Untitled

William Morgan (1700-1731), afterwards Sir William Morgan, knight of the Bath, married Lady Rachel Cavendish (c.1694-1780). By their marriage settlement, dated 13-14 May 1723, he conveyed several manors, lands and tenements in Monmouthshire and Glamorgan to the use of William, marquis of Harlington, and Lord James Cavenish, to pay Lady Rachel £500 a year for her separate use during their joint lives and £2,000 during her widowhood. The marriage produced two sons and two daughters.

Sir William Morgan made his will 3 April 1731, and died 24 April 1731. His eldest son, William Morgan (c.1725-1763), became entitled to the Tredegar settled estates, and enjoyed them subject to the payment of £2,000 a year to his mother. As he was a minor at the time of his father's death, his trustees and guardians paid until he reached the age of 21 on 28 March 1746, and he continued to pay until his own death on 16 July 1763. He died without issue and intestate. His only brother Edward (c.1727-1744) having died during William's lifetime, and without issue, Thomas Morgan (1702-1769) the only younger brother of Sir William Morgan became entitled to the real estates by virtue of Sir William's will, and enjoyed them, and paid Lady Rachel's rent charge until his death on 16 April 1769.

Rachel Morgan, one of the daughters of Sir William and Lady Rachel, died as an unmarried minor in March 1738/9. The other daughter, Elizabeth (1729-1787), was the wife of William Jones of Clytha. Elizabeth was the administrix of her brother William Morgan, and in 1764 she and her husband contested the validity of Sir William Morgan's will. Elizabeth Morgan wrote a letter to an unnamed recipient, presumably her uncle Thomas Morgan, on 9 July 1766, including "as I am inform'd that you purpose making some expensive alterations att Tredegar, I think myself obliged to acquaint you, that I have had the opinions of some of the first council, that the freehold estates of my father & brother in Monmouthshire & Glamorganshire belong to me, such part only excepted as was devised by my father for the payment of his debts, with remainder to my brothers, your self &c". After lengthy litigation, the court of Chancery upheld the will, a verdict confirmed after an appeal to the House of Lords.

On the death of Thomas Morgan in 1769, his eldest son Thomas Morgan (1727-1771) was the next person in remainder under Sir William Morgan's will, and held the estates, and paid Lady Rachel's £2,000 a year until his death, without issue, on 15 May 1771. His brother Charles Morgan (1736-1787) now became entitled under the will, entered upon the premises, and continued to pay Lady Rachel's £2,000 rent charge.

On 25 Feb. 1775, Lady Rachel conveyed her claim to arrears of her rent charge since her son William Morgan's time, ie, 1731-1763, to William Jones and Elizabeth his wife. They pressed a claim, demanding that Charles Morgan prove payment of all sums of money paid on account of the rent charge since 1731. Charles Morgan argued that there had been no claim for arrears in 1763 when Charles Morgan's father took over the payment until the present claim in 1775. He also argued that the claim was unjust as it was entirely out of his power to prove that William Morgan had paid the rent charge 1731-1763, as William's papers were in the possession of his administrix, Elizabeth Jones, and that the difficulties facing Charles Morgan were all the more unjust as for the eight years 1747-1755 Lady Rachel had lived retired and William her son had managed her affairs, during which time no one had kept any accounts.

Lady Rachel (and after her death on 10 June 1780, her daughter Elizabeth Jones) also claimed against Charles Morgan for the payment of arrears of maintenance payments of the younger children of the marriage of Sir William and Lady Rachel Morgan, from the time of the death of Sir William Morgan until each child either came of age or died. Charles Morgan argued that maintenance should come out of the settled estate

Lady Rachel Morgan, William Jones and Elizabeth his wife, together with Lord George Augustus Cavendish, Lord Frederick Cavendish and Lord John Cavendish, the representatives of the Marquis of Hartington (who had been the longer lived of the trustees of Sir William and Lady Rachel's marriage settlement), also launched a further action, arguing that there was an outstanding legal estate by which they or some of them were entitled to possession of the premises.

In 1782 final judgement in the court of Chancery found in favour of the heirs of Thomas Morgan of Ruperra. They were proclaimed to be rightfully seised of all the family properties, but the rights of those such as Elizabeth Jones of Clytha who had an interest in reversion or remainder, should be enforced.

In a final action in 1784-1785, the action revolved at least in part around Sir William Morgan's copyhold properties in the manor of Basaleg. Prior to the Civil War, the manor of Basaleg had been the property of the bishops of Llandaf, and Sir William Morgan had been among the copyhold tenants of the manor. In 1648, after the war, Sir William bought the manor from the parliamentary commissioners. Copyhold properties in part of the manor were held in borough English, whereby property was inherited by the youngest son. To keep estates together, it was common practice for landed families with borough English lands to require the youngest son to surrender the borough English properties to the use of the eldest son. For this reason Sir William Morgan's will included a clause requiring his youngest son Edward when he came of age to surrender his rights in all the copyhold lands in Monmouthshire to William, the eldest son, giving Edward another estate in exchange. The argument revolved around whether on the death of Edward, William was entitled under his father's will to the fee of all his father's customary lands in Monmouthshire, and whether Elizabeth Jones, as William's customary heir, was entitled to the same. Thomas Morgan argued that Sir William Morgan could not devise his copyhold lands, or direct how they were devised, without a surrender of the lands to the uses of his will, nor was it his intention to devise his copyhold lands. He was merely doing what his ancestors had done, for the family policy was always that the youngest son should convey to his eldest brother all his right in the borough English, which comprised not just part of Basaleg, but fifteen out of nineteen of the family manors. In the absence of such a surrender to the uses of the will, the lands had passed to Thomas Morgan. In 1784 Charles Morgan also argued that a lord of a manor could not be his own tenant, and that Sir William Morgan ceased to be a tenant of the manor of Basaleg as soon as he became its lord. On this point, however, counsel's opinion suggested that Sir William's intrusion into the bishop of Llandaf's manor, albeit with parliamentary sanction, might not give him a sufficiently good title to convert his copyhold tenancies under the bishop into freeholds in his own manor.