Person:John Cary (9)

A biographical history (with a 'mystery' – or two)

——looking at—and comparing details from—a number of published biographies on this 'Sir John Cary, Knight.'

Although he may have finished writing it in 1697, it was not until 1701, that the Vicar of Berry-Pomery in Devon, John Prince (1643–1723) published his book: The Worthies of Devon, "a work, wherein the lives and fortunes of the most famous divines, statesmen, swordsmen, physicians, writers, and other eminent persons — Natives of that most noble Province — from before the Norman conquest, down to the present age, are memorialized." ^[2] And among these 'worthies' or "Danmonii orientales illustres" was this "Sir John Cary, Knight" :–

Cary, Sir John, Knight, one of the barons of the Exchequer, was born in this county, altho' at what house herein, is not so apparent; Dr. Fuller tells us, it was at Cockinton; which, since this gentleman's time, indeed, hath been, for the most part, the continued seat of this honourable family, down to the present age : But at the time that this gentleman was born, Cockinton was not in this name, for he himself was the first owner thereof, as he was also of Clovelly, in this county, which still flourishes in a younger branch of his family.

That Sir John Cary, aforesaid, was a native of this county, and a person of considerable quality herein, before he became a judg, is sufficiently apparent from hence, that he, and his brother, William Cary, Kt. were chosen knights of the shire, to serve in parliament, in the 37th and 42d years of Edw. 3, ...

... He was brought up in the study of the laws of his country, altho' in what particular hostel, as our inns of court were antiently called, is not now apparent; the change and variation of which name, is thus given us by Dugdal, That these hostels being nurseries, or seminaries of the court (taking their denomination from the end wherefore they were so instituted) were called therefore, the inns of court. However, we are ignorant of the particular place, we find he made very good improvement of his time, and grew up to great skill and knowledg in his profession : so that passing throu' other degrees in the university of the laws (as our famous Lord Chief-Justice Fortescue calls the inns of court,' he was, in the sixth year of K. Richard II. 1383, called to that of a serjeant; according to the record here following:

Johannes Cary, Edmundus de Clay, Johannes Hill, Summoniti ad gradum servientis ad legem suscipiendum, die lunæ proximo ante festum Purificationis Mariæ, &c.

About four years after this, sc. the fifth of November, 1387, he was by the King, Richard II. made one of the barons of the exchequer, and advanced to be a judg of the land; who being now placed in an high and spacious orb, he scattered the rays of justice about him, with great splendor. In this post he continued many years, manifesting, in all his actions, an inflexible virtue and honesty.

And, indeed, it fell out at last, that he had an extraordinary occasion laid before him, for the proof and tryal thereof; upon which we find he prov'd as true as steel: For the greatest dangers could not affright him from his duty and loyalty to his distressed master, King Richard II. unto whom he faithfully adhered, when most others had forsaken him; to his present loss indeed, but his future eternal renown.

For in the catastrophe' of that King's reign, this reverend judg, unable and unwilling to bow, like a willow, with every blast of wind, did freely and confidently speak his mind; ...

This cause he pursued with so much zeal and earnestness, that at the entrance of King Henry IV. into the English throne, about the year of our Lord, 1400, he was, by that prince, banish'd his country, and his goods and lands were confiscated; nor do I find they were restored to him; but to his son, in part, they were, as I shall shew more fully, when I come to speak more particularly of him, ...

This loyal and Venerable person was banish'd, it seems, into Ireland, for there, we are expressly told, he died, and as Fuller tells us, it was about the year of our Lord, 1404; which suggesteth to us, that he was no less than four years in banishment: A long while, God knows! for an aged person, of a nice and tender way of living, to be confined to the shades of misery and sorrow.

In what part of that kingdom his sacred remains do lie, I no where find; nor any thing else remarkable of him, more than what occurs in his posterity; of whom I may have frequent occasions to discourse hereafter, when I come to the several ages and times wherein they lived. ....

At this point, following his tale of the life and death of Sir John Cary, the author continues by extolling the virtues of his eldest son, Robert, together with some details of his life — and particularly with how he managed to recoup the losses suffered by his father.

Meanwhile, 'The Visitation of the County of Devon in the Year 1620' , as edited by Frederick Thomas Colby. B.D., F.S.A. and published in 1872. ^[3] records the following:

This Sir John Cary was a Knight of great worth and reverence, and had lands in 3 sundrie sheires, Devon, Dorset and Somerset. He dwelled at sondry times in every of them, at Hoke in Dorset, at Castle Cary in Devon. He was a great benefactor to the Abbey of Abbottesbery in Dorsetsh, which he endowed with the great Poole, called Abbottesbery Poole, & with sundry other landes & revenues, and after his death was buried in the same Abby.

This Sir John Cary was verie well learned in the lawes of the realm, and Cheif Baron of the Exchequer under K. R. 2, who, giving his opinion upon certayne matters then in question, was very well liked & allowed, but afterwards in the time of H. 4 he was called to accompt for the same and, being indicted was attainted, and his goodes and lande confiscated, and, pardoned of his life he was banished into Ireland, where he died. ....

These two brief paragraphs, each beginning with: "This Sir John Cary" is almost certainly intended to describe two different 'Sir Johns' — one being (perhaps) the father of the other. Following these, there is another longer paragraph on, "This Robt. son of Sir John his father." And after that the Cary family pedigree begins with:

And five generations below we come to:

And below him, his son, with both his first and second wives:

[ Note: The format of the chart above has been altered to fit better here. ]

From the Preface of this edition of the 1620 Visitation of Devon:

« The Harleian MSS. 1163–1164, in the British Museum, contain the original drafts of the Visitation of Devon which was carried out in 1620 by Henry St. George and Sampson Lennard under Camden's direction. Those documents, in the handwriting of the heralds themselves, are for the most part signed at the foot of each pedigree by the then head of the family, or by some one on his behalf. .... »

Now there is another version of this 1620 Visitation of Devon, edited by John Lambrick Vivian (1830–1896), published in 1898.^[4] And there are some significant differences in its transcription. Such that, in this newer edition, the pedigree entry for Sir John Cary contains much more information and (with its format altered slightly here) reads:

Sr. John Carye, Knight, Lo. Chief Baron of the Exchequer, M.P. for Devon 37 and 42 Edw. III, Deed 1387, attainted 11 Rich. II, and died on Friday before the feast of Peutecost[sic] 1395. Inq. p.m. 20 Rich. II, No. 127.

==Margaret, Da.& hey. of Robt. Holleway, settlement before marriage 1376, survived her husband.

The Friday before Pentecost in 1395 fell on the 28th of May. But there is some argument about this date really being that of the death of Sir John Cary. Other sources have said that he actually died in 1404.

But Fairfax Harrison in his first volume of The Devon Carys,^[5] at the end of its Chapter Five (p.104), repeats the same 'Friday before Pentecost in 1395' quote from Vivian's edition of the 1620 Visitation of Devon:

John Cary died at Waterford, "on Friday before the feast of Pentecost," 1395.¹

But then, in a footnote mentions two other sources – one of which lends support to 1395; while the other believes Sir John Cary died in 1404:

¹ Inq. p.m., 20 Rich. II, No. 127, quoted by Vivian, 150, on his transcription of the Visitation of 1620. Dymond postpones the date of death until 1404, but does not give his authority. He is clearly contradicted by Rot. Parl., iii, 346, which enumerates the exiled judges living in September, 1397.

Harrison does not identify this Mr. Dymond beyond referencing him (earlier in the book) as a contributor to The Herald and Genealogist. But which does mean he must be Mr. Robert Dymond, who was "a keen local historian and Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries," and whose obituary ^[6] goes on to mention that, « in 1871 he published in the Herald and Genealogist an elaborate "Memoir of the ancient Devonshire Family of Cary," ^[7] the result of years of labour and research amongst the extensive muniments preserved at Tor Abbey. »

While the "Rot. Parl" has to be referencing the Rolls of Parliament, transcripts of which may be found on British History Online (BHO).^[8] And those beginning in the latter part of the reign of King Richard II, including four pages for February, 1388, which contain details of the trial and sentencing of Sir John Cary, may be found in the following link: Parliament Rolls of Medieval England. Viz: "... And that the said Sir John Cary thereupon be drawn and hanged as a traitor at once, and that he and his heirs be disinherited forever." On the same 'Table of Contents' page, there are also links to three pages for September, 1397, which must only be notable here for their lack of any mention of Sir John Cary in that year, indicating he was no longer living then. While, on the 'September 1397 Part 1' page, there is mention of "John Holt, Roger Fulthorp and William Burgh, knights, colleagues of the aforesaid Robert Bealknap, and John Lockton serjeant-at-law of the said lord king," who had all been condemned at the same time as Sir John Cary; and similarly reprieved from the penalty of death, to be sent instead into exile with him to Ireland. Of these Sir John Cary and John Lockton were both sent to the 'city of Waterford.' But Sir John Cary was not mentioned along with Lockton and the others on this 1397 page, which—if he had still been alive then—one would fully expect he would have been.

Therefore this would appear to resolve the 'mystery' of when Sir John Cary actually died. And Wikipedia [for "John Cary (died 1395)]" has certainly accepted the prevailing consensus that he died on 28 May, 1395 – that being "the Friday before the feast of Pentecost" in that year — citing the Vivian edition of the '1620 Visitation of Devon' as their source for this.^[4] And which has been further supported by Fairfax Harrison in his first volume of The Devon Carys.^[5] But this may not be the only mystery surrounding this Sir John Cary. While Fairfax Harrison has relied on the Vivian's edition of the 1620 Visitation of Devon for his date of death, he has not agreed with whom the 1620 Visitation has given as his father. Harrison asserts that his father was not the first Sir John at all – but an intervening Sir Richard. See the beginning of Chapter Four of his The Devon Carys, Vol. I., entitled:

In the last half of the fourteenth century we encounter five Carys, John, William, Robert, John and William again, who are all historical persons, each vouched for by undeniable records; but as they emerge from the mist of tradition which still surrounds their ancestors, they are so confused one with another and as to the generations to which they respectively belong that it is now impossible to assign to each an unquestioned place in the pedigree : but at least they are all real people.

Because of this confusion and because no two of the traditional pedigrees are in agreement, it is permissible to look primarily to the contemporary evidence even if that involves departure from the judgment of the Visitation of 1620. That evidence points to the existence of a Sir John and a William Cary, brothers, of the fifth generation; a Robert, son of Sir John⁵, of the sixth generation; and that the Sir John who became Chief Baron was son of this Robert and, with a brother William of Clovelly, of the seventh generation.¹

¹ The net effect upon the Visitation pedigree of 1620 of this redistribution of roles is to eliminate the fifth generation shown in that pedigree, to move up its sixth generation to fifth place, and to introduce a new sixth generation in the person of Robert de Cary, who is ignored by the Visitation of 1620. This leaves the Chief Baron in the seventh generation as stated in the Visitation. The evidence for this rearrangement will appear.

Here Harrison quotes the descriptive detail of the first 'Sir John Cary'⁵ and his various dwellings in Devon, Dorset and Somerset, from the Colby edition of the 1620 Visitation of Devon (see above). After which he continues:

From this pleasant picture we may fairly deduce that there had been a substantial and steady improvement in the family fortunes during the two preceding generations, or since our glimpse of William³, and that they were now established in a solid economic position, comfortable to themselves and important in relation to their neighbors. General as the evidences for this may be, they find confirmation in the national prosperity of England during that halcyon time of the economists from the accession of Edward I until the Black Death. The Carys had grown largely by reason of their marriages, but partly by the improvement of the status of the minor gentry as a class.

The Visitation pedigree of 1620 records also that this Sir John married twice: first, Agnes, daughter of the Lord Stafford, sans issue; and second, Jane or Joan, daughter and coheir of Sir Guy de Brian.

This description involves obvious confusion. The attribution of the Stafford marriage is apparently a seventeenth-century attempt to explain how Sir John⁵ is found in possession of the manor of Hooke in Dorset. The Lord Stafford referred to must have been that Edmund de Stafford who was summoned to Parliament as a baron by Edward I in 1299, the ancestor of the earls of Stafford and dukes of Buckinghamof that ilk; but the Staffords who were seated in Dorset were the cadet branch which was already extinct when the Visitation pedigree was compiled in 1620. In the fifteenth century they had produced that Humphrey Stafford who, supporting the Yorkist cause, was for a moment Baron Stafford of Southwick, and on the attainder of the Courtenays, Earl of Devon. An earlier Sir Humphrey Stafford of this family had married circa 1360 the widow, and his son the heiress, of Maltravers of Hooke. These facts might support the Cary tradition as to Hooke but the records seem to indicate that at the time of our Parliament man Hooke was still in the tenure of the ancient family of Cifrewast, whose heiress brought the property to Maltravers.¹

In the reference to the Brians also the authority of the Visitation of 1620 fails, for it proceeds to make out that this Sir John Cary was father of the Chief Baron by his second marriage. There are extant records, much more nearly contemporary, which prove that the father of the Chief Baron was Robert de Cary, not John. Thus the inquisition taken in 1397 on behalf of the Chief Baron's son and heir² states definitely that the father of the Chief Baron was Robert de Cary, armiger. By that name he appears also as a witness to the marriage settlement of the Chief Baron in 1357.³ Colonel Vivian recognized but did not attempt to reconcile this impeachment of the Visitation of 1620. On his transcript he notes (p. 150) that in the inquisition 20 Rich. II, Sir John⁵ was "called Robert de Cary, armiger."

¹ Hutchins, Dorset, ii, 179. / ² Inq. p.m., 20 Rich. II, No. 127. / ³ Archeeological Journal, 1856, xiii, 414.

It seems clear, however, that the Chief Baron had an infusion of Brian blood, as his descendants(e.g.,Sir George Cary, of Cockington) quartered the Brian arms, but it is not clear whether this was derived from the marriage of Sir John⁵ or of the Chief Baron's father, of whose wife we have no record, except her name Johanna or Joan. This name is, however, consistent with the tradition that the mother of the Chief Baron was a Brian, and it is then possible that the attribution of two wives to Sir John⁵ is a confusion and that the Brian wife belonged to Robert⁶.

Sir Guy de Brian, of Torbrian, was a doughty warrior, standard-bearer of Edward III and one of the original Knights of the Garter. He was summoned to Parliament as a baron in 1350. According to Sir William Pole,¹ he married twice: (1) Anne, daughter and heiress of William Holway, of Holway, by whom he had Anne, who married Sir John Cary; and (2) Margaret, daughter of William Montacute, Earl of Sarum, by whom he had a son and heir. Burke² rehearses the military and political services of this medieval baron, but ignores the first marriage, stating that he had sons by his Montacute marriage who died v. p., and that when the old baron himself died, 1390, his coheiresses were his granddaughters, one of whom married a Devereux and the other a Lovel. This leaves the Cary record in no little confusion. The authorities agree, however, that Sir Guy de Brian's sister married Hugh Courtenay, called le Fitz, eldest son of the second Earl of Devon of the creation of 1338, and brother of Sir Philip Courtenay of Powderham, whose daughter married Robert Cary⁸. Pole says (p. 274) : "Tor Brian was the long continued inheritance of Guy de Brian, whose family were always called Guy and continued in the name of Guy from the beginning of the reign of King Henry HI into King Richard II's time, ye latter end of his reign."³

¹ Collections, 274. / ² Extinct Peerages, 86. / ³ The memory of this eminent early Devon family is kept alive by their church of Torbrian, which still stands in a wooded glen some miles inland from Tor Bay.

Lacking evidence for positive identification, but arguing from the probabilities as indicated by the dates of the available records, we assign to this Sir John Cary⁵ a public career as follows:

His reputation for pious benefactions preserved in the Visitation of 1620 seems to identify him as the John Cary to whom, on July 2, 1370, the Bishop of Exeter granted a license to maintain oratories in two of his Devon manors," and so we bring him within the limits of the Parliamentary service the records assign to his name.² Thus we may assume that it was he who in 1357 sat in the House of Commons as a burgess for Totnes, and from 1362 to 1368 with his brother³ William Cary as knights of the shire for all Devon.

¹ Register of Bishop Thomas de Brantyngham, 1370-94, ed. Hingeston-Randolph, 1901.

² For the dates see Return of Members of Parliament, 1879. The Devon antiquaries have generally attributed the Parliament service of Sir John Cary, temp. Edward III, to the Chief Baron, but the dates seem to make it out too early for him. Lysons {Magna Britannia, vi, part i, 138) was the first to point out the error, though he perpetuated the tradition about the Chief Baron's father: "Sir John Cary has been supposed by Collins, Prince and others to have been the same person who was afterwards one of the Barons of the Exchequer; but it appears evident from records that John Cary, the Chief Baron of the Exchequer, was not Knighted till 1387 & it is most probable that he was the son of Sir John, Knight of the Shire." Mr. Dymond (H. & G., v, 28) makes the same point, but the confusion still persists. See Alexander, Devon County Members, Transactions Devon Association, 1913, xlv, 251.

³ William Cary, the Parliament man, and William Cary of Clovelly. Another puzzling confusion arises out of the apparent contradiction between the tradition of the Visitation of 1620 and the probabilities arising out of the available dates, as to William Cary, temp. Edward III. The Visitation pedigree of 1620 shows him as having married a daughter of Richard Bosun, but makes him the grandfather of the Chief Baron. Hanecy's pedigree in the Visitation of Devon 1564 shows two Sir Williams, one the grandfather of the Chief Baron, who is said to have married a daughter of Archdeacon (and thus belongs to the fourth rather than the fifth generation), and the other a brother of the Chief Baron. The modern genealogists have met the problem presented by the evidence in different ways. Because there appears to have been only one Richard Bosun, of the ancient and long extinct Devon family of Bosun of Bosun's Hoile, viz., the one who acquired Clovelly from the Stauntons after 1362 and whose daughter Thomasine married William Cary, as proved by surviving real estate records; and because the Chief Baron undoubtedly had a brother William, Mr. Dymond (H. & G., vi, 28), acting on Hanecy's suggestion, simply transfers the Sir William from his place in the 1620 pedigree as grandfather of the Chief Baron to a place as his brother, noting Mr. Robinson's query as to his right to do so. Colonel Vivian (Visitations of Devon, 150) prudently preserves both of Hanecy's Sir Williams, but without comment.

In this difference of authority we venture to suggest that the problem can perhaps be solved with a minimum of violence to the Visitation pedigrees by accepting the existence of two Williams, on Hanecy's authority, but reassigning the elder to a place in the pedigree which will accord with the known dates and the evidence of the Tor Abbey muniments. On this principle we might give the Chief Baron a great-uncle and a brother, each a William, and identify them as follows:

(1) William⁵ would be the colleague of his brother Sir John⁵ in Parliament 1357-1368; Steward in 1370 of the bishop's demesne lands and manors in Devon (Register of Bishop Thomas de Brantyngham, 1370-94, ed. Hingeston-Randolph, 1901); one of the captains of the Devonshire Coast in 1373 (Rymer, Fædera, ed. Caley, 1816-30, iii, part 2, 976); the William named in the fine with respect to Cockington, 1374 (H. & G., vi, 14) ; guardian in 1378 of Ralph de Arundell (Rot. Parl., iii, 52) ; and the Sir William Cary who, according to Pole (Collections, 87), was "learned in the law."

(2) William⁷ would be the brother of the Chief Baron named in Ing. p.m., 20 Rich. II, No. 127; the William Cary who married Thomasine Bosun, and, thereby acquiring Clovelly, on March 8th 11 Rich. II (1388) obtained from the crown a license to convert the parochial church at Clovelly into a collegiate one to be served by a warden and six chaplains (Cal. Rot. Pat., 215, and Dugdale, Mon. Anglic., iv, 1358); and finally the "Will Cary" who in 1396 made a presentation to the rectory of Clovelly and must have died soon thereafter, for in May, 141 1, "Thomasia, relict of William Cary," makes the next presentation. (Register of Bishop Edmund Stafford, 1395-1419, ed. Hingeston-Randolph, 1886.)

... to be continued ....

1. ↑ Sir John de Cary, in Lundy, Darryl. The Peerage: A genealogical survey of the peerage of Britain as well as the royal families of Europe.
2. ↑ ^2.0 2.1 Prince, John:The Worthies of Devon, London, Printed for Rees and Curtis Plymouth; Edward Upham, Exeter; and Longman, Hurst, Rees, and Orme, London. 1810. pp. 176–179. 'CARY, SIR JOHN, KNIGHT'.

   'DANMONII ORIENTALES ILLUSTRES: OR, THE WORTHIES OF DEVON.' ... by John Prince, Vicar of Berry-Pomeroy, Devon. First published in 1701.
   Accessed 06 July 2021 at: archive.org/

3. ↑ ^3.0 3.1 The visitation of the county of Devon in the year 1620 edited by Frederic Thomas Colby, Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford. London: 1872.

   As published in The Publications of The Harleian Society. Volume VI. For the year 1872. p. 47
   Accessed 04 July 2021 at: archive.org/

4. ↑ ^{4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3} Vivian, J. L. (John Lambrick), 1830-1896, and College of Arms (Great Britain). The Visitations of the County of Devon: Comprising the Herald's Visitations of 1531, 1564, & 1620. Exeter: For the author, by H. S. Eland, 1895. p. 150.

   Accessed 04 July 2021 at: babel.hathitrust.org/

5. ↑ ^{5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3} Harrison, Fairfax. Devon Carys, Vol. 1, (New York: De Vinne Press, 1920) Chapter V, pp. 61-104.

   « Sir John Cary, of Cockington (1337?-1395), has one thing in common with all his ancestors: there is no recorded date of his birth. As a conjecture which is tenable in respect of the known dates and has the advantage of being memorable, we may place this event in 1337, with the opening of the Hundred Years' War, in which he was to play a modest but useful part. »
   Chapter V may be accessed directly at: archive.org/
   Source:Harrison, Fairfax. Devon Carys
   NOTE: This date for his birth would have to be considered extremely unlikely if the dates for his parents are correct.

6. ↑ Transcript of 'Robert Dymond, F.S.A. [Obituary]' from Trans. Devon. Assoc., 1889, Vol XXI, pp.65-69. by Rev. W. Harpley, M.A. Prepared by Michael Steer.

   Accessed 07 July 2021 at: genuki.org.uk/

7. ↑ ^{7.0 7.1 7.2} 'CARY FAMILY OF DEVON' article by Robert Dymond (with appendices and family charts) in The Herald and Genealogist., edited by John Gough Nichols, F.S.A. Vol VI, London: J.G. Nichols and R.C. Nichols, printers to the Society of Antiquaries, 1871, pp.1-29 .

   Accessed 07 July 2021 at: archive.org/

8. ↑ Parliament Rolls of Medieval England, ed. Chris Given-Wilson, Paul Brand, Seymour Phillips, Mark Ormrod, Geoffrey Martin, Anne Curry and Rosemary Horrox (Woodbridge, 2005), British History Online.

   Accessed 08 July 2021 at: british-history.ac.uk/