On , a party of workmen in returning from hay-making in a field above Mount Pleasant, amused themselves in pushing before them one of the party, a mason, named Williams, who covered his face with his apron, at the same time crying out “Becca for ever.”
The Mayor, who was accidentally passing at the time, immediately seized him by the collar, and gave him in custody to two soldiers.
Mr. Morris, joiner, meeting them, told the Mayor that he would answer for Williams’s appearance on .
He was then liberated.
On , he entered into recognizances to appear before the Magistrates on .
The Monmouthshire Merlin rushed to print on with early reports of the Cwmcillau (or “Cwm Cille” in this account) brawl:
On a gentleman whose family are at present stopping in Glamorganshire, conveyed to us the intelligence that serious outrages had been committed by the followers of the Amazonian Great Unknown in the neighbourhood of Swansea; that the police had been violently handled; and that Captain Napier, the chief constable of the county, had been dangerously wounded.
We deemed it well to proceed to Swansea, and on our arrival found the town a scene of great excitement, and on seeking information from sources likely to prove authentic, learned that a conflict had certainly taken place, but fortunately on a small scale; that several Rebeccaites had been captured, and were then prisoners in the town; and that Captain Napier had been injured, after manifesting the humanity and forbearance which become a brave soldier.
It appeared that the anti-toll-gate campaign having widened the circle of operations, and frightened some of the good and peaceable people of Swansea, the active and intelligent head of the constabulary force of the county was vigilantly on the look-out.
On , a considerable force of the gate levellers marched to Bwlgoed toll house, near Pontardulais, about seven miles from Swansea, on the Carmarthen road, forced the keeper out without making his toilet, and placing an implement in his hand, compelled him, under certain threats of death, to aid in the work of demolition, and lest he should take the liberty of tracing any of the Guerrillas home, they locked him in an adjoining stable, where he was shivering, en chemise, “till daylight did appear.”
Disorganization was increasing with impunity, and as toll-gate keepers looked upon each coming night with fear and trembling, as probably the last of their road-side reign, the authorities of Swansea were not wanting in efforts for prevention and detection.
Heretofore the seal of secrecy has been upon the lips of all sympathisers with the Rebeccaites, and none were found to give a trace to the homes of the termagant, or any of her myrmidons.
On , however, according to public report, a person named John Jones, or Lletty Fulbert, not having the love or fear of “Becca” before his eyes, but being moved and instigated by John Barleycorn, or the genius of cwrw dha, met a policeman at a beerhouse, and there showed symptoms that he would a tale unfold of the wicked lady’s visits to the glimpses of the moon.
Inspector William Rees, of Swansea, was duly acquainted with the circumstance, and deemed this a favourable opportunity of obtaining information touching the names and whereabouts of the persons who razed the toll house and bar of Bwlgoed.
Pursuing this intent, Rees had the informer conveyed to a place of safety, where no person was allowed to interfere with his expressed intention of rendering the State some service, and where, the wicked Rebeccaites insinuated, his public spirit was kept effervescent.
Be that as it may, whether such report arose from malevolence or otherwise, we know not.
Inspector Rees applied to the county magistrates, who, having minutely scanned Jones’s story, issued warrants against persons charged with the commission of Rebeccaite outrage at the Bwlgoed gate.
Four warrants were confided to Captain Napier for the apprehension of William Morgan and Henry Morgan, farmers, of the parish of Llandilo, Talybont, and Matthew Morgan and David Jones, of the parish of Llangerelock.
At the gallant chief constable, accompanied by Inspector Rees, and William Jenkins and H. Lewis, policemen, proceeded well armed to execute the warrants.
Matthew Morgan was taken at home, about .
— David Jones was a prisoner soon after, and both were brought to the lock-up house at Swansea.
After the performance of this duty, they again set out to take Wm. Morgan and Henry Morgan.
William was found in a field, captured, and left handcuffed in the custody of Jenkins, the policeman; and the remainder of the party proceeded to Cwm Cille, near Velindra, the house of Morgan Morgan, farmer, in order to take Henry Morgan.
Inspector Rees first entered the house, and told who was outside.
He then sent for Captain Napier, who, on entering, was handed a seat by Esther Morgan, mother of Henry Morgan.
The object of the visit was then told, the warrant produced, and the signatures of the magistrates — Dillwyn Llewellyn and T.E. Thomas, Esquires — were pointed out.
Morgan Morgan, the father, said Henry was lame, and could not come then, but would do so at some more convenient time.
Morgan, the father, said he would lose his life before his son should go out of his house.
On this, Captain Napier ordered Rees to lay hold of Henry Morgan, and a scene of the utmost violence ensued, which will minutely appear in the evidence which we give below.
Old Morgan, his wife, his sons, Rees and John, the latter of whom was shot, and Morgan’s daughter Margaret, fell upon Captain Napier and Inspector Rees like tigers and tiget cats.
An iron bar, a reaping hook, a hatchet, a crutch, a hammer, scalding water, and a saucepan, were actively used against Mr. Napier and the policemen; one would almost suppose that the gallant captain must have a charmed life to survive the affray.
As it was, he escaped with a severe cut on the head, and other injuries; and no doubt he would have fallen a victim in the discharge of his duty, had he not, when the power of enduring forbearance could go no further, and when they had endeavoured to discharge a pistol, which he had, against him, he fired, by which one of his assailants, named John Morgan, was wounded in the abdomen.
Rees was sadly pummelled, and Jenkins, who came to their assistance, rescued both from further violence, by some dexterous passes of his sword against some neighbours of the Morgans, whom the cry of “Lladderch Nwynt,” — kill them!
— had brought to the scene of action.
Henry Morgan and John Morgan, the wounded man, were then brought to Swansea, where the eminent Doctor Bird skilfully extracted the ball from John; and, be it observed, to the credit of Captain Napier, that though covered with blood, and suffering severely, he declined the medical relief of Dr. Bird, until that gentleman had first performed the offices of humanity for John Morgan, and assured him that Morgan’s life was not in danger.
The news of the capture of Rebeccaites, and of the affray — magnified into a pitched battle, with reports of the killed and wounded — spread like wildfire over the town and neighbourhood — the streets became densely crowded — hundreds assembled at the station house, and the most feverish excitement prevailed; but we did not hear of any breach of the peace.
Doctor Bird and Surgeon Rogers paid close attention to the wounded man, and succeeded in extracting the ball, which had entered the abdomen, passed up, struck the edge of the ilium, and glanced up til it lodged backwards between the second and third ribs, the abdomenal cavity not having been entered in any part.
On a detachment of the Seventy-third Regiment, accompanied by several very well armed policemen, marched to the neighbourhood of Pontardulais, for the purpose of apprehending the parties who had offended against the law in the morning, and the Morgan family, and others, were conveyed to prison without resistance.
On two additional prisoners were brought in, and the rush of anxious crowds to catch a glimpse of the new-comers — for whom we heard repeated expressions of sympathy by the people — rendered the streets through which they came almost impassable.
Mr. Griffith Vaughan, a man of some property, and landlord of the Pontardulais Inn, and Mr. David Lewis, of, we believe, the same locality, are the two persons in question.
[Actually Daniel Lewis, I think — ♇]
The current of the population flowed to the Town Hall, where a numerous bench of magistrates, Sir John Morris, chairman, assembled.
The court was filled in every part, immediately after the doors were opened; and several members of the Press — London and provincial — were ready to take the proceedings; but after the lapse of a considerable period, the Rev. Samuel Davies entered the court, and addressed the meeting to the following effect:–
“I suppose you have assembled here for the purpose of hearing the examination of witnesses in the case which now occupies the attention of the magistrates.
I have to inform you it will be a private hearing, and therefore you may all depart; but before the investigation is brought to a close, when the prisoners are brought up for their final hearing, the public will be admitted.”
This announcement was received with marks of disapprobation.
Mr. Powell, of the Times, applied for permission to be present.
The solicitors who had been engaged to defend the prisoners, made a similar application, and in reply received the following:–
Resolved unanimously — That all meetings with a view to the investigation of charges relating to the demolition of turnpike gates in this neighbourhood be strictly private, till the parties are brought up for final hearing.
John Morris, Chairman.
The people dispersed from the hall slowly and complainingly, but the rumours of fresh arrests, and the current of reports prejudicial to the character of Jones, the informer, gave food for gossip and speculation.
It was said that a rev. gentleman met Jones’s wife in Castle-street, when she assured him “That her husband could know nothing of the occurrences at Bwlgoed and Rhyd-y-pandy, having been at home every night for the last two months.
She added that his conduct of late had been very singular, so as to induce her to believe him insane.
About twelve months since his effects were seized by the officers of the law for debt, which circumstance, she added, had a most powerful effect upon his mind.
Some time ago, he build a house upon the mountain, in the neighbourhood of his former residence, in a bleak and barren spot, where it was scarcely possible for a human being to reside, more especially in such a house as he erected.
The country people have a notion that if they can erect a house in one night upon a common, that house becomes their freehold property.
One of those houses Jones attempted to erect for himself, his wife, and five children; but Mr. Morgan, of Cwm Cille, and Mr. Jenkins, of Cynhordy, conceiving their rights to a sheep-walk invaded by this building, took steps for having it demolished.
Jones’s wife fancies that this act of Mr. Morgan’s so irritated her husband’s mind, already weakened by previous misfortune, that it must have caused him to have sought his revenge, by stating that Morgan’s sons were engaged in the destruction of the Bwlgoed bar.
However, this is mere conjecture on her part.
One thing she seems certain of, that her husband has not been from home during any one night for the last two months.”
Consequently, if her statement be true, her husband’s story must be untrue, as we believe he states he was present at the demolition of the Bwlgoed bar, which occurred a considerable distance from his residence, and during the night.
Jones was in town early on , and called at Mr. Davies’ house.
Having sat there a considerable time, he beckoned to Mrs. D., and begged her to as Mr. Davies to lend him five shillings; but Mr. Davies having some knowledge of his character, refused to lend him any money.
This circumstance plainly shows he was considered unworthy of being trusted with five shillings by persons who knew him.
It is well known that the magistrates have offered a reward of one hundred pounds to any one who will give such information as will lead to the conviction of any person engaged in the destruction of Bwlgoed bar and toll house.
The statement of Jones’s wife is given as being much relied upon by the friends of the Morgans, who are very numerous.
A couple of interesting details show up in this version: one, that among the weapons the Morgan family used was a “crutch.”
No crutch is mentioned during the initial presentation of the prosecution’s case against the Morgan family (though some of the other weapons are brought out for display to the Magistrates), and this may perhaps be because it would bolster the idea that Henry Morgan was injured and that the father had offered to bring him to town to face charges once he’d healed up.
Another detail is that neighbors of the Morgans came to their aid and joined in their vigorous defense of their household.
From the Cambrian comes this account of the examination of Rebeccaite prisoners.
This part of the examination mostly concerns attempts to bail out the prisoners, but also touches on the national publicity and local concern about the proceedings.
Wednesday.
, the hall was as densely crowded as on the preceding day.
The following Magistrates were present:– Sir John Morris, Bart., in the chair; J.D. Berrington, Esq., Colonel Cameron, Rev. S. Davies, Rev. John Collins, L.Ll.
Dillwyn, Esq., John Grove, Esq., W.I. Jones, Esq., H. Lucas, Esq., J.N. Lucas, Esq., J.D. Llewelyn, Esq., C.H. Smith, Esq., and J.H. Vivian, Esq., M.P..
The prisoners were placed at the bar, and the charge read over to them.
Margaret Morgan, the daughter, was charged with having feloniously and maliciously assaulted and wounded Captain Charles Frederick Napier, with the intention of preventing Henry Morgan from being lawfully apprehended.
[The coverage of this hearing in the Monmouthshire Merlin says that this charge was against Esther Morgan.]
Morgan Morgan and Esther Morgan (the father and mother), and Rees Morgan, were charged with aiding and abetting Margaret Morgan, in the commission of the felony.
The nature of the charge was explained to the prisoners in Welsh, and the usual questions put, whether they intended making any statements — at the same time they were cautioned by being told that whatever they said would be used in evidence against them if necessary.
The prisoners, by the advice of Mr. Walters, declined making any statements.
They were then committed to take their trial at the next Assizes.
Morgan Morgan, and Esther, his wife, then bound themselves in the sum of 200l. each, and the two surities, Messrs.
Isaac Jones and Robert Williams, in the sum of 100l. each, to produce the two former at the next Assizes.
Rees Morgan and Margaret Morgan, also bound themselfes in the sum of 200l. and the two surities, the Rev. Daniel Davies, of Swansea, and Mr. Wm. Thomas, of Llangafelach, in 100l. each, to produce the prisoners at the next Assizes.
— The parties were then liberated.
[The Merlin adds: “The whole family were then discharged out of custody, and left the hall accompanied by large numbers, who pressed to shake hands and congratulate them.”]
Captain Napier was then bound over to prosecute, and Inspector Rees and Sergeant Jenkins to give evidence against the prisoners.
The Chairman then announced, that the Magistrates had come to a decision to liberate the parties who were in custody on a charge of destroying Rhydypandy and Bolgoed toll-bars, on their binding themselves respectively in the sum of 100l., and two responsible surities in 50l. each, to appear on
Mr. Walters applied to the Bench, for the liberation of John Morgan, the young man who had been wounded, and who was then in the Infirmary of the House of Correction, on his finding surities to the same amount as the others.
Mr. Attwood observed, that he was charged with a more serious offence than those who were in custody at the station-house, and who were charged with misdemeanor only.
The Chairman observed that as far as his own opinion went, unless there was a technical objection, the young man might be discharged on entering into the same recognizances as the rest of the family who were charged with a similar offence.
Mr. Attwood suggested that the only objection to the adoption of that course would be, because the rest of the family had been committed, whereas the case of John Morgan had not been heard.
Mr. Walters then stated that the medical men were of opinion that the young man was in a fit state to be brought forward, and that the investigation of the case should be proceeded with.
He (Mr. W.) would certainly prefer the adoption of that course, if bail could not be taken for his appearance whenever required.
The Chairman expressed his readiness to accede to Mr. Walters’s proposition of proceeding with the examination.
He would have admitted him to bail before examination were not that course informal.
The Government and the whole kingdom watched their proceedings, and it was necessary they should avoid any technical informality in their proceedings.
The Chairman then expressed his readiness to proceed to the Infirmary, and take the examination on .
After a lengthened conversation, the Chairman’s suggestion was agreed to.
The Chairman, and several of the other Magistrates, then proceeded to the Station-house, for the purpose of receiving bail for the appearance, on , of the parties charged with the destruction of the toll-bars.
Should the investigation be then proceeded with, we shall give a full account of the proceedings in our next publication.
— Each of the principals then entered into recognition in the sum of 100l. each, and the following surities in the sum of 50l. each:–
For Henry Morgan, Messrs.
Thomas Glasbrook and Joseph Rees; the same persons were surities for Matthew Morgan.
For Mr. William Morgan, of Bolgoed, Messrs.
Morgan Jones (Courtycarne), and Griffith Griffiths.
For Mr. David Jones, Messrs.
Isaac Thomas and Jacob Lewis, draper, Swansea.
For Mr. Griffith Vaughan, Messrs.
John Cadwallader and Wm. Sayer, of the Bush Inn; and for Mr. David [Daniel?
–♇] Lewis, Messrs.
John Alexander and Edward Williams.
The Chairman, and several of the Magistrates, then proceeded to the House of Correction, to take the examination of John Morgan, the young man who had been wounded.
After remaining for some time in the Committee-room, it was suggested that the Magistrates had better proceed to the bedroom, to avoid disturbing the invalid; to that suggestion the Chairman readily assented.
On our entering the room, the young man, who is fast returning to a state of convalescence, and did not appear very ill, though he was much paler than when in health, was preparing to meet the Magistrates, who desired him to return to his bed, when the depositions made on were read over to him, and explained in Welsh, by his attorney, Mr. Walters.
When asked if he wished to put any questions to Captain Napier, he stated in Welsh, that he did not attack Capt. Napier, but merely ran towards him, after having been wounded, to prevent his shooting him the second time.
That being a mere statement, Mr. Walters did not give it in English, but advised his client to say nothing at that time — His father, Mr. Morgan Morgan, then entered into recognizances in the sum of 200l., and Messrs.
Jacob Lewis and David Bevan, in 100l. each, for his appearance at the Assizes.
— The Magistrates then left.
The preliminary hearing in the first big Rebeccaite criminal trial had its second day on .
Here’s how The Cambrian covered it:
. —
The Magistrates entered this morning into the case of Matthew Morgan and Henry Morgan, who were charged with having formed a part of the mob who had destroyed, on , the above toll-bar, which was in the parish of Llangafelach.
There was an impression prevalent, that the investigation into the Rebecca riots had closed on , the hall, consequently, was not as full at the commencement of the proceedings as on .
Mr. Maule stated the charge upon which he intended proceeding against the defendants, which was founded upon the same statute as that against the four defendants on .
John Jones was then sworn, and deposed as follows:—
I know Henry and Matthew Morgan, and see them now in Court. Henry Morgan resides with his father, at Cwmcillau-bach, and Matthew Morgan resides at Tymawr.
Tymawr is three or four fields distant from Cwmcillau.
I know the Rhydypandy turnpike-gate, in the parish of Llangyfelach.
I know the night on which the Rhydypandy-gate was broken down — it was on .
I saw both Matthew and Henry Morgan on that night; I saw Henry first; that was at .
I spoke to him.
I asked him if he was going to break the gate — I did not name the gate, it was reported that Rhydypandy-gate was to be broken.
On my asking him the question, he (Henry) replied, that “he was going to do like the rest.”
I had my coat turned on that occasion.
I had turned my coat just before I spoke to him.
Henry was dressed in a bedgown, and he had a kind of cap on his head, and a pickaxe in his hand.
We went together across three or four fields, and arrived on the high road.
I then stood on the road, and Henry went to the house of his brother Matthew.
He came out of the house, in three to five minutes, accompanied by Matthew.
The latter was dressed in a bedgown, he also had a cap on his head, and had a hatchet in his hand.
Henry, Matthew and myself, went down the road, until a place called Tri Onen (Three Ashes), where there are four cross-roads.
We then went together to Coed-caebryn maen; there were a number of people there — perhaps about forty; they were all men, and the greater part dressed either in bedgowns or white shirts.
There was one person there who attracted my attention more than others — they called him “Becca,” and “Mother.”
He was occasionally on foot, but generally on horseback.
When first I saw him he was walking about, whispering to the different men.
He rode a while horse, was dressed in a white shirt, and had something black over his face, and had an old bonnet on his head.
I did not recognise that man, but suspected him.
The greater portion of the people had some instruments in their hands — some had guns, some pickaxes, cross-saws, &c.
They remained at Coed caebryn-maen for about half an hour, and went off in a body towards Rhydypandy-gate.
The man on horse-back went before them and before leaving, he said, “Come, let us go now, it is time.”
He spoke in Welsh and imitated a woman’s voice, as near as he could.
In obedience to Becca’s orders, the party fired about twenty shots on the road, and the numbers increased as they proceeded.
I heard the man calling out on the road, “Lucy,” “Mary,” “Nanny,” and every name.
They arrived at the gate , and then destroyed it.
Becca gave command.
They broke it up with cross and hand-saws.
Four or five shots were fired during the time the gate was being destroyed, which was done in ten minutes or a quarter of an hour.
I saw Matthew and Henry Morgan during that time.
Henry Morgan drew off the board containing the terms of the gate, from the pine-end of the house.
I heard them break it, but was not on the spot.
They then returned in a body to Coed caebryn-maen.
I did not observe the two Morgans, but I believe they all went.
I had also a cap on my head.
Henry Morgan had a red mark on his face.
Cross examined by Mr. Walters:—
I never built a Tynôs on a mountain.
I dug the foundation of a house near Darren-fawr; that was in the last Spring.
I was never in Cwmcillau-house since that time.
I believe Morgan Morgan had a right of common over Darren-fawr, like others.
I asked him leave to build a house, and he said, I had better seek a place on some freeholder’s land.
I believe he said he had no right to give me leave, as he was only a commoner.
Morgan, at last, gave me leave.
Mr. Jenkins, of Cynhordy, afterwards went round the neighbourhood, and asked several persons to go with him to destroy what I had done.
The two defendants went with them.
I never said I would injure the defendants, when I had an opportunity; I never said so either to John Williams, of Penyfidy, or to his wife.
I told Mr. Jenkins, of Cynhordy, and the others, that perhaps they might want a house themselves.
They were about six in all.
I never told them that they would repent of what they had done.
On , I had been working at Gellywran issa; I was labouring on the farm.
I went there about six, and left at nine o’clock.
There is about a mile between Gellywran and my house.
I returned home about .
I went across the fields, beyond Cwmcillau, from Gellywran.
I knew they were going to destroy the gate that night.
I remained near Cwmcillau for a quarter of an hour, when I saw Henry Morgan.
I had walked direct from Gellywran to the place where I met Henry — it is about an hour’s walk.
I believe it was about when I met Henry.
It might have been later than nine when I left Gellywran.
I turned my coat in the field beyond Cwmcillau house; it was in that field I overtook Henry.
It was daybreak when I went home.
There was no person there but my wife and children.
I did not see Morgan Pugh on that night; I might have seen him in the morning of that day.
I do not remember, nor do I deny, telling Morgan Pugh I did not get up that morning, as I was tired, having been mowing hay.
I have frequently spoken to both defendants, after the taking down of my work on the Common.
I had frequently spoken to Matthew, in going and returning from chapel.
The bedgown worn by Henry Morgan was something grey; the police found 12 of them in Matthew’s house; Matthew wore a similar one.
Mr. Walters then called Morgan Pugh, on behalf of the prisoners:—
I am a farmer, residing at Llangyfelach.
John Jones, the last witness, lives in a barn belonging to me.
On , I saw John Jones returning to bed.
When I saw him on , in bed, he asked me what time it was?
He said he had not got out of bed because he was tired, after having been mowing.
I went into the barn, to see if John Jones had gone to mow hay on that morning.
I thought he was engaged to go and mow for Williams of Penyfidy.
Re-examined:—
I was frequently in the habit of turning to the barn, to see if Jones was there.
I would not have gone to the barn had I not seen the door open.
I had not heard that the gate was to be destroyed.
I got up early that morning, to prevent a calf which was weaning going to suck the cow.
I knew that the calf would suck as soon as he could get up.
(Laughter).
I was in good time to prevent him on that morning.
I have a wife and a son.
My son was not out during that night.
Mr. John Williams, of Penyfify, was examined, and stated, that, after the foundation on Darron-fawr had been destroyed, Jones said he would injure Morgan, of Cwmcillau, or his children.
He said he would not care to run the risk of his life by doing so.
Cross-examined:—
John Jones and myself were always friends.
This conversation took place in , in my own house. — The witness went through a very long cross-examination, but nothing material was elicited.
The defendants were then committed for trial at the next Assizes. — The Magistrates accepted bail to the same amount as that on which they had been previously liberated.
Rebecca at Swansea.
Early on morning, it was generally rumoured in this town that the Tycoch gate, on the other side of the Swansea river, had been destroyed at about , having been cut down with saws and other implements, and afterwards burnt on a lime kiln.
The rumour, at first, excited considerable surprise, especially as the circumstances which gave rise to it had occurred so soon after the long investigation before the Magistrates, on , which terminated in the committal of the parties charged; but, on enquiry, what was a mere rumour soon turned out to be a stubborn fact.
In spite of the number of policemen, both rural and borough, at present sojourning in town — in spite of the numbers of military, including companies of the 73d and 75th Regiments, together with between forty and fifty Light Dragoons, the Tycoch gate — half a mile distant from the town of Swansea, was levelled to the ground unobserved, excepting by the toll-receiver who, as will appear from the following examination, recognized one out of the thirty or forty rioters who took part in the demolition of the gate.
On evening, the Mayor, and several persons in authority, went over the river for the purpose of viewing the wreck of the gate, and of obtaining some information relative to the perpetrators of the outrage, one of whom had committed a most cowardly and disgraceful assault upon Margaret Arnold, the toll-receiver.
On , after the conclusion of the investigation relative to the Rhydypandy gate, a collier, named David Lewis, who had been identified by the toll-receiver, as the person who had assaulted her, was brought before the Magistrates, who had adjourned from the Hall to the Petty Sessions-room.
Reporters were admitted from the commencement of the examination, and the public generally shortly afterwards.
Margaret Arnold, having been sworn, stated that she was a singlewoman, and collected tolls at Tycoch gate, in the parish of Llausamlet, about half a mile distant from Swansea.
I lived in the house near the gate.
When in bed about , I was disturbed by a noise outside the house.
Several heavy blows were given the door of the house, and the shutters, the latter of which together with the windows had been smashed.
When I came out of bed and opened the door, a man came from the turnpike towards me.
He had an iron bar in his hand, with which he gave me a severe blow on the arm.
I had held up my arm for the purpose of avoiding receiving the blow on any other part.
The prisoner, David Lewis, is the man who struck me.
He then struck the bar through the door, which I then closed and ran into the house.
He struck at the door repeatedly afterwards until it was broken to pieces.
I again went to the door, and observed the prisoner break down the toll-board which was fastened to the wall.
There were about thirty or more men scattered here and there about the house when I went to the door.
I screamed out “murder” as loud as I could, upon which they all fled in various directions.
They appeared to be working-men, colliers, &c., and were not disguised.
One of the party rode a dark-coloured horse, which appeared to be a cart-horse.
In leaving he rode on before them.
The gate appeared to have been cut down with saws.
It was all right at when I retired to bed.
There was a gate and a bar by the house, one leading to Foxhole and the other to Danygraig.
The gate was placed on the lime-kiln after it had been cut down.
I well knew the prisoner before.
He had passed through the gate on with a cart.
He rose his hand in passing, which intimated that he had no money about him, but would pay again.
I have frequently trusted him before, and he has always paid me.
Mr. Emery, who stated that be was a member of the Royal College of Surgeons, stated that he had examined the complainant’s person, and found a wound about two inches in length, and half an inch deep, on the fore-arm.
It might have been produced by a blunt instrument.
Mr. Melvin, who now came to the room, said he appeared on behalf of the prisoner, and asked permission to cross-examine the first witness.
The Magistrates granted the request, at the same time intimating that it was a mere favour, being quite irregular after her evidence had closed.
In her cross-examination she said:—
It was nearly when she saw the prisoner at the gate.
It was rather dark, but light enough for her to see his features, and recognize him.
She knew him well.
He is rather lame.
Inspector Rees corroborated the witness’s evidence respecting the state of the gate and house.
Mr. Melvin then addressed the Bench, and offered to produce witnesses who could prove that the prisoner was in bed .
The Magistrates declined hearing evidence to prove an alibi, while it was not intended to convict summarily, but send the case before another tribunal.
The prisoner was then committed for trial at the next Assizes, on a charge of felony.
The Magistrates declined accepting bail for the prisoner’s appearance at the Assizes.
He was consequently committed to the House of Correction.
About , the inhabitants of Llanelly were alarmed by the nocturnal depredators who assume the above name; they were numerous on the occasion, and before they left the town they succeeded in destroying the Furnace gate, which is on the road leading from Llanelly to Carmarthen, and burnt the toll-house to the ground.
The Sandy gate, on the mail road leading to Pembrey was also wholly demolished.
We understand that the party broke to pieces a private gate belonging to D. Lewis, Esq., of Stradey.
During the last week nine gates and several toll-houses have been demolished in the neighbourhoods of Llandovery and Lampeter.
It appears that the impunity with which Rebecca and ber Daughters have hitherto carried on their system of destruction against toll gates in Carmarthenshire and the neighboring counties, has emboldened some lawless ruffians to destroy, by night, the property of any person whom they think to be opposed to their destructive proceedings.
On , some mischievous persons cut down and destroyed some scores of young trees growing in the plantation of Mr. Evans, of Tymain, in the parish of Llangeler.
On , Mr. Howel Davies, of Conwil, was alarmed by the reflection of a bright light in his bedroom window.
On looking out he observed a rick of old hay, and two stacks of straw intended for thatch, on fire in his haggard.
An alarm was given, and nearly all the inhabitants hastened to the spot.
As there was a good supply of water near the place, the flames from the hay were soon subdued, but the stacks of straw were entirely consumed.
On , a neat little house, lately built at Cwmdyad, near Conwil, Carmarthenshire, was in a short time completely reduced to ruins, by a set of lawless ruffians, who were disguised as usual.
Several of them were furnished with fire-arms, which they frequently discharged, to the great terror of the neighbourhood, and of those who travelled along the road.
Some persons who had attended the Carmarthen market, and had to go home that way, were detained for some time, until the Rebeccaites had completed their work of destruction, when they disappeared, and no man can give an account whither they went.
It is believed, that what excited Rebecca’s vengeance against this house was, that it was intended to be a gate-house, at which a toll-gate was proposed to be erected, instead of that lately destroyed at Nantyclawdd.
The government of course played its “why didn’t you just address your grievances through proper channels” card (the same one they’re harping on so tediously in the Edward Snowden case today).
But some did try calling their bluff.
From the Monmouthshire Merlin:
On , a written complaint was made to the Magistrates of Swansea, by a great number of persons who obtain a livelihood by hauling coal for supplying the town, charging Mr. Bullen, the farmer of the tolls for the Swansea district with the exaction of illegal tolls.
The magistrates received the complaint with the greatest cordiality and kindness, and were glad to find that they had brought forward their complaint in a peaceable and lawful manner, and assured the complainants that it should have immediate attention.
Mr. Bullen was requested to attend, which he readily did, and Mr. Wm. Walters appeared for the complainants.
The complaint was, that the scale of tolls which Mr. Bullen had rented of the trustees, authorised him to take three half-pence only for every one-horse cart of coal, which sum was also stated on the painted toll-board, as being the charge; notwithstanding that he had for more than a year past exacted a toll of three pence for every horse drawing coal.
Mr. Bullen, on being called upon for his answer to this charge, referred to an Act of Parliament, and contended that the trustees had no power to reduce the toll to three half-pence; that therefore he had a right to demand the utmost toll allowed by the Act, namely three-pence, but admitted that the scale of tolls let to him, and the toll-board only authorised the demand of three half-pence.
The magistrates referred to Act 4 Geo. Ⅳ c. 95, whereby it is directed that any toll-collector, exacting a greater toll than allowed by any order or resolution of the trustees, was liable to a penalty of £5.
They signified their unanimous opinion that he had been guilty of an illegal exaction, and that they were prepared to fine him when the case was ready for adjudication.
The hearing of this case was resumed on and the magistrates unanimously convicted Mr. Bullen in the full penalty of £5.
We hope this decision will give the public confidence in the laws, and induce all persons to bring their grievances before the magistrates, who have thus shown themselves ready to give redress.
Funny how a little direct action can start making the wheels of justice turn, i’n’ it?
Another note in the same issue read:
We are given to understand that Vaughan, landlord of the Pontardulais Inn, to whom the case of arms recently alluded to, was directed, can prove that the guns (fowling pieces) were ordered for sporting by farmers in his neighbourhood, from a commercial traveller who stopped at Pontardulais Inn: in fact, that the farmers and the commercial travellers will be forthcoming in due time.
We hope so, for the credit of that part of the county of Glamorgan.
It appears that the eyes of the magistrates of Carmarthenshire are at length opened to the gross injustice so long practised on the poor farmers, many of whom were obliged to leave their land almost unmanured, in consequence of the excessive toll plunder.
In one district nine gates levelled by “Becca,” are not to be restored.
A note in an issue of the Monmouthshire Merlin datelined reads:
The prominent report in town is, that a proclamation will shortly be issued, offering a reward of £300 for such evidence as will lead to the conviction of any person or persons engaged in the destruction of toll gates in this county, and that 30 warrants are being prepared for the apprehension of persons against whom there is private information of being participators in the toll-gate crusade.
The investigation of charges against persons for breaking down other toll gates and houses in this county, took place at the Assize Court on .
Mr. Maule conducted the prosecution.
The prisoners charged with the destruction of the Belgoed gate were finally examined before the Magistrates at Swansea, on , and committed for trial.
The only witness against them was John Jones, a rioter turned informer; who was declared unworthy of credit by witnesses adduced for the defence; his own brother contradicting part of his evidence.
Among the committed prisoners, is Mr. G. Vaughan, or Pontardulais; to whom a package, containing twelve fowling-pieces, a brace of pistols, bullet-mould, and percussion-caps, had been addressed, but intercepted at Swansea.
A letter, written after Mr. Vaughan’s arrest, countermanding the order for the arms, had also been intercepted.
At a meeting of the Kidwelly Road Trust, on , it was determined to abandon thirteen out of fifteen tolls within the trust.
The correspondent of the Times, continuing his researches into the cause of the Rebecca riots, rather inculpates certain Dissenting ministers—
I was rather surprised to learn during my inquiries, that the text I sent to you some time ago, the 24th chapter of Genesis and 60th verse, on which the Rebeccaites are said to found their proceedings, has frequently been preached from in the Baptist, Independent, and Dissenting chapels, and that the preachers have advised the people to their outrageous proceedings.
The Wesleyan Methodist preachers, on the contrary, have pursued an opposite course, and have urged the people not to break the law.
This sect, however, in Wales, is not by far so numerous as the various sects of Dissenters.
I have been informed that Mr. Chambers, a Magistrate of Llanelly, and a gentleman of considerable influence, sent an address round to all the Dissenting Ministers, in Welsh and in English, urging them to read it to their congregations, and exhort them to refrain from these outrages; but these Dissenting ministers of peace, as I have heard, without an exception, refused to do this, stating as their excuse that they durst not do it.
This fact exhibits in strong colours one of the worst features of a voluntary system of religion.
He has “wormed out what is at the root of the toll-bar grievances”: every fresh inquiry shows the abuses to be worse—
It happens that in this country the genus of pettifogging and jobbing attornies is pretty numerous.
Wales, as everybody conversant with a London attorney’s office, or with the business which passes through a barrister’s or pleader’s chambers, well knows, is notorious for its spirit of litigation; which is, no doubt, chiefly owing to the chevaliers d’industrie who live by the law.
These “gentlemen,” when lawsuits were scarce, often found it a splendid “spec” to get up a new road.
There were travelling-expenses, the “costs” of getting a private act passed through both Houses of Parliament, and the prospect of getting the appointment of “clerk to the trust” in futuro: and accordingly, there are, as I informed you in a former letter, no less than fourteen distinct trusts in this county; and, of course, fourteen “clerks” and fourteen surveyors of the roads, all receiving heavy salaries — in fact, fourteen different managements to be paid out of the tolls.
And now for the way in which this system works.
When a new road is beat up in the way I have described, a few gentry in the neighbourhood subscribe a few hundred pounds; then the private act of Parliament is obtained, including a certain district, and giving power to the trustees to take under their management such roads as exist, and which have been already made by the farmers.
So far all goes on swimmingly.
The new road is begun, and the trustees are short of cash.
Toll-gates are put on these farmers’ roads, where they never before existed; but still money must be borrowed to go on with.
Then comes another little bit of jobbery — the quid pro quo.
The trustees have money to lend, are gentlemen of the neighbourhood — magistrates: who so fitting to lend money to the trusts as these gentlemen?
They accordingly advance money, taking securities called “tallies,” which are, in fact, bonds for securing the repayment to them of their principal out of the tolls, and interest at 5 per cent.
But the new road, often not being much needed, is not a very paying road: there is not much traffic upon it; and it is found, that though the toll-bars on the trust are as numerous as the trustees dare make them, yet the tolls taken will do little more than pay the 5 per cent interest secured by the tallies, and the salaries of the “clerk” and “surveyor”; and then these gentlemen trustees come “down upon” the farmers under the provisions of the General Turnpike Act, and by indictment compel them to repair in many cases their own roads, which they themselves originally made, and also every day extract from them a grievous toll, nominally to repair the roads, in reality to pay 5 per cent to a neighbouring magistrate on an investment of his money.
But this is not all: from being so numerous, these trusts intersect one another perpetually throughout the country; and though all the tolls taken on the roads of one trust may not be by themselves very oppressive, (though quite enough,[)] it continually happens that you cannot go nine or ten miles without crossing two or three separate trusts, each of course demanding separate tolls.
If, on arriving at a turnpike-gate scarcely a mile from one you have paid toll at, you again have toll demanded, and naturally enough ask, “How is this? I paid toll not a mile from here?” you are answered, “Oh, we have nothing to do with that; this is another trust” — “No connexion with the people next door.”
And now comes perhaps the worst feature in the case.
The tolls are farmed, and let out to the highest bidder; and it is quite common for these toll-collectors to charge a higher toll in the country places than they are entitled to.
If the farmers, exasperated at this and at the way in which toll is demanded of them, refuse to pay, or pay and summon the toll-collector before the Magistrate of the district, what is their remedy?
The Magistrate who adjudicates upon the case is also a trustee of the road: but he is more — he is a tally-holder and a cestui que trust; he has merged his fiduciary character, and become bona fide an owner of the road and its tolls; and is in reality adjudicating in his own case, where his own interest is concerned in the charge, and is opposed to that of the farmers.
The result may be easily imagined.
The farmers get no redress; and the “clerk to the trust,” in defending the case, pockets some fees out of the poor oppressed farmers’ pockets.
Is not this monstrous?
It is to be hoped that the Government Commissioner will inquire into this, the very root of the evil; and that the Government will pass a general act to consolidate all these trusts, and thus insure a moderate and uniform rate of toll throughout the county, and at the same time still enable the keeping up good roads by knocking off the salaries of thirteen “clerks” and thirteen “surveyors,” and (if possible) gradually abolishing the tallies and lessening the rate of interest paid.
If this be done, we shall not hear much more of the war against the turnpike-gates.
Mr. Hall, the Magistrate, who was sent down by Government to inquire, began the investigation at Cardigan on .
He has had such of the farmers as wish to say any thing before him separately; thinking that they would make a more full statement of their grievances than if influenced by the presence of their neighbours.
Several of the farmers afterwards repaired to the reporter of the Times, who was at the same inn.
They fully confirmed statements made by that writer.
We select a few points in this more formal evidence.
The payment of toll at a turnpike does not free the vehicle for the rest of the day; it is free to return, but it must pay on repassing another time; and so on, paying every alternate time.
A man who had contracted to carry building-stone from a quarry to a gentleman’s house for 4s. 6d. a day, threw up the contract, because the tolls on the first day came to 5s.
The new Poor-law is unpopular, for many of the usual reasons; but there are two especial reasons in those districts: under the old plan the paupers were employed by the inhabitants, so that rates were not needed or paid; and as the people of each village are almost all related, it causes them shame when any are declared paupers.
An increasing demand on the score of tithes is another grievance.
This curious note comes from the Monmouthshire Merlin, dated :
We have received from our valuable correspondent at Swansea, a capital report of a cricket match which took place on on the Crumlyn Barrows, near that town, between Mr. Starling Benson and Captain Napier, each supported by ten other gentlemen, in which Mr. Benson’s side was successful by a majority of 23.
The game was well contested on both sides.
We have likewise received from him a small publication, which has just made its appearance, entitled “Will you join Rebecca to night?” which is calculated to do much good at the present moment.
We may make some extracts in our next.
The grand jury deciding on the case against several accused Rebeccaites met again on to decide on the cases of John Hughes, John Hugh, and David Jones.
The Cambrian was there to report on the proceedings.
The toll collector, William Lewis, and John Morgan, a surveyor, started by testifying about the extent of damage to the Pontardulais toll house.
Then:
The papers on which there were writings in the Welsh language, was also put in evidence.
A translation had been committed to writing by Mr. Powell, the Court interpreter.
Mr. Wm. Cox, Governor of the Swansea House of Correction, was also examined, and produced a small quantity of powder, some percussion caps, 5s. wrapped in a piece of paper, addressed “Mrs. Becca,” and stating that it was 5s. from Thos. Thomas, of some place, in addition to 5s. given by him before.
This summed up the prosecution’s case.
The defense attorney, a Mr. Hill, then offered his rebuttal.
Excerpts:
The Attorney General had told them that this was an unusual course of proceeding.
He referred to the Special Commission — a similar one he (Mr. Hill) had not heard to have ever taken place in the history of the county of Glamorgan.
They also heard it said that the cases were extremely few.
Was that any reason for conferring upon the country the unenviable distinction of a Special Commission.
He could not devise what cause existed for one, but that did not prove that a cause did not exist.
Why was it not sent to a neighbouring county, where there were apparently greater reasons for sending it?
For this they had had no explanation.
It was no part of the Attorney General’s duty to give the explanation; but if the object was that a great public example should be made in the vindication of the power and majesty of the law, he could say, that the effect produced would not be that which was intended.
Be that as it may, he admitted that it was no part of their duty to enquire into it.
He thought that all good men, in every district, deprecated the outrages which had been committed; but he did not remember any instance in which the penal law, even when justly incurred, had succeeded in staying disturbances consequent upon notions of the existence of public grievances, whether real or supposed.
He did not know whether any grievances existed; but if they did, it was beyond the power of the law to restore tranquillity merely by the infliction of punishment.
In making these observations, he did not rest upon his own authority alone, but he spoke the opinion of Edmund Burke, one of the brightest stars of political opinions.
In that immortal speech or his, in favour of the consolidation with America — a measure which it would have been good for this country to have adopted, he illustrated his argument by a reference to the Principality [Wales].
He said that in former times, when the grievances of the people used to be answered by the application of force, either of the penal law or military power, crime multiplied to such an extent, that an Englishman passing through Wales could not go five yards from the highway without incurring the risk of being murdered.
Special Commissions, with the Attorney and Solicitor General, a number of Queen’s Counsel, and a host of lawyers, were things never suggested by the wisdom of their ancestors, very justly so called.
But when just legislative measures were adopted, they were successful beyond even the anticipation of those who, like himself, had almost an unlimited confidence in the power of moral force.
So great was the effect produced by such means in the reign of Henry the Eighth, which was not very auspicious for mercy and justice, that it had been likened to the “sudden stilling of the storm.”
Hill went on to criticize the way the prosecutor had made his case, and along the way characterized the guns seized at the bridge and presented as evidence in this way: “He was glad the guns were produced, for he believed that, if the choice were offered him of firing them, or having them fired at him, he would choose the latter alternative, but he might be wrong.”
He suggested that, contrary to the testimony the prosecution had offered, perhaps the police had fired unprovoked on the Rebeccaite crowd, and not in response to having been fired upon.
The instances were not new, but were in the memory of all, in which soldiers and police, in similar transactions to the present, both exceeded their duty.
It was no new thing to find that their conduct was not always such as resulted from united bravery with forbearance, and which indeed participated of the sublime, for there was nothing more sublime than the conduct of men armed with great power, with command to exercise it, and yet submitting to insults and injury rather than exercise it towards their erring fellow-creatures.
The Learned Counsel then proceeded to make some general remarks upon the conduct of the assembly — they had advertised their projects on the night in question by firing arms, while the police had hid themselves in their retreat, having pistols loaded with balls, while the mob foolishly and innocently fired without any such implements, as if merely to cheer and arouse their comrades, for there was no evidence that they had injured a single individual.
There had not a single hair from the heads of either of the police been singed, and yet it would seem, though strange, that it should be represented that ferocity had been exhibited on the part of the mob, and that justice demanded that they should be placed for trial at the bar of their country.
What did the evidence prove?
Nothing more than that there was an idle firing of guns — not loaded with bullet or ball.
Certainly there had been a few shots produced, and the Attorney-General had asked if they were large?
What number were they?
Why, it was only necessary for them to be looked at to enable any person to see that they were small bird shot — and that they were fired as a mere feu de joie — for to suppose that with those they intended resisting the police, who were armed to the teeth with pistols loaded with balls, in addition to other weapons, would be the height of absurdity.
Capt. Napier had said that there were marks of shots on the windows, and near the lamp on the toll-house door, which evidently proved the use of the small shot — to break the glass.
He did not, for a moment, mean to contend that they were justified in doing so, but the question was whether they were guilty of the particular act charged in the indictment.
The question was not whether they were guilty of some breach of the law, but whether they were so upon that indictment.
He was glad that shot had been produced, for it afforded further proof that there existed no intention to injure.
For with shot, though the injury done would be less than with balls, yet it would be more general — the chances of inflicting wounds with shot being at least fifty to one.
How could the jury suppose that any shots had been fired, while not one had even penetrated the garments of any of the police or magistrates.
— On the other hand, if the conduct of that body were glanced at, it would be found that information of the intended attack upon the gate had been given, as early as , and that after a delay, respecting which no explanation had been given, the police had proceeded armed, not with sparrow-shots but with pistols, each carrying balls, each of which would be fatal to man’s life.
They were found coming to the field, and though knowing by the blue lights, firing of guns, &c., that a crime was contemplated, instead of making any attempts to prevent the riot, they were found hiding in the field until the gate had been broken.
He confessed it was to him a novel part off the duty of the police of this country to watch until mischief had been accomplished before attempting to prevent it.
Here the Magistrates and police had an opportunity of preventing a great outrage of the law, but instead of doing so, they had waited to see it committed.
Mr. Hill, after making several additional observations upon the conduct of the police, remarked that in conducting the case against the prisoner, the first maxim of law had been overlooked, which was not to punish the guilty, but to protect the innocent.
He hoped that he did not exceed his duly expressing a hope that the spirit which seemed to actuate some of the Glamorganshire authorities would not become general throughout the land.
He had never before heard of a prosecution for a flight on one side, while the attack was upon the other.
It was something new to him to see persons coming to that Court under the auspices of the Attorney and Solicitor General, to vindicate their conduct in shooting at British subjects with pistols loaded with balls.
Such proceedings, in his opinion, exceeded those of the French revolution.
Instead of appearing as prosecutors and witnesses, the wounded and injured men appeared at the criminal bar.
He could give no expression to any feeling but that of astonishment.
He then called eleven character witnesses for John Hughes.
The Solicitor-General then gave a rebuttal and the prosecutor summarized his case.
The Monmouthshire Merlin goes into a little more detail here, and reveals the prosecution’s idea of the importance of the five shillings wrapped in the note:
There was also another paper found on prisoner, which was important.
On it was writing, directed to Mrs. Rebecca, to the effect that 5s had been paid at some time before by a person named Thomas, and that he now paid another 5s, and two half-crowns were found wrapped up in this paper.
It will be recollected that on the person of the prisoner, when apprehended, there was a large number of half crowns, besides other monies, and hence it would appear that he had been collecting subscriptions for some purpose.
Then the jury considered the evidence and came back with its verdict:
The jury then retired, and in the course of fifteen or twenty minutes [“about three quarters of an hour” reported the Merlin] re-entered the Court, and returned a verdict of guilty, with a strong recommendation to mercy on account of previous good character.
Sentence deferred.
The Court was then immediately adjourned.
True bills have been returned against the Morgan’s family, of Cwmcillan; against David Lewis, for assaulting the Tycoch toll-collector; against Lewis Davies for a misdemeanor, in aiding in breaking the Pontardulais gate.
No true bill against the boy, Wm. Hughes, upon the same charge.
Which confuses me, as I thought this was a grand jury designed only to decide whether charges could be brought, but this seems to indicate that at least in the John Hughes case, it was acting as an ordinary criminal jury.
The special commission trying the Rebeccaite cases continued on
, starting by considering
the cases against David Jones and John Hugh, who were captured during a
Rebeccaite attack on a toll booth. They chose to plead guilty, probably as
the evidence against them was pretty near identical to what the same jury had
been convinced by a couple of days earlier in the trial of John Hughes, who
had been captured alongside them.
The court sentenced Jones and Hugh to be exiled to a penal colony in Australia
for seven years. Hughes, however, got sterner treatment:
He appeared to be one in a station of society far above the rest — one not
likely to be misled by others, and upon evidence proved to be a leader, if not
the leader of this lawless multitude.
He got 20 years of penal colony exile. The court then moved on to other cases.
The charges against David Lewis were dropped. Lewis Davies was charged with
destroying a turnpike-gate, and pled guilty, but was not yet sentenced.
Morgan and Esther Morgan pled guilty to assisting in the assault on the man
sent to take Henry Morgan prisoner, but the prosecutor, “[c]onsidering their
advanced age and other circumstances connected with the case,” declined to
pursue the felony charge. Margaret, Rees, and John Morgan also pled guilty,
Margaret to the assault itself, and the others similarly with abetting. The
prosecutor again declined to pursue the felony charges, “and observed that,
having ascertained the circumstances under which this aggravated assault had
taken place, he did believe they were under a mistake with respect to the right
to resist. Under these circumstances he was not disposed to press for a severe
punishment in this case…” Margaret was sentenced to six months in prison, and
Rees & John to twelve months each.
The Rebeccaites were “bad cops” that allowed peace-loving, law-abiding,
innocent Welsh farmers to play “good cop” and use the implicit threat of
Rebecca to get more attention for their grievances. Here is an example (from
the
Monmouthshire Merlin):
Sir, — I am sorry no abler pens than mine have undertaken to draw the
attention of our neighbourhood to the monstrous high rate of tolls, as well as
the unequal system of collecting them. For instance, from Nash or Goldcliff we
only travel one mile on the turnpike road, and have to pay
9d a horse, while in
many districts it is only
3d or
4d, and where, too,
materials are much more expensive.
Again, the toll to Caerleon from Newport, I understand, is
17d or
18d for one horse.
Surely, the tolls might be arranged so that a person might pay in proportion
to the distance he has to travel, for under the present system he might go
thirty or fourty miles for the same money he is obliged to pay for one — As we
small farmers find great difficulty in scraping our rents together for our
landlords, I hope and trust the proper authorities will look after these local
burdens, as they were advised to do by Lord Granville Somerset at the last
Quarter Sessions, in order to prevent tumults and outrages like those which
are disgracing South Wales, for we ar really very desirous that Rebecca and
her children should never come among us to create an anti-toll rebellion — we
would rather have our grievances redressed after a lawful fashion.
Should you think these few remarks deserve a corner in your intelligent paper,
till some abler advocate may come forward you will greatly oblige,
Several Poor Little Farmers.
PS. Would not our
monthly agricultural meeting do a good service to us, by taking the matter
into consideration, with a view to assist.
Nash,
The London Times seems to have had a particularly industrious reporter on the case during the Rebecca Riots.
I have yet to delve into the Times archives themselves, but occasionally its work was quoted or referred to in other papers.
Here is an example, from the Monmouthshire Merlin:
On my return from the Special Commission at Cardiff I thought it my duty to wait upon the Commissioners appointed by her Majesty to inquire into the grievances complained of in South Wales, who are now prosecuting that inquiry at the town-hall, in this town, for the purpose of ascertaining how far the investigation would be open to the public.
I was politely informed by Mr. Frankland Lewis, the chairman, on the part of the Commissioners, that having no desire whatever to make their inquiry a secret one, but rather to court publicity, the Commissioners yet thought they would best arrive at information and at the truth without the presence of reporters for the public press, as in some cases parties would be deterred by the fear of publicity from giving full information, whilst in others persons would be prompted to make inconsiderate statements in the hope and expectation of seeing them in the newspapers.
This was, at present, the opinion of the Commissioners.
The Commissioners sit in a large room in the court-house, and, with their secretary, Mr. Gurney, the short-hand writer, and a clerk, there are usually six persons present at the examinations, which the Commissioners informed me they thought was an audience sufficiently formidable to examine the country people before, without further increasing its numbers by the presence of the representatives of the press.
The Commissioners also informed me, that the evidence given before them, and their report, will be printed and laid on the table of the House of Commons, only so far condensed as to be reduced to a readable form.
I send you this as the result of my interview, and of the present opinion of the Commissioners.
A deputation of farmers, amongst whom were some relatives and friends of the prisoners [John] Hugh and [David] Lewis, tried at the late Cardiff special commission, last night waited upon Mr. Chambers, jun., of Llanelly, and expressed their anxiety for a restoration of tranquillity to the country, and as an earnest of their feeling, offered to be sworn in as special constables to preserve the peace.
I understand Mr. Chambers has appointed to be in attendance on at Llanon, for the purpose of swearing in as special constables those who thus tendered their services.
The Government has sent down a gentleman, Col. Hankey, to act as a police magistrate in those districts where there are now no resident magistrates.
Colonel Hankey will, accordingly; as soon as possible, be sworn in of the commission of the peace, to act for the three counties of Carmarthen, Pembroke, and Cardigan.
A rumour is current that another special commission, for the trial of the Carmarthenshire prisoners, will be sent down after term into this county.
It appears to have arisen from the fact of the county gaol being quite full of Rebecca prisoners, and from one Mr. Maule, the treasury solicitor’s clerks, being in the town arranging the evidence against the prisoners.
[The Monmouthshire Merlin also mentioned this rumor, saying that “There are now nearly fifty prisoners in the county gaol, and several others out on bail, awaiting their trials.”]
In many parts of the county the late verdict against the “Rebecca” prisoner [John] Hughes, at Cardiff, has excited intense animosity against the jury who tried him.
I have been told that some farmers from the more disturbed districts have affected even to be incredulous that such a verdict was ever returned by a Welsh jury.
So far as an opinion can be formed at present, however, the severity of the sentence appears to have had a salutary effect, whilst it has at the same time excited universal commiseration for the culprit.
The Borough Calendar contains the names of nine prisoners, seven or eight of whom are charged with offences connected with the late riot at the Workhouse, and other offenced arising out of the recent disturbances.
There are twenty-two names on the County Calendar, the majority of whom are charged with riots, assaults, and depredations connected with Rebeccaism.
True bills against several of these prisoners were found at the last Assizes.
Several respectable farmers and others are implicated in some of the charges; from their station in society, their cases naturally cause considerable excitement and apprehension as to the result of the trials.
In four cases the defendants are Queen’s Bench traversers, having been at the last Assized removed by certiorari.
They are to be tried by Special Juries, and are precisely in the same position as Mr. O’Connell and the other traversers at the late Dublin trials.
The Workhouse Riot
Before a Special Jury. — John Harris, aged 50, miller, David Thomas, 28, farmer, David Williams, 27, weaver, Job Evans, 49, farmer, Isaac Charles, 19, tailor, and John Lewis, 40, fisherman, were charged in a lengthy indictment, containing several counts, with having, on , unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled at the Carmarthen Workhouse to the disturbance of the peace of our sovereign lady the Queen, her Crown and dignity.
There were also counts in this indictment charging several of the defendants with having committed assaults on different parties.
True bills had been found at the last Assizes, and the defendants had then put in pleas of Not Guilty.
Messrs.
Chilton, Q.C., Evans, Q.C., and E.V. Williams, were Counsel for the Crown.
Mr. Lloyd Hall defended the two last-named prisoners.
— The others were undefended by Counsel.
Mr. V. Williams opened the pleadings by stating the nature of the charge.
Mr. Chilton, Q.C., then addressed the jury for the Crown.
He had the honour to appear before them to conduct the prosecution on the part of the Government.
It was an honour which devolved upon him from the accidental circumstance of seniority, and he assured them it was to him an honour attended with no little anxiety.
To himself it gave no little pain, because that, during his long intercourse with the people of this part of the country, he had experienced nothing but kindness and courtesy from persons of all ranks and conditions of life.
For that reason, he repeated, it pained him exceedingly that the duty had been imposed upon him of substantiating charges of disregard of the law against a large body of people whom hitherto it had been his (Mr. C’s) part and boast to point out as being the most peaceable people, the most obedient to the laws, within the realm.
If the gentlemen of the special jury would glance over the calendars of that county during past years, and compare them with those of other counties, they would agree with him that it had been comparatively free from crime.
It also gave him pain to appear before them after so many trials which had been conducted by the Attorney-General, whose temperate conduct, and whose firm and vigorous, yet forgiving spirit he (Mr. C.), with his numerous infirmities, could not expect to emulate; though he hoped that in no portion of his address would he show any disposition to strain the law against the defendants.
His sympathies had always been enlisted in favour of the people.
It would be his duty to call evidence before them, and if, after they had heard and weighed it, they should find anything which would justify them in returning a verdict of acquittal as to all or any of the defendants, no person could feel more rejoiced at that than himself.
He had that moment been informed that only two of the defendants were defended by Counsel, but he (Mr. C.) was confident that would not operate prejudicially to the other prisoners, as they (the jury) would be their Counsel, and his Lordship would be their Counsel, and see that they should not be convicted unless the charges were well substantiated, and that they should be quite as well guarded as Mr. Hall, with all his zeal, would guard the interests of his client.
To gentlemen of their experience it was unnecessary for him to dwell upon the various points of law which would arise; he would leave that to his Lordship.
In some counts the prisoners were charged with a riot — in others with assaults, but all would be guilty of the acts committed by each of them, if it would be satisfactorily proved that they had assembled together for one common purpose.
He would now give them an outline of the case, the details of which will be given in evidence.
He (Mr. C.) charged the defendant John Harris with being a ringleader, or at least a very active promoter of the riot in question.
He was a miller, residing in the parish of Abernant, in that county.
This riot was unquestionably more or less connected with the disturbances which had arisen from the supposition that tolls had been illegally exacted.
It would appear that the defendant Harris had refused to pay tolls at Water-street gate, in that town, and the consequence was that be was fined, and a distress warrant was issued against his goods.
Considerable opposition was made to levying the fine, and a riot ensued, which he would merely refer to, as it was the subject of another prosecution.
In that riot, which occurred on , several of the defendants took part, and threats were then held out by the mob that they would destroy Water-street gate and the Workhouse.
On , Harris called at the house of Capt. Davies, one of the magistrates who had signed the distress warrant, and told him that unless the money which had been paid were returned, he would he visited on .
He also left a letter with Mr Davies, signed by himself, and purporting to have been signed by another party.
Mr. Chilton here read the letter, which was signed, “John Harris,” “Thomas Thomas,” to the effect, that as they had been illegally fined, they give notice that, if the money was to be returned, was the time so to do.
On , as would be proved, the Parish Clerk of Abernant had been compelled to make a kind of proclamation to the parishioners to assemble at Carmarthen on , or if any persons remained away, they would do so at their peril.
A Magistrate happened to be present, and he endeavoured to dissuade the people from listening to the proclamation, and he sent for Harris, and tried to prevent him from carrying his purposes into effect; but it would be shown that Harris continued very active in persuading the people to assemble: the farmers on horses, and their sons and servants on foot; and that they would remain away at their peril.
On , they accordingly assembled at the Plough and Harrow, which was four miles from Carmarthen.
The assembly was a very large one, and they marched through Trevaughan village, and reached the town of Carmarthen , at which time they amounted to some thousands.
They marched into the town, through the Water-street gate, in procession — the footmen being in the van, and the horsemen in the rear, bearing banners with various inscriptions on them.
Having proceeded through several streets, they went towards the workhouse.
He would show the jury that the appearance of the mob was so alarming that nearly all the shops in Carmarthen were closed.
It would also appear that the master of the workhouse had observed about a hundred idle people loitering about the workhouse until the procession arrived, and admission was then demanded in the most intimidating manner.
One individual, who had been at the Plough and Harrow in the morning, seeing the multitude at the door, suggested to the master that, if he did not open the door, he feared bad consequences would ensue.
The master then admitted the mob.
They went into the hall.
Their acts and general conduct while in the workhouse would be described by the different witnesses who would be examined.
Shortly after they had entered, a gentleman, named Morse, took the opportunity of addressing them.
They attended to him and that, happily, afforded time for the arrival of the military — a small body of the Fourth Light Dragoons, who were nearly worn out by fatigue consequent upon their exertion in travelling.
Immediately on the appearance of the military, the mob dispersed.
Many of those actually engaged in the riot made their retreat, leaving their horses in the yard of the workhouse.
That circumstance in the riot he thought was not unimportant, because it afforded a clue to what the ultimate object might be had they not been interrupted.
“Conscience made cowards of all,” for he could not accuse the Welsh of such cowardice had they not been conscious that they were engaged in a bad cause.
However, when the jury would take into consideration the time and circumstance of the assemblage, and the general character of their acts, it would be for them, under the direction of the Learned Judge, to say whether the defendants were legally justified in such a conduct or not.
— The following witnesses were then called and examined:—
Captain David Davies examined by Mr. Evans.
Q.C.:— I am a Magistrate for this county.
Harris, the defendant, called on me on , and delivered me this letter.
[The letter was put in and read — the substance of it is given in the Learned Counsel’s opening address.]
The defendant added that if the money were not paid on , it would be demanded on .
I was in the town on with the other Magistrates.
I saw a crowd of about 350 people on horseback, and others on foot.
They were more than a thousand.
I remained in the Townhall.
They passed the hall.
The shops were closed.
Those on foot were agricultural servants.
I was not alarmed.
David Evans, road-surveyor, examined by Mr. V. Willams: On I was sworn in a special constable.
On I assisted the police to levy a distress on the goods of Harris, the miller.
It was a distress for a fine imposed for non-payment of toll.
Our distraint was resisted by a mob who created a great riot.
The mob then said that they would destroy the Water-street gate, and pay the workhouse a visit, and take it down.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hall:— I do not think Isaac Charles or John Lewis were present at the Talog meeting.
They were not there.
Re-examined by Mr. Chilton:— There were about 500 persons present.
I could
not positively ascertain that those persons were not there.
I cannot mention a
fiftieth part of those who were present.
James Lewis examined by Mr. Chilton, Q.C.:— Is the parish clerk of Abernant.
I attended service on .
It is the custom after service to give public notice of any meeting, or of anything lost.
I cried the loss of a mare on that day.
After that, John Harris, the miller, Talog, desired me to make another proclamation.
It was a notice to the parishioners to come to town next day, and whoever remained home would do so at their peril.
I objected to crying it, but said I preferred having a written notice on the door.
Having made the proclamation I heard Captain Evans advising the people not to go.
That evening I heard a conversation between Harris and Capt. Evans.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hall:— I do not know whether Isaac Charles and John Lewis were present, at the Church, on that occasion.
Capt. Evans, Pantykendy, was called on his subpoena, but was not present.
Thomas Evans, Plasyparke, examined by Mr. Evans Q.C.:— Is a farmer, who lived at Plasyparke.
On , he was in this town.
Knows John Harris, the defendant; saw him that day in Carmarthen.
Harris asked witness, “If he would accompany Becca and her children to town on ?”
Witness said he would not.
Harris said (continued witness), I had better go, or Becca would destroy all I had.
I said I would not go, but send my servant.
He said, that was not Becca’s request — that every farmer must go on horseback, and his sons and servants on foot.
I mentioned to Capt. Evans what had taken place; I also spoke to the Rev. Mr. Evans.
That was on , before I left Carmarthen.
On , I went to the Plough and Harrow, where Harris told me they were to meet; that is a mile and a half from my house.
It was nine in the morning when I went.
There were a number of people there — about fifteen to eighteen hundred might be present.
I saw the defendant Harris there.
I did not stay there five minute, but went on business to Carmarthen.
I crossed the fields for part of my way.
I was in Carmarthen about two hours before the crowd.
I saw the crowd coming down by Darkgate, and passing the Hall.
I heard it talked in the country that it was the intention of the mob to visit the Workhouse.
I went there and saw some people kicking the door.
I did not see any of the people I had seen in the morning there.
I went to the door, and spoke to the Governor.
I thought they were inclined to break the door, and told him he had better open it.
I heard the Parish Clerk making a proclamation on , at Abernant.
I heard Capt. Evans endeavouring to persuade the people not to go to town.
I saw a written notice on the Church-door of Merthyr, which is the adjoining parish.
Cross-examined:— I fell some alarm in consequence of the threats used about the country — the threats that people’s goods, would be burned, &c.
Re-examined:— I felt alarm at the time I spoke to the Governor of the Workhouse.
Thomas Davies, a labourer, living in an adjoining parish to Abernant, proved having given notice in his parish to the people to meet at the Plough and Harrow.
The notice was, that all who had horses were to ride, and others to come on foot.
I also had notice, that all who remained home did so at their peril.
Joshua Hughes gave the order.
John Ray Evans, Master of the Workhouse, examined by Mr. Chilton:— On , my attention was attracted by seeing about a hundred people about the hedge, opposite the Workhouse, idling; the majority were country people.
There was about an equal number of women and men.
About one o’clock I saw a large body of people assembling; those in front were on foot, and others on horses.
There were at all events hundreds on foot.
I saw musical instruments with them.
When they came to the Workhouse, I heard them knock and kick the door, and demand admittance.
Mr. Evans, Plasyparke, requested me to admit them, and afterwards advised me to let them in.
I at first refused, but becoming alarmed, I requested the porter to open the gate.
The mob rushed in; a portion followed me to the dining-hall — the numbers filled the hall.
Many had sticks in their hands, others beat the table, others said they would turn the paupers out — that no workhouse was required, and that my services could be dispensed with.
I had two keys in my hands — those of the men’s wards and women’s wards; these were wrenched from my hand.
The mob wished the children to go out of the school-room — the children cried.
About this time an alarm of the soldiers coming was heard; all the mob disappeared.
A man named Job Evans struck me with a stick when in the room.
I know the defendant defendant John Harris; I saw him afterwards in front of the house.
The lock of the board-room was broken open.
I know Isaac Charles well; he was one of those who came into the hall.
I did not observe a stick in his hand.
Cross-examined:— I begged of them to desist.
The defendant Charles cried out “Hurrah.”
I do not think he was cheering me.
Capt. Evans examined by Mr. Evans:— I live at Pantykendy, and am a County Magistrate.
I was at Abernant Church on .
I heard of the notice given the people.
I endeavoured to dissuade the people from going to town.
I heard that John Harries and Thomas Thomas had been active.
I sent for them to meet me at the Vicar’s house.
They did not then come, but I subsequently met them.
I went by the Plough-and-Harrow on my way to town on .
I saw Harris there.
There were not many people there then, as it was very early.
I requested Harris to come to town to talk to the Magistrates, and endeavoured to get him to dissuade the people.
Harris said, that if I spoke to Mr. Webb, and if he would come out, it might have some effect in dissuading the people.
I afterwards addressed the people, and endeavoured to persuade the Band I met on the road to go back, by telling them the people would not come to town.
The Band said they were paid for their services.
I then went to Carmarthen, and called at Mr. Webb’s — could not see him.
I then returned homewards, and met the crowd, with the Band at their head — endeavoured to persuade them to return.
They said that they only wished to state their grievances.
I said that many idle fellows in town would get them into mischief.
Many remained with me and another Magistrate.
Mr. James Morse examined:— I am a distributor of stamps, residing in this town.
I overtook a large crowd in King-street, on the day in question.
The foot part of the procession had reached the workhouse before I overtook them.
There might have been three to five hundred horses there, and about eighteen hundred people on foot.
I went into the workhouse yard, and met the Master, who appeared to be very much frightened.
I addressed the crowd from one of the windows.
I endeavoured to persuade them to return, and make known their grievances to Parliament.
My address had the desired effect.
Knowing them to be principally Dissenters, I touched on the Education Bill.
They gave me three cheers.
My address was interrupted by a man in the room upsetting the iron bedsteads.
On my requesting him to desist, he put himself in a fighting attitude.
He was subsequently taken into custody.
I do not remember his name.
Mrs. Sarah Evans, matron of the workhouse, examined and said, that one of the mob threatened to kill her, unless she would deliver the keys to him.
Another man held his fist in her face, and said that he wished the children to get out, as she had locked them in the pantry.
Saw beds and bedding thrown out of the windows.
The children were crying, and requested the mob to leave their mistress alone.
The mob said that they would provide for the children.
The noise up stairs was dreadful; and suddenly the mob disappeared.
I then saw the military.
One of the floor boards was forced up.
Cross-examined:— There were provisions in the pantry when the mob asked me for the key.
Mr. Morse recalled:— I recognize none of the defendants as the man who put himself in a fighting attitude towards me.
At this stage of the proceedings, it was discovered that none of the defendants were present near the bar, with the exception of those defended by Counsel, but scattered about the Hall.
They were requested to come forward, and those portions of evidence given in English were interpreted to them from the Judge’s notes.
Mr. Ray Evans recalled:— I saw the defendant, Lewis.
He took an active part in the riot.
Cross-examined by defendant Job Evans:— I am certain that you are the man who struck me; a farmer interfered, or you would have proceeded further.
Defendant made a statement to the effect, that he was not farther than the workhouse yard.
Mrs. Sarah Thomas:— I am schoolmistress of the Workhouse.
I was on the plain in front of the Workhouse when the mob came up on .
I remained but a short time after I heard the noise of the mob, but went into the dining-hall.
A number of the mob came in.
They commenced making a great noise, beating the table, &c. I requested them to be peaceable.
The master, Mr. Evans, then requested me to go to the school-room — that the children were crying.
Two men followed me.
— The witness here corroborated Mrs. Evans’s evidence respecting the conduct of the mob, as it regarded the children.
I asked one of the men if he was the father of children himself, and requested him to have some compassion on the children, He said he was a father — that as he had commenced the work he would finish it, or lose every drop of his blood.
The people suddenly disappeared.
On going to her room, the door of which had been previously locked, she found that it had been burst open.
David Levi, jeweller, proved that, at the time in question, he acted as special constable; and described the appearance of the mob in similar language to the other witnesses.
He added, that he took several persons into custody, and took them before the Magistrates.
He took one person into custody at Capt. Hughes’s request.
I think it was the defendant David Williams. Had some difficulty in taking him, as some persons endeavoured to prevent me.
One man struck Captain Hughes, and I received several blows.
John Pugh examined by Mr. Chilton:— Was Inspector of Police on .
He gave a similar description of the procession to that given by other witnesses.
There were thousands on foot, and he counted 310 horsemen.
By the direction of the Magistrates, I took several persons into custody in the Workhouse yard.
I saw the defendant David Thomas engaged in a conflict, with a bassoon in his hand; he had also a large stone.
When I seized him, we both fell in the scuffle.
[Witness produced a great number of sticks found in the Workhouse after the mob.]
Cross-examined:— I have been employed to watch some gates — the toll-houses of which have been taken down.
I don’t know whether they were destroyed by sticks or not.
Thomas Hughes, a special constable, corroborated the other witnesses in the evidence relating to the conduct of the mob at the Workhouse.
He saw the defendant Thomas striking Capt. Hughes.
Saw the defendant Harris there.
Mr. William Davies Phillips, Clerk to the Board of Guardians, being examined by Mr. V. William, deposed to the riotous character of the assemblage of people.
He repeatedly saw the defendant Harris among the mob.
First saw him near the Lion in Spilman-street.
Saw the mob pass through King-street.
He then came down to Guildhall square, and there saw Harris among the mob on horseback.
He subsequently saw them turn up Red-street towards the Workhouse.
He attempted to enter the Workhouse, but could not go in.
He then gave information to the Mayor.
On returning to the Workhouse he saw several people in custody.
Among them the defendants Harris, Williams, Evans, and Thomas in custody.
The appearance of the mob was calculated to cause alarm.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hall:— Is not particularly aware of any widely spread dissatisfaction respecting the Workhouse.
I do not know that these feelings against the magistrates is general.
I have seen Oddfellows’ processions.
Cross-examined by the defendant Harris:— I believe the defendant’s daughter was on horseback behind him.
By the Court:— She might be three or four and twenty.
Re-examined by Mr. Chilton:— The procession did not resemble an Oddfellow’s.
Capt. William Garnons Hughes described the conduct and appearance of the mob.
I received a blow from a bludgeon.
The appearance of the mob was such as to create alarm in the minds of quiet persons not bred to arms.
Thomas Charles Morris, Esq., examined by Mr. Evans:— I am a banker residing in this town, and Mayor of the town.
Was a magistrate in .
I accompanied the military to the Workhouse.
Several persons were taken into custody.
Taking the state of the country into consideration, I thick the assembly was calculated to cause alarm.
This closed the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Hall then addressed the jury for the defendants Charles and Lewis.
He contended that in one count of the indictment, the defendants were charged with a riot.
He thought his Lordship would tell them that no riot had taken place, and that all the defendants must be acquitted on that count.
The utmost that could be made of it was that of an unlawful assembly.
He appeared only for two of the defendants.
He was happy to hear that the others would find a much better advocate in the Learned Judge who presided.
There was no doubt but that the riot charged in the indictment had some connection with the Agrarian disturbances which had taken place — disturbances alike indefensible in law or reason.
He could attribute them only to the poverty of the country and the general dissatisfaction with the New Poor-law and the conduct of the Magistracy, but Rebeccaism was not the means of procuring a redress of grievances.
He was confident that the gentlemen of the jury as well as the unfortunate persons who had been implicated in the disturbances must have suffered both in pocket and in peace of mind by the late disturbances.
No person could stand up and state that the country laboured under no real grievances, but yet they could not be redressed by such outrageous conduct.
Mr. Hall then proceeded to comment upon those portions of the evidence which apparently bore against his client.
He contended that there was not the least evidence that the defendants Charles and Lewis took part in the illegalities which he acknowledged had been on that day committed.
The evidence of the master of the Workhouse went merely to prove, that, like foolish boys, they entered the Workhouse at the excitement of the moment, for it was not proved that they took any part in the procession.
It was evident that on the day in question there was both a town and country rabble.
If the country mob contemplated committing any depredations, was it to be concluded that the town mob — among whom two defendants were — had the same objects in view.
He concluded by stating, that he confidently expected an acquittal for the defendants Charles and Lewis.
Mr. James Morse gave the defendant Charles a good character.
He is a married man and has several children.
The four other defendants declined saying anything to the jury, but Harries called Captain Evans, Pantykendy, to character.
He said that up to the present time he was a peaceable man.
He thought he was induced to join the assembly in consequence of having been fined by the Magistrates.
Mr. George Goode gave Harries an excellent character.
Cross-examined by Mr. Chilton:— I have since heard that he has been connected with Rebeccaism.
Thomas Evans one of the witnesses for the prosecution gave him a good character.
Mr. W.B. Swan, a Magistrate, and other persons, including several witnesses for the Crown, gave evidence to the same effect.
Other witnesses bore testimony to the characters of the other defendants.
Mr. Chilton waived his privilege as Counsel for the Crown, to reply to Mr. Hall’s address.
The Learned Judge then summed up the evidence.
The first question for the jury to ascertain was, whether any riot had taken place.
To constitute a riot it was not more necessary that all the parties implicated should be proved to act unceasingly in it from first to last than it was to prove that a man acted riotously throughout his life before being considered a rioter.
There might have been no riot, yet it might have been an unlawful assembly.
Looking at the conduct of the parties when the Magistrates were in conversation with them, they could not be called riotous, though the assembly might have been illegal, as they had met for an illegal purpose.
But the conduct of the mob at the Workhouse was certainly riotous, though it had not been so before.
His Lordship then read over all the evidence, commenting upon it and elucidating all legal difficulties involved in any parts, as he proceeded.
The jury retired, and after a short absence returned a verdict of Guilty against all the defendants.
— Sentence deferred.
The Riot at Talog.
The Queen v. Jonathan Jones and Others.
[Special Jury.]
— This also was an issue from the Queen’s Bench.
The defendants, Jonathan Jones, aged 21, Howell Lewis, 21, David Lewis, 25, David Davies, 60, Jonathan Lewis, 21. and John Jones, 24, were charged with having, on , unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled, together with divers other evil-disposed persons, at Talog, in the parish of Abernant, Carmarthenshire, and then and there made a great noise, riot, and disturbance, against the peace of our Sovereign Lady the Queen, her Crown and dignity.
In other counts the defendants were charged with having committed assaults on various persons.
Mr. Chilton, Q.C. (with whom were Messrs.
Evans, Q.C., and E.V. Williams, as Counsel for the Crown), stated the case to the jury, the circumstances of which must be fresh in the recollection of our readers.
The Learned Counsel said that he would merely give the jury an outline of the facts, which, according to his instructions, he was in a condition to prove.
He understood that only one of the prisoners had the advantage of being defended by Counsel.
This riot arose out of a refusal to pay toll on the part of a man named John Harris, who was not included in the present indictment.
He was a miller, residing at Talog, and in consequence of his refusal to pay toll a fine was imposed upon him, and a warrant issued to levy upon his goods, served by the Mayor and a Magistrate of the Borough, and endorsed by a Magistrate of the County, of Carmarthen.
On , a number of special constables, and about 30 pensioners were sent to levy the distress upon Harris’s goods.
As they approached Talog, they observed a crowd of disguised persons running towards the mill.
A horn was blown by one of the rioters, and the number continued increasing.
One man told the constable that if they persisted in going into the mill, they should be killed.
After considerable interruption, they entered the mill, and effected the levy.
On their road home, when about 300 yards from the mill, they were pursued and overtaken by a large crowd, many of of whom were disguised, and variously armed with hatchets, pickaxes, bludgeons, guns, &c. &c., who insisted upon their leaving the goods behind.
The constables were comparatively few and the pensioners rendered little or no assistance.
At last, a responsible person named Thomas, offered to answer for the payment of the fine, if the constables would leave the goods.
To this the latter assented, but they were not then allowed to return to Carmarthen.
One of them was knocked down, his pistol and staff taken from him, and thrown into the river.
Others were greatly abused, as the jury should hear from the various witnesses who would give evidence before them.
The constables were followed until they reached Troesmawr gate, when the warrant was demanded of them.
The mob also compelled the constables to pull down a piece of wall, stating “that they must do Rebecca’s work.”
Various threats were held towards them relating to Water-street gate and to the Workhouse.
Now, it would be shown that Jonathan Jones and all the other defendants had acted in the manner described, but Jones was particularly active.
Howell Lewis wore a kind of mask.
Jonathan Lewis took part in the riot, but he (Mr. C.) did not charge him with acting prominently.
Though David Davies personally committed no act of outrage, yet he encouraged the others to do so.
David Lewis carried a bludgeon, and was the person who knocked down one of the constables.
John Jones had merely a small stick in his hand, but took no active part in the affair.
He merely charged him with being present, countenancing the acts of the rest.
He had merely given the jury a brief outline of the proceedings.
Should they find that the charge was not clearly made out against any or all the defendants, he would rejoice to see them acquitted; but, if otherwise, it was their bounden duty to convict them.
Evidence was then adduced in support of the charge.
The witnesses who were principally the special constables sent to exercise the warrant, deposed to the circumstance of all the prisoners having taken the part stated in the riots, with the exception of John Jones, who on their arrival they found talking to Harris’s daughter by the door of the mill.
He merely had a small slick in his hand, but did not use it.
Mr. Richards then addressed the jury on behalf of Jones, contending that he was only accidentally present, as it was well known that he paid his addresses to Harris’s daughter.
The Learned Gentleman then proceeded to call witnesses to Jones’s character, when the foreman of the special jury interfered, and said that the jury were satisfied and had agreed to acquit Jones.
Witnesses to character were then called on behalf of the other defendants.
The Learned Judge carefully summed up the evidence, when the jury returned a verdict of Guilty, against all the prisoners with the exception of Jones.
Sentence deferred.
Dolauhirion Toll-Gate.
The Queen v. [Thomas] Lewis and [Thomas] Morgan.
— [Special Jury].
— In this case, the prisoners were tried at the late Winter Assizes, on a charge of riot and destruction of the toll-house, but Mr. Justice Cresswell being of opinion that the evidence did not support the indictment, as far as the riotous assemblage was regarded, directed the jury to acquit the prisoners on that charge.
A true bill had been found against them for misdemeanor, and the prisoners put in a plea of “Not Guilty.”
They were now tried before a special jury, on an issue from the Queen’s Bench.
Mr, Chilton, addressing the jury, observed, that the best course next to not committing an offence, was to acknowledge having committed it.
The defendants wished to retract their plea of “Not Guilty,” and consent to a verdict against them; therefore it would be unnecessary for him to call evidence.
His Lordship expressed a doubt as to the propriety of that course, as the pleas had been made at these Assizes.
Evidence was then called, but in consequence of the absence of a witness (who had left pursuant to that understanding), the case was adjourned to the next day.
. — the examination of witnesses in the case of the Queen v. Morgan and Lewis, was proceeded with.
The facts of the case appeared in our paper during the late Winter Assizes — it is therefore unnecessary to repeat them.
The Judge having summed op the evidence, the jury retired, and after an absence of a quarter of an hour, returned a verdict of “Guilty of being present, but no evidence is adduced to prove that they took part in breaking the gate.”
The Judge:— That amounts to a verdict of “Not Guilty.”
The defendants were accordingly acquitted.
The Queen v. Hughes and others.
— (Special Jury.)
— Counsel for the Crown, Messrs.
Chilton, Q.C., Evans, Q.C., and E.V. Williams. For defendants, Messrs.
Nicholl Carne and Lloyd Hall.
Mr. V. Williams opened the pleadings.
This was an issue joined between the Queen and the three defendants, Thomas Hughes, Benjamin Jones, and John Jones.
The defendants had pleaded “Not Guilty.”
Mr. Chiltlon addressed the jury for the Crown, and observed, that the three defendants were indicted under the statute 7 and 8 Geo. 4, c. 30, s. 14, which provided that if any person destroyed a turnpike gate wholly or in part, he should be deemed guilty of a misdemeanour.
The indictment also charged the defendants with a riot, and they were also indicted for an unlawful assembly.
He thought that, after the jury had heard the evidence, the proofs would be so clear, that they could convict the defendants without doubt or hesitation.
The three defendants had been very leniently dealt with, for they might have been indicted for the destruction of the house, which amounted to a felony, but they were merely indicted for a misdemeanour.
The defendant Thomas Hughes was a sawyer; John Jones was a farmer, of some property, and was generally known by the name of Capt. Jones; Benjamin Jones was a farmer’s son.
The toll-house and gate, which were the subjects of the present indictment, were called Pontarlleche gate and house, situated on the road leading from Llangadock to Neath and Swansea.
He would call a person named Griffith Jones, who had been appointed collector at the gate eight years ago, by a person named Anthony, who was entitled to receive the tolls.
He also carried on the business of a smith at a forge about a mile distant, and his wife generally attended to the gate.
After retiring to bed on , the toll-keeper and his wife heard a great and alarming noise, and had no time to dress themselves before the house was entered, and upon getting out, they observed about thirty persons, armed with guns, pickaxes, &c., disguised in various ways.
The mob so conducted themselves as to cause great alarm.
Both he and his wife well knew John Jones, and would swear that they had not the slightest doubt as to his identity.
He was partly disguised, and took a very active part in the riot, They would also, with equal certainty, identify the other defendants, Hughes and Benjamin Jones, who took part in the business.
The case mainly depended upon the evidence of the toll keeper and his wife.
They both, it appeared, went before the magistrates a few days afterwards, to lay an information against a person named James, who was not included in the indictment.
It was his duly to state, that on that occasion the witnesses did not inform against the defendants, for knowing them to be the ringleaders of the Rebeccaites, they were naturally afraid to mention any names; but it would be proved that on the next day they told a person, named Mary Jones, who the parties were.
In a few days afterwards, they communicated the same information to Anthony, the lessee of the tolls.
In addition to this, he (Mr. C.) should lay in evidence before the jury, certain conversations by which John Jones showed that he was a prominent actor in the Rebecca outrages.
He would not detail the conversations, but let the jury hear them from the witnesses, and after hearing what his learned friend had to say in defence, to which he should reply if necessary, he had no doubt the gentlemen of the jury would return such a verdict as would give satisfaction to the country at large.
Griffith Jones was then examined by Mr. Evans, and deposed to his being the toll-keeper of the Pontarlleche-gale, which is on the road from Llangadock to Neath and Swansea.
After having retired to bed on , he heard noises as of iron bars under the door.
The windows were broken.
He got out of bed, and immediately four disguised men came in, and dragged him in his shirt to the other side of the road, He did not know those four men.
On going out, he saw about thirty persons, some of whom were engaged in destroying the gate, and others in destroying the house.
He positively identified Thomas Hughes, who was partly disguised and engaged in sawing the large gate-post.
John Jones was breaking part of the house with a pickaxe.
Had known him for seven years.
The crowd appeared not to have been aware, for a considerable time, that witness was amongst them, as they had, in the first place, taken him to some distance.
He was afterwards taken to an upper floor in the opposite house.
He could distinctly see the people breaking up the gate into pieces, which they threw into the river.
Shortly after this, witness laid all information before the Magistrates against a person named Jones: but did not inform against the three defendants.
In coming out of the Magistrates’ room, he met the defendant Jones, who told witness that he might as well leave the country.
On another occasion, John Jones told witness’s wife that his furniture would not have been broken had not witness threatened to inform against any parties who might break the house.
Witness informed Mr. Anthony, in a few days, who the parties were who had broken the gate.
Cross-examined by Mr Carne:— There were more than a hundred shots fired, He was full half an hour amongst the mob in his shirt.
As they had white shirts about them, he supposed that they did not recognize him.
His wife was likewise turned out of the house in her night-dress.
Witness did tell some persons that he did not recognize any of the rioters, as he was afraid of them.
Heard of some rewards being offered for informations against Rebeccaites, but never heard the amount mentioned.
Never told any one “There is something for swearing now — I must think of my wife and children.”
Never told so to John Evans; for I have not spoken a dozen words to him for years.
Anne Jones, the last witness’s wife, was examined and cross-examined at great length.
Her evidence corroborated that given by Griffith Jones.
J. Anthony, the lessee of the tolls, stated in evidence that, soon after the gate had been destroyed, the collector’s wife informed him of the parties who had been engaged in the riot but, at her request, he did not tell the Magistrates.
He was also afraid.
Mary Jones proved that, on the day following the outrage, the collector’s wife told her the name of the parties.
Mary Anthony proved that John Jones was seen going in the direction of the gate on the night in question, but that road also lead to his residence.
Mr Nicholl Carne then addressed the jury for the defendants.
He contended that the jury could not rely either upon the accuracy or the veracity of the witnesses for the prosecution.
When it frequently happened that gentlemen had held conversations with country people, mistaking one for the other, how could the witnesses identify the parties at the gate, under the various circumstances of confusion, dread, disguise, and anxiety which must have haunted the minds of the witnesses, seeing that their house and furniture were broken — their lives, and that of their child in danger.
He then commented upon the fact of the witnesses not having mentioned the names of defendants before the Magistrates, and the reasons given for not so doing.
He also called the attention of the jury to the rewards offered upon the conviction of any rioters.
Isaac Morris, Elizabeth Jones, and John Jones were called to prove that the toll-collector and his wife, in conversation with them declared that they could not identify one of the rioters.
Benjamin Jones, father of one of the defendants, was examined but proved nothing important.
John Evans was called to contradict statements made by Griffith Jones in cross-examination.
This witness acknowledged being present at two Rebecca meetings.
He went with Mr. Foster, of the Times, to interpret.
—— Matthews, a constable, who had been employed in watching the gate, said, both the collector and his wife told him next day, that they did not know any of the rioters.
Witness had been dismissed after three nights’ watching.
Mr. Chilton replied to the evidence adduced for the defendants.
He defended the witnesses for the prosecution from the imputation of perjury, as insinuated by the Learned Counsel for the defence.
The Learned Judge then summed up the evidence, elucidating the various points of law arising in the case; after which the jury retired, and returned into Court in about ten minutes, with a verdict of Guilty against all.
Sentence deferred.
. — …Six prisoners, charged with riot and burglary, were arraigned, and pleaded Not Guilty.
— This charge arose out of the Rebecca disturbances, but as it was not probable the case would conclude , his Lordship took a nisi prius cause.
The Pembrokeshire Herald and General Advertiser gives an account of the trial of Rebeccaites accused in the Carmarthen workhouse raid, held on at the Carmarthenshire Assizes.
It gives some interesting background on how the demonstration was sparked.
The Rebecca Riot.
John Lewis, Isaac Charles, Job Evans, John Harries, David Williams, and David Thomas, for unlawfully assembling at the Union Workhouse, at Carmarthen, on , were first put upon their trial, and a special jury was sworn in.
Mr. John Evans, Q.C., Mr. E.V. Williams, and Mr. Chilton, Q.C., were retained on the part of the prosecution, and Mr. Lloyd Hall for the defence.
Mr. Chilton opened the pleadings and stated, that John Harries, a miller, residing at Talog, in the parish of Abernant, in this county, was charged with being the ringleader in this unlawful assemblage.
That the said John Harries, had refused to pay Water-street gate, in this town, which caused him to be fined, and his goods were distrained upon for the amount, and that the riot took place in consequence of the distress made by the constables.
That the distress caused an ill-will and an angry feeling, and that threats were held out that Water-street gate would be destroyed.
That the defendant John Harris had called upon Capt. Davies, of Green Hall, stating that unless the fine would be returned, they would pay him a visit, and handed him a letter to the same effect, signed by John Harris and Thomas Thomas.
The parish clerk of Abernant was compelled by Harris to make a proclamation on , demanding the attendance of all the neighbouring farmers at Carmarthen on , — farmers to come on horseback, and their children and servants on foot.
His summons was obeyed, and they attended in thousands, carrying with them banners with Welsh inscriptions, and a band of music playing before them.
That after parading the town, they arrived at the Union Workhouse, and demanded admission; the governor refused for some time, but seeing the crowd so great, he admitted them in, and the place was immediately filled, and were it not for the timely arrival of a detachment of the 4th Light Dragoons, the work of destruction which they had commenced would be carried on.
Several of the horses were left in the Workhouse yard, a number of the men were taken at the time, and that some of them were the prisoners at the bar.
Capt. David Davies.— I am a magistrate of this county.
I know defendant Harries — he is a miller, living at Talog mill.
He called on me on and delivered this letter to me.
I read it in his presence.
He said he had another for Mr. Morris for the same purpose, and away he went.
The letter was as follows:– “Talog, .— Sir— As we have been unlegally fined for refusing to pay Water-street gate, no refuse being made, we give you this offer if you are intending to pay the money to-day is the day.
John Harries and Thomas Thomas.”
He said unless paid they were coming to demand it on .
I was in the town of Carmarthen on .
I was with the magistrates in the Guildhall.
I saw a number of persons coming up towards the Hall from Lammas-street.
There were 350 on horseback, and a couple of thousands on foot.
There was a band of music on foot.
They came up part of the Hall and went up street.
They were a quarter of an hour passing.
The shops were shut.
The crowd did not alarm me.
Those on foot were agricultural boys and girls, farm servants.
I was not at all alarmed.
David Evans, road-surveyor.— On , I was sworn in as a special constable.
I live in this town.
On , I was required to assist the police to levy a distress on goods of Harries, the miller, for refusing to pay tolls at Water-street gate.
I went with other constables and police constables.
The attempt to distrain was resisted, and there was a great riot.
Towards the end of it they said they would pay Water-street gate a visit and take it down, and also pay the workhouse a visit and take it down.
Cross-examined.— I did not see either Isaac Charles, or John Lewis.
I do not believe they were there.
I believe they were not.
James Lewis.— I am the parish clerk of Abernant.
I have been so 14 years.
I attended Divine service there on .
It is the custom after service is over to cry anything that is lost, or give any public notice.
I cried a mare that was lost, on that day.
I was then desired by John Harries to give notice to parishioners to come to Carmarthen ; whoever stayed at home would do so at their peril.
I did not refuse to cry it, but I told him I had rather not.
He said there was no harm in it.
After I had made the proclamation, I heard Capt. Evans advise the people not to go.
Late in the evening, I heard a conversation between Capt. Evans and John Harries.
Cross-examined.— Isaac Charles and John Lewis were not at my church on that day.
Capt. Lewis Evans was called on.
Thomas Evans, fanner, of Placeparke, and Thomas Davies, of Bwlchnewydd, Newchurch parish, farm servant, confirmed the preceding statements.
John Rae Evans, master of the Carmarthen Workhouse.— On the morning of , my attention was attracted to a parcel of people idling and sitting about the hedge outside.
Perhaps 100 of them.
I had heard rumours that people from the country were to come to the workhouse that day.
Most were country people; about an equal number of women and men.
The gates were closed.
I afterwards saw a large body of people coming up.
We are on an elevation, and had a view of them.
Those in front were on foot, those behind on horseback.
There were hundreds on foot.
I saw musical instruments with them.
I did not hear any music.
They knocked and kicked at the door, and demanded admittance.
I was inside and can’t say who demanded admittance.
Mr. Evans of Placeparke begged me to admit him.
He advised me to open the door, otherwise it would be worse for me.
I said if they were respectable men I would admit them, but not such a rabble.
There was a great noise outside, and the knocking continued.
At last I told the porter to open the gate.
I was afraid, they were so numerous.
The mob rushed in.
I retreated to the dining-hall, they followed me.
The hall was full; some jumped on the table, others thumped the table with sticks.
I attempted to reason with them.
They said they wanted all the paupers out.
They said there was no further need of my services, nor the workhouse.
They demanded the keys of the men’s and women’s yard.
I refused to give them up, and they were wrenched out of my hand.
They got into the two yards.
I was requested to go to the workhouse, some of the pauper children were crying.
The mob wanted them to go out, they were frightened, and did not like to go out.
I heard the cry “the soldiers are coming.”
The room was soon emptied then.
One man struck me, it was Job Evans.
It was in the school-room.
I saw John Harries in the front of the house.
I did not see those in front of the house till they had been captured.
The back of the board-room was broken open.
I knew Isaac Charles perfectly well before this.
He came into the hall with the rest.
He jumped about, waved his hand, and was active amongst them.
He had no stick.
They cried “Hurrah!”
[Illegible]— I am a magistrate for this county.
[I was at Abernant?] church on .
I heard a [illegible] the crier what it was about.
He told me.
[illegible] not to go.
I addressed them in Welsh.
I [illegible] and Thomas had been fined.
I sent for them [and advised them to?] meet me at Cilwen that evening.
They did not come there.
I went out and afterwards met them.
I cannot be positive that Harris came, but Thomas did.
I went by the Plough and Harrow on my way to Carmarthen.
I saw Harris there; It was between 7 and 8. I desired Harris to come to town and get some of the magistrates to come and dissuade the people from coming.
I also dissuaded him and asked him not to come, and use his influence with them.
Harris said that if I spoke to Mr. Webb, a magistrate very much respected in town and country, and prevailed on him to come out, it might have great effect in preventing them from coming.
I met the band before I entered the town, and I told them the people were not coming, so as to persuade them not to come.
They said they were paid for coming and they would come.
I then came on to town.
I went out of town again and met them half a mile from the Plough and Harrow.
There was an immense crowd.
I did not distinguish Harris then.
I endeavoured to dissuade them from coming to town.
Mr. J.Ll.
Davies did so also.
They said that their motive was to go to tell the magistrates their grievances and not to do any harm.
A great many did stop with us, but the great body went on.
We said idle fellows in town would get them into mischief.
James Morse, Stamp Distributor.— On , I overtook a cavalcade of horsemen and footmen moving down King-street.
They came through Guildhall-square, and went towards the workhouse.
The foot had entered the workhouse before I got up.
I had got ahead of the horsemen.
There were from 300 to 500 horsemen, and from 1,500 to 1,800 on foot.
I got into the workhouse between two horsemen.
I saw the master, he appeared frightened.
I spoke to the mob and exhorted them to go home and petition parliament.
My address gave them satisfaction, as I touched upon the Educational bill — being dissenters they listened to me, and gave me three cheers.
I was interrupted by a man upsetting the iron bedsteads.
I spoke to him and he doubled his fists and said “come on.”
He did not strike me.
He desisted from upsetting the beds.
I afterwards gave him into custody.
I do not know his name.
I did not see either Charles or John there.
Eliza Evans— I am the matron of the union workhouse[.]
I was at the kitchen door when they came in.
A man said he would injure me if I would not give the key of the pantry.
He said he would kill me.
I refused the keys.
Another man held his fist in my face.
He said I had locked the children in the pantry.
There was a great deal of noise.
The house seemed coming down.
The bed-clothes were thrown out through the windows.
The children were about me crying, and praying the mob not to kill their mistress.
They said they would provide a place for them.
All of a sudden they all disappeared.
I then saw the military.
One board up stairs was forced up; it was sound before.
Daniel Levy, John Pugh, Thomas Hughes and others were examined.
The jury, after retiring for a short time, found the whole of the prisoners guilty, and sentence was deferred.
The Talog Rioters.
John Jones, Jonathan Jones, Howell Lewis[,] Jonathan Lewis, David Davies, and David Lewis, were charged with having committed a riot and assault at Tallog, in the parish of Abernant, on .
Mr. Chilton opened the pleadings, and stated that the prisoners were charged with having tumultuously assembled at the village of Tallog, and obstructed the levying of a distress upon the goods of John Harris, for non-payment of toll at Water-street gate.
That the goods distrained upon were rescued by the prisoners, and the constables assaulted by the mob.
That Jonathan Jones had a hatchet with him, Jonathan Lewis carried a gun, and David Davies was loud in his abuse.
His lordship having summed up the evidence, the jury acquitted the prisoner John Jones, but Jonathan Jones, Howell Lewis, Jonathan Lewis, David Davies, and David Lewis, were found guilty, and ordered to be in attendance to receive judgment when called for.
The court then commenced the following case:—
Thomas Lewis and Thomas Morgan were then indicted on the charge of having destroyed the turnpike gate and toll-house at Dolauhirion, near the town of Llandovery.
The court adjourned.
.
His lordship entered the court at , and the trial of the previous evening was proceeded with.
After the examination of several witnesses, the jury acquitted the prisoners.
John Jones, Thomas Hughes, and Benjamin Jones, were then indicted on the charge of having destroyed Pontarllechau gate and toll-house, near Llangadock, on .
His lordship, after the examination of several witnesses, summed up; after which the jury retired to consider their verdict.
In a short time they returned, and delivered a verdict of “Guilty” against the three defendants.
They were ordered to be detained in custody.
James Thomas and Thomas Thomas, were then placed at the bar, and charged with having, on , feloniously aided and abetted one John Jones, (Shoni Scyborfawr,) in discharging a certain loaded fire-arm, called a gun, at one Margaret Thomas, with intent to murder her, or to do her some grievous bodily harm.
[The Cambrian adds: “In other counts of the indictment the intent was varied, and also the individuals shot at.
— This case excited the greatest interest, in consequence of the respectability of the family and connexions of the former prisoner.”]
The prisoners pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Chilton addressed the jury for the prosecution, and stated that the prisoners were charged with shooting at one Margaret Thomas, with another person of the name of John Jones, called Shoni Scyborfawr, who had been convicted of Rebecca riots at the Winter Assizes.
Thomas Thomas was a most respectable man, and he was sorry to see him standing at the bar to answer the change of taking part in these disgraceful outrages.
He begged the jury to dismiss all prejudice from their minds, and give the matter full consideration; and observed that he would bring evidence before them, which would prove the guilt of the prisoners.
The prosecutor was one Evan Thomas, a weaver, at Porthyrhyd, whose house had been frequently attacked by the Rebeccaites.
On , the mob came to the house, and demanded admittance, put the muzzles of their guns through the window, and fired them into the room, at the wife and children; and a shot entered the thigh of one of the children, and it was a mercy the prisoners were not standing at that bar to be tried on the charge of murder.
The son-in-law would prove the identity of Thomas Thomas, as he knew his person and voice well, and heard him giving directions to the mob, saying, “Shoot him, shoot him.”
The women also knew his voice.
A paper of protection to Evan Thomas, written by Mrs. Thomas, wife of Thomas Thomas, the prisoner, was read.
It desired protection to him from the further molestations of ’Becca, as he expressed his contrition for anything he had done against her, and he would give up the office of constable.
[The Cambrian includes this part of the speech, which gives more details about the attack: “Were he calling the attention of the jury to a mere case of the destruction of a turnpike gate, or of a toll-house, he should feel himself called upon to offer some observations upon the awful and important responsibility of the oath which they had taken, and which called upon them to disregard all prejudices — aye, even if they considered that no very great crime was committed by pulling down a turnpike-gate or house, and so get rid of tolls… But, however much opinions might differ respecting gates and tolls, no honest man could, by any possibility, sympathize with such outrages as he should prove were committed on the night in question, under the guise of Rebeccaism.
The prosecutor in this case was a weaver and small farmer, who had also acted for a number of years as constable in the parish of Porthyrhyd, and the only offence with which he was charged was, that he honestly performed his duties as a constable, which rendered him very inimical to those who, calling themselves Rebeccaites, had resolved upon exterminating turnpike-gates.
In consequence of this, his life was in peril; he had received letter after letter containing all kinds of threats.
His house was attacked, night after night, so that it had become impossible for him longer to continue residing in it.
He had therefore left it on , his wife, son-in-law, two daughters and children remaining therein.
On , in the dead of night, after having retired to rest — they were aroused by a mob, in which were a great number of persons dressed after the fashion of Rebecca, armed with guns, pickaxes, bludgeons, and various other implements.
They demanded that Evan Thomas should be given up to them.
His daughter, alarmed as she was, got up, and assured them that Evan Thomas was not in the house.
They replied that they would have him, or destroy all who were in the house.
They then pulled down a temporary shutter — for the window had been destroyed on a previous night — and pointed three guns, which it would again appear were loaded with slugs, with their muzzles towards the half-naked woman.
This was repeated, and he should prove to the jury that some of the guns were loaded with shot; and it was almost a miracle that the prisoners had not to stand at that bar, and answer to a charge of murder — for murder it must unquestionably have been were any lives lost on that occasion.
Slugs were afterwards discovered in the furniture, and a shot had been extracted from the child’s thigh.
… He should tell them one circumstance, which showed that Thomas Thomas took part in the Rebecca disturbances, and had some influence with those people.
Attacks had been made on the house of the prosecutor, Evan Thomas, in , and he went to the residence of Thomas Thomas, with the hope of making a friend of him, and asked him for protection from the depredations of the Rebeccaites.
The prisoner promised to write him a kind of paper or petition, if he called next day.
He did so on a subsequent day, when the prisoner gave him a piece of written paper, and told him if he would get a few of the neighbours to sign it, the Beccas would leave him alone.
The paper was written in prisoner’s presence, by Mrs. Thomas, who undoubtedly, from the style of the writing, &c., was a person of respectable education.
The Learned Counsel then read the document; it was to the following effect:— ‘The undersigned, Evan Thomas, begs to inform those who call themselves Beccaites, that he is heartily sorry if he has done anything to injure any one, and sincerely hopes they will allow his family and self to rest in peace from henceforth.
He sincerely promises never again to act as constable in this or any other parish, as he is told that is one great objection you have to him, but will from hence endeavour to become a comfort to his family, and regain the friendship of the country, which he finds he has entirely lost.’ ”]
After the examination of the witness, his lordship directed the jury to return a verdict of “Not guilty” of that charge.
The Cambrian is almost as vague.
Apparently the prosecution presented one witness — George Thomas — who, in the Cambrian’s words, testified “in nearly the same words as given in the following charge of misdemeanor against the same defendants” but apparently didn’t give enough substantiation to the felony charge.
The judge seems to have ruled that if the defendants had actually had the intent to shoot to kill or wound the unarmed woman trapped like an animal in a cage, they would have probably actually hit the mark, and so the prosecutor was going to have too high a bar to meet.
So the prosecutor went with Plan B: misdemeanour charges.
The same persons were again put on their trial, and charged with having, on , riotously and tumultuously assembled together, at Porthyrhyd, in the parish of Llanddarog, in this county, and then and there made a great noise, riot, and disturbance, and then and there divers of her Majesty’s liege subjects put in bodily fear, against the peace of our Sovereign Lady the Queen, &c.
The prisoners were acquitted.
Here, again, the Cambrian gives more detail, with the testimony for the defense and prosecution.
I am the son-in-law of the prosecutor, Evan Thomas, who was a constable in , and lived at Porthyrhyd, in a cottage adjoining the road.
My wife, self, and child, slept in his house on .
Mary Thomas, Elizabeth Thomas, and Evan Thomas’s wife were in the house.
We had retired about ten o’clock.
Soon after retiring, we heard great noises of blowing of horns, &c. The mob were passing in the direction from Llanddarog to Swansea.
We heard firing.
In a short time after, when they were returning, I also heard firing.
The mob were calling for Evan Thomas.
Witness lighted a candle, when he saw three guns pointed between a board of the window and the wall.
The board was then pulled down, when witness perceived that it was a fine moonlight night.
I saw a large crowd of disguised persons; there were from thirty to fifty people outside.
After my mother-in-law opened the window, she said, “I know you, old fellow.”
They called his wife to come out, and go on her knees before them.
She said she would not, if she were torn to pieces.
Witness then went to the door, and the mob called on him to bring out Evan Thomas, or he should suffer instead of him.
They then commenced shooting at the house.
I saw the defendant, Thomas Thomas, there — I am sure he was there; had known him for two years, and seen him often before.
I went up to the defendant, about ten days before, to ask a favour, on part of my father, about Rebecca.
Defendant said, if he asked the favour for himself he would do it, but that all the country was angry to his father for being a constable.
Cross-examined by Mr. Wilson: Thomas Thomas wore a white gown down to his knees.
He wore a straw hat.
I well knew his voice.
He told them to shoot my wife.
He spoke English.
Witness could not speak English.
He spoke English, and said, “shoot him.”
(Laughter).
This took place on .
I cannot say when I gave the information.
I think it was a week before the Winter Assizes.
I have always been confident that he was there.
I never told Elizabeth Jones that it was impossible to recognize one of the parties, in consequence of the smoke.
I do not remember seeing her, in company with two others, by a school-room, when I told her, “I die if I knew one of them.
I could not, in consequence of the smoke.”
I never told her so.
I know David Jones, Llwynmor.
I might have told him that I knew none of them, as I suspected his servant was there.
I never told Margaret Roberts that the devil would not know them.
I never told David Davies, Pontfaen, on the evening after the disturbance, that “I could not know one of them, as I should answer judgment, because the house was so full of smoke.”
— Witness was cross-examined at considerable length as to his hiving told several people, in conversation with them, that he could not recognize them.
Reference was made to conversations with about a dozen, people.
I told some people, said witness, that I knew them, and to others that I did not, because I was afraid of them, and suspected that either they or their connexions were present.
Mr. Hall cross-examined witness on behalf of James Thomas:– The examination was principally directed to prove that, in conversation, witness had contradicted statements given by him in evidence.
Margaret Thomas, the last witness’s wife, next gave evidence:— She positively identified, first, John Jones, alias Shoni Scyborfawr.
She said to James Thomas, “Ah! old fellow, who gave you permission to come in here?”
He then smiled, and turned round.
I have known him, said witness, from a child; have spoken with him hundreds of times.
Could not identify Thomas Thomas’s person, but was sure of his voice.
He was at a distance, and had a white shirt and a straw hat about him.
Witness said, “If I have done anything wrong, send the law towards me.”
One of the mob said, “The law is is now nearly all in the hands of ’Becca and her daughters.”
Witness was examined at considerable length by Mr. Hall, who put in evidence the witness’s deposition, taken before the committing Magistrates.
Mary Thomas, sister of the last witness, slept in her father’s house on the night it was attacked by the mob.
Heard a person crying out, “Shoot, shoot him.”
I will swear it was Thomas Thomas’s voice.
Cross-examined:— I will swear I slept in my father’s house that night.
I did not sleep with Martha Vaughan on that night.
I had slept with her a week before.
I never told David Rees that I had that night slept with Martha Vaughan.
Elizabeth Thomas, the wife of Evan Thomas, was examined, to prove that the last witness slept in the house on that night.
Evan Thomas (the celebrated Porthyrhyd lion), was next examined:– is 56 years of age.
Has acted 16 or 17 years as a constable.
My house was attacked in .
I met Thos. Thomas and his wife on the road.
I told his wife that I wished to have quiet with the ’Beccas — that they destroyed my things.
Mrs. Thomas said the only objection the country had to witness was, that he was a constable, and she added, that he must give that office up, and they would leave him alone.
She also asked him to come to the house, and she would give him a paper.
He said he could not that day, but if they wished assistance at the hay-harvest, he would give it.
He went there, and worked a day.
In the evening, Thomas Thomas told him that he would give him a paper.
His wife called me in, and commenced writing.
She gave me a paper to protect me from ’Becca.
I have got the paper.
[Witness then produced the written paper, which is given in the Learned Counsel’s opening statement.]
Mr. Wilson now addressed the jury on behalf of the defendant, Mr. Thomas Thomas.
The jury had heard from his Learned Friend, Mr. Chilton, that his client, Mr. Thomas, was a man of respectable station in society, had borne an irreproachable character, and, in addition to being a considerable farmer and freeholder himself, he was the son of as respectable a freeholder as any in the county, and, therefore, the most unlikely to be connected with the outrageous attack which undoubtedly had been committed on the house of the poor man, Evan Thomas on the night in question.
The Learned Counsel read nearly the whole of the evidence, making comments thereon, and contending that the witnesses must either have been mistaken, or grossly perjured, in swearing so positively to the identity of the prisoner.
Mr. Lloyd Hall then addressed the jury for the defendant, James Thomas, contending that the statements and manners of the witnesses for the prosecution were not such as to entitle their evidence to the belief of the jury.
He then proceeded to state that James Thomas was a lime-burner, in the employ of R.M. Philipps, Esq., and that, on the night in question, he was engaged at his work at a distance off at the time of the riot.
Elizabeth Jones, servant to the defendant, Thomas Thomas, was then called.
She remembered the night of the riot at Evan Thomas’s house.
Saw the defendant and his wife shut the bedroom door.
She slept next door to Mr. Thomas.
No person could go out of the house without her knowing it.
He did not go out that night.
Cross-examined by Mr. Chilton:— She generally slept so lightly, that she could hear a cat go out of the room.
There was a seamstress and another person in the room.
By the Court:– got up about the same time the morning before and the morning after the riot.
I got up the previous morning at five, and retired at twelve.
The seamstress was called to prove that she slept with the last witness.
Remembers Mr. and Mrs. Thomas going to bed, about twelve o’clock.
Heard great noise of horns and shooting before Mr. and Mrs. Thomas came into the house — neither did go out afterwards.
Elizabeth Jones, David Jones, Margaret Williams, David Davies, David Jenkins, Esther Jones, Thomas Davies, John Thomas, John John, and others, were called as witnesses, to prove that various statements had been made by George Thomas and other witnesses, contradictory of the evidence given by them in Court, such as saying, “The devil himself could not know the people there, as they were so disguised” — “if I was to answer judgment at this moment, I could not recognize one, as they were so disguised,[”] — and that George Thomas said, “that he was ready to swear, before God and man, that he knew no person.”
John Thomas, father of the prisoner, James Thomas, was called to prove a similar statement.
Remembered he had a job about , which required the repairing of some tools, and that his son brought them to him at such a time, that he must have been engaged in repairing them on the night of the riot.
Mrs. Evans, wife of the Rev. Stephen Evans, Curate of some parish in Carmarthenshire, gave evidence relative to a conversation, during which Evan Thomas declared he did not know any person at the riot.
Several witnesses were then called to sustain the alibi on behalf of James Thomas.
Margaret Vaughan and David Rees swore — the former that Mary Thomas, one of the witnesses for the prosecution, had slept with her on the night of the riot; and the latter, that she informed him that she had slept at the woman Vaughan’s house.
Richard Rees, Esq., County Treasurer, and Eliezer Wiliams, Esq., Surgeon, gave the prisoner Thomas Thomas a good character, but admitted in cross-examination that latterly he had been a reputed Rebeccaite.
Mr. Chilton, Q.C., then replied to the evidence adduced for the defence, in a very able and energetic speech.
His Lordship then summed up the evidence, observing, that with respect to the first question for the consideration of the jury — whether any riot had taken place on the night in question — there could be no kind of doubt.
The next point was, whether the prisoner, or either of them, was present.
His Lordship observed, that there was nothing either in the evidence or manner of the witnesses for the prosecution, to induce an opinion that they had perjured themselves; but if the witnesses for the defence were believed, the jury must come to that conclusion as to some points.
With respect to the evidence of the witness Vaughan, she might have been mistaken as to the night on which Mary Thomas slept with her; but if it was on the night of the riot, the latter must have perjured herself.
His Lordship then pointed out the various points of evidence given in defence, rather corroborative than otherwise, of the prosecution.
His Lordship most carefully recapitulated the whole of the evidence bearing upon the case, and offered some observations relating to alibis.
After his Lordship had concluded the jury retired, and returned in less than ten minutes, with a verdict of Not Guilty for both defendants.
Back to the Pembrokeshire Herald and General Advertiser:
The following prisoners were then placed at the bar to receive the sentence of the court:
John Harries [Harris?], Isaac Charles, Job Evans, John Lewis, David Williams, and David Thomas, convicted of riot at the Carmarthen Workhouse, on , the former of whom was sentenced to 12 calendar months’ hard labour, and the others to eight calendar months’ each.
[The Cambrian adds these remarks from the judge: “The case of the defendant Harris showed, that there were to be found persons somewhat above the lowest grade in the ranks of the Rebeccaites, though he thought that there never had arisen a popular agitation produced by such gross ignorance.
As Harries ought, from his station in society, to have known his duty better than to allow himself to become the ringleader and instigator of this proceeding, some distinction must be made between the punishment awarded him and that awarded the other defendants.”]
Jonathan Jones, Howell Lewis, David Lewis, David Davies, and Jonathan Lewis, convicted of a riot at Talog, were sentenced to 8 calendar months’ imprisonment with hard labour.
The Cambrian adds another case here: of Thomas Hughes, John Jones, and Benjamin Jones, “convicted of a riot, and the destruction of Pontileche Gate” The judge said they had been convicted of a misdemeanor but were probably guilty of a felony, but hadn’t been charged with a felony because this would mean trying them before a common jury, which might have led to jury nullification — “It was a shocking thing to think that there were grounds for imagining that there were some persons of a disposition to sympathise with such depredations, even of the stations in society of persons eligible to serve on juries, who were bound by their oaths to support and vindicate the laws of their country,” he said, perhaps reflecting on the case decided that day.
He sentenced them to twelve months of hard labor apiece.
David Thomas, Thomas Powell, John Thomas, John James, Thomas Thomas, John Thomas, Evan Davies, and David Evans, convicted of burglary and robbery at Pantyfen, in the parish of Llanfihangel-ar-arth, were called on, and the first was sentenced to 20 years’ transportation, for being an accessory before the fact, and the instigator to this disgraceful outrage; and all the others were sentenced to 10 years transportation.
His lordship, in addressing the prisoners, observed that they had been found guilty of an offence of the greatest magnitude; that they had taken advantage of the disturbances which unhappily prevailed in this and the adjoining counties, to serve their own private and wicked purposes; but it would be shewn to them that they would not be allowed to trample upon the laws of the country with impunity, and he would send them to a country where they would have no opportunity of committing such a disgraceful & cruel outrage again.
The scene which took place in the court, after the sentences were delivered on the latter prisoners, baffles all description.
[?!]
Quite the lazy reporter.
Here is how the Cambrian described the scene: “Immediately after the last sentence had been pronounced, the scene in Court became most affecting — perhaps awful would be more expressive of the effect produced upon the minds of the spectators.
Nearly all the prisoners — who, though they had before shewn no carelessness or disregard, yet had manifested no great concern at their situation — now burst into fits of inconsolable agony, while in different parts of the Court, women were seen in hysterical fits, and others of both sexes gave vent to their grief in loud cries, and, in some instances, in terrific yells.
The officers had some difficulty in removing the prisoners.
A sentence of such severity was apparently quite unexpected, both by the prisoners and their friends.”
After the prisoners had been removed, his lordship observed that the persons charged with destroying a turnpike gate near Llanddarog [Thomas Davies, Phillip Thomas, and Joseph Clement] would be admitted to bail, until the next assize; and the civil causes not tried or settled out of court, would be left as remanents.
