PARKER, Henry (1600-55)

Morley’s father had revealed to Robert Cecil^*, 1st earl of Salisbury, the anonymous warning which led to the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot, and consequently his family’s Catholicism tended to be treated with indulgence by the authorities. He himself quickly established a reputation for immorality. The mother of George Berkeley^*, 8th Lord Berkeley, was warned that her son should avoid Morley’s company for fear of being brought into debt or ‘intemperancy’, and a libel on the Spanish Match in 1623 announced that ‘Lord Morley cannot do withal / unless his wench were there’ before declaring that ‘all papists love the prince as Morley loves his whore’.15 L. Stone, Fam. and Fortune, 259-60; Early Stuart Libels online, Nv15, ‘All the newes thats stirringe now’.

One of the knights of the Bath created when Prince Charles (Stuart^*) was made prince of Wales in 1616, Morley, then plain Henry Parker, fell out during the festivities with Sir William Howard^‡, the younger son of Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk, and only prompt intervention prevented a duel.16 Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, ii. 35. In February 1619 Parker sought to be excused from performing at the accession day tilt because of his debts. At the end of that year he was granted a passport, but he evidently remained in England for several months. The following Good Friday (14 Apr. 1620) he and Henry de Vere^*, 18th earl of Oxford, broke into the house in Holborn where Anne, Lady Ros, the notorious widow of William Cecil^*, 16th Lord Ros, was staying, with the intention of raping her. They were prevented from carrying out their aim and were ‘well battered and beaten’ by the night watch.17 CSP Dom. 1619-21, p. 10; APC, 1619-21, p. 101; ‘Camden Diary’ (1691), 56; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 302.

Parker subsequently went to Paris, but returned to England by March 1622, when he was granted another passport. This was soon rescinded, as he had failed to provide for his wife in his absence. Summoned before the Privy Council, Parker promised to pay her £200 a year, but a bare promise failed to satisfy his wife. On 3 Apr., in response to her petition, the Council ordered him to pay her £100 by the end of the month and to make binding arrangements to fulfil his undertaking. Relations between Parker and his wife evidently continued to deteriorate thereafter, as by 1631 they were living apart.18 Add. 72360, f. 3v; APC, 1621-3, pp. 170-1, 183; Newsletters of the Caroline Ct. ed. M.C. Questier (Cam. Soc. 5th ser. xxvi), 43. It is not known whether Parker went abroad again, but his father’s death in July 1622 may have led him to change his plans. He inherited two baronies by writ, both with depleted estates: Morley, with a seat at Great Hallingbury, in Essex, and Monteagle, with Hornby Castle, in Lancashire. He subsequently used both titles, signing himself ‘Morley and Monteagle’.19 L. Stone, Crisis of the Aristocracy, 485; SP16/412/114.

Morley was evidently in England in April 1623 when he was appointed vice admiral of the fleet then being prepared to bring Prince Charles back from Spain following the conclusion of the Spanish Match. As both the admiral and rear admiral, Francis Manners^*, 6th earl of Rutland, and Thomas Windsor^*, 6th Lord Windsor, were also Catholics, Morley’s appointment undoubtedly reflected his faith rather than his abilities.20 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 558; D’Ewes Diary, 1622-4 ed. E. Bourcier, 131, 138; CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 8. In June it was reported that Morley had made himself head of the Catholics in the fleet, who attempted to interrupt Protestant worship among the seamen. As a result, he had come close to being thrown overboard; indeed, one report stated that he was ‘ducked at [the] main yard’. However, Rutland denied that there were disputes about religion in the fleet.21 Add. 72276, f. 49v; D’Ewes Diary, 1622-4, p. 141; T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 407; William Whiteway of Dorchester: his Diary 1618 to 1635 (Dorset Rec. Soc. xii), 52; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 623.

The preparations involved in undertaking a sea voyage undoubtedly cost Morley large sums; it was reported that the three admirals supplied themselves with ‘magnificent clothes and rich liveries’, which ‘cost them a mighty mass of money’, in the hope of securing advancement after the Match was concluded. However, when they finally went to Spain in the autumn it was to fetch back a still single Prince Charles. They were consequently mocked by the king’s jester, who promised to buy them all fools’ coats. Another commentator observed that they returned ‘almost out of heart to receive any great recompense for their great cost and gay clothes’.22 CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 33; D’Ewes Diary, 1622-4, pp. 156, 156.

The collapse of the Spanish Match led to the calling of the 1624 Parliament. Morley attended the prorogation meeting on 12 Feb., and the first two, largely ceremonial, sittings of the session. He was absent on the first day of business, on 23 Feb., when the upper House agreed that all new peers should take the oath of allegiance.23 LJ, iii. 215a; Add. 40087, f. 18. It was widely reported that Morley had either withdrawn from the House or been expelled for refusing to take the oath, but in fact he did subsequently attend, on 24 and 27 February. On 1 Mar. the archbishop of Canterbury, George Abbot^*, informed the Lords that Morley was prepared to take the oath, and after the sitting was adjourned he duly did so, ‘very willingly’ according to one of the Lords’ legal assistants. The Venetian ambassador speculated that he and other Catholic peers had only done so after receiving absolution from their confessors.24 William Whiteway of Dorchester, 61; CSP Ven. 1623-5, pp. 232, 242, 247; Yonge Diary ed. G. Roberts (Cam. Soc. xli), 73; LJ, iii. 238b; ‘Hastings 1621’, p. 35.

Morley’s motive for taking the oath does not seem to have been enthusiasm for attending the upper House. After 1 Mar. he was recorded as present at only three sittings, and on 7 Apr. he received a licence to be absent, only returning to the House for the last sitting on the afternoon of 28 May.25 SO3/8, unfol. (7 Apr. 1624). (There is no evidence that in the intervening time he nominated a proxy.) During the session Morley received no committee appointments and made no recorded speeches. Unsurprisingly he was presented by the Commons as a Lancashire magistrate suspected of recusancy.26 LJ, iii. 394b.

Morley’s attendance was also a rare occurrence in the first Caroline Parliament, although, once again, he seems not to have appointed a proxy. He was excused when the upper House was called on 23 June 1625, and again, on 4 Aug., on the latter occasion by Thomas Howard^*, 21st (or 14th) earl of Arundel, who had close connections with the Catholic community. He nevertheless attended on 8 and 9 Aug. but received no committee appointments and made no speeches.27 Procs. 1625, pp. 47, 135.

The following October the Privy Council ordered that Catholic peers be disarmed. Consequently the lord lieutenants of Essex and Lancashire were ordered to seize any weapons at Great Hallingbury and Hornby Castle respectively.28 APC, 1625-6, p. 229. Nothing was found at Great Hallingbury, and the arms at Hornby Castle were reportedly ‘rusted, insufficient and of … little worth’. However, some of Morley’s servants at the latter confessed that around 80 muskets had recently been removed.29 Maynard Lieutenancy Bk. ed. B.W. Quintrell, i. 122; SP16/12/5i-ii. Perhaps encouraged by these proceedings, in January 1626 the Essex grand jury presented Morley and other prominent Essex Catholics for recusancy at the epiphany quarter sessions. Morley was duly indicted, and convicted after Easter.30 Essex Archives Online, Q/SR 252/35, 44. However, it is unlikely that the verdict was put into effect as, in early March, Secretary of State, Edward Conway^*, Lord (later 1st Viscount) Conway, instructed the attorney general to stay proceedings as Morley had taken the oath of allegiance shortly after the opening of the second Caroline Parliament met and had also attended church.31 CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 272; Procs. 1626, i. 61.

In 1626 Morley attended the upper House more regularly than he had before, being recorded as present at 37 of the 81 sittings, 46 per cent of the total. His appearance at the Essex quarter sessions, may have delayed his return after the Easter recess, as he was excused on 18 Apr., having been missing since the session resumed five days earlier, and did not return until the 24th.32 Procs. 1626, i. 282. He was subsequently present at three quarters of the 32 sittings before the dissolution.

It is possible that Morley was keen to attend Parliament in 1626 because a private bill was introduced concerning his manor of Hornby in Lancashire. The text of this measure has not survived but it was probably very similar to a private act passed in 1628. Morley had come into conflict with the copyholders of the manor after attempting to raise their entry fines. This measure, promoted by the copyholders, ratified a 1600 decree of the court of the duchy of Lancaster which had confirmed the rights granted to them by Morley’s father and maternal grandfather (William Stanley^†, 3rd Lord Monteagle), including the payment of fixed fines. Morley himself consented to the measure, presumably having compounded with his tenants for his support.33 Hornby Castle Estates ed. J.S. Holt (Chetham Soc. ser. 3. lii), 531–6; B.G. Blackwood, ‘Lancs. Cavaliers and their Tenants’, Trans. Hist. Soc. Lancs. and Cheshire, cxvii. 30. The 1626 bill was introduced in the Commons, where it was committed, reported and engrossed, but progressed no further.34 Procs. 1626, ii. 60, 278; iii. 107.

Morley was named to only five of the 49 committees appointed by the upper House in 1626, including that for the saltpetre bill, to which he was apparently appointed in his absence on 29 April. All his other appointments concerned private bills.35 Ibid. i. 60, 128, 319, 327. One committee which may have interested Morley was that for the Sutton’s hospital bill because the manor of Little Hallingbury, which lay close to Morley’s Essex home, belonged to the charity. Indeed, Thomas Sutton had originally intended to erect his foundation there.36 Morant, ii. 516. He is recorded as having spoken only once during the Parliament, on 15 May, when he took the protestation that Sir Dudley Digges^‡ had not trenched upon the king’s honour at the presentation of the impeachment articles against George Villiers^*, 1st duke of Buckingham.37 Procs. 1626, i. 477. He was again presented as a Catholic officeholder by the Commons, but this time only as a Lancashire commissioner of sewers, suggesting that he had been removed from the Lancashire bench. If he was removed, it was only temporary, as he was certainly a Lancashire justice of the peace the following March.38 Ibid. iv. 211.

There is no evidence that Morley paid the Forced Loan, despite being ordered by the Council on 18 July 1627 to do so within ten days.39 APC, 1627, pp. 419-20. The previous March he had received another licence to travel, but it is unclear whether he used it.40 SO3/8, unfol. (21 Mar. 1627). If he did go abroad, he must have returned by March 1628, when he attended the first two sittings of the third Caroline Parliament, on the 17th and 19th of that month. By then, however, he may have had qualms of conscience concerning the oath of allegiance as he subsequently absented himself. When the House was called on 22 Mar., it was recorded that he had leave and had granted his proxy to William Cecil^*, 2nd earl of Salisbury. As a privy councillor and an ally of Buckingham, Salisbury was a politically safe choice.41 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 26, 87.

In Morley’s absence a fresh bill concerning his manor of Hornby was enacted. Introduced in the Commons, where it was reported by the rising lawyer, John Bankes^‡, it was sent to the Lords on 20 June. The following day the bill was committed, amongst others, to John Digby^*, 1st earl of Bristol, who had been a party to Morley’s marriage settlement, and Robert de Vere^*, 19th earl of Oxford, the cousin and heir of Morley’s 1620 partner in crime. Later that day Oxford reported that he and his colleagues had approved the bill, subject to Morley’s assent, whereupon a ‘breviate’ from Morley was read, which evidently signified that consent. Despite the enactment of the bill, conflict between Morley and his tenants over entry fines re-emerged in the late 1630s.42 CD 1628, ii. 397; iii. 147, 176; Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 678. 684, 686, 706; WARD 7/77/173; Blackwood, 30.

In March 1628 one John Mayne was arrested for debt, but promptly discharged on showing a letter of protection from Morley. However, on 3 Apr., Edward Montagu^*, 1st Lord Montagu, protested that Mayne had counterfeited a protection from him, whereupon the Lords ordered Mayne’s apprehension. This complaint appears to have been ill founded and may have resulted from simple confusion. On 28 Apr. a letter from Morley was read in the upper House affirming that Mayne was his servant and protesting that the serjeant-at-arms’ deputy had ‘scornfully, as in contempt, rent my said protection as a waste paper’, thereby ‘infringing of the ancient liberties and privileges belonging to every peer of the realm during the time of Parliament’. Mayne was thereupon released.43 PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/34, 24 and 28 Apr. 1628; Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 146, 353-4.

Morley’s protections again came to the notice of the House on 6 May, when a petition from Thomas Aubrey was read protesting that Morley had granted a protection to one Meredith despite openly admitting that Meredith was not his servant. The Lords sent Aubrey’s petition to Morley but do not appear to have received a response. It was read again in the upper House on 23 May, when Edward Sackville^*, 4th earl of Dorset, offered to show it to Morley. Dorset reported back six days later that Morley had told him he was currently employing Meredith to survey his woods in Essex, which explanation appears to have satisfied the Lords.44 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 385, 508, 557.

Morley did not attend the 1629 session and was marked as absent when the House was called on 9 February. He granted his proxy to Dorset, who had helped him out over Aubrey’s petition and had the advantage of being a privy councillor.45 LJ, iv. 3b, 25a.

In the early 1630s Morley employed William Hargrave, a Catholic secular priest, as his chaplain. However, in the controversy between the secular clergy and the Jesuits, Morley was briefly induced to support the latter, who opposed episcopal authority in the Catholic Church in England. This was because Morley had been persuaded by Thomas Brudenell^*, Lord Brudenell (subsequently 1st earl of Cardigan), that a Catholic bishop might excommunicate him for living separately from his wife. However, on being reassured by a Catholic priest named Leyburn that this would not happen, Morley withdrew his support from a petition opposing the power of Richard Smith, the bishop of Chalcedon, over the Catholic Church in England.46 Newsletters of the Caroline Ct. 42-3 and n.28, 79n.215, 112.

In 1635 the Catholic secular clergy reported that Morley had abandoned the excesses of his youth and was living a frugal life.47 Ibid. 43n.28. This was probably accurate, because alcohol and a quick temper had recently got Morley into serious trouble. On 6 Feb. 1634, as the king and queen entered the great hall to watch a masque, Morley had fallen into an argument with Sir George Theobald, one of the gentlemen pensioners, and allegedly almost strangled him. Examined the day after the incident, Morley admitted to the argument but claimed that he had not come to blows with Theobald until after he had left the hall, and that Theobald had struck him first. Nevertheless, Morley conceded that, on being reprimanded by the treasurer of the household, Sir Thomas Edmondes^‡, for quarrelling in the presence of the king and for being drunk, he had replied that ‘his ancestor had privilege and place there, before Sir Thomas Edmondes’ name was heard of’.48 SP16/260/31; C115/106/8437; Strafforde Letters (1739) ed. W. Knowler, i. 335; J. Rushworth, Historical Collections, ii. 270[sic]-269. Not until early April did Morley confess his fault, which he blamed on ‘a high distemper of wine’. However, his admission of guilt came too late, as by then he was facing a Star Chamber prosecution.49 Strafforde Letters, i. 225; SP16/534/146. The case was heard on 17 Oct., when Bankes, now attorney general, informed Morley that it was only because of his father’s services in revealing the Gunpowder Plot that he was not facing a prosecution at common law, something which could have led to the forfeiture of his lands and the loss of his right hand. The court agreed to fine Morley £10,000 and ordered him to pay £1,000 in damages to Theobald.50 SP16/275/66; C115/106/8437; Strafforde Letters, i. 335.

In the aftermath of this affair it was reported that Morley wanted to travel abroad. However, he had little chance of getting a passport while his fine remained unsatisfied. On hearing that the king was inclined to clemency on condition that he paid the damages to Theobald and another £1,000 to Thomas Bray, a crown servant who had played an obscure part in the fracas, Morley petitioned for a pardon, citing his ‘great bulk of debts and many engagements’. This was eventually granted, on 30 Apr. 1635, but only after he had paid £1,000 into the Exchequer and £1,000 to Bray.51 C115/106/8474; SP16/534/147; Coventry Docquets, 271; CSP Dom. 1633-4, p. 455. He received his passport the following month, but did not leave the country until the end of August.52 SO3/11, unfol. (May 1635); CSP Dom. 1635-6, p. 353. He went to Rome, where he was ‘honourably entertained’ by the English College twice.53 Recs. of the Eng. Province of the Soc. of Jesus ed. H. Foley, vi. 611-12.

Morley had probably returned to England by May 1638, when he, his mother and his younger brother Charles petitioned the king to be allowed to break the entail on the family’s Essex estates to raise £5,000 to pay his debts. They were opposed by Morley’s wife, who initially claimed an interest in the property as part of her jointure, though in fact her jointure had been settled on the family’s Lancashire estates. Her real concern was almost certainly the inheritance of her infant son who, she claimed in January 1639, would inherit only £800 a year if Morley’s plan went ahead. Morley responded by declaring that he would leave his heir lands worth £3,000 per annum. During the course of this dispute, Morley’s indebtedness worsened, exacerbated by a composition of £600 he was obliged to make with the crown for encroaching upon the royal forests. Morley hoped to raise £6,000 by land sales, but, in early 1639, the Privy Council ordered that only so much land as was needed to pay off his debts should be sold. They ordered a survey, and expressly forbade the sale of Morley’s house at Hallingbury. There is no evidence of any significant sales before the Civil War.54 CSP Dom. 1637-8, p. 464; 1638-9, pp. 65-6, 110, 122, 344. Nonetheless, Morley set about attempting to enclose Hatfield Chase in Essex, presumably to make it more attractive to potential buyers. This provoked a petition from the local inhabitants in August 1639, complaining they had been threatened with the king’s displeasure unless they relinquished their common rights. In October the Privy Council condemned Morley for his ‘very irregular’ proceedings, which were ‘to the dishonour of his Majesty as the oppression of the subject’, and encouraged the inhabitants to sue Morley in Star Chamber.55 CSP Dom. 1639, pp. 459-60; PC2/50, p. 679.

In February 1639 Morley was summoned to York by the king to help oppose the Scottish Covenanters. Though heavily indebted, he promised to attend with four horses, but in the event he seems to have been required to pay £300 instead.56 CSP Dom. 1638-9, p. 456; SP16/413/117. By the beginning of 1641 Morley stood indicted for murder in King’s Bench. Morley applied to the Lords for privilege, and the upper House agreed to try him themselves. However, preparations for the trial were interrupted by the outbreak of the Civil War.57 E.R. Foster, House of Lords 1603-49, pp. 175-6. Morley subsequently raised a cavalry regiment for the king in Lancashire. During the Interregnum he was imprisoned in Upper Bench and his estate was sold by the Commonwealth, although it was he himself who bought the lands. He died in 1655 and was buried at Great Hallingbury. No will or grant of administration has been found. He was succeeded by his son, Thomas^†, whose paternity was never questioned, even though Morley and his wife had long lived apart.58 Roy. Composition Pprs. ed. J.H. Stanning (Lancs. and Cheshire Rec. Soc. xxvi), 191. Thomas died childless, in 1697, when the Morley and Monteagle baronies fell into abeyance.59 Newman, 286; Roy. Composition Pprs. 179, 184-7; CCC, 2278, 2282; J. Thirsk, Rural Economy of Eng. 91-2; CP, ix. 230-2.