The Lawyer: Edward Morgan (I) of Goldgreave, Flintshire

To understand the Jacobean duel at the heart of our story, we must first reconstruct the protagonists’ backgrounds. This involves an exercise in family history which goes beyond the minutiae of genealogy to contextualise and explain the dynamics of the feud from which the duel arose. The Welsh dimension of the duel which focuses on Edward Morgan (I) of Goldgreave, the father of the duellist who also shared his name, is discussed in this section. It is a narrative of social advancement and the accumulation of wealth and influence. It is the story of an individual taking advantage of the opportunities afforded by the sixteenth century union of England and Wales, and a tale of personal ambition and the politics of marriage and kinship.

The Morgan family home at Goldgreave (also called ‘Gwylgre’, or ‘Golden Grove’) was situated in north-east Wales on Flintshire's northern border near the Dee Estuary. It lay in the parish of Llanasa in Prestatyn Hundred. Flintshire had been carved out of the lands of the defeated princes of Gwynedd by Edward I in 1284. It had close administrative and legal bonds with the county palatine of Chester and was placed under the control of Chester's justiciar. These ties continued after Henry VIII's reorganisation of Welsh justice and administration in the 1530s and 1540s, with Chester's Chief Justice presiding over Flintshire's great sessions court (the equivalent of the assizes found in English shires). The Morgans claimed ties with the old rulers of Gwynedd through their descent from Ednyfed Fychan, seneschal to Llywelyn the Great and progenitor of many of north Wales's leading families in the early modern period, including the Tudors themselves. They were not of the first order of families in Tudor Flintshire like the Hanmers, Mostyns and Salusburys, however, and did not feature on the county bench of justices in the decades after that body was established in 1541.

At the heart of this book is the most fully documented duel in early modern England. This was the fatal confrontation which occurred on the morning of 21 April 1610 between John Egerton, younger son of a prominent Cheshire family, and Edward Morgan, heir of a substantial estate in Flintshire, north east Wales. Their fight took place a short distance outside Highgate, a hamlet situated north of London. In this encounter John Egerton was killed, run-through (although how many times becomes a point of contention) with a sword. Egerton's opponent, Edward Morgan, was pursued by the Middlesex authorities, apprehended and subsequently brought to trial before King's Bench on a charge of murder. Despite irregularities in the investigation and prosecution of the case, Morgan was convicted and would have been executed by hanging but for his powerful contacts at the Jacobean Court. Able to pull the strings of patronage, Morgan was instead pardoned by King James I and set at liberty, leaving John Egerton's father to lament the ‘hard mesure which hathe ben and is offred me dely; I thynk the lyke was never offred to any so far contray [sic] to law and justes’.

This book uses the wealth of evidence surrounding the Morgan–Egerton encounter to explore in unparalleled detail the experience of duelling and judicial investigation in Jacobean England. By examining the duel's origins, investigation and prosecution, the book also considers issues such as the nature of honour among provincial elites; contemporary understandings of elite violence and the connection of duelling to the feud; the dynamics of family politics and inheritance; the procedures of a Jacobean murder trial; the pervasiveness of litigation in gentry life, and much else besides. This duel also offers an opportunity to reflect on the nature of the historian's task in telling a tale that is partial, fractured and derived largely from a single kind of partisan evidence: legal records. The narrative around which this book is built is full of intrigue, corruption, violence and drama, but it also comes freighted with problems of evidence and its interpretation. The Morgan–Egerton duel, then, provides an opportunity to consider the narrative which can be told about this event as well as to highlight the gaps and omissions in the story which remain beyond our recovery.

John Beaulieu's newsletter to William Trumbull recounting the Morgan– Egerton duel informed him that Edward Morgan had killed John Egerton, after which he ‘scaped himself very narrowly, having had two grievous wounds; whereof though he scape the danger it is thought he will scarce scape that of the gallowes’. This bare relation accurately reported the ‘facts’ of the event: a duel, a death and the pursuit of justice. The business of determining at law what happened in Sow Wood, however, would be much more complex and contested. As in almost all legal cases, there were different versions of events, disputes over their legal categorisation, inconsistent witnesses and contested interpretations. Because the evidence which has come down to us is constituted largely from the legal archive, we find ourselves in very uncertain terrain with our sources offering a variety of perspectives rather than a body of facts from which we can reconstruct confidently the events of 21 April 1610. This uncertainty leaves us in something of a quandary as historians who wish to give an accurate and honest account of the past. It also, however, opens other avenues of enquiry.

The Morgan–Egerton case gives us an opportunity to examine the evidence from a homicide trail arising out of a duel. This is rare enough, but these examinations and depositions also allow us to consider the manner in which understandings of a Jacobean homicide were shaped by contemporary legal categories and deployed in legal argument. The archive from which we must try to understand the duel is fractured and fragmented, conditioned in part by the tactics the respective sides employed to implicate and exonerate. It is an accumulation of contrary positions, a set of often contradictory perspectives. There is still, however, much to be gained in considering the depositional evidence which emerged from the investigation by the Middlesex justices and the coroners. This chapter considers how the narratives of what happened on the morning of 21 April were constructed partly through the discourses and structures of the English legal system and contemporary understandings of the honour code.

The Morgan–Egerton duel has been almost entirely ignored by historians but hopefully this volume has demonstrated that it has much to say to wider historiographical concerns. While we cannot extrapolate too far or too promiscuously from an individual case, this episode nonetheless contributes to our understandings not only of duelling under the early Stuarts, but also to the nature of coronial investigation, the formulation of a murder prosecution and, in a modest way, patronage networks at the Jacobean Court. Considering the duel's contexts, origins and aftermaths has highlighted the prevalence and significance of litigation in the lives of the early Stuart gentry, particularly at the anxious moment of dynastic change. It has also demonstrated how litigation and violence were not necessarily the antithetical categories presented in a good deal of the current literature. This investigation has also explored how gentry honour was variously modulated and expressed over issues such as youthful masculinity, officeholding, the prosecution of lawsuits, the defence of name and family and in religious politics.

One suggestion raised by the foregoing analysis is that scholars might explore further the concept of regional honour cultures among the early modern elite. Historians have generally considered early modern honour as a ‘national’ characteristic common to gentlemen throughout the kingdom of England and Wales. To assume this, however, might be to revitalise some of Mervyn James's more problematic modernising assumptions in his original formulation of early modern honour, with national standards emanating from the centre sublimating and overriding those in the provinces. It also, of course, reproduces whiggish narratives of the rise of the nation state and the spread of ‘civilisation’ through the repression of violence and martial attitudes. While we should not in turn revive outmoded conceptions of a ‘backwards’ and isolated periphery adhering to chivalric ideals against a progressive centre, there is nonetheless room for scepticism about the homogeneity of national honour cultures as presented in much recent scholarship. The visibility of duelling in the great sessions records of Cheshire and Flintshire, the praise poetry offered to John Salusbury following his Elizabethan duel and the emergence of the duellists John Egerton and Edward Morgan themselves, suggest that the northern Welsh Marches may have constituted one such particularist region within the geographies of early modern English and Welsh elite honour.

The challenges exchanged in 1608 show Edward Morgan and John Egerton to have been among the growing number of gentlemen drawn to the culture of the duel. Formal challenges and duels were not exclusive to the gentry and nobility, but the culture of the duel as it developed in England and Wales during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was modelled primarily on elite interactions. The governors of Jacobean England and Wales were particularly exercised about the issue of duelling which was seen as becoming dangerously prevalent among elites. They argued that gentlemen and nobles were spilling their precious blood, which should be esteemed as of greater value than that of ‘ordinary’ persons, on trifling matters of small moment. The Morgan– Egerton challenges and the duel which followed in 1610, then, occurred at a moment of particular interest in and concern about this practice in England and Wales. This was also a time when the homicide rate was climbing; the 1610 duel was part of a crisis of violence which affected England and Wales during the early seventeenth century. This chapter considers the growing popularity of duelling among youthful elites such as John Egerton and Edward Morgan in Elizabethan and Jacobean England and Wales. It reviews some of the historiography on the subject and suggests how the Morgan–Egerton duel, examined in detail in the next chapter, fits in to this picture. The chapter also suggests that a culture of aggressive honour which encouraged duelling may have been prevalent in the northern Welsh Marches in the late Elizabethan and early Jacobean periods. It considers in some detail the example of another duel emerging from the Cheshire–Wales border area in 1593 between members of the Salusbury family which has echoes of the confrontation between the Morgans and Egertons. The chapter also considers the potential relationship between Catholicism and duelling in these episodes and reviews duelling's complex and contested relationship with contemporary ideas of elite honour.

Duelling became increasingly popular in Britain from the last third of the sixteenth century, particularly among elite young men. As we have discussed, there has been a debate over its nature, origins and contemporary significance, although most scholars now acknowledge that duelling was a Renaissance import rather than some recrudescence of medieval chivalric culture.

Although the duel of 1610 was a confrontation between two individuals, John Egerton and Edward Morgan (II), behind them lay groups of family members and kin which helped occasion and perpetuate the breach. The nature of this wider inter-familial conflict was complex and its causes cannot be reduced to a single event. That said, an inheritance dispute beginning in Flintshire in 1606, which Edward Morgan (I) described as a ‘great styrre & adoe’, can be located as the key moment from which the pulses of antagonism and faction informing the Morgan–Egerton clash radiate. To understand the inheritance case and the origins of the Morgan–Egerton feud, we need briefly to introduce another gentry family: the Mostyns. The Mostyn clan was a link common to both the Egertons and the Morgans, but disputes within this large and powerful family served as a corrosive solvent, dissolving bonds of affinity among the local landed orders and producing instead a volatile compound of enmity in Jacobean Flintshire and Cheshire.

Unlike the Morgans of Goldgreave, the Mostyns could unquestionably be numbered among the preeminent families in north-east Wales. Like many Welsh dynasties they could trace their origins back to native princes, but it was their acquisition of estates across north Wales during the sixteenth century that cemented their place close to the top of the local elite. They took their name from the family's principal residence on the Dee Estuary in Flintshire, only a couple of miles east of Goldgreave. In addition to this seat, however, the family established several cadet houses in Flintshire, Caernarvonshire and Anglesey. The branch which holds our attention was that of Talacre, a residence neighbouring Goldgreave in the parish of Llanasa. The founder of this family line was Piers Mostyn, also known as Peter ap Richard ap Hywel, the third son of Richard ap Hywel of Mostyn. He had numerous chil-dren including his heir, also called Piers, as well as a daughter Jane, who became Sir John Egerton's mother. While Sir John was a minor, living with Sir Rowland Stanley of Hooton, this Piers Mostyn, Egerton's grandfather, was one of the local gentry appointed as guardians to look after his interests.

c.1576: Birth of Edward Morgan (II) of Goldgreave.

1 July 1581: Birth of John Egerton of Oulton.

29 January 1606: Death of Piers Mostyn of Talacre.

18–20 February 1606: Initial confrontation at Talacre between followers of Sir John Egerton and Edward Mostyn of Greenfield.

Spring–summer 1606: Clashes between followers of Egerton and Mostyn in and around Talacre and Llanasa.

May 1606: Initial Star Chamber suit of Sir John Egerton (by relation of the Attorney General) against Edward Mostyn.

July 1606: Edward Morgan (II) threatens to stab Sir John or Rowland Egerton in Llanasa church.

February 1607: Sir John Egerton brings a Star Chamber suit against Edward Morgan (I).

c.17 August 1608: An Egerton hunting party near Llanasa loses its hawk and attempts to recover it at Goldreave. Edward Morgan (II) uses ‘vyle & reproachfull speeches’ against Edward Egerton and Sir John Egerton.

18 August 1608: Exchange of challenge letters between Edward Morgan (II) and Edward Egerton.

Late August 1608: John Egerton issues challenge letter to duel to Edward Morgan (II).

Autumn 1608: Edward Morgan (II) sent to Ireland.

Spring 1610: Edward Morgan (II) returns from Ireland to north Wales.

20 April 1610: Edward Morgan (II) meets John Egerton near St James’s, London.

That evening John Egerton issues a challenge to duel to Edward Morgan (II) who accepts.

21 April 1610: Duel at Highgate between Edward Morgan (II) and John Egerton.

Egerton is killed and his second, William Robinson, is apprehended by the authorities.

Edward Morgan (II) is badly wounded but escapes with his younger brother and second, William.

Initial depositions taken by local JP.

22 April 1610: Opening of the coronial inquest at Highgate presided over by Richard Sheppard (coroner for Middlesex) and Thomas Petre (coroner of the Verge).

Examination of John Egerton's body by the surgeon, Alexander Lillington.

Inquest adjourned until 9 May.

John Egerton buried at St Mary’s, Islington.

26 April 1610: Edward Morgan (II) apprehended in Blackfriars.

The depositional evidence discussed in the previous chapter fed into Edward Morgan's trial at King's Bench which took place in June 1610. However, as with so much else in this case, matters there did not prove straightforward. Just as in the coroner's inquest, allegations were made in the trial court of jury tampering and undue influence by the Morgans. In fact, the Egertons’ concerns about the trial's conduct meant that the prosecution at the king's suit was suspended and was superseded by their own private prosecution of Edward Morgan through the unusual process of an ‘appeal of murder’. This was unsuccessful and by a circuitous route Morgan was eventually found guilty of murder on the original indictment, although he was soon pardoned by King James I.

This chapter examines this complex narrative and the fascinating light it throws onto some of the lesser-known corners of English homicide law and process in this period, including the appeal of murder. It also explores the political connections cultivated by the Morgans to frustrate the prosecution and ultimately secure Edward Morgan's release, as well as the Egertons’ efforts to pull strings of their own to see justice done against John Egerton's killer. One suspects that in any criminal suit involving powerful gentlemen of this period questions of patronage and power were involved, although these are usually too obscure to be traced. Although there remain uncertainties about the nature of the Morgan patronage connections in this case, our evidence nonetheless offers some rare and absorbing insights into the ways in which the application of the law in early modern England came up against the countervailing realities of social and political power and influence.

Our discussion of Edward Morgan's trial begins with a colourful account of the opening of proceedings at King's Bench found in the ‘diary’ of the north Walian lawyer and poet, Robert Parry, a Catholic who was likely known to Edward Morgan(I) . Parry was well connected in north Wales gentry society and included in his diary important national and local events, as well as some instances where those two spheres overlapped, as in Edward Morgan's case.

The following list provides the names of the initial twenty-four jurors nominated to try Edward Morgan at King's Bench in June 1610. The final twelve jurors who were selected are indicated by the † symbol. What appear to be Egerton objections to jurors’ inclusion by the use of crosses are indicated by the + symbol. Marginal comments on the Egertons’ copy about the juror's inclusion in the Middlesex sheriff's book of freeholders (which are sometimes conjectural because of damage to the manuscript) are given in square brackets.

Sources: TNA, SP46/174, fol. 116v; HL, Ellesmere MS 218

This chapter examines the complex and contested process of the coronial inquest into John Egerton's death. The inquest was a crucial stage in the gathering of evidence against the accused in a case of homicide but is a relatively obscure area in current scholarship partly because in most cases we have only the official inquest as our record of what occurred. However, in this instance we are fortunate to possess the depositions taken before the coroners as well as accounts of how the court actually operated. The latter emerges partly from a controversy over attempts by the Morgan interest to subvert the course of justice through bribery and by having the inquest moved to a more sympathetic jurisdiction. The case is also of interest because two coroners were involved, and they seem to have been divided, one having ties to the Morgans, the other to the Egertons. Although these developments make for a more complex and unusual inquest than was normally the case, they also cast a welcome light into the functioning of the coronial system in Jacobean England and expose some of the pressures to which coroners were subject in this period. This chapter will thus explore some of the ties of patronage and connection which the Morgans were able to mobilise in their efforts to frustrate the inquest and try to obtain a finding of manslaughter rather than murder. It also examines matters which are usually obscure in our current understanding of the coronial process such as the nature and composition of the coronial jury.

In the early afternoon of 21 April 1610, John Egerton's cooling body was laid on a table at a Highgate inn by the local constable, Leonard Beaker. Strictly, the corpse should not have been moved from the place where the death had occurred so the body could be viewed in situ. Indeed, this action later raised questions as to whether Egerton's resting place was, in fact, given accurately in subsequent testimony, particularly that of William Robinson. Beaker presumably set a watch over the corpse so that nobody would be able to interfere with it before the arrival of Middlesex's coroners the following day.

The coronial component of English law was an ancient one reaching back to the twelfth century. Coroners viewed dead bodies in consultation with a jury of local men to determine the causes of sudden and suspicious deaths.

The Talacre dispute foregrounded issues of gentry honour in ways which have not been examined closely in recent scholarship. The very fact of being able to make and maintain a claim of ownership of a significant estate was closely connected to the public standing of all parties involved. We are often told that possession of land and estates was a key component of early modern gentility, but perhaps have not considered the degree to which contests over such resources thus naturally involved issues of honour and public reputation. Also implicated in this, of course, was the ability of the various gentry participants to enact their roles as householders and heads of extended familial units, roles which themselves were bound up with ideas of what an honourable gentleman should be and how he should act. Sir John Egerton's sensibilities in regard to property seem to have been sharpened by an awareness that his extensive estates were principally derived from the good graces of his cousin Edward Egerton. Moreover, he had been touched in this respect by a defeat in Cheshire at the hands of the earl of Derby, something which seems to have affected him deeply. He evidently considered his honour closely involved with his claim to Talacre and with not suffering a reverse at the hands of minor gentlemen, and Catholic gentlemen at that, in an obscure part of Wales.

The struggle over Talacre was protracted and disruptive to the local community. It involved the confrontation of groups of gentlemen and their associated kinsmen and retainers, threats to property, violence to symbols of authority, and physical and verbal attacks. Such characteristics are associated with the gentry feud, often considered characteristic of less ‘enlightened’ societies which, as they ‘civilised’, learned to moderate their aggressive inclinations through recourse to law. Such a view has been influential in characterising early modern England and Wales, with the kingdom being portrayed as balanced in a transitional period between the violent Middle Ages and the pacified modern period. We thus see a ‘decline of violence’ in society over time, occurring first among elites who adopt civilised characteristics earliest and provide exemplars of behaviour later imitated by those lower down the social order.

This chapter traces the aftermath of the trial at King's Bench and Edward Morgan's pardon. As Cynthia Herrup has written in the context of another early Stuart prosecution, for the families involved, ‘trials do not end with verdicts or even with the punishment or release of defendants’, and this chapter considers the familial epilogues of the Morgan–Egerton affair. It examines Sir John Egerton's initial attempts to continue his offensive against the Morgans and their allies and the subsequent collapse of that effort. It then considers the histories of the Morgan and Egerton families in years following the trial, exploring their different paths which were influenced, sometimes subtly, sometimes more profoundly, by the legacy of the duel. Sir John Egerton would only survive for another three years but his death would spark off what has been described as ‘one of the most celebrated inheritance disputes of the age’. He disinherited his eldest son, Rowland, and turned his estate over to his cousin Edward Egerton, precipitating a titanic legal struggle which eclipsed even the battle over Talacre in its scope and longevity. Edward Morgan (I) only outlived the King's Bench case by a year or so and here too the eldest son was not destined to inherit his father's mantle. Edward Morgan (II) instead allowed his younger brother Robert to take charge of Goldgreave while he pursued the relatively obscure life of a coal entrepreneur. The chapter traces these various developments and demonstrates how issues of honour and litigation remained crucial elements to both these family histories.

As the trial against Edward Morgan stood suspended between the appeal of murder and the trial upon the indictment, Sir John Egerton did not sit idle. As we saw in the last chapter, he revived a lawsuit against Edward Morgan (I) accusing him of defrauding a ‘weake simple man’ in Flintshire. He also commenced another Star Chamber suit (in the name of the Attorney General) against several of the parties who had been involved in the machinations surrounding the coroner's inquest and the return of the trial jury in King's Bench.