Chapter II: Part 2

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.