A picture from The Illustrated London News depicts a number of people attacking a tollgate. This artist’s impression is primary evidence; it shows that a large number of people were involved with the attack, and infers that there was growing disorder and little policing. The community was obviously taking the law into its own hands, something that is also clear from Daniel Williams’ evidence.
This source backs up aspects of the Constabulary report, such as the use of a horse – although from the picture it is not clear whether it is real or made of wood – making it more useful. Nevertheless, the picture has its limitations, because it is a reconstruction - it is not eyewitness and would have been based on what was supposed to have happened. It is only a drawing after all, and can be interpreted in different ways.
The usefulness of this evidence is only seen in context with other sources, and it is taken from a London newspaper, not a Welsh one. The artist have tried to make the picture look more exciting to sell more newspapers. This source does not necessarily show an escalation in the violence, but is useful because it does show us a new type of crime emerging – attacks on tollgates.
A group of primary extracts from The Carmarthen Journal newspaper clearly show an escalation in the violence occurring in West Wales. The December 16th issue of 1842 reiterates in part what was mentioned in the Constabulary report, adding more detail about the appearance of the rioters. It describes another attack on a tollgate, showing that it was becoming more common, and clearly tells us that these rioters instilled fear in the local people because they hid in their houses, which makes the source useful.
This newspaper would have been aimed at the educated classes, literate readers (literate in English, at least) who held a certain opinion – these readers could have been biased against the poor. The reporter does not seem to have investigated the reasons behind the riots, but uses the word ‘everyone’ when describing the number of people hiding indoors. Obviously, some people were amongst the mob. The use of the word ‘everyone’ creates a sweeping statement and indicates exaggeration on the reporter’s part.
The 23rd June edition of 1843 talks about an attack on a workhouse, five years on from the attack at Narberth. It tells us that a riot took place in broad daylight, and the people living in the workhouse were ordered outside. The reporter notes ‘children included.’ The fact that the riot was carried out in broad daylight confirms that the rioters were not afraid of being seen and were therefore unafraid of meeting any kind of police resistance. In addition, it that there were hundreds of rioters – this clearly means an escalation in the violence and disorder, but also an increase in the problems and the causes behind the violence. The reporter emphasises that children were living in the workhouse and were ordered outside by the rioters, which could have been done to incite sympathy. Again, we are not told why the workhouse was attacked or why these people were rioting.
Another account written one week later makes the sweeping statement that people in Cardigan were ‘terrorized’ by a group of rioters wanting to attack the Pensarn tollgate. It gives very specific details, including a precise time and the number of horsemen that led the rioters. The source reiterates what has been said in other sources about the rioters’ dress – faces painted black and wearing women’s clothing. However, it mentions some new things, such as the horsemen, but more importantly it tells us that the rioters carried swords and guns. This means that the rioters were more organised, intent on intimidation and possibly killing. This is a definite escalation in the violence – not only were there attacks against property, but now, these rioters had intent to harm people.
Although these sources are useful to us, they are all taken from the same place. If there is a continuing theme of bias, it could reduce their reliability.
Next we see another court statement similar to that of Daniel Williams. On December 12th 1843, Thomas Phillips stated that he met the two leaders of what can only be assumed to be the ‘local rioters’, after burning the haystacks belonging to a local landowner, Mr Chambers. He actually gives the names of the leaders too. It is of course a primary source and describes an attack on property. It is eyewitness, because it is an account of an actual rioter. Haystack burnings, or arson, have been mentioned in other sources, also. However, this source is a little vague overall. Thomas Phillips omits to say why he allowed himself to be led by the group of rioters, nor does he say what the landowner Mr Chambers did to him or the other rioters. It is coincidental that he met both the leaders of the rioting group, which leads us to believe that this is informer’s evidence and the informer could have just been eager to name names.
David Egan, an historian, wrote a book detailing more tollgate attacks occurring in the space of just a few days. We see, from this piece of secondary evidence, that a 75-year-old toll keeper named Sarah Davies was killed. This is the first death we have seen in one of these attacks and it is undeniable that the violence carried out by the Rebecca Rioters worsened after 1839.
We know there were several causes for the Rebecca Riots – poverty, shortages of food and enclosures of public land. Nevertheless, these were not the only causes.
Looking at information taken from the 1841 Census of Population, which investigated the numbers and employment of able-bodied adults over 21 years old, we see that the majority of people were working in agriculture. Therefore, agriculture was very important because so many people relied on it. This is a factual piece of primary evidence because it is a bar chart and only deals in numbers and statistics. However, there could be gaps in the information because some people may have refused to participate; and it only deals with people over the age of 21 – it may not give a very accurate picture of the populations’ employment.
Reverend J. Evans wrote a series of letters whilst on a tour through South Wales in 1804. He talks of how soil is ruined when the same crop is planted year after year. He also says that while marl – clay, used as fertilizer – was used successfully in England, it was not so in Wales. If the soil was of poor quality, there would be less output, which would be dangerous for an industry that so many people relied upon. This primary source shows that agriculture was moving in a backward direction.
This series of primary extracts taken from The Times newspaper aid us by telling us more about the possible causes behind the Rebecca Riots. In an 1843 issue of the paper, a reporter claims to have witnessed the poor standard of living for the Welsh farm labourers, and poor diet. It is an eyewitness account and the reporter who wrote it was independent. It is factual and does not seem to contain any bias. However, we are not told how many homes the reporter visited – we are not told what the other homes were like. Overall the source is useful.
Looking at the June 26th issue of 1843, we are told about the growing number of tollgates in Carmarthenshire. This eyewitness account tells us that there was not three miles of road without a tollgate, and no less than eleven tollgates were counted along a distance of nineteen miles. This means that a lot of money was being collected, money that the farmers could not afford to part with. When we look back at other evidence, it is easy to understand why the farmers were becoming aggravated and desperate.
T.C. Foster, correspondent for The Times, wrote a report on a Rebecca meeting in 1843. He states that farmers were treated like dogs and the behaviour of the magistrates was unacceptable. We know that many landowners were magistrates and vice versa, because of the extract from the ‘Rebecca Riots’ book, so it is plausible that magistrates would not treat farmers with a great deal of respect. This source shows the repression of farmers, and we know that if a farmer was fired he would receive no compensation or reward for how he had improved the land. This extract backs up the previous source. Whilst this primary source gives us an insight into how farmers felt, a farmer wrote it, so it is expected to be biased and it is full of anger.
These sources back each other up, and unlike The Carmarthen Journal (a Welsh newspaper), this publication seems to solely represent the case of the tenant farmer. Perhaps they chose to take this side of the argument because it would appeal to more readers. But, as before, we must be aware of continuing bias.
Looking at the following group of secondary sources, all taken from a book written by historians for Dyfed County Council, it is plain to see the class division between the tenant farmers and landowners. One factual piece of evidence outlines clearly some of the reasons why farmers might dislike or even hate the landowners – the landowners spoke English and spent a lot of their time hunting, whilst the farmers were not allowed to kill animals for food, and often resorted to poaching which was illegal.
Another of these sources states that a set of Game Laws stopped farmers from being able to eat any of the animals they kept, so the only way they could get meat was by poaching, which was considered a serious crime by the landowning magistrates. In a staple diet of potatoes, meat would not only add essential nutrients, but also variety for the farmers and their families. This source elaborates on the previous one, making them both more useful.
Before 1834, parishes looked after their poor, old and sick by giving them food, shelter and even money. This was costly, so in 1834 the Poor Law Amendment was passed, stating that the poor were now to go into workhouses. The conditions in these places turned out to be worse than for the lowest paid worker outside. This is what another factual ‘Rebecca Riots’ extract tells us.
The final brief source talks about the introduction of a toll on lime. We know from previous evidence taken from letters by Reverend J. Evans that soil in Wales was not of a very high standard. It was heavy and acidic, so lime was used (successfully) to improve the quality of the soil. This was something farmers desperately needed to do, increase soil quality to boost output. A toll on lime would have come as a heavy blow, the last in a long line of financial grievances to farmers. This secondary evidence is brief but factual, giving us essentially one simple useful statement.
These sources back each other up, mentioning things such as the farmer-landowner divide and the reasons behind it, Game Laws that meant farmers resorted to poaching, the introduction of workhouses and the introduction of a toll on lime. All these things would have made the farmers lives very difficult and unpleasant. Even though the sources all come from the same place, they are factual, which does not indicate bias.
One of the most common targets for riots and attacks that we have looked at, are workhouses. The following secondary sources written by historians go into some detail about these attacks.
David Egan, the historian whose book told us about the death of a tollgate keeper, now tells us that workhouses were undesirable places to be. This source changes from the past tense to the present tense, indicating a quote. The quote states that people were split up from their families and the bread was very unpleasant. This secondary source also gives us an insight into the kind of tasks the inmates had to do, such as breaking stones, a punishment we know was given to prisoners! Breaking stones was a dull and painful exercise which would have worn down the moral of the workhouse inmates pretty quickly.
The main weakness with this source is the opening statement – ‘Agricultural labourers would rather starve than go into the workhouse.’ This is an opinion and sounds like an exaggeration, but otherwise, the source is useful.
The 1980 book ‘Wales in Modern Times’ written by David Evans tells us about the tithes paid to the Anglican church. We know that landowners had promised to pay money to the church, therefore so did the tenant farmers. This secondary source is fairly factual, highlighting yet another way of taxing farmers. The source states that most of the people (farmers) paying the tithes were Nonconformist, which means they went to chapel and not church. This source also inadvertently makes the point that so far, there have been no riots or attacks on churches or religious buildings, proving that whilst the rioters were desperate to make a stand, they were still ultimately God-fearing people and would not desecrate a house of God. At this time, most people were religious any way, but it would have angered farmers who had to pay a tax for something that did not concern them.
This source does have some weaknesses. It is quite vague, opting to say ‘people who were mostly Nonconformist.’ David Evans uses the phrase ‘the payment… was a cause of much bitterness’ which is an odd phrase and could be an exaggeration. The source was written by a Welsh historian – could this have made him biased towards Welsh farmers?
Our final pieces of evidence, both primary, follow on from what David Evans wrote about tithes, and what the Dyfed County Council book wrote about tolls on lime.
W. Day from Carmarthen wrote to George Cornwall Lewis on the 9th of July, 1843. In an extract from this letter, we can see that before 1836, one tenth of the farmer’s crop was taken by the church, and sometimes more if it had been a good year. This means that the amount taken was proportional to the amount successfully produced. However, after 1836, the amount taken was fixed, regardless of whether the farmer had had a good or bad year. As mentioned before, this primary source (taken from Home Office papers) elaborates on what David Evans wrote, making both sources more reliable. We also know that W. Day was a magistrate/landowner, which makes this source rather unique – it is the only evidence so far to have been written from the landowner’s perspective. It is a great admission for a landowner to make, and balances the evidence. This source is totally factual.
William Williams spoke about the price of lime to a Commission Inquiry Into South Wales in 1844. Unlike several of the previous sources, this one does have some weaknesses. The interrogator asks a leading question, putting words into the man’s mouth, something that is not allowed in court. William Williams refers to ‘they’ instead of ‘we’ or ‘I’, which indicates that he is not perhaps a tenant farmer but knows a lot about the tolls on lime etc. Alternatively, he may just not speak English very well. Towards the end of the source, the man seems unsure and answers with ‘I think so’, which is quite vague and unhelpful.
This extract is backed up by another source, taken from the Dyfed County Council book, because they both mention a toll on lime. Therefore, it would appear that the toll on lime was the spark that ignited more rioting after 1839. However, the reasons behind the types of violence used by farmers covered many different areas.
The violence came to a stop after 1843, as did the appearance of ‘Rebecca and her daughters.’ This can most likely be attributed to an improvement in agriculture.
