MORLEY, Harbert (1616-67), of Glynde Place, Suss.

Morley’s family originated in Lancashire, but owned property in Sussex by the fifteenth century, when they were first represented in Parliament.44Comber, Suss. Genealogies (Lewes), 189-94. By the end of the sixteenth century the family had a prominent position within the political and administrative life of the region, with successive generations serving their county as sheriff.45E. Suss. RO, Glynde 86-7, 91. Their extensive estate included the manor of Glynde, one of its great seats.46C142/488/92. Morley’s father, Robert Morley†, a Marian exile, represented Bramber and New Shoreham in the 1620s, and was sheriff in 1631.47HP Commons 1604-1629; CSP Dom. 1631-3, pp. 373, 379. Harbert Morley, the eldest son and heir, probably received a godly upbringing, and was educated at Lewes school, Emmanuel, Cambridge (the archetypal puritan college), and the Inner Temple.48Evelyn, Diary, iii. 65-6. Following Robert’s death in 1632, moreover, Morley came under the guardianship of the most prominent member of the puritan gentry in Sussex, Sir Thomas Pelham*, and his friend Anthony Stapley I*. Their power and influence may have been crucial for the development of Morley’s outlook, as they were for Morley’s introduction to the political life of both the county and the country.49WARD9/163, f. 44v.

Securing a Protestant commonwealth, 1640-2

Morley was first elected to Parliament as member for Lewes in the Short Parliament, although only as a replacement for Stapley, who had opted to sit for the county, and who may well have proposed him as a substitute. The election indenture was dated 28 April, and it is unclear if Morley attended Parliament before it was dissolved on 5 May.50E. Suss. RO, SAS/D188. He was returned for Lewes again in the Long Parliament, and although he did not make an immediate impression, he received an early nomination to the committee investigation a possible violation of the statutes of Emmanuel College (17 Dec. 1640).51CJ ii. 52a. His second nomination, on 16 February 1641 to consider abuses in the court of wards, also related directly to his personal experience, and heralded a slow acceleration in his apparent engagement in the business of the House.52CJ ii. 87a. In succeeding weeks he was appointed to committees addressing another grievance – wine patents (26 May) – and the long-contested question of the subsidy of tonage and poundage (18 Mar, 17 June).53CJ ii. 107a, 157a, 178b.

It must soon have become clear to fellow MPs that Morley’s primary preoccupation was to counter the perceived threat from Catholics, wherever it reared its head. Any direct campaign to promote godliness seems at this stage to have been a secondary concern. While the committee for the bill for establishing a new parish in Covent Garden was the only nomination in that area (25 May), he was named to committees for investigating ‘the popish hierarchy’ (16 Mar.) and ‘preventing the dangers’ posed by recusants (26 Mar.), and many of his recorded contributions to debates rehearsed this theme.54CJ ii. 105b, 113b, 156a; LJ iv. 385a. On 5 June he argued that an order of the House of Lords granting protection to families of peers who were recusants had been ‘against law’, while on 22 June he ‘declared that Sir John Beaumont, a papist, has gathered together 60 officers which he pretends to be for Portugal’ and described an incident ‘upon Friday night last’ when the watch had apprehended ‘many’ armed papists who had gathered at the house of one Captain Lewkenor.55Procs. LP iv. 736, 742; v. 281, 282. On 6 July he claimed that a cache of Catholic books discovered in ‘a papist house’ belonged to a priest ‘who is harboured with the Spanish ambassador’.56Procs. LP v. 523. Morley was also a notable critic of queen and her Catholic attendants: on 24 June he was among proposers of a motion that the visiting queen mother ‘might be sent away as well as the priests and Jesuits’.57CJ ii. 143b, 210a, 219a; Procs. LP v. 316, 318.

He was emerging as one of the more robust and fearless activists in the Commons. He had shown his mettle on 21 April in taking exception to Sir Robert Hatton’s reluctance to ‘be so forward’ as to call great persons to account by summoning them to the bar of the House, proclaiming that ‘the poorest Member was equal with the greatest’.58Procs. LP iv. 45. Successive revelations of the army plot probably confirmed his existing prejudices and strengthened his resolve. Morley took the Protestation promptly on 3 May and was among MPs who on 10 July attempted to contain the backlash represented by the scandalous pamphlet, The Protestation Protested.59CJ ii. 133a; Procs. LP v. 588. Included on the committee investigating the case of the fugitive former secretary of state – and supposed crypto-Catholic – Sir Francis Windebanke* (7 July), four days later he joined Henry Marten* in arguing for petitioning the king that George Digby*, Lord Digby, ‘be removed from all public employment and not be entrusted in it’, after the controversial publication of Digby’s speech against the attainder of the 1st earl of Strafford (Sir Thomas Wentworth†).60CJ ii. 201a; Procs. LP v. 617. Later he called for further examination of army plotter Captain James Chudleigh (24 July).61Procs. LP vi. 83.

Meanwhile, over the summer Morley was drawn into matters surrounding the treaty with the Scots and Charles I’s intended visit to the north, whether political or financial.62CJ ii. 180a, 182a, 196a, 197a. He was among MPs who met with the Lords to discuss the ‘Ten Propositions’ proffered by John Pym* as the basis of a political settlement (28 June).63CJ ii. 190b. One of the MPs delegated to prioritize what business of the House should be expedited before the king departed (12 July), he later showed his determination that the king should pass bills which had been approved by Parliament (9 Aug.).64CJ ii. 208a; Procs. LP vi. 313. Still keeping a severe eye on the pursuit of the plotters (12 Aug.), he was on the committee to facilitate the import of gunpowder (21 July) and among those who prepared for the conference with the Lords about placing the kingdom in a ‘posture of defence’ (14 Aug.).65Procs. LP vi. 386; CJ ii. 219b, 257a. Recusants, and the urgent need to disarm them, remained in his sights.66CJ ii. 238b, 258a, 261a, 268a.

By 9 September Morley’s prominence earned him a place on the Recess Committee, which sat during the king’s absence from Westminster.67CJ ii. 288b. When Parliament reassembled, a major concern for him, predictably, was dealing with the Irish Catholic rebels and relieving Ireland’s Protestants; related activity was sustained well into 1642 and resulted in his nomination to the Committee for Irish Affairs (3 Sept. 1642).68CJ ii. 305b, 350a, 396b, 447a, 468b, 571b, 750b; D’Ewes (C), 91, 227; PJ ii. 45. His enthusiasm for measures against Catholics in general continued undiminished.69CJ ii. 314a, 456b, 523b, 577b; D’Ewes (C), 79-80, 175; PJ ii. 337. He also gave an occasional indication of interest in church reform, expressing support for the Surrey ‘root and branch’ petition (17 Dec. 1641), and in time being added to the committee considering the abolition of episcopacy (5 Mar. 1642).70CJ ii. 467b; D’Ewes (C), 306.

Ever alert to security matters, on 13 December, as tensions mounted around Parliament itself, Morley was among MPs appointed to investigate an armed guard.71CJ ii. 313b, 340a. Possibly not present in Westminster around the time of the king’s abortive attempt to arrest the Five Members, on 28 January 1642 he was named to the committee for informations (or the Committee for Examinations as it would come to be known) as it investigated the subsequent authorisation and dissemination to all ports of arrest warrants for those Members.72CJ ii. 401a. Apparently perceived as a man of authority, or persuasive ability, or both, he was dispatched with William Strode I* to the king’s master of horse, James Hamilton, 3rd marquess of Hamilton, with the request to refrain from licensing the export of horses ‘in these times of danger’ (19 Feb.), and as Member for a south coast port he was an unsurprising nominee to the committee addressing the needs of the Portsmouth garrison.73CJ ii. 441b, 457a. Crucially, over the spring Morley was closely involved in the joint Commons’ and Lords’ communications with the king and later with his headquarters at York.74CJ ii. 461a, 477a, 484a, 525b, 550b, 583b, 586a; PJ i. 487; ii.367; LJ iv. 643a; v. 82b.

On 27 May Morley and Stapley – the order is perhaps significant, given the latter’s seniority in years – were given leave to go to Sussex to oversee the implementation of Parliament’s militia ordinance, but were instructed to return promptly when this was accomplished.75CJ ii. 589b. During the period in which the country armed for and teetered on the brink of all-out war, Morley divided his time between Westminster and Sussex, the affairs of which he had not ignored in the previous months, but which now occupied a greater proportion of his time.76Harl. 163, f. 303v; Harl. 478, f. 46; PJ i. 257, 417. Evidently back at Westminster by 20 June, over the summer and into the autumn he continued to receive nominations to do with matters of national importance, like the security of London, where he had a supervisory role. On 15 August he was added with Stapley and others to the committee drafting the covenant to be taken by those adhering to Parliament; on 20 August he was re-appointed to the Committee for Examinations; and on 6 September he was one of a trio of MPs instructed to inaugurate a record of ‘delinquents’ who had disobeyed orders of the House.77CJ ii. 634a, 649a, 656a, 721a, 722a, 728b, 751b, 755a, 797a; PJ iii. 262. However, his appearances in the Commons Journal were often connected to the control and defence of Sussex: investigating (with Robert Goodwin*) alterations to assize circuits (21 June), and (alone) acquiring gunpowder (1 July) and drawing up an order for the removal of ordnance to Rye (26 Aug.).78CJ ii. 635b, 647a, 711a, 738b. That it was he who, on 5 October, went to encourage the Lords to expedite the passing of instructions for parliamentarian leaders in Sussex, and on the 13th was ordered to go to the county to collect money raised, confirms his pre-eminence in the war effort there.79CJ ii. 795a, 806b. Yet before he left he was no less engaged in the wider conflict, going to the Lords again on 17 October with orders including that relating to the ‘brotherly assistance’ to Parliament’s allies the Scots.80CJ ii. 807b, 811b, 812a; LJ v. 404a.

Sussex activist and Westminster hawk 1642-5

For the next month Morley was absent from the record at Westminster, seemingly absorbed in local concerns. When he reappeared from 18 November, once again taking messages to the Lords, he was in the vanguard of those who saw the need for a vigorous prosecution of the war effort across the three kingdoms. The next day he and Henry Darley* were ordered to convey just such a message to Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex, lord general of the parliamentarian forces.81CJ ii. 855a, 857a; LJ v. 450b; Add. 18777, f. 60; Add. 31116, p. 20. The commission to him, Pelham and Stapley ordered on the 21st to raise troops in Sussex came not a moment too soon.82CJ ii. 857a-b; Add. 18777, f. 63v. The House heard via Morley on the 22nd that the sheriff had seized Chichester for the royalists.83CJ ii. 858a; Add. 18777, f. 61v. Having already pledged two horses to the cause (3 June), and by 26 November the colonel of a troop of harquebusiers, Morley was to remain in the army of the earl of Essex until the creation of the New Model.84PJ iii. 476; SP28/262, ff. 268, 374; SP28/144/1, ff. 2, 13, 20, 28, 81-2; SP28/144/2, ff. 5, 10. He soon left Westminster for Sussex, where his forces were involved in the recapture of Chichester in December, for which he earned the thanks of Parliament for his ‘valour and fidelity’.85England’s Memorable Accidents (28 Nov.-5 Dec. 1642), 103 (E.242.37); (5-12 Dec. 1642), sig. O, 110 (E244.9); (12-19 Dec. 1642), 118 (E.244.16); (19-26 Dec. 1642), 125 (E.244.26); CJ ii. 870a, 897a, 929a; Add. 31116, p. 39.

The immediate crisis past, Morley returned to Westminster for about a month from late January to late February 1643. Once again, he was a messenger to the Lords (21 Jan., 15 Feb.) and took a special interest in security; his first outing as a teller was with Sir Gilbert Gerard for the minority who wanted no obstacle to the peremptory searching of members of the inns of court (23 Feb.).86CJ ii. 938a, 963b, 975a, 977a; LJ v. 566b. But probably his chief aims were to promote a petition from the inhabitants of Chichester (24 Jan.) and to gain authorisation for further mobilisation in Sussex (13-15 Feb.).87CJ ii. 940b, 964b, 965b-66a; Add. 18777, ff. 132, 155v. Having accomplished this, Morley returned to his command, to securing financial contributions, and to keeping an eye out for fugitive royalists and clandestine consignments of horses attempting to cross the Channel.88CJ ii. 992b; iii. 4a, 15a, 43b, 63b, 67b, 77b; Certaine Informations no. 8 (6-13 Mar. 1643), 63 (E.93.4). He quickly attracted royalist criticism, and the nickname ‘the crooked rebel of Sussex’, possibly in reference to a physical deformity.89Mercurius Rusticus (1685), 161-7.

Morley’s pattern of alternating service in his county (or in neighbouring Hampshire) and in the Commons, and of dual engagement with local and national issues, was sustained, action in one area tending to bolster that in the others. On the heels of foiling a plot by Sir William Ogle* to betray Winchester (Apr.), he reappeared at Westminster to expedite the formation of the Sussex county committee (18 May 1643) and address other matters including Ireland, but before the end of May he was back at his post sending the Commons helpful intelligence.90Berks. RO, D/ELl/C2/1; CJ iii. 91a-92a, 102, 112a; LJ vi. 29a, 51a; Certaine Informations no. 14 (17-24 Apr. 1643), 110 (E.99.15). He (probably) surfaced on 19 June to ensure that the offer of a loan for raising horse was taken up, and was more certainly present in Westminster for some time in July, when, in among Sussex business, he went to the Lords with messages including one relating to the impeachment of the queen (3 July), and was named in connection with other significant business like the creation of a new great seal (5 July).91CJ iii. 134a, 151b, 152b, 153a, 154a, 155b, 156a, 159b, 170a; LJ vi. 117b-18a. His allegiance to the radical faction within the ‘war party’ was evident when he joined Henry Marten* and Cornelius Holland* in opposing the motion of John Pym* to send money to the Elizabeth Stuart, queen of Bohemia. Morley claimed that her son Prince Rupert ‘had robbed and spoiled the subjects of England of many thousand pounds, and was, therefore, able enough to relieve her’.92Harl. 165, f. 115.

A nervous summer of parliamentarian reversals perhaps played a part in encouraging Morley to return home, possibly before the end of July.93CJ iii. 182a, 212a. It was his vigilance on the ground that gave rise to the Commons’ order of 24 August that he arrest Sir John Evelyn of Wiltshire*, reported to be on the point of defecting to Oxford, although it was felt necessary to caution Morley that he must not ‘offer violence’ to the local grandee (and potential fellow-waiverer) who had recently been Evelyn’s host at Petworth, Algernon Percy†, 4th earl of Northumberland.94CJ iii. 217b; Harl. 165, f. 156. Morley went on to capture royalists at Ringwood, on the edge of the New Forest, before going to Southampton, where he was made a burgess on 6 September.95Mercurius Aulicus no. 37 (10-16 Sept. 1643), 511 (E.68.4). He was at Westminster on 30 September, when he was among a swathe of MPs who subscribed the Covenant, and may have stayed until after a nomination to help compose differences between Kentish deputy lieutenants (16 Oct.), but between then and March 1645 he received only three committee nominations.96CJ iii. 259a, 275a. Characteristically, despite his prolonged absences, these related to important and/or contentious business: raising money for maintaining forces and garrisons (11 Apr. 1644); investigating the offices bestowed by Parliament (a step towards what became the Self-Denying Ordinance,14 Nov.) and forwarding good relations with the Scottish Parliament (28 Dec.).97CJ iii. 457a, 695b; iv. 3b. He was also named a commissioner for martial law (15 July).98CJ iii. 526b.

In December 1643 Morley was deployed to prevent the forces of royalist commander Sir Ralph Hopton* progressing beyond Arundel, and he was recorded as still absent in service on 5 February 1644.99The Parliament Scout no. 25 (8-15 Dec. 1643), 215-16 (E.78.19); no. 26 (15-22 Dec. 1643), 220 (E.79.6); The Weekly Account no. 16 (20 Dec. 1643), 4 (E.78.29); A Full Relation of the Late Proceedings (1644), sig. Av (E.81.10); CJ iii. 389b. Although out of the sight of some, he was not out of mind. At the beginning of June he informed Speaker William Lenthall* of pictures seized from a Dunkirk ship, containing ‘gross idolatry’; subsequently delivered to Westminster, they were displayed in star chamber and widely reported in the press.100Bodl. Nalson 3, f. 232; The Scotish Dove no. 35 (7-14 June 1644), 277 (E.51.2); Mercurius Britanicus no. 39 (10-17 June 1644), 307 (E.51.8); The Sussex Picture (1644, E.3.21); [D. Featley], The Sea-Gull (1644, E.54.4). On 6 June, following directions from the Committee of Both Kingdoms, the Commons ordered that Morley’s troops were to be used around the royalist headquarters at Oxford, and on 21 June they signalled their appreciation of his ‘good services’, but that summer he was caught up in his most important campaign, the prolonged siege of Basing House.101CSP Dom. 1644, pp. 404, 408-9; Mercurius Aulicus no. 27 (30 June-6 July 1644), 1065 (E.2.30); no. 32 (4-10 Aug. 1644), 1117 (E.8.2); no. 33 (11-17 Aug. 1644), 1124 (E.8.20); no. 37 (8-14 Sept. 1644) (E.12.18); Mercurius Civicus no. 60 (11-17 July 1644), 576 (E.2.16); The Parliament Scout no. 64 (5-13 Sept. 1644), 516 (E.8.34); The London Post no. 5 (10 Sept. 1644), 3 (E.8.25); Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer no. 72 (10-17 Sept. 1644), 577-8 (E.9.3); The Weekly Account no. 5 (11-18 Sept. 1644), 438 (E.9.4). He was finally able to summons the garrison in early October.102Mercurius Britanicus no. 53 (7-14 Oct. 1644), 419-20 (E.12.19). Morley’s forces were subsequently used to support those of other commanders, leaving him dependent upon the trained bands for manning for the garrison at Cowdray Castle and defending Arundel and Chichester; much of his authority was usurped by Sir William Waller*.103CJ iii. 520b, 538a; CSP Dom. 1644, pp. 215, 218, 221, 239, 292, 307; 1644-5, pp. 130, 142, 226, 237, 239, 278, 318, 348; 1645-7, p. 38; The Weekly Account no. 1 (1-8 Jan. 1645), sig. Aaaa3 (E.24.7).

In the meantime, however, Morley had become a powerful political force in his native area. Described in July 1643 as one of the ‘principle [or principal] sticklers in … Sussex’, he was on the royalists’ list of those to be indicted for treason.104Mercurius Aulicus no. 27, 352; Northants, RO, FH133, unfol. He was both a leader on the county committee, and a firm advocate of an association with neighbouring counties.105CJ iii. 173a; Bodl. Nalson III, f. 21. Furthermore, he was a supporter of the radical scheme, promoted by the Sussex parliamentarians, for the covenant to be submitted for subscription in every parish, and a signatory to the strongly-worded letter against neutrality, sent by them to Westminster in January 1644.106Rushworth, Hist. Collns. iv. 480-1; Bodl. Tanner 62, f. 493; Mercurius Aulicus no. 14 (31 Mar.-6 Apr. 1644), 919-20 (E.43.18). He was also active on the local committee for sequestrations, and wielded influence over Parliament’s treatment of local royalists like Thomas May*.107SP23/223, p. 881; SP23/176, p. 211. The previously mentioned ‘idolatrous’ pictures notwithstanding, evidence as to his precise religious stance is elusive, but by the mid-1640s his regimental chaplain was one John Osborne, later to evince radical views.108C142/488/92; J. Osborne, The World to Come, or the Mysterie of the Resurrection Opened (1651, E.635.1); An Indictment against Tythes (1659, E.989.28).

Civilian Independent, 1645-8

The eventual passing of the Self-Denying Ordinance ended the first phase of Morley’s own military career, and, although still regularly detained by local matters, he was able to devote somewhat more time to service at Westminster. After a brief reappearance in March 1645, apparently terminated by the imperative to return to Sussex to gather in arrears of money due to the Scots (11 Mar.), he was a more visible presence over the summer.109CJ iv. 69b, 75b. He was then named to committees dealing with important national issues: the prince elector, the perennial subject of rumours regarding plans to replace Charles I on the throne (6 May); the better regulation of sequestrations (18 June); consideration of compromising royal correspondence captured at Naseby 23 June, 1 July); and Parliament’s new executive for Ireland, the Star Chamber Committee of Irish Affairs* (24 July 1645).110CJ iv. 133a, 178b, 183b, 191b, 217b; CSP Ire. 1633-47, pp. 416-530. He also presented information for the perusal of the House (29 July).111CJ iv. 224b. Among other matters, he was also appointed to discuss the London militia (10 July) and ordinances enabling regional associations in the west and East Anglia to assume greater powers (2, 11 Sept.).112CJ iv. 201a, 203a, 262a, 271b; E. Suss. RO, Danny 62-4. Congratulated for his part in sending up from Sussex recruits and money for the New Model (9 Sept.), he had not forsaken direct military action and that month was involved in the suppression of the Sussex clubmen.113CSP Dom. 1645-7, pp. 151-2; CJ iv. 267b; Mercurius Civicus no. 122 (18-25 Sept. 1645), 1073 (E.303.8).

Except for two committee nominations on familiar issues in early December, Morley was absent from the Journal from mid-September until the late spring of 1646, perhaps convinced that his presence was required to keep control of Sussex, since a ‘peace party’ had now emerged under the leadership of his former mentor Sir Thomas Pelham.114CJ iv. 365a, 368b. That autumn Morley sought to influence the recruiter elections, taking advantage of the considerable power base he had built up in the county. The foundation of this group was provided by kinsmen like his own ward, the young John Fagge*, and his co-guardian, William Hay*, MP for Rye.115Bodl. Nalson XI, ff. 185-6. Hay and Morley were responsible for securing Fagge’s return to the other seat at Rye on 1 October 1645, and Morley was probably also instrumental in the election of his faithful friend Roger Gratwyke* at Hastings.

After the end of the first civil war Morley re-emerged in the Commons. Between 20 May and 28 July 1646, when he obtained leave to go into the country, he received nine committee appointments: two concerned the ordinance for exclusion from the sacrament, suggesting an inclination to a ‘visible church’ (23 May, 3 June); two related to the sale of delinquents’ estates and complaints about royalists who had come into Parliament’s quarters; and the rest included investigation of dissidents disparate as John Lilburne and Presbyterian petitioners.116CJ iv. 552a, 553b, 562b; 611b, 612b, 613a, 616a, 625a, 629a. His next appearance in the Journal, in late September, was as a member of the committee to meet with the Lords and the Scots commissioners to confer over the custody of the king; that he did so as an Independent, taking a hard line against the Scots, is indicated by the identities of his fellow managers when a second conference took place on 16 October.117CJ iv. 675a, 694b, 696a. His Independent allegiance was also apparent when he was a teller with Oliver Cromwell* against two Presbyterians (William Ashhurst* and Edward Bayntun*) in a division over the appointment of heralds (20 Oct.), and it almost certainly coloured his attitude to the other matters he was involved in that month, including indemnity for those who had followed Parliament’s orders, investigations into the attempts to remove money and papers from Essex House following the lord general’s death, and attendance at the Committee for Irish Affairs.118CJ iv. 694b, 696b, 700b, 702b, 703a, 709a; CSP Dom. 1625-49, p. 700. The company he kept at this juncture may explain his otherwise uncharacteristic nomination to look into the reform of the court of chancery, although the subsidiary aim of this committee – to receive complaints about unsuitable justices of the peace – probably fitted his ambitions for Sussex.119CJ iv. 701a.

After two months of apparent absence the Commons, Morley once again reappeared at a critical political moment as tension between Independents and Presbyterians intensified. On 25 December 1646 he was added to the committee considering a petition from soldiers who had served in the now disbanded Western Association army of Sir Edward Massie*, a Presbyterian.120CJ v. 28b. This appointment heralded a period of sustained activity. As Parliament considered their way forward after the king’s unsatisfactory answer to the Newcastle Propositions, Morley – evidently among those who took a hard line – was involved in successive deliberations and was twice (6, 9 Feb.; 2, 3 Mar. 1647) deputed to draft letters to the Houses’ commissioners with Charles at Holdenby.121CJ v. 30a, 31b, 33a, 65b, 77b, 81b, 103b, 104b. Morley was also added to a committee headed by Independent MP Samuel Browne charged with overseeing the work of the Presbyterian-dominated Committee of Accounts*, chaired by William Prynne*.122CJ v. 50a, 62b. On 11 January the House referred to the committee of complaints a letter from Sir Richard Onslow* to Morley – doubtless produced by the latter at an opportune moment – which had enclosed material exposing royalist machinations in late 1643.123CJ v. 48b. Among other business, he was named to investigate potentially subversive publications, to pursue delinquents and (23 Mar.) to the committee preparing the ordinance for regulating the University of Oxford.124CJ v. 73a, 74a, 84b, 117b, 119b, 121a.

Granted leave on 25 March to go into the country, he postponed his departure, lingering with clear political intent.125CJ v. 124a. As clashes over the proposed disbandment of the army and redeployment of certain regiments to Ireland came to a head, on 27 March Morley was twice a teller with Independent leader Sir Arthur Hesilrige (with whom he had worked in Sussex in 1642, and with whom he was to be associated in late 1659) for the minority against a Presbyterian motion to discuss the government of Ireland.126CJ v. 127b. He had already been nominated to consider the representations of officers and soldiers, and on 29 March was again a teller against two Presbyterians, in opposition to a motion that the predominantly Presbyterian regiments of Sydenham Pointz, Slingisby Bethell* and Lionell Copley* should stay in England rather than go to Ireland.127CJ v. 125b, 127b, 128b. A third defeat here, together with Presbyterian sway over the committee discussing control over the London militia, to which he was nominated on 2 April, probably prompted him to take advantage of his leave.128CJ v. 132b.

As army agitation increased and the pendulum swung back towards the Independents, from early May Morley was again in evidence, considering, among other business, matters of indemnity and the settlement of land on commander-in-chief Sir Thomas Fairfax*.129CJ v. 166a, 167a, 174a, 194b, 195a, 229a; SP24/1, ff. 2v, 8v, 12, 58, 66, 102v, 103v, 128, 176, 180, 186v, 190; SP24/2, ff. 1, 11v, 23v, 32. Once again he was involved in drafting instructions for commissioners with the king (24 June).130CJ v. 222a. On 22 July he was able to reverse the disappointment of the spring when he was the teller for the sizeable majority which voted to remove the London militia from Presbyterian control.131CJ v. 254b

This was, however, one of the catalysts for the Presbyterian ‘forcing of the Houses’ four days later. According to one source, Morley joined other Independents in fleeing to the army and in signing their declaration in support of Fairfax and his men.132HMC Egmont, i. 440. When the Independents returned to Westminster following the army’s march on London, Morley was named to the committee appointed to consider repealing all measures passed during their enforced absence (18 Aug.), and to three other committees in the next two days, only to then vanish from the Journal for two months.133CJ v. 278a, 278b, 279b. Recorded as absent at the call of the House on 9 October, he was fined, although the £20 he paid was ordered to be refunded (28 Oct.) following his return.134CJ v. 330b, 344a. Back in harness by the 22nd, Morley was among MPs named to the potentially influential task of collecting, cataloguing and making available to Parliament the records of its proceedings and committees (2 Nov.).135CJ v. 348a. He trod a delicate path as the Independents fractured over attitudes to the army and the latest round of negotiations with the king. On the one hand, in committees and tellerships to do with the former, he was ranged against (among others) Hesilrige, and opposed the demands of army radicals.136CJ v. 340a, 349b, 363b. On the other hand, in committees and divisions on peace proposals and the safety of the king’s person, Morley (on 27 Nov. with Henry Marten*) diverged from army grandees and ‘royal’ Independents like Sir John Evelyn of Wiltshire, and opposed further attempts at dealing with Charles.137CJ v. 351b, 359a, 367a, 371a.

On 3 December Morley was given leave to go into the country for six weeks, but such was the temperature at Westminster that he seems to have found it even more difficult than previously to tear himself away.138CJ v. 375a. Named on 7 December to committees to prioritize business before the House and to consider a representation from the army council, on the 15th he was among those nominated to prepare an answer to the latest proposals from the Scots.139CJ v. 376b, 385a. He returned to the Commons in time to participate in debates preparatory to the vote of ‘No Further Addresses’ – in which he was reported to have been one of the ‘four principal firemen’ who spoke against the king – when the vote was carried, was appointed to help prepare the declaration justifying it (3 Jan. 1648).140CJ v. 416a; Mercurius Pragmaticus no. 17 (4-11 Jan. 1648), sigs. Rv, R2 (E.422.17); Mercurius Elencticus no. 6 (29 Dec. 1648-5 Jan. 1649), 48 (E.421.34).

In the weeks succeeding this important decision, starting with the committee for grievances (4 Jan.), Morley received an unprecedentedly wide range of committee nominations, on matters including the repair of churches, tithes (against which his former regimental chaplain published in 1651), and the rights of tenants of delinquent landlords.141CJ v. 417a, 425a, 447b, 460b, 484b; Osborne, An Indictment against Tythes. He was made joint chair of the committee devising a way of equal assessment of the counties (15 Jan., 6 Mar.) and was added to the standing committees for the Admiralty (1 Mar.), for petitions (8 Mar.) and for Plundered Ministers* (24 Mar.).142CJ v. 434a, 476b, 481a, 486a. All this increased his workload substantially, on top of his heavy involvement that spring in the Committee for Irish Affairs at Derby House* and other minor Irish committees.143SP63/266, ff. 16v, 77, 79; CSP Ire. 1647-60, p. 11; CJ v. 465a, 509a, 538b. Once again, he was at the heart of communications with the Scots (3 Apr., 12 May), and he was in charge of an ordinance against delinquents (20 Apr.).144CJ v. 523b, 537b, 538b, 558b. All this rested at least partly on a rebuilding of ties with other Independents. One of the two messages Morley carried to the Lords on 22 March was an order for payment of a debt owing to Hesilrige, while as the House split on factional lines, he joined radical Sir Michael Livesay* as a teller for those who opposed the question ‘that the House doth declare that they will not alter the fundamental government of the kingdom by king, Lords and Commons’ (28 Apr.), and Evelyn as a teller to advance the ordinance on delinquents (8 May); in contrast to his success when he had opposed them earlier, this time he joined them in decisive defeat.145CJ v. 547a, 554a.

As insurrection threatened, Morley was appointed to a committee to consider settling the militia of the kingdom (4 May), and was soon given leave to go home to assist in the prevention of a royalist uprising at Horsham (20 May).146CJ v. 551a, 566b; Bodl. Nalson VII, f. 68; 11, f. 200. He reappeared briefly in the Journal two months later to promote measures for raising extra troops to keep the peace in the county (20 July) and the same day was named to the committee investigating who was behind the incursion of Scottish troops under the duke of Hamilton.147CJ v. 640b; CSP Dom. 1648-9, pp. 218, 239. But in a division on 28 July when he was once more ranged against Sir John Evelyn, he failed to marshal sufficient votes to block further peace negotiations by securing adherence to the Vote of No Addresses.148CJ v. 650a. Thereafter, disillusionment at the resumption of peace talks may have led Morley to withdraw – if not altogether, at least from the ‘front benches’. He was apparently involved, in mid-August, in prosecuting John Bulkeley* for private discourse with the king, and was reported to have opposed petitions for physicians to attend Charles (20 Sept.).149Mercurius Pragmaticus no. 21 (15-22 Aug. 1648), sig. Aav (E.460.21); no. 26 (19-26 Sept. 1648), sig. Ll3 (E.464.45). Twice in September he was mentioned in the Journal (with his allies Stapley and Apsley) in connection with receiving assessments and authorising army pay, and on 16 October he was again granted leave.150CJ vi. 14, 30b, 53a. There is no sign that he was in the chamber again before Pride’s Purge on 6 December.

Republican in the Rump and the Dutch War

Despite his consistent opposition to peace proposals, Morley gave little indication of supporting the trial of the king. Although named as a commissioner for the high court of justice, he attended only three of the meetings in the Painted Chamber (12, 15, and 18 Jan. 1649), and did not attend the trial itself, or sign the death warrant.151Muddiman, Trial, 199, 202, 205. His first appearance in the Journal since the purge occurred only on 15 January, when he was among those named to address the petition from the common council of London – old antagonists – and his only other visible contribution to proceedings that month occurred on the 18th, coinciding with his final attendance in the Painted Chamber.152CJ vi. 118a. On that occasion he was a teller for the minority in favour securing the Lords’ concurrence to the votes of 4 January, which had resolved that the Commons held supreme power in government, irrespective of the wishes of the king or the Lords. It is not clear whether this represents an attempt to establish peers’ anticipated dissent in plain sight, with the intention of quashing it, or to retain some of their powers.153CJ vi. 121a.

In the first month of the new republic Morley finally took the dissent to the vote of 5 December in favour of a treaty (5 Feb.) and received two committee nominations – to oversee the revenue raised from dean and chapter lands (5 Feb.) and to remodel commissions of the peace (8 Feb.).154PA, Ms CJ xxxiii, p. 645; CJ vi. 132a, 134a. By comparison with others who had returned to the chamber by this time, this was a very modest record, and Morley continued at this level into early 1650, his low profile replicated in his (only) occasional appearances at Sussex quarter sessions.155E. Suss. RO, QO/EW2, ff. 16, 19v, 38, 43. But such appointments as he garnered were not negligible. Nominations to committees like those for the probate of wills, for hospitals, for presentations to benefices and, above all, for subscription to the Engagement (9 Nov.), gave him further opportunities to shape the new regime, while those to consider the bill on the admiralty (12 Apr.) and to join the Army Committee (20 July) set him up for important service to come.156CJ vi. 181a, 185a, 196a, 260a, 263a, 263b, 267a-b, 319b, 321b.

It is perhaps a reflection of the emergence of a more effective radical group in the Commons that from February 1650 Morley became more active, although his relationship with leaders like Henry Marten and Thomas Chaloner seems complex, and his engagement was still within the familiar framework of regular periods apparently away from the chamber.157CJ vi. 358a. On 18 February he was a teller for the majority who opposed the suspension of assessment collection in Oxfordshire, Berkshire and Hampshire, and among several appointments that month was nominated to review the committee of accounts and the assessment ordinances.158CJ vi. 360a, 368a. He reported (16 Feb.) from the committee which drew plans for an enlarged council of state, and four days later was elected as a member of it, coming third in the poll.159CJ vi. 363b, 367a, 369a; CSP Dom. 1650, p. 5; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 474. He subsequently took the Engagement, and was awarded lodgings in Somerset House.160CSP Dom. 1650, pp. 52, 526. His attendance at council meetings was noticeably sporadic and below average, but he occasionally reported from them to the Commons: on defence and the necessity for a standing army (7 May); on those imprisoned on the Isle of Man by the royalist James Stanley, 7th earl of Derby (23 July); and on a letter from the young Louis XIV (19 Sept.).161CJ vi. 409a, 445a, 469b; CSP Dom. 1650, pp. xv-xli.

In Parliament Morley was involved in miscellaneous business including wardship (7 May), the propagation of the gospel in Yorkshire (7 June), the poor laws (9 Oct.) and the prevention of burglary (10 Jan. 1651).162CJ vi. 403b, 409a, 418a, 420b, 463b, 469a, 481a, 515b, 516a, 517a, 522b. An unsurprising nominee to consider a bill for prohibiting trade with Scotland (23 July 1650), he retained his periodic interest in Irish affairs.163CJ vi. 444b, 512b; CSP Dom. 1650, p. 18. Still associated with matters relating to the army and admiralty, he was probably one of the guiding forces behind the attempt to reform the militia.164CJ vi. 417a, 463b, 534a; Bodl. Rawl. A.225, ff. 28, 34v-48v, 63v; CSP Dom. 1650, pp. 128, 135, 138, 145, 164, 167, 176, 187, 338, 476; 1651, p. 11. A very occasional attender at the committee for excise – where the misrecording of his first name as Henry seems symptomatic – he was a teller in the division which ensured that every Member would have a chance to choose excise commissioners (9 July), his partner being Livesay.165CJ vi. 439a; Bodl. Rawl. C.386. In tandem with Luke Robinson, and against Henry Marten, he secured 4 January 1642 as the (punitively early) date from which delinquents might forfeit the income from their estates (9 Jan. 1651), but with Alexander Popham and John Downes* he lost successive divisions on the punishment of false marriages (10 Jan.).166CJ vi. 522a, 522b.

Although only recently named again to committees for the navy and accommodation at Whitehall (13, 14 Feb. 1651), that month Morley, like Marten and Robinson, was deselected from the council of state, a victim of the resurgence of conservative elements in the Rump.167CJ vi. 534a, 534b. Although added to the committee for the bill for a general pardon (4 Mar.), he received somewhat fewer nominations than the previous summer; several related to private business, including a petition from leading Sussex peer the earl of Northumberland (25 Apr.), and the expenses of Thomas Grey*, Lord Grey of Groby, in his service against the Scots (7 Aug.).168CJ vi. 544b, 567a, 569b, 616b, 618b; vii. 23b. A sign of partial political eclipse was that he was unsuccessful in all six tellerships over this period: with Lord Grey on an Irish matter (24 Apr.); with Sir Henry Vane II* and then with Chaloner on Newcastle market (18 June); with Carew Raleigh (and against Vane) over the admiralty and navy (26 June); and, most significantly, twice with Denis Bond and against Oliver Cromwell and Lord Chief Justice Oliver St John in the latter’s attempt to set a deadline by which the Rump would be dissolved (14 Nov.).169CJ vi. 567a, 589b, 592a; vii. 36b; CCAM 1254; CSP Col. 1574-1660, p. 336. Dissatisfaction, or even disaffection, may have led him to spend more time than usual in Sussex, where he appears to have been involved healing wounds among the ‘county community’, including seeking to help those who were inclined towards royalism.170CSP Dom. 1651, pp. 97, 179, 531; CCAM 489; SP23/169, p. 571. He acted as a trustee for one leading Sussex royalist, John Ashburnham*, and would later help his old friend, the diarist John Evelyn, to secure a pass for his wife.171PROB11/338/494; Evelyn, Diary, iii. 65-6.

Morley’s opposition to Cromwell may also have prompted his selection in late November as a teller of the House and of the papers in elections for the next council of state.172CJ vii. 41b, 42a. On the 25th he was himself returned with the most votes of the new members.173CJ vii. 42b. Although still not among the most assiduous attenders at council meetings, Morley had attained power and influence, not least owing to the election of his Sussex colleagues and acolytes, Anthony Stapley I, William Hay, and John Downes. Particularly active on the council’s admiralty committee, he was also heavily involved in the inter-related areas of diplomacy, intelligence, admiralty affairs, and trade.174Bodl. Rawl. A.226, ff. 53, 68v-74v, 92-172, 194v-202, 234v, 235v, 241v, 249v, 250v; CSP Dom. 1651-2, pp. 45-6, 99, 122, 211-12, 233, 242, 244, 284, 290, 294, 312, 318, 368-9, 396, 412, 420-1, 423, 489, 496; CJ vii. 100a, 119a, 142b, 143a, 187b. Tension and then war with the Dutch propelled him into the work of the ordnance and navy committees, raising ships and men, and organising defences in the south-eastern ports, including those in his native Sussex.175CSP Dom. 1651-2, pp. 99, 204, 255, 284, 232, 250, 293, 298, 319, 336, 360, 608; CJ vii. 111a, 115a, 134b, 210a; Add. 18986, ff. 21, 25, 27. As a corollory to this, he engaged in schemes for raising money, such as compounding with delinquents, and the sale of forfeited estates, fee farm rents, and bishops’ lands.176CJ vii. 46b, 112a, 115a, 128a, 151b, 154b, 217a. Finance may also have played a part in Morley’s dealings with the City of London, although there were other political reasons for his negotiations with the aldermen and common councillors, such as the desire to influence their municipal elections.177CSP Dom. 1651-2, pp. 46, 56, 119; CJ vii. 187b.

Morley’s support for war against the Dutch almost certainly sprang from his republicanism, which was apparent in his other activity from late 1651 through 1652. He was involved, for example, in the process for abolishing the monarchy in Scotland, and was a teller with Algernon Sydney* against a motion to consider a petition of Alderman John Fowke, in a gesture which may have reflected opposition to a judgement in Fowke’s case passed by the Lords in the 1640s.178CJ vii. 118b, 154b; CSP Dom. 1651-2, pp. 43, 416; Worden, Rump Parl. 311. Morley’s religious attitudes, on the other hand, are more difficult to deduce from his nomination to committees to consider a petition from Sion College and to deal with recusants.179CSP Dom. 1651-2, p. 52; CJ vii. 147a Nevertheless, his opposition to radical toleration may be evident from his involvement in examining those involved in publication of the Racovian catechism.180CSP Dom. 1651-2, p. 132.

Neither his apparent absence from Westminster and Whitehall for most of October 1652 – a time when general attendance was probably low – nor his high profile in the controversial war prevented Morley from retaining his place on the council of state in the elections held on 24 November 1652, in which he came eighth in the poll of those who were to be allowed to remain members. Nevertheless, his allies Stapley, Downes and Hay were removed, while another, John Fagge, failed to secure election.181Worden, Rump Parl. 313; CJ vii. 220a; CSP Dom. 1651-2, p. 505. Following the poll, Morley was immediately renamed to powerful conciliar committees dealing with Ireland and Scotland, the Admiralty, trade, and foreign affairs, although his attendance at general council meetings was well below average.182CSP Dom. 1652-3, pp. xxxiii, 510. Between then and the dissolution of Parliament in April, he made only one report from it to the Commons.183CJ vii. 223b; CSP Dom. 1651-2, p. 515. Absent on naval business from December, he was named to only two committees over the winter, one of which concerned a Sussex colleague, James Temple*.184CJ vii. 222b, 251a; CSP Dom. 1652-3, pp. 1, 3, 10-12, 18, 20, 22-3, 37-8, 41, 48-9, 127. His power and prominence subsequently diminished, as he, like Marten and Chaloner, was side-lined by more conservative forces, disgruntled with the conduct of the war effort. In the spring of 1653 Morley returned to Sussex as commander of Arundel Castle, a post which his brother had held in the 1640s.185SP28/90, f. 434; SP28/91, ff. 143, 428; SP28/92, f. 156; CSP Dom. 1645-7, p. 563. But he did resurface at Westminster in late March to participate in the debates on the bill for the new representative, apparently with the aim of settling a parliamentary system of government and pre-empting rule by a military or Cromwellian junto.186CSP Dom. 1652-3, pp. 218, 231, 250, 261, 263, 266, 273. He was twice a teller in related divisions, once when he and another republican, Sir Arthur Hesilrige, were ranged against Vane II and Denis Bond*, in favour of setting the property franchise at £200.187CJ vii. 270b, 273b. Nominated to minor committees in April, he was present when Cromwell dissolved Parliament on 19 April 1653.188CJ vii. 276b, 277b, 278a, 280a.

Protectorate Parliaments: opposition within limits?

This was a move Morley had tried to forestall, and as such he was clearly suspect. In July he and John Fagge were required to take an oath of fidelity to the commonwealth.189CSP Dom. 1653-4, p. 62. But that autumn, in the elections for the first protectorate Parliament, he was returned both for Rye and as a knight of the shire.190E. Suss. RO, Rye 1/14, ff. 126r-v; Rye 47/150, unfol. He opted to sit for Sussex, prompting an order for a writ for the election of a replacement at Rye (23 Oct.).191C231/6, p. 299; CJ vii. 377b. Morley sought to secure places locally for his political allies, including Sir Thomas Rivers*, who had been prevented from taking his seat on a technicality, and whose case Morley successfully drew to the attention of the Commons (2 Dec.).192CJ vii. 394a.

The bulk of Morley’s parliamentary activity was taken up by consideration of the settlement of the government. Among a handful of other committee appointments on such matters as the office of sheriff, and the excise and debts of the navy (18 Jan. 1655), he was named three times to consider aspects of that settlement.193CJ vii. 366b, 380a, 394b, 395a, 411b, 415a-b, 419a. His opposition to the protectorate was apparent in eight outings as a teller on related questions (three of them in partnership with Sir Richard Onslow); on five of those occasions he was opposed to Roger Boyle*, 1st Baron Broghill. Some of these divisions represented tactics aimed at delaying ratification of the settlement.194CJ vii. 384a, 395b, 417b, 409b, 414b; Burton’s Diary, i. p. cxxvii. However, he was also a teller against a clause in the Instrument of Government that the council should be nominated by the protector (2 Dec. 1654), against the motion to set the quorum of the council at 11 rather than nine, and against the motion that ‘damnable heresies’ were to be decided by Parliament.195CJ vii. 394b, 395b, 412a.

Shortly after Parliament was dissolved (22 Jan. 1655) rumours reached secretary of state John Thurloe* that Morley was involved in planning a rising of republican radicals including John Wildman*, and John Okey*.196TSP iii. 147-8. There is little indication that this was true, however, and in April 1655 Morley was willing to help the government by informing Thurloe about, and taking examinations of, suspects travelling through Sussex between England and France.197TSP iii. 369, 403-4. Furthermore, in November 1655 William Goffe*, major-general for Sussex, reported that he planned to visit Morley, expecting a civil reception, although not overt support.198TSP iv. 151. Goffe subsequently reported to Thurloe that Morley, like John Fagge and William Hay, was willing to work as a justice of the peace, but in no other capacity.199TSP iv. 161. This appears to have been precisely the role which Morley undertook subsequently, although he was involved in considering a petition referred to him by the protectoral council concerning Chichester.200TSP iv. 549, 573-4; E. Suss. RO, QO/EW2, ff. 52v, 60, 61, 65v; QO/EW3, ff. 3, 4v, 8v, 12v, 17, 18v, 34v, 37v, 46v, 51, 52v, 60v, 65; CSP Dom. 1655-6, p. 95.

Morley returned to prominence once again during the elections for the 1656 Parliament. Indeed, Goffe reported that Morley ‘ruled the roost by help of the disaffected party, much to the grief of the honest party’, adding that ‘it was their design to have no soldier, decimator or any man that hath salary [from the government]’.201TSP v. 341. Noting that, in addition to a place for Hay at Rye, ‘it’s designed by Colonel Morley that Sir John Trevor* [his father-in-law] be chosen for Arundel’, Goffe aimed to prevent the success of Morley’s friends.202TSP v. 341. Morley himself, re-elected for the county, was excluded from Parliament by the council under the terms of the Instrument of Government.203The Humble Remonstrance and Appeale of Several Knights and Gentlemen (1656, E.889.8). Yet although his name appeared on the declaration of the excluded Members, he subsequently denied any knowledge of it, and suggested that there was an attempt to discredit those so excluded. Taking a high moral tone, he proclaimed that, ‘since I am debarred from exercise of the trust reposed in me by my country to serve them in Parliament I am well contented I shall ever live quietly at my own house’.204TSP v. 456, 490-1.

It appears that in the next few months Morley was as good as his word. In October 1657 he was appointed a commissioner of public faith.205Mercurius Politicus no. 387 (22-29 Oct. 1657), 62-3 (E.505.35). Readmitted to the Commons during the second session of this Parliament early in 1658, he was named to only one committee – that for the bill for repairing highways (28 Jan.) – before the dissolution on 4 February.206CJ vii. 588b. Morley may have been approached by those involved in the royalist plot organised that spring by John Stapley*, ‘because he appeared to be so much discontented’.207TSP vii. 67. On the other hand, it is possible that Charles Stuart would not permit the involvement of anyone who, like Morley, had been excluded from pardon by his father.208TSP vii. 89.

Morley was elected for both Lewes and Sussex in the 1659 Parliament of Richard Cromwell*. He was named to the committees for elections and privileges, and considering means of providing ministers in Wales and Yorkshire, and was involved in debates on the question of the ‘Other House’ (29 Jan., 4 Feb.), before he made his decision to sit for Sussex (11 Feb.).209CJ vii. 594b, 600b, 602a; Burton’s Diary, ii. 393, 456; iii. 202; C231/6, p. 425. He then received only four further committee appointments, of which those investigating the alleged detention overseas of the mentally ill but reputedly Protestant Sussex peer Thomas Howard, 23rd earl of Arundel (8 Apr.), and discussing the impeachment of Major-general William Boteler* (12 Apr.) were probably the more significant.210CJ vii. 609a, 610a, 632a, 637a. However, Morley played a part in the protracted debates in the Commons by which the republicans deliberately sought to wreck proceedings. He contributed, if on a modest scale, to discussion of the presence in the Commons of royalists, against whom he took a hard line (12 Feb.).211Burton’s Diary, iii. 237, 240, 241, 248, 252, 255. In debates on the ‘recognition’ of the protector, Morley objected to the idea of Richard Cromwell having a negative voice on legislation proposed by Parliament.212Burton’s Diary, iii. 282, 337. He expressed reservations about the arrangements for the Other House, a body which he was willing to accept ony if its powers were contained, and its personnel approved by the Commons.213Burton’s Diary, iii. 337, 588; iv. 13, 18, 58-9, 86-8. Morley distrusted the protector’s council, particularly over its foreign policy record, and opposed the admission to the House of Scottish and Irish Members.214Burton’s Diary, iii. 478; iv. 104, 171. His delaying tactics were regularly deployed until late March.215Burton’s Diary, iv. 40, 120, 122, 153, 171, 192, 236, 243, 249, 279, 290. Granted leave on 24 March to go to Sussex for ten days, he seems to have returned by the second week of April, but made little visible contribution to proceedings before the dissolution on the 22nd.216CJ vii. 619b.

Republican, and royalist hope, 1659-60

With the re-assembly of the Rump in May, Morley returned to prominence in his accustomed areas of interest. He was soon named to committees to establish eligibility for membership of commissions of the peace (10 May) and related to naval affairs (11 May).217CJ vii. 648a, 648b. Unsuccessful in blocking a vote on whether one third of the council of state should be made up of non-MPs (13 May), he was nonetheless elected to the council the next day, being sixth in the poll.218CJ vii. 652b, 654a; CSP Dom. 1658-9, p. 349; Ludlow, Mems. ii. 84; Add. 4197, ff. 193-216. His presence at council meetings was to fluctuate widely over the next year, but his profile in the House was consistently greater than it have ever been, revealing a sense of political urgency.219CSP Dom. 1658-9, p. xxiv; 1659-60, pp. xxiii-xxviii.

Doubtless concerned to draw a firm line under the protectorate regime, he was named to committees preparing an act of indemnity (14 May, 8 July), to devise a pension for Richard Cromwell (25 May) and to consider the Engagement to the new order (6 Sept.).220CJ vii. 654b, 665a, 707b, 774b. Once again named as a commissioner for the admiralty and navy (30 May), Morley reported from the council of state on the need for impressing sailors (16 June), considered a petition from seamen (2 July), and was ordered to bring in a bill to settle the Cinque Ports (25 July).221CJ vii. 669b, 686b, 691b, 702a, 717b, 730a; Weekly Intelligencer no. 5 (31 May-7 June 1659), 34 (E.985.2); Berks. RO, D/ELl/05/32; Add. 22546, f. 225. Concerned to an unprecedented degree with diplomacy, he also appeared in connection with Irish affairs.222CJ vii. 677a, 678a, 684a, 695b, 697a-b, 706a; CSP Dom. 1659-60, pp. 157, 390; 1659-60, pp. 101, 164, 173. Among miscellaneous other business, he had some involvement with money-related matters, in particular in measures reviving previous acts on customs and excise (19 Sept.), and declaring it treason to levy taxation or assessments without parliamentary consent (11 Oct.).223CJ vii. 663a, 697b, 700b, 704b, 708b, 717b, 722a, 726a, 762a, 767a, 780b, 783b, 795a, 795b.

From an early stage Morley was nominated to committees dealing with the militia and military matters, and through May into June, as the threat of unrest increased, this work extended to take in intelligence and internal security.224CJ vii. 663a, 664a, 668a, 678a, 682a, 690b, 694b, 705a; CSP Dom. 1658-9, pp. 375, 589. The rising of Sir George Boothe* intensified such engagement and prompted Morley to assiduous attendance at the council of state in July and August.225CJ vii. 727a, 729a, 738a, 757b, 769b; CSP Dom. 1659-60, pp. xxiii, 3, 46, 99, 102, 123, 140, 150, 156-8, 164, 210, 215; Worcester Coll. Oxf. Clarke MS XXXI, f. 175v; Eg. 2978, f. 306. On 7 July he himself was accorded a colonel’s commission, apparently as a result of pressure from the ‘Presbyterian party in the House’ to prevent Sir Henry Vane II* from getting the job, although he did not receive it from the Speaker until the 25th.226CJ vii. 707a, 708b, 731a; Ludlow, Mems. ii. 95.

In earlier times this might well have sent him hot-foot into the field, but Morley seems to have stayed on in Westminster through the summer. Only on 3 September did he obtain leave to go into the country for a week, seemingly taking it up briefly in the middle of the month.227CJ vii. 773b. Like other republicans outside the New Model, his priority was probably genuinely to foster government by what he regarded as a legitimate parliamentary authority, rather than military power, and this probably felt like a critical moment. By 10 October he was among those faced with preparing an answer to the army officers’ grievances, and while he was apparently among those ready to accord the compensation of freedom of their guilds to those apprentices who had instead served in Parliament’s forces (11 Oct.), he was also among MPs named to the aforementioned committee asserting Parliament’s sole right to raise money.228CJ vii. 794b, 795a, 795b. As confrontation between Parliament and sections of the army came to a head, the Commons resolved that Morley would be one of the new commissioners of the army (12 Oct.).229CJ vii. 796a-b; CSP Dom. 1659-60, p. 251; Whitelocke, Diary, 534; Ludlow, Mems. ii. 137. Despite an attempt by Morley’s regiment to guard the palace of Westminster, on the following day, the sitting of the Rump was ended again by the elements of the army for whom Morley, and what he represented, was anathema.230Wariston Diary, iii. 144; Worcester Coll. Clarke MS XXXII, ff. 17-20; Weekly Intelligencer no. 24 (11-18 Oct. 1659), 189 (E.1000.7); A True Narrative of the Proceedings in Parliament (1659), 19 (E.1010.24); Ludlow, Mems. ii. 137-8; Whitelocke, Diary, 535; Mordaunt Letter-Bk. 60; Rugg, Diurnal, 7; Clarke Pprs. iv. 61-2.

Royalists evidently felt that Morley was not simply defending Parliament, but was also inclined towards a restoration of Charles II. In early October John Mordaunt, 1st Viscount Mordaunt, gave a clear indication of Morley’s perceived standing when he told the king that Morley had ‘interest sufficient to precipitate, or retard, the breach, or at least to make the balance incline on either side your majesty shall judge most to your advantage’, adding that he had ‘perfect knowledge of our present affairs’. Morley, said Mordaunt, believed that the republicans and Presbyterians would side with the king if he mobilised 3-4,000 men.231Mordaunt Letter-Bk. 42, 64-6. Morley’s old schoolfriend John Evelyn also saw in him the best hopes of orchestrating a restoration, and addressed to him his An Apologie for the Royal Party, which was published in early November.232Evelyn, Diary, iii. 235; [J. Evelyn], An Apology for the Royal Party (1659), sigs. A2-A2v (E.763.11).

Whether or not Morley was inclined towards the royalists, army grandees like Charles Fleetwood* claimed that there had been no intention of disturbing Parliament until Morley ordered his regiments to place it under guard.233Clarke Pprs. iv. 71. Although George Monck*, Parliament’s commander then based in Scotland, supported Morley, and Edmund Ludlowe II* sought to reconcile the civilian republicans with the army officers, the Wallingford House party drew up an engagement which they knew Morley and Hesilrige would refuse to sign, enabling the army to remove them from their commands.234Clarke Pprs. iv. 85; CCSP iv. 415; Ludlow, Mems. ii. 144-5, 148, 172-4. This move prompted a heated war of words between Morley and Fleetwood, the former claiming that army planned to ‘bury English laws, and the legislature itself, all at once, and take all into their own hands’.235TSP vii. 771-4; Harl. 4165, ff. 38v-42; The Lord General Fleetwood’s Answer to the Humble Representation of Collonel Morley (1659), 11-13 (E.1010.6).

Although the disruption of Parliament by the army may have tempted Morley to support the royalists, the arrival in mid-November of a letter from Monck in support of Parliament probably convinced him to abandon such plans, and to place his faith in a restored Rump.236E. S. de Beer, ‘Evelyn and Colonel Harbert Morley in 1659 and 1660’, Suss. Arch. Coll. lxxviii. 179-80. This in turn may have been the motive for the formation, in late November, of a cabal based around Morley, Hesilrige, Valentine Wauton*, Thomas Scot I* and Henry Neville*.237Whitelocke, Diary, 546; Whitelocke, Mems. iv. 376. Their meetings led to the decision for Morley, Wauton and Hesilrige to travel with their forces to Portsmouth, which was in their hands by the first week of December, not least because of Morley’s considerable ‘interest’ in the area.238Worcester Coll. Clarke MS XXXII, ff. 159-61v; Wariston Diary, iii. 154; Sl. 970, ff. 6, 8. In response, Fleetwood and the army grandees at Wallingford House launched a concerted, albeit unsuccessful, attempt to recapture the strategic port.239CSP Dom. 1659-60, p. 281; Mordaunt Letter-Bk. 124, 138; Ludlow, Mems. ii. 157; Whitelocke, Diary, 548-9; Clarke Pprs. iv. 165-6, 170, 186; Rugg, Diurnal, 15; CCSP iv. 477-9, 481; Bodl. Clarendon 67, ff. 182-3, 185, 208. Morley and his allies again countered with a strongly worded attack upon Fleetwood, issued from Portsmouth on 14 December, in which they asserted that the army officers were not ‘competent persons to judge of governments, and to break Parliaments, and put new fancies of their own instead thereof, as they please’.240TSP vii. 795; Add. 4165, ff. 45-6.

Once again, Morley’s involvement in dramatic action against the army prompted optimism on the part of royalists that he could be persuaded to support their cause, and John Evelyn once more held private talks with his old friend.241Evelyn, Diary, iii. 237-8. However, their hopes may quickly have been dashed, since it soon became clear that Morley had secured important support for a restoration of the Rump, from both the officers at Coldstream, and the common council of London.242Clarke Pprs. iv. 207-8; Worcester Coll. Clarke MS XXXII, f. 200v. Monck’s messengers were prevented by John Lambert from reaching Morley.243Whitelocke, Diary, 551, 555. However, the decision of Vice-admiral John Lawson, as well as the Irish army, to support Parliament, made possible both the reassembly of the Rump (26 Dec.), and the triumphant entry of Morley and Hesilrige into Westminster two days later, to receive the thanks of the Commons.244Parliamentary Intelligencer no. 2 (26 Dec. 1659-2 Jan. 1660), 13 (E.182.16); Wariston Diary, iii. 164; Whitelocke, Diary, 556; Whitelocke, Mems. iv. 385; CJ vii. 799a-b.

Predictably, on 31 December Morley and Hesilrige were elected to the council of state, and ordered to confer with the city and appoint regimental officers.245CJ vii. 800b, 801a; Parliamentary Intelligencer no. 2, 15-16; Whitelocke, Diary, 558. However, Morley and his protégé Fagge refused the oath abjuring the House of Stuart, thus disabling themselves from taking seats on the council, and signalling the beginnings of a split with former allies like Hesilrige.246Baker, Chronicle (1679), 678; The Loyall Scout no. 36 (30 Dec. 1659-6 Jan. 1660), 282-3 (E.1011.2). Nonetheless, for the time being Morley had other outlets for influence. On 7 January 1660 he was made lieutenant of the Tower of London, and appointed to a committee to consider improvements there.247CJ vii. 805a, 807a; Whitelocke, Diary, 560; CSP Dom. 1659-60, pp. 338, 569-71; Parliamentary Intelligencer no. 3 (2-9 Jan. 1660), 32 (E.182.17). He was reported to have lost his regiment as a result, but this proved to be temporary.248Parliamentary Intelligencer no. 4 (9-16 Jan. 1660), 39 (E182.18). He was recommissioned as a colonel of foot on 4 February, and also reappointed as an army commissioner, and involved in the appointment of commissioners of the admiralty and navy.249CJ vii. 808b, 814a, 816a, 825a, 825b, 829a, 834b, 841a; CSP Dom. 1659-60, pp. 297, 299; Whitelocke, Diary, 569. Furthermore, he was named to committees deliberating on offices bestowed by the state and on suitable justices of the peace (21, 24 Jan.), preparing a justification for the actions of General Monck (31 Jan.) and, critically, considering the engagement to be taken by the council of state (10 Jan., 15 Feb.), and the bill disabling persons to elect, or be elected to, a forthcoming Parliament (11 Jan.).250CJ vii. 806b, 807a, 818a, 821a, 827a, 844a.

Through all this, royalist hopes rose again. Once more Evelyn exercised his persuasive powers, but to no avail, recording in his diary that Morley was ‘very jealous and would not believe Monck came in to do the king any service. I told him he might do it without him, and have all the honour: he was still doubtful and would resolve on nothing yet’.251CSP iii. 655; CCSP iv. 536; Evelyn, Diary, iii. 239; Evelyn, Diary, ed. Wheatley, iii. 180-2. Evelyn later claimed that Morley could have effected the restoration of the monarchy, and that he ‘had the entire power of London and all the associated counties about it’, but Morley’s hesitation may have been caused in part by doubts regarding support which he would receive from his officers.252A.H. Nethercot, ‘John Evelyn and Colonel Harbert Morley in 1659-60’, HLQ i. 443-4; Baker, Chronicle (1679), 676-7. Edmund Ludlowe claimed that he was ‘known to be of a temporizing spirit’, and Morley certainly kept his options open.253Ludlow, Mems. ii. 223. While he and Monck were clearly recognised as occupying positions of crucial importance, and while there were good grounds for contemporary perceptions of a developing alliance between the two men, tellerships also revealed Morley’s abiding political relationship with committed republicans Chaloner and Nevill (17, 21 Jan.).254CSP Dom. 1659-60, p. 347; CJ vii. 813a, 813b, 817b-18a, 827a; Whitelocke, Diary, 572; Clarke Pprs. iv. 139. Royalists, however, continued to have high expectations of Morley, not least because they observed the zeal with which he acted against the ‘sectaries’ that month.255Mordaunt Letter-Bk. 152, 164. Not only could Mordaunt note that ‘the whole party of Fleetwood and Lambert [were] expelled by the active violence of Cowper [Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper*] and Morley’, but clear evidence began to emerge of the split between Morley and Hesilrige.256Mordaunt Letter-Bk. 165; CCSP iv. 524; Bodl. Clarendon 68, ff. 165-6; J. Price, The Mystery and Method of His Majesties Happy Restauration (1680), 102. Morley and Fagge were recorded as having held meetings with Oliver St John*, and without Hesilrige, in order to discuss the possibility of restoring some monarchical element to the constitution.257CCSP iv. 533; Bodl. Clarendon 69, ff. 16-17. The distance between Morley and Hesilrige was even clearer in early February when, shortly after receiving his new commission as colonel of a regiment of foot, Morley was also involved in meetings organised by Monck between leading Rumpers and the secluded Members.258Clarke Pprs. iv. 264; Ludlow, Mems. ii. 228.

When the purged Members were re-admitted to the Commons on 21 February 1660, Morley was among those removed from his military position. Significantly, however, he was the one deputed to inform the others affected (including Hesilrige).259CJ vii. 847a; Parliamentary Intelligencer no. 10 (20-27 Feb. 1660), 132 (E.182.24). The next day he received appointments to committees considering the bill for the continuance of customs and excise and to prepare qualifications for future MPs, and reported on the committal to the Tower of Sir George Boothe.260CJ vii. 848a, 848b. On the 23rd he was elected in sixth place to the latest council of state and on the 27th he was named to the committee tasked with settling a reward for Monck.261CJ vii. 849b, 855a; Rugg, Diurnal, 44; Ludlow, Mems. ii. 239; Add. 4197, ff. 139, 149-50. Continuing as lieutenant of the Tower, he soon took charge of his arch-rival, John Lambert.262CSP Dom. 1659-60, p. 381. In the time remaining before the dissolution of Parliament on 16 March, Morley received a number of committee nominations relating to the plans for its successor, including the position of the House of Lords and the preparation of writs for elections in the Cinque Ports.263CJ vii. 848a, 868b, 872b, 873b, 876b.

Restoration and reputation

After the Long Parliament terminated its sitting, Morley remained active as a commissioner of the admiralty and navy, and a member of the council of state.264CSP Dom. 1659-60, p. xxv; Add. 22546, f. 229; Preston Park, Misc. 93; Add. 46373B, f. 4; St. 142, f. 70. But his reputation was damaged by the escape of Lambert from the Tower in early April: some royalists held Morley responsible, although he was electioneering in Sussex at the time.265Rugg, Diurnal, 69; CCSP iv. 653, 658; Bodl. Clarendon 71, ff. 225-6, 246-7. He was probably removed from his post shortly before Charles II arrived in England in late May.266CSP Dom. 1659-60, pp. 574-5; Rugg, Diurnal, 96; SP46/99, f. 101. Still custos rotulorum of Sussex – and a force to be reckoned with – he secured election to the Convention as one of the Members for Rye, and was prominent amongst those who signed the Sussex declaration welcoming Charles II.267A Perfect List (1660); SP29/1, f. 89. Nevertheless, he faced royalist hostility, partly because of his appointment to the high court of justice in 1649, and probably because of his equivocation in 1659-60. In the face of antagonism from men like Mordaunt, he was compelled to pay £1,000 in order to obtain a royal pardon in July 1660.268CCSP v. 7-8, 32; CSP iii. 747-9; Bodl. Clarendon 72, ff. 153-4, 381-2; Evelyn, Diary, iii. 245; SO3/13, unfol.; E. Suss. RO, Glynde 77-8. His religious preferences cannot have helped to dispel suspicion. Nehemiah Beaton, from a ministerial family long known to the Morleys and Fagges, and Morley’s regimental chaplain in February 1660, was the author of the controversial pamphlet in 1661 and sheltered at Glynde after his ejection in 1662.269CJ vii. 829a; N. Beaton, No Treason to Say, Kings are Gods Subjects (1661); Calamy Revised.

Morley retained his seat at Rye in 1661, and represented the Cinque Ports until his death, on 29 September 1667.270Comber, Suss. Genealogies (Lewes), 194; C231/7, p. 314. He left extensive property, all of it in Sussex, as well as a personal estate valued at over £2,600. Morley made bequests which included £1,500 to his younger son, William† and £2,000 to his daughter Anne, and named as one of his executors his brother-in-law, John Fagge.271PROB11/325/328; E. Suss. RO, Glynde 193; PROB 4/7498. Morley’s two surviving sons, Robert† and William, both sat for Sussex constituencies during the reign of Charles II.272HP Commons 1660-1690.