Common Understanding
Many people, particularly residents of Caerleon, are familiar with the legend that is Charles Williams. Born into a prosperous family at Castle House in Caerleon, it is said he fought a duel with his cousin Edmund Morgan of Penrhos, sought sanctuary in the Church, fled the country, made a fortune in the Levant as a fig trader and, with the help of friends, bought his pardon from Queen Anne, returning to England and settling in London. This has become folklore over time and has been recounted in one form or another by various historians. Some have ventured to prove the story and, in doing so, have found little evidence of his early life and how he made his fortune.
I will not try to prove or disprove this legend; just constructively challenge parts of the Legend and question some elements of it. Modern research techniques, including use of the internet and easier access to old records, allow for a more analytical approach.
The Legend was first recorded by Archdeacon Coxe in 1798/99[1], nearly 80 years after the death of Charles. This was almost certainly related to him by Capel Hanbury Leigh, the proprietor of Pontypool House at the time of his visit, whilst perusing Charles’ portrait, which he remarked “was indifferently painted”. Capel Hanbury Leigh (1776-1861) was the grandson of Capel Hanbury (1707-1765) and great grandson of Major John Hanbury (1664-1734). He could not have been told the story by either of these forefathers and was only eight years old when his own father, John Hanbury (1744-1784), died, so far removed from his generation that it was hardly that important to impart on someone so young. Had he done so, it may have been told in such a way that would be related to a young child. Therefore, it is likely that it was told to him by one of the Hanbury Williams family, and the incumbent of the Coldbrook Estate [2] at that time was Jack Hanbury Williams (1749-1819). Alternatively, it may have been related to him by one of the other landed families of Monmouthshire such as the Morgans’ or Herberts’.
Rev. Coxe also visited Caerleon on his Tour. Upon visiting St. Cadoc’s Church, “the old clerk” (possibly the vicar or curate) remarked upon Charles Williams’ generous bounty and that he had bequeathed £1,000 to the Church (which was actually £3,000 for the Church and roads leading to the township). This account states that Charles returned from Smyrna in the reign of King William and lived in London incognito. William did not reign alone until 1694, the year that Charles first subscribed to the Bank of England and in the public domain; hardly incognito. Besides which, if “the old clerk” made a mistake about the size of the bequest, it calls into doubt the accuracy of his other comments.
Bradney has confidently identified and recorded that the Edmund Morgan who was allegedly killed in the duel was half-brother to Charles Morgan of Lansor (Glansor) Fawr, a manor house someway along the turnpike road from Caerleon to Cwrt Bleddyn on the underside of the Llanhennock ridge.
The Legend can be broken down into three distinct phases;
The duel; Charles seeking sanctuary and his escape, and finally The Pardon and return to these shores.
Duel
It is said that Charles killed his cousin, Edmund Morgan of Penrhos, in a duel. Both parties were regarded as ‘gentlemen’ and duels between gentlemen were not uncommon.
However, should the duel result in death, English Common Law applied, and the survivor could face trial for Murder. Often, the outcome of any trial was a verdict of Manslaughter, although many were acquitted by jury. The duel was based on a code of honour, which provided a level of satisfaction to the offended party and was not necessarily for the purpose of killing his opponent. This restored his honour by demonstrating a willingness to risk his life for it. Therefore, the tradition of duelling was originally reserved for the male members of nobility. This form of single combat became popular in England around 1570.
The duel was originally fought with swords, but as the wearing of swords grew less common, around the 1720’s, it evolved into the use of pistols by the mid eighteenth century. Sword fighting skills varied from one person to another so hardly provided a level of equality.
In the first half of the 17th century, the duel was discouraged by successive kings, James I (VI of Scotland) and Charles I and went through a decline in the reign of the latter, and during the Commonwealth, only to see a revival after the Restoration.[3]
Little is known of Edmund Morgan of Penrhos, a property which is situated on the north side of Caerleon just off the Usk road. Some years ago a sword was found on a patch of land known as the Island, where the Afon Llwyd joins the River Usk, and it was displayed in the Newport Museum. Had someone decided this was the weapon used in the duel? The history of duelling would suggest that any duel in that period was fought with swords, not pistols, although believing this was the weapon used in a 17th century duel is very imaginative.
The Morgan family, at that time, was very large, with numerous branches, living in various mansion or manor houses around Monmouthshire and Glamorgan, none less than Tredegar House, Ruperra and Llantarnam. The Caerleon area of Monmouthshire was no exception, there were Morgans living at Penrhos and at nearby Llanhennock – in Lansor Fawr and Pencrug.
Bradney’s genealogical work of the early 20th century shows the father of Edmund, a Thomas Morgan of Lansor, living at Penrhos aged 72 in 1683. He was Sheriff of Monmouthshire in 1679 and was descended from the Llantarnam branch of the family, through his father George Morgan. Thomas married twice, firstly to Cecily Griffith of Llanyrafon, with whom he had three children, and secondly to Florence Morgan, a distant cousin of Penllwyn Sarph, near Pontllanfraith, Monmouthshire. Thomas and Florence also had three children, the second of which was Edmund.
Edmund was married to Mary Smith of Nash, they had children and their heiress was Anne who married a Henry Morgan of Penllwyn Sarph, again a distant cousin.
As far as understanding his relationship with Charles Williams, it appears that this was through Charles’ great uncle, William Thomas. William Thomas became the second husband of Margaret, widow of Edward Prosser of Lansor. Her daughter, Catherine Prosser, married George Morgan of Llantarnam, grandfather of Edmund. Therefore, they were distant cousins through marriage.
If the duel took place, who challenged whom and for what reason? It could not have been about a lady as Edmund was married with children, so was it an insult or a debt, perhaps? Was it really a duel? Could it even have been a tragic accident?
Crucially, when did the duel take place? Charles came of age in the mid 1650’s, therefore it probably happened after that time. Bradney’s work draws you to the year 1670, which was when Charles was in his late thirties. This does not seem an unrealistic date although there isn’t an account of what Charles was doing throughout his twenties. It may well be that this was the period he was working with the Mansell family. It should be noted that Edmund Morgan was of a similar age to Charles, therefore there may even have been a friendship between them.
Finally, what is Bradney’s source for the duel and the year it took place? It must be in the family rolls and records of the Morgan family that he was allowed unrestricted access to whilst researching his History of Monmouthshire, which is probably the reason he notes it with confidence. The Morgan families may have recorded the duel and the cause of Edmund Morgan’s death in 1670. I believe this to be confirmatory evidence that this part of the Legend, or some other form of altercation, actually occurred.
Sanctuary and Escape
The second part of the Legend suggests that Charles sought sanctuary in the Church and was secreted away to find his fortune in Smyrna. It is not unreasonable to accept that Charles was given sanctuary in the Church, (St. Cadoc’s Church, Caerleon) although he would have needed a sympathetic clergyman. This may well have been the case as, in old age, Charles was to generously pay for the living of the vicar and provide substantial funds for the Church. How long this period of sanctuary may have lasted is not known.
Escape from the country would have been reasonably straightforward. Bristol, at that time, was a major port and, as an example of its trade, was used by the Levant Company to import goods from the Mediterranean. Charles could have easily made his way to the Port of Bristol, by boat from the wharf at Caerleon or by ferry boat from near Chepstow to the other side of the River Severn. This was around the time that the “old passage”, from Beachley to Aust, was being regarded as less safe than the “new passage” from Portskewett to Pilning.
He would have needed the necessary finance for the voyage and the capital to set himself up in business, and he did have private means from the proceeds of the sale of his inherited properties. If he went to the eastern Mediterranean he must have been given contacts in the Levant to act as a trader that could buy the figs from the producers, arrange transport to buyers and for someone to sell the goods on to a wholesaler, or even invest in his own fig tree farms. Again, the English port is likely to have been Bristol, where he may have lived for some time before setting off to the Mediterranean. If he lived in the Levant he would have needed an agent in England and, perhaps, other countries. He was very familiar with Bristol port as one of his letters to Major John Hanbury many years later asked if he would buy him some Poor Jack – Newfoundland salted cod landed there. Alternatively, he may have initially gone to London, perhaps via Bristol.
Further anecdotal evidence of his trade comes from Professor Tone Sundt Urstad, a Norwegian expert on Literature that includes the works of Sir Charles Hanbury-Williams, godson of Charles, who had said in one of his letters that he was “more fond of figs than other fruits.” He could hardly be blamed for celebrating the fruit considered to be the likely source of his inherited wealth.
Where was Smyrna? Reverting again to Coxe, he is quite specific about the place where Charles made his fortune. Smyrna was the former name of the modern day Turkish city of Izmir. It had developed into a major port on the Aegean Sea and traded mainly in agricultural products. Multicultural, with many languages spoken, it was a hive of activity in the mid to late 17th century. Smyrna was just to the north of the Levant, a biblical name for the area that stretched along the eastern Mediterranean coast as far as Alexandria in Egypt.
Pardon and Return
Finally, to the third and final part of the Legend. Previous research by Eija Kennerley [4] suggests that there is no record of a Pardon by Queen Anne, who reigned from 1702 until 1714. That a pardon went unrecorded is unlikely. This period does, however, coincide with Charles’ association with Major John Hanbury whose wife is believed to have used her friendship with the Duchess of Marlborough to influence the Queen. If many years had elapsed between the duel and his return, could this have been a reason to overlook his role in another’s demise?
There is evidence that Charles Williams was a first subscriber to the Bank of England when formed in 1694, a venture of the Whig Party, the influence of which suggested this is where Charles’ political beliefs lay. This places Charles in London at that time, which is further supported by his purchase, three years before, of the property in Bow Street. It is possible that he may have returned to these shores in the late 1680’s, although he has a London address as early as 1676, lending money to Sir Herbert Evans of Pencreeke. In Philip Jenkins’ book, “The Making of a Ruling Class – The Glamorgan Gentry, 1640-1790”, he refers to “the immensely wealthy Charles Williams’ return from the Mediterranean to bolster the Whigs.” The chapter begins in 1688, which adds weight to my earlier suggestion of his Whig sympathies and his possible return date of the late 1680s, although this does not explain his London presence in 1676.
There is clear evidence that Charles was very active in providing loans to associates and to the Government. His Bank of England subscription shows his keen eye for a good investment, as he was an early subscriber and entitled to a rebate and had a substantial balance when the Bank paid their special 50th dividend of 10%.
All this suggests that there may not have been a long extended period after 1670 when Charles was abroad, although he may well have had a base in both London and his foreign place of trade.
Eija Kennerley found evidence that adds further intrigue to Charles’ trade and source of his wealth. Reference has already been made to Charles’ great uncle William Thomas and his wealth being derived from his trade as a Mercer. In the year 1679, on the 31st July, a Charles Williams, hosier, was paid a substantial sum by the Treasury “for stockings to his Grace the Duke of Monmouth’s soldiers in his Graces own Regiment.”[5] This could have possibly been our Charles Williams, although highly unlikely. Hosiers belonged to the Framework Knitters Company, but there is no suggestion anywhere that Charles Williams belonged to that. This information teases the mind as Monmouth led an unsuccessful rebellion in 1685 to overthrow James II (VII of Scotland), which was achieved three years later in the Glorious Revolution that brought William and Mary to the throne. Charles Williams, as referred to earlier, was sympathetic to the religious cause that brought this about.
In conclusion, I believe the Legend has some merit and there is support for some aspects of it. There is a strong case to suggest something occurred in 1670 that caused the untimely death of Edmund Morgan around the time that Charles left Caerleon although nothing to confirm that they were party to an altercation or duel. The fact that there are not any Public Records relating to Charles between 1676 and 1691, suggests an extended period of absence from this country. However, there is little evidence of how he acquired his fortune, other than in later years through lending money to the government and to his friends, together with his Godson’s reference to “figs”. Nor is there evidence of his return to these shores or a possible pardon.
I believe it is safe to conclude that following the death of his father and his older brother taking over the Caerleon property, followed almost immediately by the sale of his inheritance, Charles took his leave. Whether this was accelerated by an altercation with his cousin will remain unknown. It appears that he took residence in London at some time before going abroad, presumably making his fortune, as by the early 1690’s he is lending to the Mansells. Thereafter, the Public Records resume and we know a lot more about his life.
One of the downsides of conducting detailed research is that it has the effect of removing the romance from the tale of bygone Caerleon and its benefactor. I am sure that many people may prefer to retain their own version of the Legend.
[1] Tour in Monmouthshire – Archdeacon Coxe
[2] The Mansion House bought from the Hanbury Williams Trust for Sir Charles Hanbury Williams, Godson of Charles Williams
[3] Shoemaker, R.B. (2002) The taming of the duel: masculinity, honour and ritual violence in London, 1660–1800. The Historical Journal, 45 (3).
[4] Gwent Local History article 44 dated 1978 by Eija Kennerley
[5] National Archives, Kew PRO/T/51/29
Charles Williams of Caerleon 