Part 3

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.