July 30.
1746.
The 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 Acct. 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.”
In 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 and 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, Thomas 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 David 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 well 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 readiness 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 heiress 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.