STAPLEY, Anthony I (1590-1655), of Patcham, Suss.

Anthony Stapley came from one of the most prominent gentry families in Sussex during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, although one which was not represented in Parliament until 1624.58Comber, Suss. Genealogies Horsham, 325. By 1600 the Stapleys were connected through marriage to two of the county’s wealthiest and most godly families, the Pelhams of Laughton and the Morleys of Glynde, who would provide Anthony’s closest friends and political colleagues.59E. Suss. RO, Glynde MSS 108-9, 185; Suss. Manors, i. 180. Although in 1604 Stapley’s wardship was sold to his mother’s family, the Thatchers, who were Catholics, the young man’s education appears to have been committed to another kinsman, Sir Thomas Pelham*, which probably ensured that Stapley received a godly upbringing.60CSP Dom. 1603-10, pp. 180, 299; E. Suss. RO, SAS/H/83.

Early Career

Stapley was evidently educated at Christ’s College, Cambridge, although there is no record of his matriculation; he later sent his two sons there and donated £10 to a new building.61Christ’s College Biographical Reg., i. 262. In 1609 he was admitted to Gray’s Inn, which had yet to become a stronghold of the puritan interest.62G. Inn Admiss. His marriage in 1614 to a daughter of George Goring†, created Baron Goring in 1628 and earl of Norwich in 1644, reflected the status of the family rather than their political and religious sensibilities. The connection with the Gorings proved to be enduring, despite the death of Stapley’s wife in 1637 and the different political paths taken by Stapley and his brother-in-law George Goring*. The match was evidently fortuitous: by 1620 Stapley was a gentleman of considerable wealth, having obtained the manor of Keymer as part of the settlement, as well as the manor of Patcham, which became the family seat.63Suss. Manors, i. 251; VCH Suss. vii. 217. Additional purchases included the manor of Ringmer, from Richard Sackville, 3rd earl of Dorset, and (by 1626) property near Dorset House in Salisbury Court, London, from Edward Sackville†, the 4th earl.64E. Suss. RO, AMS 138; C54/2683/13; C54/2805/16.

In spite of his courtier kinsmen, Stapley emerged during the 1620s as a powerful member of the godly gentry in Sussex, alongside Sir Thomas Pelham* and Harbert Hay*.65Add. 33148, ff. 56v-57v; E. Suss. RO, Glynde MS 149. In 1620 Stapley was recommended to the 3rd earl of Dorset for addition to the commission of the peace.66Clwyd RO, D/HE/732, pp. 51-2. Although his appointment was not to be ratified for some years, Stapley was of sufficient standing to secure a seat in Parliament in both 1624 and 1625, as one of the Members for New Shoreham, less than ten miles from Patcham. While Charles Howard†, 1st earl of Nottingham, who was the lord admiral and lord lieutenant of Sussex, probably controlled one seat, Stapley may have been returned on his own interest as a local man. He failed to make any impression on either Parliament, however, and lost his seat in 1626 to John Alford*, son of Edward Alford†, who had been appointed to the shrievalty ahead of Stapley in November 1625. Perhaps because of his ever greater proximity to Sir Thomas Pelham and his friend James Rivers*, and because of the influence of his brother-in-law Sir George Goring, Stapley was able to return to Parliament in 1628, as Member for Lewes alongside Goring, despite objections from rival candidate Sir George Rivers†, a client of the earl of Dorset.67Horsfield, Hist. Lewes, i. 196; W. Suss. RO, Clough-Butler MSS 112-15; C54/3548/13; PSO5/5, unfol.; CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 11; Harl. 2313, ff. 8v-9.

During the 1630s Stapley acquired a reputation as a godly Protestant and a zealous reformer, like Pelham and James Rivers. With Pelham, Stapley was responsible in 1629 for establishing the Lewes lectureship.68Add. 33145, f. 28v. In 1632 Pelham and Stapley became guardians of their kinsman, Harbert Morley*.69Preston Park, ES/ET/13, 17; E. Suss. RO, Glynde MS 188. Pelham doubtless ensured that Stapley was finally included, with Rivers, on the commission of the peace in 1633, after which the two men worked actively together on the bench.70E. Suss. RO, QR/E34-51; SP16/263, f. 171; SP16/314, f. 238; SP16/364, f. 16; SP16/426, f. 85v. Stapley and Rivers were also present on the day that Thomas Lunsford attempted to murder Pelham, and provided evidence which helped convict the future royalist.71SP16/369, f. 163. Furthermore, Pelham, Stapley, and Rivers worked together closely to extend their estates, with the purchase of the manors of Ripe (1634) and Hellingly.72Suss. Manors, ii. 370; Add. Ch. 30144; Add. Ch. 29656-7; Add. Ch. 29969.

The ‘puritan faction’ and the Short Parliament

Not only did Stapley refuse to contribute to the first bishops’ war in 1639, but he also provoked hostility from the friends of Archbishop William Laud in his county.73Rushworth, Hist. Collns. iii. 914; Nalson, Impartial Collection, i. 206. In January 1640 one of Laud’s chaplains was informed of the overwhelming strength of ‘the puritan faction’ on the commission of the peace, ‘steered rather by humour and faction than justice’. Stapley, one of the alleged ringleaders, had, at the Michaelmas quarter sessions

possessed the people in his charge that the altering of the communion table altarwise was an innovation detracting from God’s glory, and that some prelates in this kingdom did not approve of it.

When challenged by the brother of Dorset’s secretary John White I* as to what he thought he was doing ‘meddling’ in business outside the purview of the justices, Stapley had replied that ‘he was so pressed by other men to do it, that he could not deny them’.74SP16/442, f. 279. The ‘taint’ had spread to Lewes, where Stapley and Rivers had ‘a strong party’, and were working to secure their own election to Parliament, against candidates proposed by Dorset and Lord Goring. It was ‘much feared’ they would be successful: ‘God forbid the greater part of the Parliament should be of their stamp; if so, Lord have mercy upon our church’.75SP16/442, f. 279v.

Pelham and Stapley, who spent £130 between them on entertainment before the poll, were duly chosen for the Short Parliament.76Add. 33145, f. 126. Stapley was returned for both Lewes and the county, and having chosen the latter, was doubtless behind the election of his former ward, Harbert Morley, as his replacement at Lewes.77CJ ii. 3b; C231/5, p. 380; C219/42ii/50; E. Suss. RO, SAS/D188. Stapley made no impression on the Parliament before it was dissolved by the king on 5 May. During the summer Stapley was involved in the indictment at the Sussex assizes of Thomas Bayly, a son of the celebrated devotional writer, Bishop Lewis Bayly, who had delivered a provocative and wide-ranging sermon not only against the dissolution of the monasteries and lay possession of tithes, but also the county establishment.78SP16/461, ff. 48-49v; T. Bayly, The Shepheards Star (1640).

Long Parliament

Stapley again worked closely with Pelham in the autumn elections. Their expenditure of £193 must have helped to ensure that they were both re-elected as knights of the shire.79Add. 33145, f. 132v. Once the House assembled, Stapley’s early committee appointments reflected his enthusiasm for further reformation. During the first weeks he was named to the committee for recusants (9 Nov.), and the committee charged with considering the appointment of preaching ministers (19 Dec.), as well as to committees dealing with the cases of those puritans imprisoned during the 1630s, such as Alexander Leighton, William Prynne*, Henry Burton, and Dr John Bastwick (13 Nov., 3 Dec.).80CJ ii. 24b, 28b, 44b, 54b. He was also placed on a committee to prepare a bill for granting supply (19 Nov.), but after 19 December he did not appear in the Journal again until 3 May 1641, when he took the Protestation.81CJ ii. 31b, 133b. Apparently spasmodic in his attendance, he was then invisible until August, when he was added to another committee for recusants (5 Aug.), and to a committee to prepare for a conference to consider putting the kingdom in a posture of defence (14 Aug.).82CJ ii. 238b, 257a. When he next appeared in the Journal six months later, Stapley acted as sponsor of those who had arrived to deliver the Sussex ‘root and branch’ petition (24 Feb. 1642), and delivered letters intercepted in Sussex, some of which had been directed to the French ambassador.83PJ ii. 402, 448, 455; Two Petitions of the Countie of Sussex (1641, E.134.35); LJ iv. 591; CJ ii. 450b.

Although Stapley received more nominations to committees at Westminster in the spring and summer – considering taking ‘popishly affected’ persons into custody (12 Apr.; named first) and, notably, to prepare the covenant of adherence to Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex, as commander of parliamentary forces (15 Aug.) – the war effort in Sussex became his major concern.84CJ ii. 515b, 523b, 722a. On 27 May he and Harbert Morley were dispatched to the country to organise the militia, and in late October or early November, once war had broken out, it was reported that he had settled the county militia, taken subscriptions, and made 2,000 men ready for battle.85CJ ii. 589b; PJ iii. 476; A Perfect Diurnall no. 21 (31 Oct.-7 Nov. 1642), sig. V4 (E.242.5). On 21 November Stapley, with Pelham and Morley, was ordered to raise forces and disarm delinquents in the county.86CJ ii. 857b; Add. 18777, f. 63. Illness appears to have hampered his subsequent efforts, however. It was reported on 26 November that Lewes sought help from either Morley or Stapley to organise the town’s defence, but the news in early December was that the town was still in need of military leadership, with nobody in the county prepared to provide it: ‘Mr Harbert Morley hath been long expected by them, and Mr Stapley stirs not at all’.87Englands Memorable Accidents (21-28 Nov. 1642), 95 (E.242.28); (28 Nov.-5 Dec. 1642), 103 (E.242.37); (5-12 Dec. 1642), 110 (E.244.9). While Stapley was named in the instructions agreed by the two Houses for the defence of Sussex, it is unclear what part he played in the siege and recapture of Chichester at the turn of the year.88LJ v. 478-81 He and Morley were, however, named to a committee (24 Jan. 1643) to consider petitions from Chichester after the parliamentarian triumph in the town, and on 13 February Morley and Stapley were ordered to bring an ordinance for raising money in Sussex for troops of horse; two days later it was ready to be sent to the Lords.89CJ ii. 940b, 964b, 965b-966a; Add. 18777, f. 155v.

Stapley and Morley were evidently amongst the most zealous supporters of Parliament’s military effort in the county, and as a result Parliament enhanced their powers at the expense of their old friend Sir Thomas Pelham, who appears to have been less prepared to assist in the prosecution of the war. On 7 March Pelham was ordered to hand over the books for weekly assessment to Stapley and Morley, who were required to advance that service.90CJ ii. 992b. While Stapley was named to a committee to investigate money raised for the army as a whole (22 Mar.), his work focused on the campaign in Sussex.91CJ iii. 12a. On 30 March the Commons gave him permission to take weapons there – perhaps for the regiment of foot for which he was responsible by 14 April – and he was also among MPs despatched to the county to further the attempts to raise money.92CJ iii. 25a, 36a, 43b. In May this involved him in the sequestration of the estate of the bishop of Chichester.93SP20/1, pp. 61-2. Although Stapley had returned to London by 19 June, when he took the covenant imposed in the aftermath of the plot of Edmund Waller*, and was shortly afterwards named to a joint committee sent to Guildhall to negotiate funds for Ireland (23 June), Sussex affairs pre-occupied most of his summer. 94CJ iii. 134b, 142a. In the House on 5 July, when he was one of a quartet who withdrew to draft a letter from the Speaker to Kent, Surrey and Sussex, before 11 July he was appointed governor of Chichester, and on 18 July to the Sussex county committee.95CJ iii. 156a, 162a, 173a, 182a, 212a.

Stapley probably left Westminster about this time. He took a keen interest in the well-being of his troops in Sussex, and resisted moves which he considered would place too great a financial strain on the local community.96SP28/214. In November he wrote to Speaker William Lenthall* complaining that plans to discharge the estate of a local royalist, Sir William Morley*, would hinder the payment of his troops. If it went ahead, Stapley sought ‘leave to provide for myself and men as I can, and to quit the employment when I cannot longer serve you in it’.97HMC Portland, i. 156. Willingness to challenge the decisions of his superiors soon erupted into a serious confrontation with Sir William Waller*, commander of forces in the southern associated counties. Apparently angry at the execution of one of his soldiers by one of Waller’s lieutenants, Stapley refused to quarter any of the commander’s troops in Chichester – an act of defiance which was eagerly exploited by royalist commentators.98Parliament Scout no. 29 (5-12 Jan. 1644), 249 (E.81.23); Mercurius Aulicus no. 54 (7-13 Jan. 1644), 774-5; CJ iii. 401a; Add. 31116, p. 233. Having heard Stapley’s case, on 10 January 1644 the Commons asked the earl of Essex to write to Stapley relaying the expectation that he would obey the orders of his superior.99CJ iii. 362a; A Letter from His Excellency, Robert Earl of Essex (1644, E.81.28). Stapley – who was in the House on 5 February to take the Solemn League and Covenant – responded that he had been placed at Chichester by Essex, and knew of no commission for Waller to exercise any command over him; indeed, he was prepared to resign his commission rather than submit to Waller.100CJ iii. 368a, 389a; Add. 31116, pp. 215-16. For his part, Waller complained that Stapley denied free quarter to his troops, ‘by means whereof he hath lost diverse commanders and men by sickness’. 101Add. 18779, f. 63v. A committee under Sir Henry Vane I* appointed to investigate the case decided, after some difficulty, that Stapley should be ‘subordinate and subject to the command of Sir William Waller’, but Stapley once more resisted, and the matter was returned to the Committee of Both Kingdoms (CBK) (20 Feb.).102CJ iii. 393a, 401a; Add. 31116, pp. 233-5. Although the CBK then ordered him to take orders from Waller, they agreed that Stapley was not to be held accountable for any ‘ill accident’ resulting from such obedience.103CJ iii. 403b; CSP Dom. 1644, pp. 21, 23, 24, 25.

Stapley evidently enjoyed some support on the CBK, which proceeded to promote the funding and raising of troops under him, although at the price of sending some to other areas, including to serve under Waller in his western campaign.104CSP Dom. 1644, pp. 93, 94, 98, 106, 150, 169, 171, 215, 292, 340, 360, 365, 370, 413, 454, 457, 469, 475; 1644-5, p. 23; CJ iii. 616a; SP28/135, ff. 53-7. On 15 July he was named to the committee of Lords and Commons who were prominent in military affairs to enforce the laws and ordinances of war.105CJ iii. 562b. He was also empowered in September to establish a garrison at Cowdray House, which the Sussex committee had planned to demolish.106CSP Dom. 1644, p. 541. Finally, with Pelham and Morley, he was ordered in October to make a survey of the estate in Sussex of the exiled Thomas Howard, 21st or 14th earl of Arundel.107LJ vii. 25, 39-40.

Increasingly identified with militants in his own county, Stapley began to serve the interests of the ‘war party’ at Westminster. In early February 1644 he was appointed to a committee to consider a challenge made to Edward Montagu†, 2nd earl of Manchester, major-general of the Eastern Association, who at this stage enjoyed war party support and whose position had recently been strengthened in a way which freed him from the authority of the earl of Essex.108CJ iii. 389a. In March Stapley was also named as a witness for the carefully managed trial of William Laud, although he appears not to have been called to give evidence.109CJ iii. 422a. On 3 September Stapley was appointed to a committee to meet with the Lords to consider the problems of the military command of Parliament’s army. 110CJ iii. 617. By this time the war party were disillusioned with Manchester following his reticence to engage with the king’s forces after Marston Moor; Stapley, who needed some of Manchester’s troops to help secure the garrison at Arundel Castle, was plausibly a nominee of the earl’s opponents, who included Sir Henry Vane II* and Oliver St John*.

However, the previous day Stapley had been ordered to Sussex, to deal with problems among the Chichester troops.111CJ iii. 616a. His representations about the pressures on the local community caused by quartering led the CBK on 2 January 1645 to issue another order for a contingent to be sent to assist elsewhere in the country, although that did not immediately stem local complaints, and soon troops were needed to defend both Chichester and Arundel.112CSP Dom. 1644-5, pp. 225, 227, 237, 239; CJ iv. 28b. Stapley was still in Sussex on 27 January, but was back at Westminster by 20 March, when with fellow militant William Cawley I* he was ordered to chivvy the county committee over the raising of money to maintain the newly-created New Model army.113CJ iv. 33b, 84b. He was evidently a supporter, but the accompanying Self-Denying Ordinance ended his military career – just as he got articles lodged against him by one Captain Higgons referred to the Committee for Examinations (29 Mar.); he was replaced at Chichester by Algernon Sydney*.114CJ iv. 92b; LJ vii. 363. In May and June he was nominated to committees relating to the financing of the New Model army, and consequently in sequestrations (also 16 Aug.).115CJ iv. 132a, 164a, 178b, 244b. With Henry Shelley* and Harbert Hay he sent a troop of horse to the west (7 June).116CJ iv. 168b.

Returning to Sussex in the late summer, on 29 September Stapley signed a letter from the county committee alerting the Commons to the activities of the clubmen.117LJ vii. 623; Bodl. Tanner 60, ff. 251-5. He stepped up earlier efforts to protect the treasurer for sequestrations, Stephen Humphrey, from the harassment of his enemies, writing with others on 20 November to William Lenthall, commending Humphrey’s service and asking that he might be released from prison.118SP28/255, unfol; HMC Portland, i. 314. In late January 1646 Stapley forwarded to Lenthall the Sussex petition for repayment out of sequestrations of money loaned towards £200,000 for the Scots, and for the dissolution of Chichester garrison.119HMC Portland, i. 347. Stapley’s other work with the county committee included the blocking of an attempt by the Committee for Revenue to seize the revenues from the earl of Dorset’s Sussex estates (19 Mar.).120Centre for Kentish Studies, U269/O8/3.

After a long interval, Stapley re-appeared in the Journal on 16 March 1646, when he was named to the sensitive committee to investigate which Members held offices of profit in the state.121CJ iv. 477a. In May he was nominated to consider a petition from George Wither, connected to an ongoing dispute between militants and moderates among parliamentarians in Surrey, while in June he became involved in the development of the peace proposals which became the Newcastle Propositions. He worked alongside those Independents such as Sir Henry Vane II*, and their allies amongst the Scots such as Archibald Campbell*, Marquess of Argyll, who sought to ensure that the proposals represented their interests, rather than those of Presbyterians such as Denzil Holles*.122CJ iv. 570b, 576a, 584b, 586b-587a. After the king’s rejection of the propositions, however, and the strengthening of the Presbyterians in the Commons, Stapley’s appearances became less frequent and less significant. In October he had three not inconsequential committee nominations and was asked to thank John Maynard, a Sussex minister and member of the Westminster Assembly, for his somewhat apocalyptic fast sermon to the Commons, but Stapley spent much of November and December 1646 in Sussex, working on the county committee and the commission of the peace.123CJ iv. 658b, 694b-695a, 703a, 709a; v. 28b; SP23/176, p. 231; LJ viii. 596b; J. Maynard, A Shadow of the Victory of Christ (1646); ‘John Maynard’, Oxford DNB.

Although Stapley had returned to London by 22 March 1647, when he was appointed to the committee discussing the restraint of ‘malignant ministers’, it soon became clear that the Presbyterians were in control of the House, and intent on disbanding the New Model army.124CJ v. 119b. Stapley briefly became involved in an attempt to oppose the ordinance whereby London, which was dominated by Presbyterians, was to regain control of its militia. On 2 April the ordinance was returned from the Lords, and the Commons divided over whether it should be referred to a committee of the whole House. The Presbyterians, led by Sir Anthony Irby* and Sir William Lewis*, successfully opposed this motion, and a select committee was appointed. Stapley’s appointment to this body clearly formed part of the attempt by the Independents to frustrate the passage of the ordinance.125CJ v. 132b. Thereafter, however, Stapley withdrew from the Commons, as so many Independents were to do, in the face of the power of the Presbyterians, and the threat of force from their supporters in London.

By this time, as his connection with Maynard suggests, Stapley was emerging as a religious Independent. His regimental chaplain in 1643-4 had been the newly-appointed rector of Petworth, Francis Cheynell, a prominent Presbyterian who remained a life-long friend. However, this bond may have been primarily personal.126SP28/135, f. 79; PROB11/246/60. In the summer of 1647 Stapley and William Cawley I* presented to the living of Rumboldswyke John Robotham, who had just received Presbyterian ordination, but who had Independent tendencies.127J. Robotham, The Preciousness of Christ (1647, E.1137.1); ‘John Robotham’, Oxford DNB.

Stapley did not return to Westminster even after the army’s march on London in the first week of August. He was absent at the call of the House on 9 October, and there is no evidence of his having been in London until January 1648, when he was named to committees to consider the repair of churches and fairer rates of assessment (10, 15 Jan.).128CJ v. 330b, 425a, 434a. His next appearance in the Journal was on 1 March, when he and Morley were added to the Admiralty Committee, possibly through the influence of Vane II, but despite the potential importance of this appointment, he was recorded as absent – albeit excused – on 24 April.129CJ v. 476b, 543b. On 17 May Stapley was among MPs charged with investigating the previous day’s riot outside the House, but his attention soon turned to disturbances in his own county.130CJ v. 562b. On 22 June parliamentarian activists reported to the Derby House Committee (DHC) from Horsham that, apparently encouraged by ‘the malignant party’, the bailiffs and constables there had refused to implement instructions from Morley and Stapley to remove its magazine to Arundel Castle, and indeed ‘to pay taxes or to yield any obedience to the ordinances of Parliament’. Moreover they threatened to ‘arm themselves… and rise as one man against all such as have not joined with them in a petition called the Sussex petition’.131HMC Portland, i. 465. On 11 August the DHC, having received covert intelligence of further unrest, authorised Morley, apparently then in London, to ‘acquaint Mr Stapley with the design against Sussex’ and ‘let [him] know that it is under secrecy at this committee’.132SP21/10, f. 85. The latter was by this time in the county, where he was a trustee for the marriage settlement of John Pelham* and Lady Lucy Sidney, daughter of the earl of Leicester.133E. Suss. RO, SAS/P/50.

Rump Parliament

Stapley made only one further recorded appearance in the Journal before Pride’s Purge, when (9 Sept.) he and Morley were named to certify the accounts of Henry Peck*, the commissary and paymaster for the troops in Sussex.134CJ vi. 14b. He became more visible in the House, however, from 20 December, the date on which he dissented from the vote of 5 December, in order to signal his opposition to further negotiations with the king.135PA, Ms CJ xxxiii, pp. 473-4. On that occasion also, his appearance related to ‘the business concerning Peck’s account’.136CJ vi. 102a. Evidently a supporter of the radicals, Stapley was named the committee to consider how to proceed against the king (23 Dec.), as well as to leading executive bodies, including the Committee for Sequestrations (23 Dec.), the Army Committee (6 Jan. 1649), and the Committee for Advance of Money (6 Jan.).137CJ vi. 103a, 107b, 110a, 113b; LJ x. 636b. Appointed one of the commissioners of the high court of justice, there is no evidence that Stapley participated in the preparations for the king’s trial before 20 January, but he subsequently attended all of the commissioners’ meetings, and all four days of the trial, after which he signed the king’s death warrant.138Muddiman, Trial, 76, 88, 96, 103, 195-228.

During the Rump Stapley’s career owed much to two of his oldest friends, Harbert Morley and Vane II. The latter was a business partner of Stapley, leasing property in Sussex from Sir Thomas Pelham in late 1652.139Add. Ch. 30913. Nevertheless, Stapley was an eminent figure in his own right, and did not become simply a client of either man; his proximity to these two, who were not the closest of allies, varied according to the issues at stake. With Vane, Stapley shared a ‘grandee’ republicanism, shorn of the social radicalism which characterised Morley and his friends, such as Henry Marten* and Thomas Chaloner*. Stapley had more in common with Morley in his religion, where he placed less emphasis on religious toleration than did Vane.

Stapley was one of 14 regicides named on 13 February 1649 to the first council of state, and having taken the engagement, he became active both in the council and the Commons.140CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 6; CJ vi. 141a, 146b. His appointments to conciliar committees related to matters such as Irish affairs, the sale of dean and chapter lands, and the army; he was also involved in plans to control illicit and scandalous printing. Some of his most important work, however, in both the Commons and the council, concerned the admiralty, an interest which he shared with Vane. He was also active in government finance, and throughout the first half of 1649, Stapley was concerned with reform of the exchequer, and in plans to create a new Committee of Accounts, and in investigating the abuses of its predecessor under William Prynne*.141CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 6, 19, 53, 58, 119, 127, 135, 137, 139, 140, 145, 148, 155, 162, 170, 176, 178, 182, 201, 252, 280, 362, 401, 417, 429-30, 494, 507-8; CJ vi. 159a, 185a, 187a, 187b, 196a, 204b, 207b, 216a, 270a, 286b. As the opponents of the regicide became more assertive at Westminster, however, from mid-August Stapley was less evident in the Commons, although he remained a reasonably assiduous attender at the council.142CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. lxxiv-lxxv. Briefly re-appearing in the Journal in early November, he was nominated to a committee on sheriffs’ accounts and worked with Morley on plans for the imposition of the Engagement upon the whole country.143CJ vi. 321b.

Despite not re-surfacing in the Journal until 9 February 1650, Stapley retained his place on the council in the elections held three days later.144CJ vi. 360a, 361b; CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 512 Even though he was given chambers in Whitehall, his visible activity in the House was modest and intermittent, with two committee appointments in February and March (with Morley, considering assessments, 18 Feb.; establishing courts martial in London and Westminster, 14 Mar.) and two more at the end of May (settling the militia and, again with Morley, addressing a petition from East Grinstead).145CJ vi. 368a, 381b, 417a, 418a; CSP Dom. 1650, pp. 171, 526. He then had two committee appointments in September, including one to encourage those who volunteered for parliamentary service, and one in December, when he was again nominated in connection with Ireland.146CJ vi. 463b, 467a, 512b. On the other hand, while he had put in one or no appearances at the council in April, July and August 1650, and January 1651, he was otherwise among the more frequent attenders.147CSP Dom. 1650, pp. xl-xli. He reported from the council on Irish affairs on 14 March and continued to contribute to its committees dealing with the admiralty and the ordnance, often alongside Vane, while in December he was added with Morley to the council's committee of examinations.148CJ vi. 382b; CSP Dom. 1650, pp. 2, 3, 18, 205, 488; Add. 22546, f. 33. However, his association with Morley probably contributed to delays in making good his nomination in February 1650 as vice-admiral of Sussex in February 1650: this was not formally confirmed until 8 February 1651.149SP25/17, ff. 35, 45; SP28/335/73-8. The appointment may have constituted some kind of compensation for his failure to gain re-election to the council of state in the ballots of 7 and 10 February 1651.150CJ vi. 532-3.

Stapley had not been totally eclipsed at Westminster. On 11 February he was among councillors tasked with sorting out suitable accommodation for the sub-committee for sequestrations and two days later he was added to a Commons committee which addressed the power of the admiralty and navy in relation to magazines and stores.151CSP Dom. 1651, p. 41; CJ vi. 534a. On the 27th he was a teller with Edmund Dunch* for the majority who favoured a proviso to protect interested third parties from losses when delinquents’ lands were sold.152CJ vi. 543a. But then, apart from two committee nominations in late April (including one related to a petition from Sussex magnate, Algernon Percy†, 4th earl of Northumberland), he disappeared from the Commons Journal until late November.153CJ vi. 567a.

Assisted by the decision that half of sitting members were to be removed, at the next conciliar elections on 25 November 1651 Stapley returned to the board, alongside Morley and friends such as Thomas Chaloner, Henry Marten, and Henry Neville*, and with a very respectable showing in the poll.154CJ vii. 42b. Named to two Commons committees in December, including that for the sale of lands forfeited for treason, he received only three more nominations in the ensuing year (10 Feb., 3 June, 27 Aug. 1652), although the last, to the committee for petitions, involved exercising some influence on business reaching the House.155CJ vii. 46b, 86b, 139a, 171b. As previously, he was more visibly active on the council of state, where his monthly attendances varied between 20 sessions in May 1652 and none in January, April and September.156CSP Dom. 1651-2, p. xlvii. Among numerous conciliar committees, that for admiralty was evidently again his primary concern, and he was also placed on the council’s committee for examinations (12 Mar.).157CSP Dom. 1651-2, pp. 43, 46, 54, 150, 177, 240, 316, 369. He was added to the ordnance committee on 16 August, but his stance on the Dutch war, promoted by Morley but opposed by Vane II, is unknown.158CSP Dom. 1651-2, pp. 373, 473. Whatever his views, his previous association with Morley probably accounts for his second failure to gain re-election to the council of state on 24 November.159CJ vii. 220a.

Stapley briefly retained some prominence, being named to Commons committees to meet deputies from Scotland (15 Dec.) and the French ambassador (21 Dec.).160CJ vii. 229b, 333b. But these were to be his last visible contributions to the Rump. He seems to have returned to Sussex and his duties as vice-admiral.161CSP Dom. 1652-3, p. 107.

Interim council and Nominated Parliament

Unlike Morley and other old friends in the Rump, Stapley approved of its dissolution and was prepared to work with those who had effected it. On 23 April he was reported to be among ‘several of the late Members’ who were in London ‘advising and consulting about settling the affairs of the nation’ and sitting as an interim council, ‘till the governors be chosen’.162Clarke Pprs. iii. 2, 4. In May and June he was involved in dealing with the Portuguese ambassador, and in July with gathering intelligence.163CSP Dom. 1652-3, pp. 333, 340, 402, 451, 454; 1653-4, pp. 12, 14. From April to mid-July he was among the council’s most assiduous attenders, but then, having been named again to this body on 9 July by the Nominated Parliament (which had opened on 4 July), a few days later vanished from its proceedings until 27 October, and the final three days of its existence.164CSP Dom. 1652-3, pp. xxxiv-xl; 1653-4, p. 16; CJ vii. 283a.

Stapley was one of the three members of the Sussex gentry nominated to the Parliament, perhaps owing his seat at least partly to a recommendation from John Robotham. In early August he was in Sussex, applying himself to business connected with the iron industry, with the encouragement of the council.165CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 71, 80. His sole appointment at Westminster came on 10 November, when with the radical, Denis Hollister, he was one of the Members added to the committee discussing the ‘new body of the law’ on the initiative of the faction in the House intent on radical legal reform.166CJ vii. 348b. The latter’s growing assertiveness eventually provoked the dissolution of the assembly, following the resignation of the majority who opposed the kind of sweeping reforms advocated by Stapley’s associates. Probably because of his radicalism, Stapley was not re-elected to the next council of state in November.

First Protectorate Parliament and last months

Despite the fact that he made his last appearance at the Sussex quarter sessions that October, in elections for the first protectorate Parliament the following summer, Stapley once again secured a county seat, alongside old friends like Sir Thomas Pelham and Harbert Morley, as well as his son John Stapley*.167E. Suss. RO, QO/EW2, f. 52v. Pelham died before the session began and Stapley, a beneficiary of his will, was probably himself already ailing.168PROB11/241/346. His only appearance in the Journal was on 5 September, when he was named to the committee of privileges.169CJ vii. 366b. On 12 October 1654 he drafted his will, although most of his property had already been settled upon his two surviving sons, John Stapley and Anthony Stapley II*.170PROB11/246/60. Following his death at the end of January 1655, both sons served as MPs, but they soon emerged as royalist sympathisers, active in an unsuccessful plot to restore Charles II in 1658. Their services to the Stuart cause, however, ensured that the family estates were not forfeited to the crown at the Restoration, as Stapley’s signature on the death warrant of Charles I should have ensured.