MORGAN, Anthony (1621-68), of Abbey Street, Dublin.

Anthony Morgan’s father – who was related to the Morgans of Llantarnam in Monmouthshire – was a former Oxford don who had settled in Northamptonshire in James I’s reign, as rector of Cottesbrooke. Morgan, who may also have been intended for a clerical career, attended his father’s college, Magdalen Hall, from the age of fifteen, and was appointed a ‘demy’ in the university in 1640.27Al. Ox.; DNB. The first civil war interrupted his studies, however, and he joined the 5th earl of Worcester’s royalist forces in south Wales, rising to the rank of captain by the beginning of 1645. In the spring of that year, as the king’s fortunes declined, Morgan decided to change sides. On 18 March his wife attended the Committee of Both Kingdoms, and told them that Morgan and his fellow-royalist, Sir Trevor Williams*, were ready to betray Monmouthshire and Glamorgan if guaranteed commands in the parliamentarian army.28CSP Dom. 1644-5, p. 356. The committee considered this offer in April, and in May instructed Major-general Edward Massie* to assist Morgan, and to give him command of a regiment if one became available.29CSP Dom. 1644-5, pp. 427, 509, 516. Morgan and Williams went ahead with their plan, and with their help the two counties had come under parliamentarian control by the end of 1645.30CSP Dom. 1645-7, p. 312; LJ viii. 552b.

Despite completing his side of the bargain, Morgan was destined never to receive his full reward. His case was referred to Parliament only in December 1645, and, although both houses agreed in principle with his demands, as no regimental command was available the Committee of Both Kingdoms merely recommended him to Sir Thomas Fairfax*, whom they asked to take notice of the new recruit.31CSP Dom. 1645-7, pp. 248-9, 259, 312; LJ viii. 80a-b; HMC Portland, i. 319. Although Fairfax had found Morgan a place as captain in Henry Ireton’s regiment of horse by July 1646, Parliament was very slow in completing its part of the agreement.32Wanklyn, New Model Army, i. 74-5. The sequestration of Morgan’s Welsh estates was eventually lifted in October 1646, but this was followed by great confusion in the locality, and the House of Lords was forced to intervene, as ‘there is doubt who is meant by the said Captain Morgan’.33CJ iv. 713b; HMC 6th Rep. 138; LJ viii. 552b; LJ ix. 66a. The award of a doctorate from Oxford University in May 1647 may have been at Fairfax’s instigation.34Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. i. 118.

As a former royalist, and a relative newcomer to the New Model army, Morgan stood aloof from the political radicalism which destabilised Ireton’s regiment in 1648-9. During the second civil war, Morgan’s troop was stationed at Acton and Staines, covering the western approaches to London, before being sent to suppress the remaining pockets of royalist resistance in Hampshire in late August.35CSP Dom. 1648-9, pp. 162, 164, 167, 261. During this period, Morgan continued to enjoy Fairfax’s patronage. When he was called to account for allowing his men to extract free quarter from the town of Staines during this period, Fairfax intervened on his behalf to secure his indemnity against any claims for damages.36CSP Dom. 1648-9, pp. 254-5; Bodl. Tanner 57, f. 341. Fairfax’s trust was well placed. Although he was present at the army council in November 1648, Morgan already had his doubts about the army’s increasing radicalism: in the previous October he had kept Fairfax informed of the restless state of Ireton’s men, who refused to disperse into winter quarters in Surrey, Sussex and Hampshire until their ‘grievances’ were heard.37Clarke Pprs. ii. 276; The Moderate no. 15 (17-24 Oct. 1648), [p. 3] (E.468.24). In the spring of 1649 Ireton’s horse, incited by agitators from Adrian Scrope’s* regiment, mutinied rather than accept Irish service. Despite pressure from their comrades, Morgan’s troop ‘adhered to their officers’, and opposed the mutiny.38Moderate Intelligencer no. 216 (2-10 May 1649), [p. 9] (E.555.3); The Moderate no. 44 (8-15 May 1649), sig. Xx2 (E.555.16). By the time the regiment, thoroughly purged and reformed, had arrived in Ireland in July 1649, Morgan had been rewarded for his loyalty by promotion to the rank of major.39SP28/61, ff. 416, 430.

After the resignation of Sir Thomas Fairfax as lord general in 1650, Morgan became a client of successive lord deputies in Ireland. This was hardly surprising, as during the later stages of the Irish wars, command of Morgan’s regiment was enjoyed first by Henry Ireton, and after his death in November 1651 by Charles Fleetwood* (who became lord deputy in September 1652). Morgan enjoyed a position of trust under both men, acting as regimental pay-master at least until the end of 1652, and taking responsibility for the unit in the period between Ireton’s death and Fleetwood’s arrival in Ireland.40SP28/62, f. 431; SP28/63, f. 17; SP28/64, ff. 9, 254; SP28/68, f. 480; SP28/71, f. 61; SP28/78, f. 319; SP28/80, f. 29; SP28/87, f. 21; SP28/88, f. 130. He also became involved in various aspects of military government, being chosen to act as messenger from the Dublin government to Parliament and the council of state in February 1652, and in the following September, having returned to Ireland, he sat on the council of war at Kilkenny which ratified the articles agreed with the Ulster Irish.41Ire. under the Commonwealth, i. 128, 130, 282. In February 1653 Morgan was one of the officers who signed the charges against the former parliamentary commissioner, John Weaver* – an act which suggests his firm attachment to the army interest at this time.42Bodl. Nalson XXI, f. 119. Morgan continued as Fleetwood’s major until 1659, but from an early date he was preoccupied with civilian, rather than military, affairs. In August 1652 he requested, and was granted, permission to serve the commonwealth in ‘any office of trust’, despite his earlier delinquency.43CJ vii. 169b. From then on, he became involved in the settlement of Ireland: in December 1652 he was made commissioner for the high court of justice at Dublin; in January 1653 he was appointed deputy sheriff of co. Kildare (under Colonel John Hewson*, the sheriff for Leinster).44TCD, MS 844, f. 136; Eg. 1762, f. 60. In April 1653, with Robert Venables* and others, he acted as commissioner for settling Ulster, although in May he was recalled by the Dublin government, anxious that he should return to his military duties.45Bodl. Firth c.5, f. 113; Ire. under the Commonwealth, ii. 339-40, 346. In June 1653 Morgan worked on the officers’ committee which decided the military units to be disbanded and considered how the wider problem of pay arrears was to be tackled.46Ire. under the Commonwealth, ii. 365. Thereafter, Morgan was especially concerned with the land settlement in Ireland, travelling to London with Hewson in January 1654 to draw lots to determine which regiments were allotted to the different counties, and serving on the committee which heard petitions from Irish natives protesting against their transplantation from cos. Cork, Kerry and Limerick in May 1654.47Ire. under the Commonwealth, ii. 404, 428.

Morgan’s employment in the land settlement and other schemes brought him into contact with the pre-1641 (or ‘Old Protestant’) settlers in Ireland, and especially the circle associated with Robert Boyle and Samuel Hartlib, known as the ‘Invisible College’, which was engaged in a range of experiments to advance learning and improve conditions in Ireland. Morgan was well known to Hartlib by early 1652, and in the following years he corresponded with him and his friends about scientific matters, some of which had a practical application in the improvement of Irish land.48SCL, Hartlib 15/8/9A, 28/2/30A, 29/4/25A, 33/1/11A-12B, 33/1/45A-B, 49/1/3A-B. Morgan’s connection with the Old Protestants may have caused his relationship with the army interest to deteriorate. Events surrounding his election as MP for cos. Kildare and Wicklow on 2 August 1654 certainly suggest that a change had taken place.49Mercurius Politicus no. 217 (3-10 Aug. 1654), 3674 (E.808.7); no. 219 (17-24 Aug. 1654), 3709 (E.809.5). In contrast to the co. Dublin election, which returned John Hewson without opposition, the Kildare and Wicklow seats were bitterly contested, with Morgan and his running-mate, the Old Protestant William Meredith*, being opposed by Oliver St John* and Major Richard Salwey* (who were backed by Independents in the Dublin corporation), and by Edmund Ludlowe II* and Adjutant-General Allen (fielded by a radical army faction). The electors were clear in their preference: Ludlowe and Allen ‘found all negatives’, St John and Salwey gained ‘some few votes (about 30)’, while Morgan and Meredith were returned with 58.50HMC Egmont, i. 553. This almost certainly reflects the divisions which were already opening up between the Old Protestants and the radical officers, and Morgan’s alliance with the former party is an indication that his political allegiances had already shifted in 1654. After the drama of the election, Morgan’s parliamentary activity was unexceptional. He was named to the committee on the armed forces on 26 September and to the committees for Irish and Scottish affairs on 29 September, and on 5 October he was added to the committee of privileges when it considered Irish elections.51CJ vii. 370b, 371b, 373b. Also on 5 October he was appointed to the committee for regulating the court of chancery, but thereafter his involvement was fairly limited until 27 November, when he was named with Lord Broghill (Roger Boyle), Sir Theophilus Jones, Vincent Gookin and other Old Protestants to a committee on the proposed Government Bill, to consider the clause allowing repentant Irish royalists to vote in parliamentary elections.52CJ vii. 374a, 390b.

On his return to Ireland, Morgan resumed his efforts to further the land settlement. In March 1655 he was appointed as a commissioner on the court martial set up to try natives who refused to transplant, and in the following month he joined a committee to advise the lord deputy and council on the transplantation from cos. Dublin, Carlow, Kildare, Wicklow and Wexford.53Ire. under the Commonwealth, ii. 490, 499. The departure of Fleetwood and the arrival of his brother-in-law, Henry Cromwell*, as effective governor of Ireland in the summer of 1655, prompted Morgan to abandon the army interest completely. Instead of joining Hewson, Sankey, Carteret and other officers in their campaign to undermine Henry Cromwell, Morgan wrote to Fleetwood in December, and (according to Dr Thomas Harrison) ‘told his lordship, that if he return, none shall serve him more faithfully, but yet that he can neither wish nor pray for it; and he gives him his reasons for this strange assertion’.54TSP iv. 349. Morgan was not only snubbing the lord deputy, he was also insulting his own regimental commander and former patron, apparently gambling on Henry Cromwell’s future promotion to replace his brother-in-law. By the spring of 1656 this strategy seemed to be paying dividends: in March Morgan became chairman of the committee which investigated the Down Survey, and in May he was appointed as one of six trustees for army arrears.55Ire. under the Commonwealth, ii. 600; Petty, Down Survey, 86, 107-9.

The strength of Morgan’s attachment to Henry Cromwell’s regime became obvious in the summer of 1656. By early July the English government had requested Morgan’s presence in London to advise on Irish affairs: a move opposed by Henry Cromwell, who counted Morgan (with Sir John Reynolds*, who was already in London) as one of his key allies in Ireland, and feared an attempt by his enemies to accuse them of ‘contrivances’ against the state.56TSP v. 177, 213, 278. Despite Henry Cromwell’s misgivings, Morgan travelled to England in late July, armed with a set of instructions from the Irish council, covering economic and financial issues, and above all, the proposed land settlement in Ireland.57Ire. under the Commonwealth, ii. 560-1, 612-13. He attended Secretary John Thurloe* in early August; gave information about the Irish administration to Fleetwood and the council’s Irish committee (headed by John Lambert*); and delivered Henry Cromwell’s letters to the protector in person.58TSP v. 316; Henry Cromwell Corresp. 175, 177, 179. Morgan’s return to Ireland was delayed, leading Henry Cromwell to fear that he was being deliberately obstructed by his enemies at Whitehall.59Henry Cromwell Corresp. 177. In his absence, in August 1656, Morgan was again elected as MP for cos. Kildare and Wicklow, alongside the Old Protestant soldier, Sir Hardress Waller.60Ire. under the Commonwealth, ii. 624.

In the first five months of the second protectorate Parliament, Morgan acted as one of Henry Cromwell’s most important agents at Westminster, concentrating on issues of Irish concern. He was named to the committee of Irish affairs on 23 September, and on 29 October he was named to the committee on the bill for abolishing the court of wards, which also covered wardship and tenures in Ireland.61CJ vii. 427a, 447a. On 10 November Morgan’s own petition was read and referred to a committee including Reynolds, Broghill, William Aston and Henry Markham.62CJ vii. 452a. Morgan was very active in cases involving land claims in Ireland. On 3 December he was named with Reynolds and Markham to the committee to consider the petitions of Henry Whalley* and Erasmus Smith.63CJ vii. 463b. Morgan and his colleagues argued against the grants, because they overturned the compositions of the former royalists, Lord Montgomery of the Ards and Lord Claneboye, and Morgan eventually moved for a compromise, whereby the old landowners would be provided with alternative estates of the same value ‘in some other part of the nation’.64Burton’s Diary, i. 4. Morgan represented the Dublin government by providing excuses to the House for those Irish MPs absent on government service at the end of December, and by joining Reynolds in an attempt to push through the Irish attainder bill (which was necessary for confirming the land settlement) in January, insisting that ‘it is of great importance, no greater can be in the whole nation, than to unite your interests and people together’.65Burton’s Diary, i. 288, 338, 340, 367. The protection of the Old Protestant community remained a priority during the spring of 1657. In February Morgan was named to committees to consider the rights of the Old Protestant MPs, Sir Theophilus Jones and Sir Hardress Waller, and also the controversial bill for settling Irish estates on the city of Gloucester.66CJ vii. 491b, 492a-b, 494a. In an earlier debate on the latter case, Morgan had argued that the compensation promised by the Long Parliament should be in the form of money, not in the rapidly diminishing stock of Irish land, as that would compromise the claims of others.67Burton’s Diary, i. 203; Henry Cromwell Corresp. 258.

During the constitutional upheavals between February and April 1657, Morgan was less prominent than Broghill, Reynolds, Aston and other allies of Henry Cromwell. On 6 March he was named to a committee on the 4th article of the Remonstrance, which dealt with Irish and Scottish issues, and he was listed among those who voted to retain kingship in the 1st article on 25 March.68CJ vii. 499b; Narrative of the Late Parliament (1657), 23 (E.935.5). Oliver Cromwell’s refusal to accept the new constitution, renamed the Humble Petition and Advice, was frustrating, and on 9 April Morgan was one of the MPs appointed to attend the protector with reasons why he should accept it.69CJ vii. 526b. Although Morgan’s involvement in managing the reforms was modest, he played a vital role in keeping Henry Cromwell informed of events. On 24 February he reported the introduction of the Remonstrance, commenting that ‘the Irish [are] all for it but [Thomas] Cooper, [John] Hewson and [Jerome] Sankey’; on 3 March he described the army’s reaction; and by 10 March he wrote confidently that ‘all is smooth and looks towards settlement, one party in the House having thrown down the cudgels’.70Henry Cromwell Corresp. 204-6, 215-6, 222-3. Later letters told of the presentation of the Humble Petition to the protector, the ‘kingship debates’, and Cromwell’s subsequent refusal of the crown under pressure from the army radicals.71Henry Cromwell Corresp. 237, 258, 263, 271-2. Morgan was disappointed by this, but not downcast, resolving ‘not to be angry nor recede, but lay the consideration of it aside for a time till we hope his highness may have time to be better informed’.72Henry Cromwell Corresp. 272. He played little part in the debates on further modifying the constitution by introducing an Additional Petition and Advice, although he was named to a committee on a provision concerning the Protestants of Ireland on 15 June, and on 24 June argued that the choice of the members of the new Other House should be left entirely in the protector’s hands.73CJ vii. 557a; Burton’s Diary, ii. 248-9, 300.

After Cromwell’s refusal of the crown, Morgan could concentrate on the land settlement and the economic stability of the Irish regime. The Irish attainder bill had been referred to a committee on 30 March, but had then stalled.74CJ vii. 515a. In the weeks that followed Morgan busied himself with less pressing matters, such as negotiating on Henry Cromwell’s behalf to purchase Archbishop Ussher’s library.75Henry Cromwell Corresp. 249, 262. At the end of May, however, Morgan tried again. On 26 May he and William Aston made the impassioned plea, ‘that the business of Ireland might be taken into consideration... otherwise all the expense of blood and treasure spent there will be lost’; and on 2 June Thomas Burton* noted ‘much striving’ by Morgan to advance the attainder bill.76Burton’s Diary, ii. 124, 169. On 12 June Morgan argued strenuously that the attainder bill must take precedence over the adventurers’ bill, telling the Commons ‘that before you settle other men’s rights to those lands you would settle your own title to them’.77Burton’s Diary, ii. 224. On 17 June Morgan reported the amendments to the bill, and on 23 June he told Henry Cromwell that ‘I have been so close-tied to the House least I should lose an opportunity, I wait for to pass the bill of attainder (which is engrossed) that I have scarce time left to write’.78CJ vii. 559b; Henry Cromwell Corresp. 284, 289. The attainder bill went to the wire, with the last amendments being sorted out on 25 June – the day before Parliament was adjourned.79Burton’s Diary, ii. 306.

The fate of the attainder bill was closely connected with Morgan’s other preoccupation: the regulation of personal claims to Irish land, and the introduction of a comprehensive land settlement.80Burton’s Diary, ii. 155-7. During the constitutional crisis he had been appointed to committees to consider bills for Sir Hardress Waller (17 Mar.), the ‘donatives’ enjoyed by Sir Charles Coote*, Sir Theophilus Jones and others (29 Apr.) and Charles Lloyd* (1 May), and thereafter he was named to committees for Viscount Moore of Drogheda (4 June) and Lord Broghill (5 June).81CJ vii. 505b, 526b, 529a, 542a, 545a, 546a. As before, these cases brought out tensions between the competing interests, well aware that Irish land was not an unlimited resource. On 29 May Morgan’s comments that Charles Lloyd’s allotment was ‘unreasonable’ nearly led to ‘reflections and responses’ between them.82Burton’s Diary, ii. 157. In the debate on Broghill’s bill on 5 June, Morgan was clearly torn, telling the House that ‘I would not have the state overreached, neither would I have you fall short of what is right, and of the justice you ought to do to this noble person’.83Burton’s Diary, ii. 177. Political considerations also caused Morgan to join Aston in moving the Commons for a similar grant for Fleetwood three days later, but on this occasion he miscalculated.84Burton’s Diary, ii. 197. To his surprise, and ‘contrary to the expectation of all who were privy to the motion, it occasioned a very great debate’, with Morgan receiving much of the blame: ‘I have been extremely chidden by many ... who say they will not easily forgive me’.85Henry Cromwell Corresp. 281. As Morgan complained to Henry Cromwell on 9 June, ‘I am sorry I moved it since it occasioned so much stir but I thought it reasonable that at parting we should show kindness, for I must always hope (though I loved him well) his commission never be renewed’.86Henry Cromwell Corresp. 281.

The need to pass the Irish assessment act before the end of the sitting was something the Irish MPs could agree upon. On 29 May Morgan and Fleetwood had joined forces to push for the passing of the ‘bills for the settlement of Ireland’ before the assessment bill was finalized.87Burton’s Diary, ii. 155. On 8 June Morgan pressed for a reduction: ‘I hope you will put no greater burden upon Ireland than it is able to bear ... we look for an abatement rather than an increase, otherwise we shall not be able to undergo it’.88Burton’s Diary, ii. 201. Two days later he slapped down Colonel William Sydenham, who had compared Ireland with the conquered colonies of the Roman Empire: ‘The Romans always lost their conquests by laying too great a burden upon them ... It is not your interest to flay, but to clip your sheep, if you hope for another fleece’.89Burton’s Diary, ii. 224. When the reduced assessment of £9,000 a month was passed, Morgan wrote to Henry Cromwell with weary relief: ‘this, I suppose, will prevent your issuing orders for the £13,000 per mensem, which otherwise would have soon grown due’.90Henry Cromwell’s Corresp. 284. The last days of the sitting also saw another success for Morgan: the passing of an act confirming the grant to Henry of the Portumna estate in co. Galway – a matter that he had been quietly promoting for many months; and on 16 June he proudly sent a copy of the act to Dublin, along with the final arrangements for the transfer of Ussher’s library.91Henry Cromwell Corresp. 266, 258, 284.

Parliament resumed its business in January 1658, and Morgan was recommended to Oliver Cromwell as an MP ‘thoroughly affected’ to the protectorate, who was ‘competently able to acquaint your highness out of his own judgement and memory, at least with our chief concernments’.92TSP vi. 730. Amid the chaos of the debate, Morgan was unable to follow a coherent plan of action in the Commons. He twice tried to prevent the debate on the Other House being assigned to a grand committee on 29 January and 3 February, arguing that the delays that would inevitably follow would be ‘destructive to business, or dilatory’; but otherwise he played little part in the proceedings.93Burton’s Diary, ii. 393, 435. Morgan returned to Ireland after Parliament closed in February 1658, and again took up his scientific interests, including an investigation into perpetual motion.94SCL, Hartlib MS 33/1/45A-B, 49/1/3A-B. His allegiance to Henry Cromwell (who had been appointed lord deputy in the previous autumn) remained firm. He was knighted on 26 July, and in early August accompanied Henry on his visit to the 2nd earl of Cork’s (Sir Richard Boyle*) house at Lismore in co. Waterford.95Shaw, Knights of Eng. ii. 224; Chatsworth, CM/29, unfol.: 2 Aug. 1658. After the death of the old protector, Morgan was one of the first signatories of the proclamation of Richard Cromwell* in Ireland at the end of 1658, and in December he was recommended by Thomas Clarges* as one of the ‘five or six argumentative speakers’ who could best defend the protectorate in Parliament.96TSP vii. 383, 553. To this end, there were efforts throughout December 1658 to secure him an English seat, with Henry Cromwell’s father-in-law, Sir Francis Russell*, lobbying for his election alongside Secretary Thurloe as MP for Cambridge University. Once it was confirmed that Irish MPs would be allowed to sit at Westminster under the new franchise, Morgan withdrew, and sat for cos. Meath and Louth instead.97TSP vii. 559, 565, 574; Henry Cromwell Corresp. 433-4.

Morgan’s attendance at Westminster was delayed – Jerome Sankey asked on 8 February why Morgan and Arthur Annesley* ‘stay so long’ – but he was in London by 8 March, when he wrote to tell Henry Cromwell of the ‘great deal of kindness’ he had received at court, including an invitation to dine with Thurloe.98Henry Cromwell Corresp. 451, 469. In this Parliament, Morgan again acted as a government spokesman, sending weekly reports back to Henry Cromwell in Dublin, on 17 March defending his colleague William Aston against Sir Henry Vane II in the debate on the right of Irish and Scottish MPs to sit, and on 22 March joining the fray himself, opposing the attempt to judge the Irish representative on a narrow legal, rather than equitable, definition.99Henry Cromwell Corresp. 469, 482, 490, 500, 504; Burton’s Diary, iv. 171, 231. Morgan’s role in Dr William Petty’s* case is revealing. In the closing weeks of 1658, Petty had faced accusations of fraud for his role in the land survey. Morgan, who had long been involved in the land settlement business, was chosen to investigate the charges, leaving Petty convinced that his ‘chief friend’ was now conspiring with his enemies, as ‘the fittest tool to work upon the lord deputy, a person whose intimacy with the doctor might possibly make some at least believe that the design was not pure malice’.100Petty, Down Survey, 263, 265, 267. In Parliament the case against Petty, introduced by Sankey, was complicated by rumours that Henry Cromwell would intervene to save him, thus perverting the course of justice. Morgan played for time, arguing that as Petty had ‘done you good service’, he should be given time to answer the charges against him.101Burton’s Diary, iv. 247. On 29 March Morgan met John Glynne*, William Pierrepont*, Lord Broghill, Sir Charles Coote* and John Maynard*, to discuss Petty’s case, and it was decided that the Dublin government should ‘transmit the case to the members serving for Ireland to be communicated to the Parliament for their judgement’; although it was plain that their main concern was protecting Henry Cromwell from further scandals.102Henry Cromwell Corresp. 490-1. This was not an unpopular cause: as Coote reported on the same day, Morgan’s interventions had been ‘to the great satisfaction of the House’.103Henry Cromwell Corresp. 485. With the rights of the MPs from Ireland and Scotland newly confirmed, Morgan was duly named to the committees of Irish and Scottish affairs appointed on 1 April, but his ability to pursue legislation was hampered by political developments.104CJ vii. 623a, 623b. When countering the army’s representation of 12 April, Morgan became embroiled in the attack on Major-general William Boteler*.105Henry Cromwell Corresp. 500. Although Morgan freely denounced ‘the major-generals and arbitrary power’, he was reluctant to rake over Boteler’s earlier record: ‘Nothing done since [16]42 is questioned. I would have no retrospect, but look forward’.106Burton’s Diary, iv. 405. Morgan was well aware that his royalist past was open to similar investigation.

The army’s eventual move to close down the protectorate, and the resignation of Henry Cromwell as lord lieutenant in the spring of 1659, left Morgan exposed. In early May he expressed concern that former Cromwellians appeared ‘strangely indifferent’ to the restoration of the commonwealth, and seemed unsure whether to seek retirement in England or to return to Ireland.107Henry Cromwell Corresp. 511, 514. He lost his commission in July, when the Irish army was purged, and although he remained in contact with Bulstrode Whitelocke* and other former supporters of the protectorate, he played no role in the politics of Ireland in the winter of 1659-60, and lived in retirement in Dublin.108Regimental Hist. i. 125; Whitelocke, Diary, 523; Irish Census, 1659, 373. At the restoration of the king, Morgan made his final change of allegiance, embracing the Stuart cause with a rapidity which alarmed his wife, who reputedly harboured republican sympathies.109DNB. He did not, however, lack friends to facilitate his transition. After 1660 Morgan’s supporters included George Rawdon* and Viscount Conway, and he remained close to Lord Broghill (now earl of Orrery), who was instrumental in securing his general pardon.110CSP Ire. 1660-2, pp. 138, 316; 1667-8, p. 231; Cal. Orrery Papers, ed. E. MacLysaght (Dublin, 1941), 13. Orrery may also have recommended Morgan for the knighthood which he received in November 1660.111Shaw, Knights of Eng. ii. 232. In May 1661 Morgan was elected for the Irish Parliament as MP for Taghmon in co. Wexford, and during the session he helped Orrery in his attempts to reconcile the duke of Ormond with the former Cromwellians of the ‘fanatic party’.112CJI i. 595; Cal. Orrery Papers, ed. MacLysaght, 16. In the summer of 1663 Morgan moved to London, where he renewed his contacts within the scientific world, including Robert Boyle, and became involved in the establishment of the Royal Society; he may have helped to draft the society’s charter in 1663, and he certainly served on its council in 1663 and 1666-7.113Bodl. Carte 32, f. 542; Carte 214, f. 512; Royal Society, ed. Hunter, 136-7. When Samuel Pepys met Morgan at Lord Brouncker’s house in London in May 1668, he was impressed by his learning, describing him as ‘a very wise man’.114Pepys’s Diary, ix. 104. Yet Morgan’s political and scientific standing was not matched by success in his personal life. He lost at least part of the Irish lands he had acquired in the 1650s; he was at the centre of a number of legal cases involving his estates in Wales; and in the last years of his life relations with his wife had broken down completely.115CSP Ire. 1660-2, p. 46; C5/421/141; C5/620/96; C6/151pt2/30; C6/155/94; C6/178/114; CC7/381/48; DNB. Morgan died childless in the autumn of 1668. In his will, drawn up on 3 September, Morgan left his lands in England, Ireland and Wales, and all his personal property to his sister, Elizabeth Moore, leaving only five shillings to his wife – a decision that caused a massive legal row after his death.116PROB11/328/357; C5/526/29; C6/183/67.