his death was the wounds he received by the slugs. Oh! that our feed may be firm on the rock of salvation before we depart out of this transitory world!” — Hughes is deeply penitent for his criminal conduct. We understand that it is in contemplation to petition the Queen in favour of him and his companions.

And finally, The Cambrian gave a followup on another Rebeccaite convict in its edition:

Discharge of a Rebecca Rioter from Prison.

Henry Evans, tried in , as one of the Rebecca rioters, was discharged from his incarceration in the county gaol of Carmarthen, on . When the poor fellow was committed, he could neither read nor write. Through the exertions of Mr. Westlake, the Governor of the prison, assisted by the Chaplain, the young man repeated, by rote, the third chapter of St. Matthew, on the morning of his discharge. Too much commendation cannot be awarded to the Governor of the gaol, when we state that he diligently superintends the education of all well-disposed prisoners, allowing, as far as lay in his power, the same advantages to others which he himself possesses.