Transcribed from the 1862 R. Mason edition by David Price, email ccx074@pglaf.org

DAVID MORGAN,
THE WELSH JACOBITE;

A CONTRIBUTION TO

THE HISTORY OF JACOBITISM

IN WALES.

BY
WILLIAM LLEWELLIN, F.G.S., F.G.H.S.,
&c., &c., &c.

Reprinted from the “Cambrian Journal,” 1861.

TENBY:
PRINTED BY R. MASON, HIGH STREET.
1862.

p. 3DAVID MORGAN,
THE WELSH JACOBITE.

“Although my lands are fair and wide,
Its here no longer I must bide;
Yet my last hoof, and horn, and hide,
         I’ll gie to bonnie Charlie.

“Although my heart is unco sair,
And lies fu’ lowly in its lair,
Yet the last drap of blude that’s there,
         I’ll gie for bonnie Charlie.”

Jacobite Ballad.

One of the most romantic and spirit-stirring episodes in English History is that presented to us by the last effort of the partisans of the expelled House of Stuart to place the representative of the exiled family on the throne of his ancestors.

The Rebellion of 1745 has been acknowledged universally to have been remarkable for the interesting incidents, and romantic adventures, to which it gave rise; and the annals of history do not furnish examples of greater personal sacrifices, more exalted heroism, and chivalrous devotion, than were exhibited during that momentous struggle.

p. 4In these peaceful times, and blessed with institutions that afford the fullest security for the preservation of our civil and religious liberties, it is difficult to conceive the stormy struggles to which the country was subjected, in the efforts of our forefathers, amid contending factions, to secure and maintain the liberties which we now enjoy, and to hand them down to us unimpaired.  Still more difficult is it to realize the fact, that very little more than a century has passed since this country was the scene of a fierce civil war, in which members of the same family were arrayed against each other in hostile conflict, and, during the progress of which, and of the ruthless and vindictive executions that followed it, the bravest blood of Britain,—that of the devoted, though mistaken, adherents of the Stuarts,—was poured out like water on their native soil.

The circumstances out of which this great conflict originated may be thus briefly detailed.  The continued infraction of the laws by a systematic indifference to every principle of legality, the violation of the liberties of the people, the brutal cruelty and senseless obstinacy, the persistent determination to deprive the Episcopal and Presbyterian Churches of their rights and privileges, and to restore the domination of the Roman Catholic Church, which characterized the proceedings of James II. during his short and most unhappy reign, completely alienated the affections of his subjects, and eventually led the best and greatest men of the country to seek the aid of the Prince of Orange, afterwards William III., against the tyranny and oppression to which they were subjected.

The flight of the King, and the successful accomplishment, and glorious results of the Revolution of 1688, speedily followed that movement, and the stable and permanent advantages, and constitutional reforms, that subsequently had their origin in the Bill of Rights, were thus secured to us.

While experiencing those manifold benefits, and realizing the blessed results of the solid guarantees for the maintenance and extension of their liberties, that sprung p. 5out of the expulsion of James II., and when there were numbers of living men, who had not only been witnesses, but were also victims of his oppression and misrule, it is passing strange that such a feeling should have existed among any considerable body of the people as could have rendered possible the Rebellions of 1715 and 1745, and have enlisted in favour of the Stuarts, and enrolled among their enthusiastic adherents, many men of high position, and extensive territorial possessions.  But, though at the period of the outbreak of 1715, only 27 years had elapsed, and not more than 57 years had passed, when the Rebellion of 1745 occurred, since the Revolution, the resentment, the sense of wrong, and the many painful impressions produced on the public mind by the occurrences of James II.’s fated and luckless reign, though not wholly effaced, had unquestionably been very considerably subdued and obliterated.  The sons and grandsons of the brave and devoted Cavaliers, who fought and bled for their King in the bloody fields of Naseby and Worcester, and who sacrificed wealth and life in the royalist cause, clung tenaciously to the recollections associated with those unhappy days, and still sympathised with the fallen fortunes of the Stuarts.

A considerable amount of discontent also existed in the country, occasioned by the impolitic and unseemly preference shown by the two first Georges for their Hanoverian subjects, which partiality, natural as it may have been, was, in a King of England, excessively indiscreet, and, by its undisguised, and even occasionally ostentatious manifestations, calculated to excite among his subjects feelings of considerable dissatisfaction and discontent.  Those monarchs were likewise known to possess a very imperfect acquaintance, which they made no efforts to extend, with the language, laws, and constitution of England; and, prior to the outbreak of the last Rebellion, in 1745, the unpopularity of George II. had become so decided as to render it extremely probable that a movement, well conceived and skilfully carried out, for the restoration of the old dynasty, might be successful.  p. 6For, throughout the country, and even in London, the people appear to have formed a highly favourable estimate of the Pretender, (of whom zealous Jacobites had spread the most glowing accounts,) and to have entertained a higher regard for his personal character than they felt for that of George.  Indeed, had there not existed the apprehension that, with their restoration, the hereditary passion for arbitrary power that had ever characterized the Stuarts would once more have manifested itself, there were few patriotic Englishmen who would not gladly have given their adherence to them, and so have relieved themselves of a dynasty that had not from the first been particularly popular, and that was then very generally regarded with contempt and dislike.

The restoration of the Stuarts, although not actively promoted by the majority of the people, was not, however, regarded with any feelings approaching abhorrence, nor did they even extend to very serious dislike.  Several of the most distinguished noblemen and gentlemen were already zealous Jacobites, while many more regarded the movements and conspiracies in favour of the Stuarts either with favour or indifference.

The relations that existed between the great landowners and their tenants and dependents so largely partook, even at that comparatively recent period, of the spirit and characteristics of the feudal system, that few of the territorial families would have experienced much difficulty in gathering together, and bringing into the field, very formidable bodies of armed retainers, in behalf of any cause which they had espoused, and desired to uphold.  This, however, was more especially the case in Scotland and Wales.

In the latter country, as in Scotland, the Jacobites were very numerous, and the loyalty that had been the characteristic of the Welsh people in the troubled times of the great Rebellion, and which made Wales almost the last rallying place of the unhappy Charles Stuart, and his devoted followers, still existed among the Welsh people, and rendered them ready to undergo the greatest personal p. 7sacrifices, or to encounter any perils, in upholding the cause of his unfortunate descendant. [7]

Had Charles Stuart followed the counsels that were freely urged upon him during the ill-judged retreat from Derby, and marched his forces into Wales, it is probable that a formidable rising would have occurred in that country, and that, if not ultimately successful, the struggle would have been greatly prolonged, and have proved of a still more serious and sanguinary character.

But, had that course been adopted, and failure ensued, several of the great Welsh landed proprietors would have been involved in the ruin that overtook so many of the leading Scottish Jacobites, and their heads would most assuredly have fallen on the scaffold.  As it was, the Duke of Beaufort, with hereditary devotion to the Stuarts, and Sir Watkin Wynn, were so seriously compromised as to place them for a time in considerable danger.

The infamous Secretary Murray, of Broughton, revealed the whole of the particulars of the Jacobite intrigues and conspiracies that had existed since the year 1740, and made such criminatory statements, with respect to the complicity of the Duke, and Sir Watkin, as clearly proved their active participation in the plots that had preceded and led to the Rebellion.  The law, however, required that, in cases of treason, two witnesses should depose to the facts on which the charge was founded; and it was consequently found impracticable to proceed against them on Murray’s traitorous testimony.  It is, moreover, suspected that the king and the government felt indisposed to have them impeached, fearing that the prosecution of men so powerful and influential might give rise to serious disturbances, and cause a further outbreak of a still more dangerous character than that which had been so recently suppressed.

In addition to the Duke of Beaufort, and Sir Watkin Wynn, many of the leading noblemen and gentlemen, p. 8throughout North and South Wales, were intimately associated with the intrigues of the Jacobites.  Among those most deeply involved, and who made the greatest sacrifices for the cause of the Stuarts, was William, Marquis of Powis, who followed James II. into France, and was by him created Duke of Powis, and so designated at the Court of St. Germain’s.  The fourth daughter of this nobleman, Lady Winifred Herbert, became the wife of the Earl of Nithsdale; and the remarkable devotion and heroic courage with which she devised, and successfully accomplished, the escape of her beloved husband, when left for execution, entitle her to an exalted place among the heroines of Wales.

The Earl had been one of the most prominent leaders of the Rebellion in 1715; and, after its suppression, was apprehended, tried, and sentenced to death.  His devoted wife exhausted every effort to obtain his pardon, and sought, by the most strenuous and piteous appeals, to move the King to mercy.  Finding, however, that her prayers and entreaties were disregarded, and that no other hope remained to her, this dauntless woman, undismayed by difficulties and dangers before which most hearts would have quailed, and sank into despair, wrought out a most heroic scheme for effecting the escape of the Earl from the Tower, and had the inexpressible happiness of releasing him from his prison, and placing him far beyond the reach of his pursuers.  In doing this, her own safety, and even life, were seriously imperilled; but, by the interposition of influential individuals attached to the Court, a merciful view was taken of her case, and she was eventually permitted to pass over to the continent, to rejoin the husband she had saved.  To Welshmen it will be a gratifying fact that, associated with her in those efforts to preserve the Earl from the scaffold, and all essential to her success, were her “dear Evans,” a maid or companion, and a Mrs. Morgan, both of whom appear to have been faithful Welsh dependents of the family of Powis, and wholly devoted to the Countess.

Though the precise extent of his complicity have p. 9escaped my inquiries, and I have failed to obtain clear evidence on the subject, I find it generally asserted, throughout the district in which he resided, that the great landed proprietor, Mr. Lewis, of the Van, Caerphilly,—“Ysguier Lewis gwych o’r Van,”—from whom the Marquis of Bute, and the Baroness Windsor, inherit their great estates in Glamorganshire, was discovered to have participated in one of the numerous plots for the restoration of the Stuarts, and to have had a fine imposed upon him of £10,000.  Such a sum in those days would have been accounted a large one; and to procure it, a large extent of land, in the vicinity of Merthyr-Tydfil, (then a humble village containing less than a dozen houses,) and elsewhere, had to be sold; and it is said that, among the properties that were then disposed of, were the Court, Mardy, and other estates, that have subsequently proved of very great value.

The uncompromising Jacobite feeling of one of the old Welsh proprietors is displayed in an anecdote that has been related of Sir Charles Kemys, of Cefn Mabley.  It is said of him that, during his travels on the continent, he paid a visit to Hanover, and was treated with marked regard by the Elector; and, it is supposed, that he owed that distinction to the lessons which he gave to the Court and Sovereign in the British accomplishments of drinking and smoking tobacco.  Shortly after his elevation to the throne of England, George expressed a strong desire to see his former friend, Sir Charles Kemys, and, as he persisted in the wish, he was informed by the courtiers that Sir Charles was not well affected to the present dynasty.  “Poo!  Poo!” said the King, “tell him he must come up, I long to smoke a pipe with him.”  This command having been conveyed to Sir Charles, he is said to have declined the invitation in those terms,—“I should be happy to smoke a pipe with him as Elector of Hanover, but I can’t think of it as King of England.” [9]

The traditions that still linger among the Welsh hills p. 10show that Jacobite principles were not confined to the landowners, but also prevailed among the farmers and peasants.  Of those traditionary stories, one is told of an old Welsh farmer, residing at a farm called Pen Craig Fargoed, in the parish of Gelligare, Glamorganshire, and who appears to have been a devoted adherent of the Stuarts.  A witty fellow in the neighbourhood, rather remarkable for his acuteness, and, withal, somewhat addicted to rhyming, to meet some pressing necessity, had borrowed a guinea from his neighbour, “yr hên bapist,” and, on meeting him subsequently, without having the power to repay him the loan, with the view of propitiating him, addressed him in the following terms, and, it is said, greatly pleased him, and obtained all the indulgence that he sought:—

“Tri ffeth ’rwy yn ei archi,
Cael echwyn am y guni,
A chael Pretendwr ar y faink
A chael bath Ffraink y dali.”

Which, for the benefit of those unacquainted with the Welsh language, may be thus translated:—

“Three things do I desire,
To have indulgence for the guinea;
And have the Pretender on the throne;
And have French money to pay with.”

In North Wales the Jacobites appear to have been numerous and powerful.  A social meeting that existed very recently, if it does not still exist, at Wrexham, and known as the “Cycle,” was originally a secret assembly of the Jacobites, established in Denbighshire, for the object of upholding and promoting the pretensions of the young Pretender, Prince Charles Edward, to the throne of this country.  The rules of this society, to which the signatures of several of its leading members were appended, were published, about thirty years back, in the Cambrian Quarterly Journal; [10] and, as that work possessed a limited circulation, and has now become scarce, p. 11its reproduction may interest many persons to whom it would otherwise be unknown.  This list of the names of the members is one of the earliest known.  More recent ones are stated to have been drawn up in the form of a round robin; which, it is suspected, was adopted to prevent the possibility of either of the members being proceeded against as the principal of an assembly that was clearly of a treasonable character.

“We, whose names are underwritten, do promise at y^e time and place to our names respectively affixed, and to observe the rules following, viz.

Imp^rs.  Every member of this society shall, for default of his appearance, submit to be censur’d, and shall thereupon be censur’d by the judgm^t of the society.

2^ndly.  Every member y^t cannot come shall be obliged to send notice of his non-appearance by 12 of the clock at noon, together with his reason in writing, otherwise his plea shall not excuse him, if within the compass of fifteen miles from the place of meeting.

3^rdly.  Each member obliges himself to have dinner upon the table by 12 o clock [11] at noon, from Michaelmas to Lady-day, and, from Lady-day till Michaelmas, at 1 of the clock.

4^thly.  The respective masters of the places of meeting oblige themselves to take down in writing each default, and to deliver in the same at the general meeting.

5^thly.  Every member shall keep a copy of these articles by him, to prevent plea of mistake.

6^thly.  It is agreed y^t a general meeting shall be held by all y^e subscribers at the house of Daniel Porter, Jun^r. holden in Wrexham, on the 1st day of May, 1724, by 11 of y^e clock in the forenoon, and there to dine; and to determine upon all points relating to and according to the sense and meaning of those articles.

1723 (Signed)

Thos. Puleston, May 21^st (eldest son of Sir Roger Puleston, of Emral).
Rich. Clayton, June 11^th.
Eubule Lloyd, (of Penyllan,) July 2^nd.
Robt^t. Ellis, July 23^rd.
W. W^ms. Wynn, (of Wynnstay,) Aug^t. 13^th
Jno. Puleston, (of Pickhill,) Sep. 3^rd.
Tho^s. Eyton, (of Leeswood,) Sep. 24^th.
p. 12W^m. Edwards, Oct. 15^th
Thomas Holland, Nov. 6^th.
Ken Eyton, (of Eyton,) Nov. 26^th.
Phil. Egerton, (of Oulton,) Dec. 17^th.
Jno. Robinson, (of Gwersyllt,) Jan^y. 8^th.
Geo. Shackerly, (of Gwersyllt,) Jan^y. 29^th.
Rob^t. Davies, (of Gwyssany,) Feb. 19^th.
John Puleston, (of Hafod y Wern,) March 13^th.
Broughton Whitehall, (of Broughton,) April 3^rd.
W^m. Hanmer, April 24^th, 1724.”

In the second volume of the same Journal, [12] a tale was published anonymously, that exhibited considerable ability, and was especially interesting from the circumstance of its introducing the hero, Meredith Alynton, to the members of the Cycle Club, that was supposed to have assembled for one of its meetings at Wynnstay, the princely residence of Sir Watkin Wynn.  In the description of this scene, the author has very agreeably and skilfully blended fact with fiction, and has introduced into this portion of the tale two remarkably interesting songs, that are stated to have been veritable Jacobite relics, and which were then printed for the first time.  It is believed that they were written specially for the Cycle Club; and, at the time of their publication, the MSS. had been in the possession of Owen Ellis, Esq., a descendant of one of the original members of the Club, and his ancestors, for upwards of a century.  As those songs are curious, and very little known, they are here reprinted.

OF QUARRELS, AND CHANGES, AND CHANGELINGS, I SING.

Of quarrels, and changes, and changelings, I sing,
Of courtiers and cuckolds, too; God save the King!
Now Munster’s fat grace lies in somebody’s place,
And hopeful and so forth are turned out to grass;
O, G—e, thou’st done wisely to make such a pother
Between one German w—e and the son of another.

Now that son of another, so stubborn and rusty,
Is turn’d out of doors, and thy favors, most justly,
p. 13Since he was so unwise as his child to baptize,
He may e’en thank himself if you bastardize.
For there ne’er would have been all this wrangling work,
If, instead of a Christian, he had bred him a Turk.

The youth that so long had dwelt under thy roof,
Might sure have found out, by many a good proof,
That you ne’er were so mild as to be reconciled,
If once you’re provok’d, to man, woman, or child.
But, alas, for poor England, what hopes can be had
From a prince not so wise as to know his own dad!

Were he twice more thy son than e’er anyone thought him,
There are forty and forty good reasons to out him,
For he trod on the toe of a gallant young beau,
And made it so sore that he hardly could go;
And unless for this due correction he feels,
Who knows but he soon may tread on thy own heels!

Of your heels, oh! take care, let no one abuse ’em,
For it may be you’ll soon have occasion to use ’em,
For if J—y should land, you’d soon understand
That one pair of heels is worth two pair of hands;
And then the pert whipster will find, I suppose,
Other work for his feet than to tread on folk’s toes.

ROBIN JOHN CLARK.

Ye true bacchanals come to Ned of the Dales,
   And there let’s carouse oe’r a butt of strong liquor,
Bring with you no shirkers, nor friends to usurpers,
   But souls that will drink till their pulses beat quicker.
May the courtier who snarls at the friend of Prince C—s,
   And eke who our houses and windows made dark,
Ne’er pilfer much treasure, nor taste of such pleasure;
   Then hark to the chorus of Robin John Clark.

May each bung his eye till the vessel’s quite dry,
   And drink to the low’ring extravagant taxes;
For the spirit of Britain, by foreigners spit on,
   Quite cold by oppression and tyranny waxes.
Then here’s to the toast, tho’ the battle was lost,
   And he who refuses a traytor we’ll mark:
Here’s a health to the prince, not meaning from whence,
   For thus sings the chorus of Robin John Clark.

Then fill up another to the good duke his brother,
   Not meaning that blood-thirsty cruel assassin;
p. 14May the Scotch partisans recollect their stout clans,
   Their force, twenty thousand in number surpassing;
May they enter Whitehall, old St. James’s, and all,
   While the troops are for safety encamp’d in the park;
May kind heaven inspire each volley and fire,
   For thus sings the chorus of Robin John Clark.

Hand in hand let us joyn against such as combine,
   And dare to enslave with vile usurpation;
Whenever time offers, we’ll open our coffers,
   And fight to retrieve the bad state of the nation.
We’ll not only drink, but we’ll act as we think,
   We’ll take the brown musket, the sword, and the dirk,
Thro’ all sorts of weather, we’ll trade it together,
   So God bless the chorus of Robin John Clark.

In a note to this tale it is stated that tradition reports that the young Pretender visited the Principality prior to the Rebellion; but this statement is scarcely credible, nor is there any evidence in support of its truth.  It is, however, indisputable, that he reckoned the greater number of the wealthy landowners of Wales among his adherents, and one of the original projects of his army, in its advance from Scotland, was that of marching into Wales, where the people, and even the clergy, [14a] were well known to be warmly devoted to the Stuarts, while the character of the country was considered to be favourable to the desultory mode of warfare practised by the Highlanders.  Anticipating that such a course would be adopted, several of the leading gentry had prepared themselves to join him, and many of them had left their houses, and were actually on their way to meet him, [14b] when the mortifying intelligence reached them of the retreat from Derby.  At that period, the influence of the gentry of Wales over their tenantry, and the peasantry generally, was very great, and it is extremely probable that an advance p. 15into Wiles would have secured to the Pretender an immense accession to his forces.  The unexpected retreat, however, prevented any rising among the Welsh, and the adherents of the Stuarts were thus saved from the ruin in which most probably they would otherwise have been eventually involved.  They were fully prepared to risk both life and estate in the cause of the prince whom they loved, though that prince, like other Stuarts, may, after all, have proved unworthy of their sacrifices and devotion.  Tradition states that, for many years subsequent to the memorable Forty-Five, [15a] the Welsh squires, at their convivial meetings, were accustomed to discuss and dispute as to the share which each had taken in the movement, and the respective distances that intervened between them and the prince’s army, when the news of the retreat reached them, and compelled them to return to their homes.  In a letter written many months subsequently, [15b] the young Pretender, while referring incidently to Mr. Barry, states that he “arrived at Derby two days after I parted.  He had been sent by Sir Watkin Wynn to assure me, in the name of my friends, that they were ready to join me in what manner I pleased.”

The prince himself is said to have been most anxious to proceed into Wales; [15c] for at Derby, when the retreat was under discussion, and all his arguments in favour of an advance to London had proved unavailing, he, at last, “as a middle course, proposed that they should march into Wales, to give their partizans in that country an opportunity of joining.” [15d]

Foremost and boldest among those who contended for a forward movement, and counselled the advance upon Loudon, was David Morgan.  He determinedly opposed the retreat, and clearly foresaw its disastrous consequences.  W hen he found that the Scottish commanders had actually commenced the retrograde movement, and that the troops p. 16were in full retreat for Scotland, it is stated by one of the leading noblemen [16] connected with the Pretender, that “Mr. Morgan, an English gentleman, came up to Mr. Vaughan, who was riding with the Life Guards, and after saluting him, said, ‘D— me, Vaughan, they are going to Scotland!’  Mr. Vaughan replied, ‘wherever they go, I am determined, now I have joined them, to go along with them.’  Upon which Mr. Morgan said, with an oath, ‘I had rather be hanged than go to Scotland to starve.’  Mr. Morgan was hanged in 1746; and Mr. Vaughan is an officer in Spain.”

David Morgan, or, as he is occasionally designated, David Thomas Morgan, was one of the boldest spirits associated with this momentous struggle.  He was among the first of the English, or Welsh, Jacobites to join the forces of Charles Edward on his advance into England, and remained by his side until the forward movement had been finally abandoned, and all hope of a successful issue to the enterprize had been lost.

As was the case with many of the unfortunate participators in the Rebellion, it was the fortune of David Morgan to be misrepresented by the partisans of the reigning dynasty, and to have his memory assailed by the most injurious aspersions, and discreditable calumnies.  Long after the turbulent times in which these brave and hapless men lived, it would have been unsafe to suggest any palliation of their offence, to express any sorrow for their melancholy fate, or to seek to defend their memories from unmerited ignomy, and unjustifiable slander.  And, yet many of those whose memories have been clouded, and whose names have been involved in partial oblivion, were men of the highest honour, the most refined intelligence, and chivalrous self-devotion.  In supporting the cause of the prince, whom they regarded as the only lawful heir to the throne of their country, the highest order of personal bravery, romantic heroism, and complete disregard of all selfish considerations were evoked, and p. 17called into existence.  With a lofty disdain of the dangers which they incurred, they braved the fearful penalties which the barbarous laws relating to High Treason then awarded to its luckless victims, and were content to sacrifice their positions (distinguished and influential as many of them were), their homes, and fortunes, and even life itself, for the cherished idea to which they clung, and were devoted.  For themselves individually, few of them could have anticipated much personal advantage, even from a successful issue to their struggle; while all that men cherished and held dear were fearfully imperilled.  Yet these were the men whom a merciless but dominant faction doomed to deaths invested with every horror that cruelty and a brutal law could devise, and pursued with malignant and unrelenting ferocity, even after they had expiated with their lives the offences into which their mistaken but noble devotion had led them.

Among the adherents of the young Pretender there were few who evinced more devoted attachment to his cause, albeit a desperate one, than David Morgan.  He appears to have received prompt information of the movements of Charles Edward, and to have been aware, at an early period, of the projected advance into England.  The army of the Pretender commenced its adventurous march from Carlisle, where the onward movement was finally decided upon, on the 20th of November, 1745; and arrived at Preston, in Lancashire, on the 27th, [17a] where the two divisions into which their forces had been divided were again united, and rested for the day.

Here it was that David Morgan joined them, with a friend, whose name is unknown to me, but who, together with his servant, had accompanied him from Monmouthshire. [17b]  At the distance of a mile, or so, from the town, the two gentlemen dismounted, and leaving their horses in charge of the servant, walked to Preston, in order to elude observation, and to avoid creating any suspicion of their intention to join the rebels.

p. 18The circumstance of its appearing in evidence that he had left Monmouthshire with his friend probably caused it to be inferred that he resided in that county.  Such, however, was not the case.  His residence was in Glamorganshire, though close to the borders of the adjoining county of Monmouth.  It is somewhat singular that the house of his father’s nativity, if not of his also, as well as that in which he resided, though nearly 20 miles apart, were situated in nearly the same relative position with reference to the counties of Monmouth and Glamorgan; and were, in each case, not far removed from the Rhymney river, which divides those shires.

He appears to have spent much of his time in London, and to have possessed a residence there; but, when staying in Glamorganshire, he resided at Penygraig Taf, which, at that period, must have been a singularly secluded and solitary place.  It is situated in the hamlet of Forest, in the parish of Merthyr-Tydfil, and occupies an elevated and picturesque position on the summit of the hill that divides the Taff from the Bargoed Taff valley, and is now a farm-house, retaining nothing in its character to distinguish it from the ordinary dwelling of a Welsh farmer.  At that period, the population must have been very limited, and widely scattered; so that few scenes could be found of greater seclusion, or more conducive to quiet and calm contentment.

The river Taff, that flowed far below in the depths of the valley, was then unpolluted by the dross and impure refuse of the mines and manufactures of Merthyr-Tydfil, and, except when agitated into wrathful turbulence by storms, and the rapid influx of mountain torrents, rippled by in pure and calm serenity.  The small forge, at which iron had been manufactured as early as the reign of Henry VIII., if not previously, at the place now called Pontygwaith, or the bridge of the work, and immediately below Penygraig, on the opposite side of the river, had long ceased to resound in the valley, and Merthyr-Tydfil was then a quiet village, containing perhaps at most a score of houses, or so.  And now, when little more than a century p. 19has passed away, how wonderfully have all things changed, and the stillness of this remote locality been invaded.  Midway up the side of the valley, not more than a mile from Penygraig House, now stands the Quaker’s-Yard Station of the West Midland Railway, and the two noble viaducts that carry the Taff Vale and the West Midland Railways across the Taff river; while at an equally short distance, stands another viaduct of elegant proportions that spans the tributary valley of Bargoed Taff.

In this quiet spot David Morgan was roused from what may possibly have been peaceful dreams of happiness, and calm domesticity, to participate in the anxieties and perils of the Rebellion.  On receiving the first intimation of the Pretender’s arrival in Scotland, he departed from Penygraig, to return there no more; and there is a tradition still extant in that neighbourhood that, in starting on his fatal journey, he stopped at Efail Llancaiach, which still exists as a smithy, to have his horse shod, and is stated so have said to the smith, in Welsh, “You are against me now, but when I return you will be all with me.”  He then appears to have proceeded to join the friend of whom previous mention has been made, and to have journeyed with him on horseback through North Wales into Cheshire, where he paid a visit to an acquaintance residing at Etherton Hall.  From thence he rode to Preston, in Lancashire, as already stated, to join the army of the Pretender.

It is quite manifest that he must have been very actively and influentially engaged in the movement prior to this, and well known by reputation, if not by actual correspondence, to Prince Charles Edward, as he was immediately received into his confidence, and held so prominent a position in his counsels as to cause him to be designated the “Pretender’s Counsellor.” [19]

He accompanied the army in its onward march to Manchester, where it arrived on the 29th.  Though he had joined them only two days previously, he was shown p. 20on his trial to have been one of the most prominent actors in the proceedings that took place in that town.  The Pretender was received at Manchester with demonstrations of high satisfaction, and a large number of the inhabitants enrolled themselves among his supporters, under the designation of “the Manchester Regiment,” the command of which was offered, in the first place, to David Morgan.  He, however, declined the position, and the unfortunate Colonel Towneley, [20a] who, Morgan said, “was much fitter than he was for such an office,” a Roman Catholic gentleman of ancient family, high reputation, and more than ordinary attainments, consented to assume the command.  But, though declining to undertake any special command, he marched with the army as a gentleman volunteer, was particularly active and prominent, and appears to have been invested with considerable authority.  He obtained an order from Secretary Murray [20b] to search for arms, and for their surrender on pain of military execution; and it was proved by one of the constables of Manchester that he had obtained possession of arms, which he had delivered at the lodgings of “Squire Morgan.”  He wore a white cockade in his hat, and a sword by his side.  It was likewise shown that he paid the expenses, when the officers and he dined together; p. 21and as one of the witnesses stated at his trial, “gave all the directions about everything,” and rode at the side of the Pretender, mounted on a bay horse.  It was further given in evidence against him, that, “being at dinner with several rebel officers at Derby, he asked Lord Elcho what number of men they had? to which his lordship answered, about 4 or 5000, and 17 pieces of cannon.  That he then asked, what religion the young Pretender was of? and Lord Elcho replied, shaking his head, that he believed his religion was to seek.  That the prisoner advised to beat up for volunteers, and said that it would be an easy matter to march to London; for that there were not above 3000 soldiers between London and that city, and those mostly dragoons, except a few undisciplined troops lately raised by Lords Gower and Cholmondely, who could make but little opposition.” [21]

They departed from Manchester on the 1st of December, and, marching through Congleton, Leek, and Ashbourn, they entered on the 4th December into the town of Derby, which was only one hundred and twenty-seven miles distant from the metropolis.

The news of the Pretender having arrived at that town soon reached London, and struck terror into the hearts of those who were unfavourable to the Stuarts’ cause; and the King was so seriously alarmed, that he ordered his yacht to be loaded with his valuables, and to remain at the Tower Quay, prepared to start at the shortest intimation.  At this time, precarious as the Prince’s position unquestionably was, a bold dash in the direction of London would probably have rendered him the possessor of the throne of England.  Weaker counsels, however, prevailed; the whole of the principal leaders imperatively urged a retreat into Scotland, and the Prince was compelled to succumb to their views, though wholly opposed to his own convictions.  This decision sealed the fate of Charles, and destroyed the glowing hopes that had hitherto buoyed him up; but none of his adherents, as p. 22has been already stated, were more clearly impressed with the conviction of the suicidal impolicy of a retrograde movement than David Morgan.  Bold, decisive, and rapid action could alone have saved them; and an onward march would have encouraged the wavering, and strengthened the determination of the doubtful; while many of their adherents, as in the case of the Welsh gentry, were at that moment on their way to join them.  But regardless of the prayers and entreaties of the Prince, the Highland commanders held firmly to their determination to return to Scotland; and on Friday, [22] the 6th of December, commenced the melancholy retreat, that was the forerunner of so much subsequent disaster, bloodshed, and ruthless cruelty.  Seeing the utter hopelessness of their position, if left to the tender mercies of the government, many of the English Jacobites determined to share the fortunes of the retreating army, while others withdrew themselves at various parts of the route, and made an effort to save themselves by flight.  Among those who declined to proceed into Scotland, as already mentioned, was David Morgan, who parted from his friends at Ashbourn, near Leek, in Staffordshire, on Saturday, the 7th of December; and, accompanied by a guide, proceeded in the direction of Stone, near which place he was apprehended on suspicion of having belonged to the Pretender’s army, and placed in confinement.

Though apprehended early in the month of December, 1745, and brought to trial among the first batch of the unfortunate Jacobites, David Morgan suffered imprisonment until the close of July, 1746.  Immediately preceding the trial, he was imprisoned in Newgate, to which prison it is probable that he was removed shortly after his apprehension.

The special commission was opened on the 23rd of June, when eight of the Judges went in procession from Sergeants’ Inn, to the Town Hall of St. Margaret’s Hill, and Lord Chief Justice Lee delivered a charge to the p. 23grand jury.  The trials did not, however, commence before the 15th of July, 1746, when seventeen prisoners, including David Morgan, were placed at the bar, though his trial did not, after all, take place until the 18th.

It is stated that “the time, place, or circumstances were not varied in any of the indictments, except Counsellor Morgan’s, who was indicted for having been in arms in Derby on the 5th of December, and adhering to the King’s enemies.” [23a]

David Morgan had been too bold and prominent an actor in the Rebellion to render it in any degree difficult for the government to procure decisive evidence of his complicity; and, though he made a lengthened and ingenious defence, the united testimony of several credible witnesses insured his conviction.

After the breaking up of the court, all those that were found guilty received notice that sentence of death would be passed upon them on Tuesday, the 22nd of July, and were required to be prepared on that day with any plea they might have to urge in arrest of judgment.  Many objections were accordingly raised on behalf of the prisoners, but were over-ruled by the court; and Lord Chief Justice Lee then proceeded to pass sentence on the whole of the prisoners, seventeen in number, the last of whom was David Morgan, in a lengthy address, and concluded by sentencing them, in the barbarous terms prescribed by the law of high treason, “to be drawn to the place of execution, and when they are come there, they must be severally hanged by the neck, but not till they be dead, for they must be cut down alive; then their bowels must be taken out, and burnt before their faces; then their heads must be severed from their bodies, and their bodies severally divided into four quarters, and these must be at the King’s disposal.” [23b]

At two o’clock, on the 29th of the same month, an order arrived at the gaol for the execution, on the next day, of Francis Towneley, George Fletcher, Thomas p. 24Chadwick, James Dawson, Thomas Deacon, John Berwick, Andrew Syddal, and David Morgan; and when it was intimated to them that they were to die on the following morning; “they seemed not at all shocked, but rather cheerful, only saying ‘God’s will be done.’  They went to rest at the usual hour, and slept soundly; but first took leave of their friends.” [24a]  Among those who carne to take a sad farewell of one of the unhappy men, was Mrs. Morgan.  During the whole period of her husband’s imprisonment she had attended on him with remarkable devotion, and, to use the words of a contemporary writer, by no means favourable to the unfortunate Jacobites, “had behaved with all the love and tenderness becoming an affectionate wife.” [24b]

At six o’clock on the following morning they were aroused from sleep, and unfastened from the floor, to which, since their condemnation, they had been chained.  On descending to the court-yard of their prison, Morgan ordered coffee to be prepared for their breakfast, and bade them “take care to make it very good and strong; for he had never drunk any since he had been in that prison fit to come near a gentleman.” [24c]

With death in its most terrible form before them, never did men manifest more undaunted courage and manly fortitude, nor more calmly await the doom which they knew to be inevitable.  Actors and sufferers in the same cause, and participators in the same sad fate, they sympathised with, and aided, comforted, and consoled each other like a band of brothers.  Much has been said of the lofty indifference to his doom that was exhibited at his execution by the brave Lord Balmerino, which was of so remarkable a character that a fear was expressed by himself that his coolness might possibly be supposed to proceed from insensibility to the great change that awaited him; from which, however, the noble fortitude of the old Jacobite lord was very far removed.  And, while clinging warmly to life, and to the loved ones from p. 25whom they were about to be separated for ever, David Morgan and his heroic companions had, in like manner, tutored their hearts to manly resignation, and were determined so to die as to reflect no dishonour on the cause which they had espoused.  In their conduct and demeanour in the hour of their great trial and suffering, they displayed neither levity, nor stoical indifference to the awful fate that awaited them; but comported themselves with the calmness and resignation of brave Christian gentlemen.  After breakfast their irons were struck off, Colonel Towneley being the first to have them removed, and Mr. Morgan the second.  They were then pinioned, and, while the sledges were being placed in readiness, they were removed for a short time into a back room.  After this they were placed in three sledges, each of which was drawn by three horses; and about ten o’clock were removed from the gaol, and taken to Kennington Common, guarded by a troop of dragoons, and some companies of the Foot-Guards.  There the gallows had been erected, and beside it were placed a pile of faggots and a block.  On their arrival, the doomed men were removed from the sledges to a cart that was placed under the beam, for the purpose of receiving, and turning them off.  The faggots were then set on fire, and the guards formed in a circle around the place of execution.

There being no minister of religion in attendance on either of the condemned men, “Mr. Morgan, with his spectacles on, read prayers, and other pious meditations to them,” [25] out of some devotional work, to which they all paid marked attention, and joined devoutly and fervently in the prayers that were offered up.  They continued at their devotions for upwards of half-an-hour, after which they arose from their knees, and each taking some papers out of the book that he held in his hand, threw them, together with the book, among the spectators.  Those papers appear to have contained ardent professions of attachment to the cause for which they died, and declarations p. 26that they remained faithful to their principles, even to death.  They likewise handed statements, of a similar purport, to the sheriffs, and then flung their hats, which were laced with gold, among the crowd.  The executioner immediately placed the caps on their heads, drew them over their faces, and, the ropes having been adjusted round their necks, they were at once turned off.  After they had been suspended for about three minutes, their shoes, white stockings, and breeches were pulled off by the soldiers, while the executioner himself removed the other portions of the clothing, immediately after which the body of Colonel Towneley was cut down, and placed on the block.  Some appearances of life having however, been observed, the executioner struck the body, and cut the throat with a knife.  He then proceeded to remove the bowels and heart, which he threw into the fire.  The head was afterwards severed from the body with a cleaver, and both were placed in a coffin that stood ready to receive them.  The body of poor David Morgan was the next to undergo the same disgusting and barbarous mutilation, which was repeated in succession on all the other victims, terminating with the unhappy Dawson, after which the executioner shouted aloud, “God save King George,” to which the multitude responded with a yell.

The name of James Dawson is connected with a melancholy incident which the poet Shenstone [26] made the subject of the pathetic ballad of “Jemmy Dawson.”  He belonged to a family of high respectability in Lancashire, and had been educated at St. John’s College, Cambridge.  Having formed an ardent attachment for a young lady of handsome fortune, they were engaged to be married just at the time of the outbreak of the Rebellion.  All the influence of his friends, and every effort that the most devoted affection could suggest having failed to secure his pardon, no entreaties or remonstrances could dissuade the faithful girl, to whom he was affianced, from being p. 27present at the execution of the man whom she loved with the deepest tenderness.  Through all the horrors that characterised the melancholy scene, and while witnessing the cruel and barbarous fate of her lover, she exhibited no violent demonstration of sorrow; but when all had been concluded, and the heart which had beaten so warmly for her had been thrown into the flames, the terrible excitement, which had hitherto sustained her wholly gave way, and, exclaiming—“my dear, I follow thee!—I follow thee!—sweet Jesus, receive both our souls together!” she fell back in the carriage, and expired, as the last word trembled on her lips. [27a]

Though in passing to their trials the mob had hooted and insulted them, it was observable at their execution that the assembled multitude exhibited considerable sympathy, and appeared to commiserate the fate of those gallant and hapless gentlemen.

When the horrible proceedings had been entirely concluded, the bodies of the sufferers were removed to the prison from whence they had been brought, “to await his Majesty’s pleasure;” and three days afterwards the heads of Towneley and Fletcher were fixed on Temple Bar, while those of Deacon, Berwick, Chadwick, and Syddal were preserved in spirits, and conveyed to Manchester and Carlisle, to be exposed on conspicuous places in those towns.  I have failed to ascertain how the heads of Blood, Dawson, and Morgan were disposed of; but it is probable that they were allowed to remain with the bodies.  Towneley’s body is said to have been buried at St. Pancras, while the bodies of his companions were interred in the burying-ground attached to the Foundling Hospital. [27b]

Shortly after the execution, the statements which they had delivered to the sheriffs were published; [27c] and that written by David Morgan is here introduced.

p. 28A true COPY of the Paper delivered by David Morgan, Esq., to the Sheriff of Surry, at the Place of Execution, on Wednesday, July 30th, 1746.

It having been always deemed incumbent on every Person in my Situation, to say something of himself, and the Cause he suffers for, I could not decline it, however disagreeable to my Persecutors, when I once held it my Duty.

The CAUSE I embarked in was that of my Liege Sovereign King James the Third, from an Opinion I long since had of his just Right: an Opinion founded on the Constitution, and strongly recognized and established by an ACT OF PARLIAMENT NOW IN ITS FULL VIGOUR, which neither the People collectively nor representively have any Power or Authority to subvert or alter.  [See the Statute of Charles II.]  Nor can that Law be repealed but by a free Parliament summoned to meet by a lawful King: Not by a Convention commanded by a foreign Prince and Usurper, and intimidated and directed by him at the Head of a foreign Army.

To this Convention we owe the Revolution; to the Revolution we owe the Accession of the House of Hanover; and to this Accession all our present Ills, and the melancholy and certain Prospect of the intire Subversion of all that is dear and valuable to Britons.

My Opinion of the King’s Title to the imperial Crown of these Realms, thus uncontrovertible, received additional Strength and Satisfaction from his Character and Qualifications, confirmed to me by Persons of the strictest Honour and Credit, and demonstrated to me, that his Establishment on the Throne of his Ancestors, would be an Incident, as productive of Happiness to the Subject, as of Justice to the Sovereign, since his Majesty’s confessed superior Understanding is absolutely necessary to extricate our Country out of that most desperate State she has been declining to since the Revolution, and has precipitately fallen into since the Accession.

On this Declension and Ruin of our Country have the Favourers and Friends of both Revolution and Accession built vast and despicable Fortunes; which possibly they may entail (with the conditions of Slavery annexed) on their betrayed and abandoned Issue; it being much more clear that Slavery will descend from Generation to Generation, than such Fortunes so acquired.

Have we not seen Parliaments, in a long Succession, raise Supplies sufficient to surfeit Avarice?  Do we not see that Avarice heaping up Millions for the Nurture and Support of Foreign Dominions, on the Ruins of that Country that grants them?  Nor can this move the least Compassion, or even common p. 29Regard for her Welfare and Interest, from that ungrateful Avarice.

British Councils, since the Usurper’s Accession, have had foreign Interest their constant Object; and the Power and Finances of the imperial Crown of Great Britain have been betrayed, prostituted and squandered, for the Convenience and Support of the meanest Electorate in Germany; and the Elector’s Conduct has been more destructive and detrimental to our Country, than all the Finesse, Treachery and Force, that the French, or any other Adversary’s Council’s and Power could have attempted or effected.  Land-Armies only can sustain and cover Dominions on the Continent; these are raised in the Country protected, and maintained by the Country protecting.  Here Great-Britain has all the Burden, and Hanover all the advantage: Whereas Navies are the British Bulwarks, which have, by the Elector, been neglected, misapplied, or employed to her Disadvantage, and can alone guard and protect her Dominions and Commerce.

If the present Convention had any regard to Self-Preservation, or that of their Constituents, they would this Session have made new Laws for the further Security of Privilege: The Pannick diffused universally over the Electoral Family would have prepared an easy Assent to any Law in the Subject’s Favour: But, even here, these Representatives omitted this second Opportunity of securing and improving the Happiness of their Electors, and, instead thereof, have given additional Power to the Usurper to suspend the bulwark of Liberty, and invert the Order and Method of Trials for Treason: Precedents they will have occasion one Day to repent of, since they very probably may fall Victims to them.

The false Glosses and Fears of Popery, universally propagated, have deluded unthinking vulgar minds, and diverted all Attention to Reason; when it is clear, to any just Reflection, that his Majesty can have no happiness but what results from his Britain, who, he must know from melancholy experience, will not be tempted to part with the Doctrines and Exercise of the Religion established in her.  His Majesty must know, that a lawful King must adhere to the Constitution in Church and State, and shew a most inviolable Attachment to those Laws that were made for the Security of both, whatever Indulgences and Concessions are made by Conventions to an Usurper for the Breach of all.  A lawful King is a nursing Father, who would protect us, and demand no more Supplies than the immediate Services required, and those from the Riches of the Country, the Excrescences of Trade and Commerce, without Prejudice to either; p. 30and such would be deemed best that were just sufficient for the Purposes they were raised, and for which only they would be employed.  But an Usurper is a Step-Father, that builds his own Hopes and Views on the Ruin and Destruction of his usurped Dominions, and has Joy from the fleecing and impoverishing of those under his Influence and Power.

Even his Majesty’s Enemies allow him great Understanding, nor has any one of them imputed Breach of Honour to him.  His Abilities and Sense of our Situation would move him to interpose in favour of his Subjects; and are equal (if human abilities are so) to extricate us out of the various Perplexities and Intricacies we have been brought into by Negotiations, for thirty Years, for the Preservation of the Balance of Power, to the Disappointment of every Briton’s Hope, and the Ridicule of all our Enemies.

If you once think, my Brethren, you must repent; if you repent, you must make the Constitution just Reparation; which can only be done by calling in your lawful King James the Third, who has Justice to attempt, and Wisdom to compleat, a thorough Reformation in the Constitution, and to fix in its pristine happy State; and which, in spite of all Chicane and Prejudice, without a RESTORATION will never be done.

I am to declare my Happiness in having such a Wife and Daughter, that forgive my involving them in my misfortunes, and having an undeserved Share in them: I heartily thank them, and wish them both temporal and eternal Happiness: and hope that those who are Friends to my King will look upon them as the Relict and Orphan of a Fellow-Subject that has suffered in the Royal Cause.

I glory in the Honour I have had of seeing his royal Highness Charles Prince Regent, and of being admitted into his Confidence; and I here declare it the greatest Happiness I ever knew, and the highest Satisfaction; and such as even my vainest Thoughts could never have suggested to me: An Honour to every rational Creature that can judge of the many requisite Virtues of a PRINCE centred in him truly, tho’ so often falsely assigned to the worst.  His Character exceeds any Thing I could have imagined or conceived: An Attempt to describe him would seem gross Flattery; and nothing but a plain and naked Narrative of his Conduct to all Persons, and in all Scenes he is engaged in, can properly shew him.  A Prince betrayed by the Mercy he shewed his Enemies, in judging of the Dispositions of Mankind by the Benignity of his own.  His Fortitude was disarmed by it, and his ungrateful Enemies think they have reaped the Benefit of it; but let them not rejoice at his Misfortunes, p. 31since his Failure of Success will, without the immediate Interposition of Providence, be absolutely their Ruin.  What a Contrast is there between his Royal Highness the PRINCE and the Duke of Cumberland!  The first displays his true Courage, in Acts of Humanity and Mercy; the latter a Cruelty, in Burning, Devastation, and Destruction of the British Subjects, their Goods and Possessions; I would ask—Who is the true HERO?

The Report of my having betrayed his royal Highness, or his Friends, is scandalously false; my Appeal to the Counsel for the Prosecution on my Trial, and my suffering Death, must refute it to all honest Men: And I hereby declare I had rather suffer any Death the Law can inflict.—I deem Death infinitely preferable to a Life of Infamy.—But the Death I suffer for my King, gives me vast Consolation and Honour that I am thought worthy of it.

To conclude, my Brethren and Fellow-Subjects, I must make Profession of that Religion I was baptized, have continued, and shall through the divine Permission die in, which is that of the Church of England, and which I hope will stand and prevail against the Malice, Devices and Assaults of her Enemies, as well those of the Church of Rome, as those equally dangerous, the Followers of Luther and Calvin, covered under and concealed in the specious Bugbears of Popery and arbitrary Power.  This my Faith I have fully set forth in a Poem of two Books, intitled, The Christian Test, or the Coalition of Faith and Reason; the first of which I have already published, and the latter I have bequeathed to the care of my unfortunate but very dutiful Daughter Mris. Mary Morgan, to be published by her, since it has pleased God I shall not live to see it.  To this Poem I refer, which I hope will obviate all Cavil to the contrary.

I freely forgive all my Enemies from the Usurper to Weir and Maddox the infamous Witnesses in support of his Prosecution of me: And I must also, and do from my Heart, forgive my Lord Chief Justice, for his stupid and inveterate Zeal, in painting my Loyalty to my King with all the Reproaches he had Genius enough to bestow on it, when he passed Sentence on Seventeen at once, and which he did without Precedent because it was without Concern.

I beg all I have offended that they will forgive me for Jesus Christ’s Sake, my only Mediator and Advocate, To whom with the Father and the holy Spirit, be all Adoration, Praise, Glory, Dominion and Power for ever.  Amen.

DAVID MORGAN.

July 30.
   1746.

p. 32The few particulars of those unfortunate gentlemen that appeared in the Scots and in the Gentleman’s Magazines, for the year 1746, were unquestionably derived in a great measure from a pamphlet that was published, shortly after their execution, entitled, “A Genuine Acc^t. of the behaviour, &c., of Francis Towneley,” &c.  This pamphlet was characterised by considerable political virulence; and, like all the publications of that turbulent period, sought to defame the unfortunate Jacobites, and to cover their memories with odium.  To defend them from such attacks and unjust aspersions would, at that period, have been highly dangerous, and justice could not possibly have been done to their memories; but now when more than a century has elapsed since their deaths, and the asperities of party feeling which then prevailed have wholly disappeared, and, by the majority of our countrymen, are scarcely known to have ever existed, their reputations should be relieved from the unjust calumnies that have so long been suffered to attach to them; and the chivalric bravery with which these, and scores of other unhappy Jacobites, laid down their lives on the scaffold, cannot fail to awaken the sympathy and admiration of every Englishman.  These brave but ill-fated men, without one exception, faced death with such undaunted firmness as to excite the wonder, sympathy, and respect of the multitudes who attended their executions.  Though differing in age, social position, education, and habits, in their demeanour and proceedings on the scaffold, the most perfect similarity was exhibited; for, as Sir Walter Scott says, [32]

“They prayed for the exiled family, expressed their devotion to the cause in which they died, and particularly their admiration of the princely leader whom they had followed till their attachment conducted them to this dreadful fate.  It may be justly questioned whether the lives of these men, supposing everyone of them to have been an apostle of Jacobitism, could have done so much to prolong their doctrines as the horror and loathing inspired by so many bloody punishments.”

p. 33In the pamphlet [33] to which I have referred, the character of David Morgan is described to have been singularly unamiable and arbitrary.  That such was the worst that could be said of him by one who wrote as the advocate and apologist of the dominant party, and the partisan of the ruthless government that doomed him and his ill-fated friends to death, and with whom it was regarded as a political necessity to traduce their characters, and hold them up to public odium, seems to me to afford very conclusive evidence that no discreditable stain rested on his name that even a hireling scribe could distort into a calumny.

The account given of him in the “Genuine Account” is here subjoined in its entirety:—

“Being naturally of a haughty turbulent disposition, his neighbours, tenants, and domesticks, were continually plagued with his ill-humours.  But to sum up his character in a few words; he was a morose husband, a tyrannical master, a litigious neighbour, an oppressive landlord, and a false friend.  He had pride without the least condescension, avarice without a spark of generosity, illnature without a grain of benevolence.  But what his virtues and better qualities were, (if he had any,) has not come to our knowledge.  If they had, we should gladly have mentioned them; that the world might not run away with an opinion, that Mr. Morgan was the only man who ever lived half a century without doing one good action, and that he died unlamented by friend, neighbour, or domestick.”

It appears to me that those aspersions on the unhappy man’s character and disposition are fully refuted by the whole tenor of his conduct during his imprisonment, and at his execution; coupled with the fact that none of the traditions existing in Glamorganshire regarding him are such as in any degree justify, or lend the slightest confirmation to, those representations of his enemies.  The affection and untiring devotion of his wife, who constantly attended him in his prison, his profound religious convictions during his confinement, the impressive and fervent manner in which he read and prayed to his unhappy companions at the place of execution, and the love p. 34and respect with which they evidently regarded him, furnish very convincing testimony to the goodness of his disposition, and the rectitude of his principles.  The references which he makes to his wife and daughter in his last address also show that the relations existing between them were of the most affectionate nature, and do not admit of the remotest inference that any harshness or unkindness had ever been exhibited towards them by the hapless husband and father; who, had such been the case, would naturally, in the last few hours left to him on earth, have sought their forgiveness.  But, though he does actually beseech them to forgive him, it is “for involving them in my misfortunes, and having an undeserved share in them;” and I entertain a decided conviction that his only crime, if crime it were, was that of sacrificing his life and property in the effort to establish the principles that had probably been instilled into his mind from his earliest years, and in endeavouring to place on the throne of his ancestors the Prince whom he had been taught to regard as the only rightful and legitimate King.

The materials that exist for a biographical sketch of David Morgan are extremely few, and very scanty in their nature.  He appears to have belonged to a family of considerable respectability in the county of Glamorgan, and to have descended from a branch of the distinguished house of Tredegar, Sir Thomas Morgan, Knt., [34] of Penycoed Castle, in Monmouthshire, whose son James married the grand-daughter and heiress of Morgan Jenkin Bevan Meirick, of Coed-y-gorres.  The father of David Morgan was Thomas, the second son of William Morgan, gent., who was described, in 1678, as the heir of Coed-y-gorres; and who, in the year 1680, when his kinsman, p. 35Thomas Morgan, Esq., of Lanrumney, was sheriff of Glamorganshire, filled the office of under-sheriff.  In the year 1682, when the sheriff was Rowland Deere, Esq., of Wenvoe, the under-sheriff appears to have been Thomas Morgan, of Coed-y-gorres, the younger brother.  And again, in the following year, (1683,) the sheriff being Thomas Lewis, Esq., of Lanishen, the position of under-sheriff was held for the second time by William Morgan, of Coed-y-gorres.

The eldest son of this William Morgan was also named William, and married Elizabeth, daughter of Henry Probert, Esq., of the Argoed, in Penalt, whose wife was the daughter of Thomas Morgan, Esq., of Machen, a cadet of the ancient house of Tredegar.  This gentleman left three sons, named William, Henry, and Thomas, who, in the year 1722, appear respectively to have filled the offices of sheriff, under-sheriff, and county clerk of Glamorganshire.

At this time it is to be presumed that friendly relations existed between the brothers.  Their father had died in January, 1718; but his widow survived until the year 1726, when disputes appear to have arisen between the children respecting the payment of legacies, and the distribution of the personalty.  William Morgan had vested his property in trustees, of whom there were three, viz., Henry Probert, Esq., of Pantglas, Michael Richards, and Robert Howell, gentlemen; but the two first named gentlemen appear to have died before the widow.  Legal proceedings were commenced at the court of great sessions for the counties of Glamorgan, Brecon, and Radnor, in April, 1731; and only terminated in 1736, by an appeal to the House of Lords.  The cases of the appellant and respondents are in my possession, and I find therein a brief reference to David Morgan, (who appears to have had some money transactions with the deceased uncle,) which I shall extract.  It occurs in the respondent’s case: [35]—

“That £197 15s., due on four notes and a bond from p. 36David Morgan to the said testator, and included as part of the said £1453 18s. 10d., was, by an account stated between the said David Morgan, and the said Elizabeth Morgan, and the respondent William Morgan, struck off there being a balance of £65 charged to be paid due to the said David Morgan, over and above the money due on the said notes and Bond.”

As before stated, the second son of William Morgan (described in the annexed pedigree as heir of Coed-y-gorres in 1678,) was Thomas, who married Dorothy, the daughter of David Mathew, Esq., of Llandaff, by his wife Joan, the daughter of Sir Edward Stradling, Bart., of St. Donat’s.  The only issue of this marriage, so far as I have been able to ascertain, was David Morgan, the unfortunate subject of this paper; and who thus appears to have been closely allied to the two distinguished families of Mathew and Stradling, then among the most wealthy and influential in Wales.

The Mathew family boasted of an illustrious descent, being derived from Gwaethvoed, Prince of Cardigan; and one of their direct ancestors being Sir David Mathew, of Llandaff, who was one of the most distinguished men of his time, and was made grand Standard-Bearer of England by Edward IV.

The Stradlings, again, traced their descent, in unbroken succession, from Sir William le Esterling, (which name became corrupted to Stradling,) one of the twelve Norman knights associated with Robert Fitzhamon, the cousin of William II. (Rufus), in the conquest of Glamorgan.  As his share of the conquered district, Sir William le Esterling obtained the castle and manor of St. Donat’s, with other extensive possessions.  Sir Thomas Stradling, the last of the name, continued to reside at St. Donat’s; but died, a childless man, at Montpellier, in France, on the 27th of September, 1738; and was buried at St. Donat’s on the 19th of March, 1739.

David Mathew, Esq., of Llandaff, the father of Dorothy Morgan, was likewise the father of Brigadier-General Edward Mathews, and the grand-father of the p. 37well known Admiral Mathews, who was thus the first cousin of David Morgan.  Admiral Mathews contested the county of Glamorgan with Sir Charles Kemys Tynte, of Cefen Mabley, and was elected by a majority of 47.  The election was held at Cardiff, and commenced on the 2nd of January, 1744, the poll extending over nine days.

Though possessed of no proof that such was the case, I strongly suspect that the father of David Morgan acquired Penygraig by his marriage to Dorothy Mathews.  But I have not been able to learn whether he ever resided there, nor where his son was born, though the period of his birth must have been 1695, or 1696.  His father, being the second son, would naturally have removed from Coed-y-gorres after his marriage; and it is probable that Penygraig became his residence.  Where David was educated does not appear; but it is clear that he received a liberal education.

Having studied law, and passed through the prescribed formalities, he was, in regular course, called to the bar.  But the author of the “Genuine Account,” whether truly or not cannot be clearly known, states that “not making a shining figure there, he retired into the country, and, after his father’s death, lived chiefly on his estate.”  He was, however, well known in the Courts, and had frequently practised at Westminster, and elsewhere; though there is reason to suspect that he never devoted himself very assiduously to the law, and that his predilections, at one period, lay more in a military direction.  In the speech which he made at his trial, when referring to the evidence that showed him to have been the confidential adviser of the Pretender, and his being designated the “Pretender’s Counsellor,” he remarked, “as to my capacity as one bred to the law, I confess that I never pretended to much knowledge that way, and therefore was a very improper person to counsel the chief of the rebels, for my advice could be of little value to him.” [37]

From the same source, combined with the fact of his p. 38readiness to join the army of the Pretender, I draw the inference of his military tendencies; for, he further observes, that he had “served the Crown of England in two campaigns with some reputation.” [38a]  But no further information has been obtained with respect to his movements and proceedings, while engaged with the army, beyond the fact that he was frequently addressed as “Captain” Morgan.

He likewise appears to have taken rather an active share in the political discussions of the day, and to have been a prominent member of the club of independent electors of Westminster; for I learn that, after his execution, two pamphlets where published on the assumed appearance of his ghost at the club.  Nor did he confine himself to political questions, for poetry and polemics were somewhat incongruously blended in his studies.  Horace Walpole speaks of him as “Morgan, a poetical lawyer;” [38b] and it will be remembered that in the paper delivered to the sheriffs at the execution, he states, “this my faith I have fully set forth in a poem of two books, entitled, ‘The Christian Test or the Coalition of Faith and Reason,’ the first of which I have already published, and the latter I have bequeathed to the care of my unfortunate but dutiful daughter, Mistress Mary Morgan, to be published by her, since it has pleased God I shall not live to see it.”

In addition to his estate in Wales, he possessed some valuable leasehold property in St. Leonard’s, Shoreditch, which, most probably, was acquired by his marriage; for his wife, whose maiden name I have not succeeded in ascertaining, was a London lady.  It is not clear whether he left more than one child living at his death; for though he refers to his daughter Mary Morgan only, in the pedigree of Mathews, of Llandaff, [38c] his daughter and p. 39heiress is designated “Jane,” which, most probably, was an error, and the name should have been “Mary.”  This lady had died unmarried prior to the year 1798, (but how long previously I am unable to determine,) and her estates in the county of Glamorgan were, at that date, held in trust for John William, son of John Chittingden, of Tooting, Surrey, who was then only three years of age, as her heir-at-law, and co-heir with William Morgan Thomas, [39a] of Lanedern, in the county of Glamorgan, whose age was then twenty-two years.  It thus appears probable that the property of Morgan either escaped confiscation, or was restored to his daughter on the passing of the act for the restoration of the forfeited estates.

It has already been stated that Penygraig [39b] is now an ordinary Welsh farm-house; and Coed-y-gorres [39c] has long been reduced to the same condition; while their connection with David Morgan, and the recollection of his tragical fate, are only retained in a few shadowy traditions that are rapidly fading out of remembrance.

Glanwern, Pontypool,
         Dec., 1861.

p. 40PEDIGREE OF DAVID MORGAN, ESQUIRE, BARRISTER-AT-LAW.

[40]

FOOTNOTES.

[7]  The “Young Pretender,” as he was generally designated.  He was the son of James Frederick Edward Stuart, usually called the “Old Pretender,” and grandson of James II.

[9]  Williams’s History of Monmouthshire.

[10]  Cambrian Quarterly Magazine, vol. i. pp. 212, 213.  1829.

[11]  This shows the early hours that prevailed in those days.

[12]  Cambrian Quarterly Magazine, vol. ii. 1830.

[14a]  Referring to the exclusion of Welshmen from Welsh Bishoprics it is remarked in a pamphlet, published in 1831, that “this system is said to have originated in the resentment of King William against the Jacobite principles of the native Welsh Clergy.”—Prize Essay on the Causes which have produced Dissent in Wales, p. 26.

[14b]  Chambers’s History of the Rebellion, vol. i. p. 233.

[15a]  Chambers’s History of the Rebellion, vol. i. p. 309.

[15b]  Lord Mahon’s History of England.

[15c]  Forbes’s Jacobite Memoirs, p. 55.

[15d]  Lord Mahon’s History of England.

[16]  Lord Elcho’s MS. Account.

[17a]  Jacobite Memoirs.

[17b]  Howell’s State Trials, vol. xviii. p. 371.

[19]  Howell’s State Trials, vol. xviii.

[20a]  Few families have been greater sufferers through their loyalty and faithful adherence to their religion than the Towneleys.  Francis Towneley was the fifth son of Richard Towneley, of Towneley, county of Lancaster, and was born in 1709.  His eldest brother, Richard, participated in the Rebellion of 1715, but though tried for the offence, he had the good fortune to escape.  The third brother, John, entered the French service; and became tutor to the young Pretender.  John Towneley distinguished himself by translating Hudibras into French, and exhibited therein a remarkable knowledge of the language.  The grandson of Richard, the eldest brother, and the twenty-ninth possessor of Towneley from Spartingus, Dean of Whalley, temp. Alfred the Great, was Charles Towneley, to whose refined taste we owe the well known collection, the “Towneley Marbles,” which was purchased by the nation, for the British Museum, for the sum of £20,000.

[20b]  The despicable Murray, of Broughton, who acted as the Pretender’s Secretary.

[21]  Howell’s State Trials, vol. xviii.

[22]  The Pretenders and their Adherents.

[23a]  Scots Magazine, 1746.

[23b]  Howell’s State Trials, vol. xviii.

[24a]  Scots Magazine, 1760.

[24b]  Authentic Account, 1760,

[24c]  Howell’s State Trials, vol. xviii.

[25]  Scots Magazine, 1760.

[26]  Works of William Shenstone, vol. i. p. 179.

[27a]  Thomson’s Memoirs of the Jacobites, vol. iii. p. 415.

[27b]  Chambers’s History of the Rebellion, vol. ii. p. 233.

[27c]  Authentic copies of the papers wrote by Arthur Lord Balmerino, and others, and delivered to the sheriffs at the places of execution, 1746.

[32]  Tales of a Grandfather, vol. iii. p. 324.

[33]  A Genuine Account, &c.

[34]  In the reign of Edward IV., Morgan Jenkin Phillip was possessor of Pencoed.  He married Margaret, daughter of Thomas Scudamore, of Kentchurch, and great-grand-daughter of Owen Glendower.  Leland says, “Morgan the Knight of Low Wentlande, dwelling at Pencoite, a fair manor place, a mile from Bist, alias Bishopston, and two mile from Severn Sei.  He is of a younger brother’s house.”

[35]  Particulars privately printed for the House of Lords.

[37]  Howell’s State Trials, vol. xviii.

[38a]  Howell’s State Trials, vol. xviii.

[38b]  Letters of Horace Walpole, Earl of Oxford, to Sir Horace Mann, vol. ii. p. 166.

[38c]  MSS. of Sir Isaac Heard, privately printed by Sir Thomas Phillipps, Bart.

[39a]  Ann, the third daughter of William Morgan, Esq., of Coed-y-gorres, (who died in 1762,) married John Thomas, of Fyn Fynon, in the parish of Llanedern, Glamorganshire, and had one son, William Morgan Thomas.  The representatives of this gentleman appear to have subsequently resided at a place called Llanarthan, in the parish of St. Mellon’s, Monmouthshire; and some of them were very recently living.

[39b]  I have been informed that after Morgan’s death this place came into the possession of Mathews, of Llandaff, and was sold by a member of that family to an ancestor of the present Colonel William Mark Wood, who now owns it.  And this seems very probable, as I find that Penycoed, in Monmouthshire, now the seat of the Morgans, having been purchased by Admiral Mathews, was sold, about the year 1800, by his grandson, John Mathews, Esq., to Colonel Wood of Piercefield; and Penygraig may have been disposed of at the same time.

[39c]  Coed-y-gorres is now the property of the son of the late Rev. Windsor Richards, Rector of St. Andrew’s, and of St. Lythen’s, in the county of Glamorgan; but how acquired I am not able to show.

[40]  For those unable to see the diagram it is given in text below.—DP.

Treharne Thomas ap Blethyn, of Lanedern, Gent.==Mallt, d. and h. of Morgan Jenkin Bevan Meirick, of Coed-y-gorres.  They had issue Mallt, d. and h.

[1st Wife . . . ==Sir Thomas Morgan, of Pencoed, Knt.==. . . Widow of . . . Powell.  The second marriage had issue James Morgan.]

James Morgan==Mallt, d. and h.  The had issue Morgan James, of Coed-y-gorres.

Morgan James, of Coed-y-gorres, Gent.==Maud, d. to Watkin William David ap Gwylym Jenkin Herbert, of Gwern Ddu.  They had issue William Morgan James.

William Morgan James, of Coed-y-gorres, Gent.==Catherine, d. and coheiress to Lewis ap Rees ap Morgan Prees Yychan, of Lancaiach Yssa.  They had issue William, O. S. P. and Catherine, d. and h.

Catherine, d. and h.==John, great-grandson to Sir Thomas Gamage, of Coyty, Knt.  They had issue Thomas Morgan.

Thomas Morgan, of Coed-y-gorres, Gent., baptised 1st Jan. 1609==Margaret, d. to Evan Thomas Bevan Meirick, of Eglwysilan, Gent.

William Morgan, Gent., heir of Coed-y-gorres in the year 1678==M. Elizabeth, d. to Watkin Thomas, Gent.

Thomas Morgan, of Coed-y-gorres, Gent., baptised 1st Jan. 1609==Margaret, d. to Evan Thomas Bevan Meirick, of Eglwysilan, Gent.  They had issue William Morgan, Gent.

William Morgan, Gent., heir of Coed-y-gorres in the year 1678==M. Elizabeth, d. to Watkin Thomas, Gent.  They had issue William Morgan of Coed-y-gorres; Thomas Morgan, second son, of Coed-y-gorres; and two other sons, and five daughters.

William Morgan of Coed-y-gorres==Elizabeth, d. to Henry Probert, of the Argoed, in Penalt, Esq.

[David Mathew, of Llandaff, Esq., 1678==Joan, d. of Sir Edmund Stradling, of St. Donat’s, Bart.  They had issue Dorothy]

Thomas Morgan, second son, of Coed-y-gorres==Dorothy.  They had issue David Morgan, Barrister

David Morgan, Barrister, executed on Kennington Common, 1746==. . . d. of . . . of London.  They had issue Mary (?) d. and h.  O. S. P.