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

                   [Picture: Public domain book cover]





                              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.

                                * * * * *




DAVID 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.

In 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 out 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.  For, 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 sacrifices, 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, throughout 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 escaped 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 show 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, its 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 ye time and place to
    our names respectively affixed, and to observe the rules following,
    viz.

    Imprs.  Every member of this society shall, for default of his
    appearance, submit to be censur’d, and shall thereupon be censur’d by
    the judgmt of the society.

    2ndly.  Every member yt 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.

    3rdly.  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.

    4thly.  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.

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

    6thly.  It is agreed yt a general meeting shall be held by all ye
    subscribers at the house of Daniel Porter, Junr. holden in Wrexham,
    on the 1st day of May, 1724, by 11 of ye 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 21st (eldest son of Sir Roger Puleston, of
    Emral).
    Rich. Clayton, June 11th.
    Eubule Lloyd, (of Penyllan,) July 2nd.
    Robtt. Ellis, July 23rd.
    W. Wms. Wynn, (of Wynnstay,) Augt. 13th
    Jno. Puleston, (of Pickhill,) Sep. 3rd.
    Thos. Eyton, (of Leeswood,) Sep. 24th.
    Wm. Edwards, Oct. 15th
    Thomas Holland, Nov. 6th.
    Ken Eyton, (of Eyton,) Nov. 26th.
    Phil. Egerton, (of Oulton,) Dec. 17th.
    Jno. Robinson, (of Gwersyllt,) Jany. 8th.
    Geo. Shackerly, (of Gwersyllt,) Jany. 29th.
    Robt. Davies, (of Gwyssany,) Feb. 19th.
    John Puleston, (of Hafod y Wern,) March 13th.
    Broughton Whitehall, (of Broughton,) April 3rd.
    Wm. Hanmer, April 24th, 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,
   Since 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;
   May 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 into 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 were 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
called 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.

The 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 has 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 on 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; and 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 has 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
grand 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 Chadwick, 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 whom 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 that 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 present 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.

    A 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 Regard 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; and 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_,
    since 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.

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.




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


                 [Picture: Pedigree of David Morgan] {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.