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

From the Cambrian:

. — This morning, the business of the Court commenced at the usual hour. The Attorney-General begged to enter a nolle prosequi as it regarded the indictment for felony against John Jones [acquitted of having sent a threatening letter], 22, farmer, Thomas Hughes, sawyer, and Benjamin Jones, charged with having committed a riot, and feloniously demolishing the dwelling-house of Griffith Jones, being the Pontarlleche toll-house. The charge of misdemeanour for destroying the gate, was removed by a writ of certiorari to the Court of Queen’s Bench.

Case of the Late Mr. Thos. Thomas.

 David Evans, aged 20, farmer, and James Evans, 25, labourer, were arraigned upon an indictment charging them, with divers others, unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled at Pantycerrig, in the parish of Llanfihangel Rhosycorn, and with having, during the riot, assaulted one Thomas Thomas, and with force demanded the sum of forty shillings, with intent to steal the same.

Both prisoners, who were defended by Mr. Nicholl Carne, pleaded “Not Guilty.”

Considerable interest was felt as to the result of this trial, from the circumstance of the prosecutor, who was the principal witness, having been found dead under very peculiar circumstances, and that of his premises having been fired soon after the prisoners had been committed. The Attorney-General said, that the charge against the prisoners was one of misdemeanour — for having committed a riot in going to the house of the prosecutor Mr. Thomas Thomas, who had since lost his life; but he must in justice to the prisoners observe, that having been in custody, that circumstance could not in the remotest degree cast any reflection upon them. Whatever violence might have been offered Mr. Thomas Thomas (and he did not say such was the case), it could in no way have been done by them. The names of the prisoners could not be connected with any catastrophe of that kind, for they were in gaol at the time. It was only to be regretted that the deceased’s evidence could not be obtained excepting from the deposition taken before the Magistrates, and that was evidence in law. It appeared that a number of persons disguised in the usual characteristics of Rebeccaites, with circumstances of considerable force and violence, demanded a sum of money from the prosecutor, and this proceeding did not appear to have originated for the purpose of removing any public grievance, real or imaginary; but, in which it appeared, that the alarming state of the country had been made subservient to the promotion of a private end, and to the settlement of a mere personal claim between the parties. A short time previous to , it appeared by the deposition, that Mr. Thomas’s cattle strayed at night into a corn field belonging to one of the prisoners, who had estimated the damage at 10s. Early on the morning of , a number of disguised persons assembled together and surrounded the house of Mr. Thomas, and demanded 5l. as a satisfaction for the damage done to the corn. Thomas would not allow them to enter his house, neither would he go out to them, but refused to accede to their request. They then reduced their demand to 50s. and subsequently to 40s. They then dragged Thomas from his own house to the house of the prisoner David Evans, and when Thomas challenged them with having offered to settle the matter for 10s., Evans said, “’Tis now in these people’s hands.” It was for the jury to judge from that expression, whether the riot did not originate with him. The deceased then asked permission to remain in Evans’s house, but he was finally taken back to his own house, and allowed nine days to pay the money. Some time afterwards Thomas was found dead, under circumstances which he thought justly created no suspicion against any one. As far as he (the Attorney-General) could learn, those who possessed the best means of judging, were of opinion that strange and unaccountable as were many of the appearances, there was no just foundation for believing that he came to his death by violence. As reports had been circulated, he thought it right publicly to state for the sake of the character of the county, that, as far as his opinion went, there had been no reasonable grounds for supposing that the man was murdered. To resume his statement, the jury would find, that, at one o’clock, the younger prisoner and the other, who was his servant, were at the prosecutor’s house. Thomas distinctly swore to the presence of both the defendants, as the jury would find on reading the deposition. In three or four days afterwards a complaint was made, and a a warrant issued, for the apprehension of the defendants. On , the officer went to David Evans’s premises, and asked him for James Evans, when the former said that James had left his service in consequence of a quarrel, and that he had not seen him for many days. The premises were searched, and James Evans was found concealed beneath some straw on a loft. It would be proved that David Evans, in speaking of the transaction, said that they should not have done what they did, if Thomas Thomas had paid the money, and while before the Magistrates, the prosecutor persisted in saying that the demand was 5l. then 50s.s., and then 40s., when David Evans added that he had offered to take 1l. The jury must observe, that he assented to the truth of all the evidence, with the exception of the reduction to 20s. He had also pointed out the spot where he had offered to accept of 1l. He would now read the deposition. The Attorney-General then read the deposition, as taken , before Col. Trevor and J. L. Price, Esq., in the presence of the prisoners. The deceased stated, that on the day in question a number of people came to his house, and demanded satisfaction for the trespass, as described. Deceased did not go to the door, but his wife went. They at last reduced their demand to 40s. He was then taken by the collar by one of the disguised party calling himself “Becca,” and was taken to Bergwm. When there he distinctly recognized James Evans, who behaved worse to him than any of the others. He also recognized David Evans. James Evans had with him a short gun, and had his face blackened. David Evans was but slightly disguised. The Attorney-General observed, that he could very easily have identified him. They then took him to the Bergwm field. They kept him outside the door until some one went in to tell the inmates, lest they should be frightened. They then took him to the house, when he told David Evans that he had agreed to receive 40s. for the damage when the latter answered, “’Tis in the hands of these people.” The Attorney-General commented upon this answer, as affording convincing proof that the prisoner acted in concert with the mob. The deposition further stated, that after coming out of the house, James Evans pushed witness on in a contrary direction to his home, and when alone, told him, “I wish to kill you.” The party who personated Becca called upon him to bring the witness back. So that Becca, observed the Attorney-General, appeared to have been actuated by better considerations than the prisoner James Evans. The deposition concluded by stating that the party allowed deceased nine days to pay the money, and if they would visit him again, they would burn his effects. — The Attorney-General proceeded:— That was the deposition of Thomas Thomas. He had gone to his account; but the jury could not, in consequence of that, be satisfied with less proof. It was not necessary there should exist that certainty which could be produced only by witnessing the scene, but with that degree of reasonable certainty which would satisfy them in any important concerns of life. He hoped they were now rapidly coming to a close with the cases. He did not know but that he might be addressing them for the last time. That, he believed, was the last case in which these parties had taken advantage of the agitated state of the county for the purpose of committing outrages. The guilt was not inconsiderable of those who took advantage of the turbulent state of the country, arising from real or imaginary grievances, and perverted it to their own selfish purposes, for others had some excuse — excuse he should not have called it — pretense rather, who did those things on the ground of abating a public grievance. — The object of those prosecutions was not to punish every individual who had been concerned in the disturbances. Their number was so great that no reasonable man could wish, even were it possible, to punish all. The extent of the outrages and the number concerned in them forbade that wish, but the grand object was to restore the authority of the law, and regain the confidence of those who relied upon that authority for protection. He trusted the conduct of those whose duty it was to advise the Crown would not be thrown away in reclaiming the misguided inhabitants of that county. With those observation he would call the witnesses, and leave the case in their hands, and he had no doubt they would do that justice which the circumstances required. He (the Attorney-General) might be permitted to add — and he did so with unfeigned sincerity, that he had been in various parts of this country performing his official duties and exercising that profession to which he belonged, but he never, in the course of his experience, addressed any gentlemen who inspired in his mind more confidence, that the duties they discharged were done consistently with a sense of right; and he begged to thank them in the name of the public and of the country, for the attention, impartiality, and justice which marked the course of the proceedings which he had the honour to advocate.

[The following evidence was called for the purpose of introducing the depositions.]

Robert Bray, Superintendent in the A division of the Metropolitan Police, examined by Mr. Chilton, Q.C.: Knew deceased — saw his body the morning it was picked up.

Mr. Spurrel examined:– Am Clerk to the Magistrates. [Deposition handed to witness]. This is the deposition made by Mr. Thomas Thomas; I saw him sign it — the Magistrates also signed it.

Cross-examined by Mr. N. Carne:— Mr. Thomas Thomas first made his statement in Welsh, and it was translated into English by Mr. Price, the Magistrate. He translated into English, everything stated by Mr. Thomas. He was not sworn as an interpreter. I understand Welsh sufficiently well to understand the evidence given.

Mr. Carne went over the whole of the deposition, criticising upon the various English words, given for Welsh expressions used by the witness.

J. Lloyd Price, Esq., examined:— Am a Magistrate for this county. Took the deposition of Thomas Thomas. It was taken in Welsh. He understood English sufficiently well to correct anything which was written not in consonance with what he had said. I was at Bergwm, the residence of one of the prisoners. I do not remember the day, but it was on a Friday previous to the apprehension. I remember it, because, on the following night, his houses were burnt down. I was accompanied by a policeman of the A division of the Metropolitan police, and a special constable. I went with the officers to show them the house, because I could get no assistance in the neighbourhood that I could depend upon. When I went there, I found David Evans in bed. When he was asked for James Evans, he said, “He has left me; I would not allow him to go to Brechfa fair, and he got offended — has left me, and I have never seen him since.” He repeated the statement before I sent out the policeman to search the place. The officers then went ont, and I saw James Evans brought from a hayloft. The officers brought him to the house. I remember that near the close of the examination of Thomas Thomas, when he said that they demanded 40s., David Evans said, “When near the gate, we consented to take 20s.”

Cross-examined by Mr. Carne:– I translated nearly the whole. There might have been some portions of his statement irrelevant to the business omitted. Some people state many things which are quite irrelevant. During the first portion of the examination, I put questions to commence the examination. I had taken a previous examination for the purpose of issuing a warrant. I took that down in writing, but after the second examination, made in the presence of the prisoners, was over, I did not think the first examination of any importance, so I put them with other useless papers.

The depositions were then put in evidence, and read by the Officer of the Court.

Thomas Evans examined by Mr. Evans, Q.C.:— Is a mason. Lives with his father at Ty’nyfordd farm, half-a-mile from Pantycerrig. Lives a mile from Bergwm — the house of the prisoner, David Evans. Remembers . Remembers being disturbed about twelve or one o’clock that morning. Heard a man crying out “heigh” three times at the window. Went to the window. Saw people outside. There were several people present, but I could see only three. The first thing I heard was a man calling out, “I give you warning, that you must not go to the farm you have taken, or we will burn your hay and corn, as you see your neighbours’.” My father had taken a farm in the neighbourhood. To the best of my judgment, that person was James Evans. I knew his voice, as I was intimate with him. We had been in the same singing-school. After this, I and my father got out of bed, and went out of the house. We heard several guns fired. When in a field near Pantycerrig, I saw a number of people. It was too dark to distinguish their dress; but when the guns were fired, we could perceive something white about them. They then returned from Pantycerrig. I met a neighbour in the road, whom the mob had desired to shew them the way to Pantycerrig. Next morning, I went to Bergwm. The inmates were not up; but the servant shortly opened the door. David Evans then came downstairs. I saw a gun on the table, and said, “Here are one of Becca’s guns, I think.” D. Evans said, “Yes, it is;” and seemed surprised, and said, “Stop, let me see if there is a load in it,” and blew in it, and said there was a load. I took the screw, and drew the load — it contained powder only. I then requested D. Evans to come out, and told him “that his servant had been at our house, warning my father not to take the farm.” He denied it, and said “No; he has been in the house during the whole night.” David Evans then told James Evans, who came towards me, and said, “D–n you, tell that of me,” and raising his fist. David Evans put his hand on his shoulder, and said, “Be quiet, James.” Witness then went to Pantycerrig. On next day (Sunday) met James Evans, who said, “Why did you tell Thos. Thomas that I had confessed being at Pantycerrig.” He said the servant of Pantycerrig told him so, and added, that if he had a chance, he would put witness quiet enough; and added, “Well, if you transport me for seven years, I’ll give you a coating when I come back.”

Cross-examined:— I never had a quarrel with Evans previous to that time. To the best of my knowledge, the voice I heard was James Evans’s. Got out of bed when first I heard the man calling at the window. I told Thos. Thomas when I saw him, that James Evans was there.

Robert Bray re-called:— I accompanied Mr. Price, the Magistrate, P. C. Powell, and a special constable, to Bergwm. I saw David Evans, and went out to the barn to search for James Evans. I heard noise in the loft above the barn, and got up to the loft, and saw the feet of a man showing from under some straw. I called to him, and took off the straw. He was James Evans. We passed Thomas Thomas’s house, who was standing by the door. I said, “It was a pity you should have gone to this poor old man.” He said, we should not have gone, had he paid for the damage done by his cattle on our farm.

Rosser Thomas corroborated this witness’ statement.

Mr. Nicholl Carne then addressed the jury in reply to the evidence in support of the charge, and said he should be enabled to prove an alibi on the clearest evidence — that David and James Evans were both in bed at the time of the outrage.

After the examination of several witnesses, whose evidence appeared to be totally at variance with their former statements on oath, Mr. Carne folded up his brief and sat down.

The Judge:— Mr. Carne, if you say you will not hold a brief in this case any longer, I think you will adopt a discreet and honourable course.

The Attorney-General replied, commenting in very strong terms on conduct of the witnesses for the defence.

Verdict — Guilty. Sentence deferred.

Rebecca’s Daughters

John Jones, aged 21, stonecutter, William Jones, aged 17, stonecutter, Thomas Jones aged 14, stonecutter, Seth Morgan, aged 21, carpenter, Henry Thomas, aged 21, labourer, and Thomas Harries pleaded Guilty to the charge of having, on , with divers evil disposed persons, unlawfully and maliciously thrown a certain turnpike toll-house, the property of the trustees of the Three Commotts district of roads, situate at Porthyrrhyd. — Discharged on their own recognizances, to appear when called upon to receive the judgment of the Court, and to keep the peace in the mean time towards all her Majesty’ subjects.

George Daniel pleaded Guilty to the charge of having, on , committed a riot, &c., at Blaennantymabuchaf, in the parish of Llanegwad, in the county of Carmarthen. — Discharged on his own recognizances, to appear to receive the judgment of the Court when called upon.

John Thomas, smith, pleaded Guilty to the charge of having committed a riot and an assault at Llandilo-Rhynws bridge turnpike gate, on . — Discharged on his own recognizances, to appear and receive judgment whenever called upon. Mr. Chilton intimated to the Court, that it was not the intention of her Majesty’s Government, to proceed with the case against Francis M’Keirnin and George Laing, charged with the demolition of a turnpike gate, near Llanelly. The Counsel for the Crown looked into the depositions, and did not think it a proper case to be proceeded with.

William Davies, farmer, Benjamin Richards, farmer, David Thomas, farmer, William Evans, labourer, and Arthur Arthur, labourer, charged with various Rebecca outrages, were discharged by proclamation.

Thomas Morgan, aged 28, labourer, and Thomas Lewis, aged 24, labourer, pleaded Not Guilty to the charge of having, on , at Dolauhirion toll-gate, in the parish of Llanegwad, in this county, and then and there demolished the said gate. — This case was not proceeded with; but removed by certiorari into the Court of Queens Bench. In the course of a few minutes, the prisoners who perceived their companions in tribulation set at liberty, wished to withdraw their plea of Not Guilty, and to plead Guilty, but the Judge told them it was too late.

Another Rebeccaite case that was heard during the Carmarthenshire Spring Assizes on (account from the Pembrokeshire Herald and General Advertiser):

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.