Sources consulted:

• Sources cited within Feet of Fines: Yorkshire, covering the years
  • 1189-1199
  • 1199-1214
  • 1327-1347
  • 1377-1485
  • 1486-1571
  • 1571-1583
  • 1583-1594
  • 1594-1603
  • 1603-1614

Not mapped:

• John Moreley, chaplain "of the church of St Michael at the bridge of the Use [Ouse] of Ebor' [Yorkshire]" was a co-plaintiff on a 1395 Fine [transcription of CP 25/1/279/147, number 29].
• John Morley, chaplain, was a co-plaintiff on a 1398 fine involving land in Kingston-upon-Hull [CP 25/1/279/149, number 3]
• Nicholas and John Morley were amongst the co-plaintiffs in a 1463 fine involving land in Glusburn (in Kildwick) [CP 25/1/281/162, number 10]. There is another similar fine dated to 1467 [CP 25/1/281/163, number 2]. Based on the names, these could be members of the Morleys of Normanby family, the Morleys of Whalley family or the Morleys of Glynde family.
• Adam de Morlei [sic], witnessed 1383 grant concerning land in Ardsley and "Haya" [Yorkshire Deeds, vol. 1, p. 8]; Robert Morlay witnessed 1462 grant concerning land in Over Hagh in Ardsley township, also land near Batley [ibid.]

Morley creditors of George Clifford, third Earl of Cumberland

These Yorkshire markers have not been mapped, because it appears that the connections are ephemeral and strictly financial -- the is no evidence of Morleys living in these areas prior to the transactions, or having taken up residence in these areas afterwards.

One John Morley, esq. in 1587 acquired "Manors of Nesfeild, Westhall, and Langbargh, and 20 messuages and 10 cottages with lands there and in Ilkeley, Addingham, and Beamesley" from the third Earl of Cumberland and his brother Francis Clifford: ['Yorkshire Fines: 1587', Feet of Fines of the Tudor period [Yorks]: part 3: 1583-94 (1889), pp. 67-86]

These properties were previously associated with the Roucliffes of Cowthorpe [Speight, Upper Wharfedale, p. 167]. See Cowthorpe's marker for contemporaneous transaction involving the same parties. The Earl of Cumberland tried to recover the Wharfedale lands in 1593, and it seems by 1610 he was successful [ibid.].

The connection is unknown -- if any exists -- between John Morley and the Morleys of Wennington who later held Beamsley.

In the case of Cowthorpe, it turns out that John Morley was just an intermediary [Eighth report of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, Appendix Part 1 (Section II), 1908, 272a-b]. Moreover, in the last transaction he is described as "of London". RT Spence identifies this John Morley as a creditor, and an Exchequer official [Richard Turfitt Spence, The Cliffords, Earls of Cumberland 1579-1646: a study of their fortunes based on their household and estate accounts, UCL, PhD Thesis, May 1959, p. 86ff]. Spence states that John Morley died in 1588, leaving a widow and son (with wardship granted to Morley's Fine Office associate Thomas Crompton, who was also a business partner of Morley's business partners). From this information, we see that -- if Spence's identification is indeed correct -- that this was the John Morley who was progenitor of the Morleys of Halnaker.

Spence lists goldsmith Francis Morley as another of Cumberland's creditors (and also a servant), but provides no biographical detail. Spence does not mention that Francis Morley, styled as gentleman (with John Tayler, gent. as a co-plaintiff) took part in a major 1591 transaction with Cumberland. This transaction involved the manor of Skipton, ten other manors, and 2000 messuages ['Yorkshire Fines: 1591', Feet of Fines of the Tudor period [Yorks]: part 3: 1583-94 (1889), pp. 143-166.]

It was initially thought that this Francis Morley was a member of the Wennington Morleys, but no Francises from this family are a chronological fit. This could instead be Francis Morley, father of the Bishop of Winchester. This Francis was a surety [William Hunt, Morley, George, Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900, Volume 39], and his father-in-law was a goldsmith [Frederic Turner, Notes on some Surrey Pedigrees, in Susex Arch. Coll. vol XXX (1917), p. 2ff]. Further investigation is required before we can be certain of this connection.