PARKER, Edward (c.1552-1618)

Morley’s great-grandfather, Henry Parker^†, successfully claimed the Morley peerage, to which he was heir via his mother. The title was a barony by writ which dated back to 1299 but had fallen into disuse in the late fifteenth century. The hereditary marshalcy of Ireland had descended with the barony since 1324, but this office was seized by the crown when the Morley male line died out in 1442 and was subsequently filled by patentees.20 CP, ix. 211, 219-21; app. (H), 58-9; D. Starkey, ‘An Attendant Lord? Henry Parker, Lord Morley’, ‘Triumphs of English’: Henry Parker, Lord Morley ed. M. Axton and J.P. Carley, 5.

Morley’s father was Catholic and refused to subscribe to the Act of Uniformity. He fled abroad in 1570, where he remained for the rest of his life.21 Oxford DNB, xlii. 678. Morley himself inherited estates principally in Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Essex, including the family’s seat at Great Hallingbury. However, his finances were precarious and he was forced to sell his Norfolk lands and part of his Essex properties under Elizabeth.22 Morant, ii. 512; L. Stone, Crisis of the Aristocracy, 485. He presumably conformed to the established Church, as he held numerous local offices. Such was his concern to remain in favour with the authorities that in 1601, when he was too ill to attend Parliament, he offered to give his proxy to whoever the secretary of state, Sir Robert Cecil^* (subsequently 1st earl of Salisbury), chose.23 HMC Hatfield, xi. 442. Nevertheless, he was almost certainly a church papist as he moved in Catholic circles and his eldest son stated he had been brought up Catholic. Indeed Morley married his heir to the daughter of a prominent recusant, Sir Thomas Tresham (although Tresham fell out with Morley over the settlement of the jointure).24 CSP Dom. Addenda 1580-1625, pp. 151-2; HMC Var. iii. 65-6, 68; Add. 19402, f. 146.

Morley signed the proclamation for the accession of James I in March 1603.25 Stuart Royal Proclamations I: Jas. I ed. J.F. Larkin and P.L. Hughes, 3. Later that year he made a claim to the inheritance of lands formerly owned by Charles Brandon^†, duke of Suffolk, which had passed to Brandon’s daughter, Frances, who had married Henry Grey^†, duke of Suffolk. He claimed that, as Frances had no legitimate descendants, he should have a life tenancy of the properties by right of his first wife, descended from Brandon’s daughter via the duke’s first wife. However, his claim was challenged by Edward Seymour^*, 1st earl of Hertford, on behalf of his sons. Hertford had married Frances’ daughter, Katharine, and, though this union had been ruled invalid, he was eager to reopen the case.26 HMC Hatfield, xv. 275; xviii. 447.

When Parliament met in 1604, Morley was joined in the Lords by his son, William^*, who had been summoned to sit as Lord Monteagle. Morley was listed as attending 52 of the 71 sittings of the 1604 session, 73 per cent of the total, but was named to only 14 of the 70 committees appointed by the Lords and made no recorded speeches. His legislative appointments included bills against adultery and poaching, and a measure concerning Church courts. Among the private bills he was asked to consider was a bill to naturalize the children of a Catholic exile, William Copley, and two bills relating to Norfolk: one sought to provide a jointure for Martin Calthorp and the other to confirm a Chancery decree obtained by William Le Gris. Morley’s continued interest in Norfolk, despite having disposed of his estates there, may have reflected the fact that he regarded himself as an adherent of the Howards, the leading noble family of the county. He was also named to attend conferences concerning purveyance and the tunnage and poundage bill.27 LJ, ii. 272a, 290b, 292a, 293a, 311a, 323a, 341a; Coll. of Arms, R.19, f. 19.

In April 1605 Morley obtained from the king land worth £150 a year for unspecified services. He had already agreed to sell this property, but he complained about the low rates he had been offered. He owed the crown £400 from the previous reign, which sum he would have difficulty paying, despite the grant, and asked Cecil, now Viscount Cranborne, to forgive the debt. The upshot of his suit is not known, but he apparently succeeded in selling his grant to Sir William Cornwallis^‡ for £2,700, a sum greater than the 12 years’ purchase he told Cranborne was the maximum offered.28 HMC Hatfield, xvii. 56, 131, 153; Lansd. 161, f. 310v.

Morley was present at the start of the second session on 5 Nov., when, as a result of the delivery of an anonymous letter to his son Monteagle, the Gunpowder Plot was discovered. In total he was recorded as attending 40 of the 85 sittings during the session, 47 per cent of the total. The number of his committee appointments also declined, to 11 out of the 72 established by the upper House. One of these appointments was on a day he was not recorded as present (13 May 1606), though he may indeed have been absent as those named to this body were required to consider a bill to preserve the ancient rights of the crown to collect fines and forfeitures, and were mainly members of a former committee that had been named to consider an earlier version of this measure on 28 Jan., when Morley was certainly present. The topics of his other committees included the observation of the Sabbath, drainage of the fens and (once again) poaching. He was again named to consider two private measures relating to Norfolk: the reintroduced bill to confirm the Le Gris decree and a bill for the sale of the lands of Edward Downes, one of the servants of the lord chamberlain, Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk.29 LJ, ii. 364a, 365b, 384a, 414a, 421b, 431b, 436a; THOMAS HOWARD, 1ST EARL OF SUFFOLK.

On 28 Mar. 1606 Morley petitioned the king to be acknowledged as hereditary marshal of Ireland, whereupon James referred the matter to the commissioners for the office of earl marshal of England, who gave Morley a hearing on 10 December. After a further hearing on 25 Apr. 1607, the matter was referred to the judges, who found in Morley’s favour. Morley thereupon launched a legal challenge against the current marshal, Sir Richard Wingfield, but subsequently agreed to surrender his claim to the office in return for the promise of compensation.30 Coll. of Arms. I.25, ff. 26v, 29; SP63/229 f.196; CP, ix. 211, 219-21; app. (H), p. 60.

Despite pursuing his claim to the Irish marshalship, Morley was listed as present at 66 of the 106 sittings of the 1606-7 session, 62 per cent of the total. (Though absent from the upper House on 10 Dec. 1606, when his case was first heard, he was present on 25 Apr. 1607). However, he was named to only four of the 41 committees established by the Lords during the session. He was probably most interested in the bill concerning the estates of his cousin, Ferdinando Stanley^†, 5th earl of Derby. His other committees concerned an estate bill for John Evelyn, a Surrey landowner, a measure to confirm the lands of the London livery companies, a bill against Canons not confirmed by statute, and a measure to confirm bequests made by Thomas Hoord, a recusant moneylender, for the repair of highways in Kent, Buckinghamshire and Oxford.31 LJ, ii. 463b, 479a, 450a, 503a, 519b; HMC 4th Rep. 118; PROB 11/111, f. 330r-v; CSP Dom. 1603-10, pp, 310, 393, 479; HP Commons, 1558-1603, iii. 374.

In March 1608 Morley complained to Cecil, now earl of Salisbury, that (unlike his son) he had been excluded from the partition of the Brandon estates, concluded the previous month. He alleged he had been put to great expense in pursuing the case and reiterated his claim to tenancy for life by courtesy, but there is no evidence that he succeeded in reopening the matter.32 HMC Hatfield, xx. 97; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 410. Morley was an inveterate promoter of money-raising projects which generally came to nothing.33 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 165; Hatfield House, CP Petitions 1908; HMC Hatfield, xxii. 60. The following June he secured the grant of unpaid arrears of rent discovered to be due to the crown from properties in Suffolk. However, as those in possession of the land were willing to dispute the debt in the courts, it is unlikely that Morley gained much from the grant.34 SO3/4, unfol. (June 1608); SP14/35/70.

Pressed by Salisbury, now lord treasurer, to repay debts owed to the crown, Morley responded in August 1608 by arguing that, apart from £50, most of the money required from him had been unfairly charged on his mother, for which he was not liable. The rest consisted of arrears of subsidy, most of which he promised to pay that autumn. He asked to be discharged from the residue ‘in respect of his many hindrances’.35 SP14/37/48. However, his request was evidently disregarded, for in March 1613 it was calculated that he still owed more than £300 in unpaid subsidies stretching back to 1581.36 Lansd. 169, f. 135v. In February 1609 Morley therefore tried to get his debt to the crown reduced by £40, on the grounds that he had been assigned two privy seal letters for that sum, which had been lent to Elizabeth I in 1597. However, as the 1597 privy seal loan was effectively a forced loan, it is unlikely that he was successful. The following month he also attempted to get his subsidy assessment of £150 a year in lands reduced. The cost of pursuing the Brandon case had forced him to make over most of his estate to his son, Monteagle, leaving him with ‘but a small rent for a person of my birth and rank’. However, this tactic also failed.37 Lansd. 161, ff. 203, 309; E179/70/126. In the summer of 1609 he joined with his ‘ancient friend’, Ralph Eure^*, 3rd Lord Eure, in seeking a grant of concealed lands, but their suit aroused Salisbury’s opposition and came to nothing.38 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 538; Heard Before the King: Reg. of Petitions to Jas. I, 1603-16 ed. R.W. Hoyle (L. and I. soc. spec. ser. xxxviii), 100; HMC Hatfield, xxi. 148.

Morley was in poor health when the fourth session began in February 1610. Consequently he missed the first six sittings, being excused by the lord chancellor (Thomas Egerton^*, Lord Ellesmere, subsequently 1st Viscount Brackley) on the 14th. Morley was again excused on 30 May (having not attended since the 25th) after notifying Ellesmere that he feared one of his servants had contracted the plague. As a result Morley was absent on 7 June, when the king instructed the Lords to take the oath of allegiance. On 16 June Morley was given permission to resume sitting, the danger of plague having now passed. However, it was not until 12 July that Morley took the oath. As a crypto-Catholic he may have found the oath objectionable, it having been condemned by the papacy. However, this seems unlikely, as many lay Catholics, even recusants, regarded the oath as unobjectionable. Moreover, as a church papist, Morley was already disobeying the papacy by attending Anglican services. His failure to take the oath before 12 July was probably an oversight, arising from his absence when the bulk of his colleagues had been sworn.39 LJ, ii. 550a, 603b, 608a, 615a, 641b; M.C. Questier, ‘Loyalty, Religion and State Power in Early Modern Eng.: English Romanism and the Jacobean Oath of Allegiance’, HJ, xl. 313.

Morley was recorded as present at 41 of the session’s 95 sittings, 43 per cent of the total. He was appointed to seven of the 58 committees established by the Lords, among them committees on measures concerning a school at Thetford in Norfolk, the estate of the 5th earl of Derby and regulation of the woollen industry.40 LJ, ii. 569b, 600a, 616b, 624b.

Morley was listed as present at only six of the 22 sittings of the autumn session, 29 per cent of the total, and received a single committee appointment, on 25 Oct., to confer with the Commons about the Great Contract. He was a member of the commissions to prorogue, and then dissolve, the Parliament, but was not present to help carry out the commission’s duties at either event.41 Ibid. 683b. On the first occasion (6 Dec.) this may have been because his son-in-law, the Catholic antiquarian Thomas Habington, who had been imprisoned after the Gunpowder Plot for sheltering Jesuit priests, was released into his custody.42 SO3/5, unfol. (6 Dec. 1610).

By December 1612 Morley had devised a project which he hoped to secure as compensation for the marshalship of Ireland, and wrote to the lord privy seal, Henry Howard^*, earl of Northampton, seeking his support.43 Coll. of Arms, R.19, f. 87. His scheme was to farm, in conjunction with his son Monteagle, the revenue received by the courts of Exchequer and King’s Bench from the enforcement of economic regulations. He offered to pay £100 a year more than the maximum the crown had previously received from this source, and also to satisfy other interested parties. The king’s counsel reported in favour of the project in May 1613 and, despite objections, the Privy Council ordered a draft of the grant to be drawn up the following October. However, the scheme subsequently fell through.44 Cott., Vespasian C.XIV, ff. 189-91, 194v-5; APC, 1613-14, p. 231.

Morley was recorded as attending nine of the 29 sittings of the 1614 Parliament, 31 per cent of the total, and received only one committee appointment, to consider the bill for the preservation of timber. On 4 June a Clerkenwell constable and the keeper of Newgate were brought before the upper House for having arrested servants of Morley and Lord Eure. The constable alleged that the servants had broken the peace. After they appeared before the Lords two days later, the upper House ordered a Middlesex justice to investigate the matter, as well as a disputed debt which appears to have been the cause of the disturbance. However, Parliament was dissolved the next day.45 LJ, ii. 697b, 714b; HMC Hastings, iv. 282; SP14/47/97.

In October 1614 the Privy Council complained that Morley had failed to repay a servant of the king of Denmark money owed by his younger son, Charles. The debt involved had been contracted when Charles had been serving in the Danish army in 1612, presumably in the force commanded by Robert Bertie^*, 14th Lord Willoughby de Eresby (subsequently 1st earl of Lindsey). Morley had promised Anne of Denmark he would satisfy it, but he evidently failed to do so, as the following January the Council summoned Charles before them.46 APC, 1613-14, p. 557; 1615-16, p. 21.

Morley finally obtained recompense for the marshalship of Ireland in March 1615, when he and Eure were granted the copyright of a book called God and the King for 21 years. This was a tract ‘fit for the instruction and capacity of youth’, in defence of the oath of allegiance, ordered to be used in the schools to ‘preserve and season young minds against the pestilent doctrines of the Jesuits tending to the subversion of all loyalty and allegiance’. However, he had to give security to pay a gratuity of £2,000 to the attorney general, Francis Bacon^* (subsequently Viscount St Alban) to pass the patent. He employed a lawyer, Simon Spatchurst, to manage publication of the work and pay him 3d. for every copy sold, but it was subsequently alleged that Spatchurst used the money due to Bacon as an excuse not to make payments to Morley. Moreover, Morley became indebted to Spatchurst, and, in December 1617, made over his interest in the patent to him, although whether this was security for a loan or an outright sale was later disputed.47 Companion to Arber, ed. W.W. Gregg, 157-8; PA, HL/PO/JO/10/13/7, petition of William Pollgreeve [1621]; Stone, 437; C2/Jas.I/M16/8.

Morley died at Stepney, where he had a house (in Mile End), on 1 Apr. 1618. He was buried the following day, ‘privately … without ceremony’, in Stepney parish church. In consequence, Monteagle had to pay £25 to the heralds for failing to employ them in a baron’s funeral.48 Coll. of Arms, I.8., f. 6; D. Lysons, Environs of London, iii. 452. Administration of his goods was granted on 20 June 1618 to one of his servants, William Polegreene or Pollgreeve, who seems to have been acting on behalf of his colleagues as well as himself, all of whom were owed several years wages. In 1621 Polegreene petitioned the Commons, complaining that he was ‘daily vexed and molested’ by Morley’s creditors and that Spatchurst had refused to render accounts of his receipts from God and the King.49 PROB 6/9, f. 175v; C2/Jas.I/M16/8; PA, HL/PO/JO/10/13/7, petition of William Pollgreeve [1621].