CAREW, Nicholas (bef. 1398-1458), of Beddington, Surr.

This Nicholas Carew was the third in a line of five of this name to be successive heads of the Carew family of Surrey, Some historians have confused our MP with his kinsman Sir Nicholas Carew (1405-47), of Mamhead and Weston Peverell, Devon, who married Joan (d.1465), da. and coh. of the Archdeacon heiress Philippa, 3rd wife of Sir Hugh Courtenay† of Haccombe. Joan later married Sir Robert de Vere*. That branch of the Carew family held substantial estates in Devon and Cornw. and its head was known as ‘Baron Carew’: C139/26/55, 129/35. The branches were close, for according to a suit in Chancery (C1/9/469-70) Sir Nicholas had a reversionary interest in the manors of Beddington, Norbury and Bandon should the male line of the Carews of Beddington die out. and followed both his grandfather, Nicholas†, keeper of the privy seal at the close of Edward III’s reign, and his long-lived father in representing their home county in Parliament. The grandfather and father had been responsible for the acquisition of substantial estates, which, situated not only in Surrey but also in Berkshire, Hampshire and Kent, were valued for the purposes of taxation at more than £162 p.a. in 1412. Feudal Aids, vi. 404, 453, 470, 516. Our MP’s father then also held the valuable Tregoz estates in Suss., the inheritance of his son-in-law (Sir) Thomas Lewknor*: ibid. 523. Our Nicholas was apparently a son of his father’s first marriage, and the eldest child to survive in a family of 17, most of whom were the offspring of his stepmother, Mercy Haym. The Commons 1386-1421, ii. 482-4; R. Michell, Carews of Beddington, 18-19, 118-19. That he was the son of his father’s first wife is indicated by his inheritance of Delamers in Wheathampstead, Herts., which came to Isabel Carew from her mother Alice: VCH Herts. ii. 298. The descent of some of the Carew estates was governed by transactions completed by his father in the early 1420s, whereby separate enfeoffments were made regarding the manors of Nutfield, Carshalton, Norbury and Beddington in Surrey, Maytham and Malmayns in Kent, and Great Purley, Hyde and Sulham, in Berkshire. Add. Chs. 23632-3; CCR, 1419-22, pp. 139, 203, 219, 221-6. In 1431 the Kent and Berkshire manors, together with Carshalton, Nutfeld and Bandon (also in Surrey) were settled on Nicholas the father and his second wife Mercy and their issue, the intention being to disinherit our MP in favour of his siblings of the half blood. CP25(1)/292/67/120; CCR, 1429-35, p. 189.

The elderly Nicholas Carew died on 4 Sept. 1432. C139/57/1. In his will he had left our Nicholas 150 marks in the form of stock and 50 marks in plate, on condition that he did not contest the bequests to Mercy. PCC 16 Luffenham (PROB11/3, f. 124). Surprisingly, although our MP was by now in his thirties, it seems that no marriage had been arranged for him. However, within three years of his father’s death he was contracted to wed a daughter of Sir Roger Fiennes, who came from an old and wealthy Sussex family and was becoming a highly influential figure in the household of Henry VI. Carew now enlisted the help of his father-in-law to limit his stepmother’s hold over his patrimony. In July 1435, at Sir Roger’s castle of Herstmonceux, Carew conveyed to him, his brother James Fiennes* and others of their circle all his lands and rents in Surrey, at the same time leasing to them for three years the manors of Norbury and Beddington and other extensive properties in Surrey, as well as the manor of Studham and lands in Hertfordshire. CCR, 1435-41, pp. 44-45; 1447-54, pp. 100-1; Add. Ch. 23178. For Studham see VCH Herts. ii. 275. His stepmother protested that he was keeping her from her dower and jointure, and obstructing the performance of her late husband’s will. She brought suits against him in the court of common pleas for goods worth 470 marks, CP40/708, rot. 281. and petitioned against him and his father-in-law, to assert her right to Nutfield and Carshalton as jointure, and her full dower at Beddington and Norbury. She alleged that Carew and Fiennes also threatened her tenure of properties to which her stepson could have no legal title, notably the manor of Forsters in Hampshire which had belonged to her father Stephen Haym†; this, she said, ‘no man dar ocupye’ because of their oppression. She insisted on keeping a bond in 320 marks which her stepson had sealed until she received full compensation for all her losses. Add. Ch. 23408. In July 1440 a compromise settlement was reached whereby Mercy relinquished her life-interest in Bandon and Nutfield to Carew and his feoffees, while he ceased all legal actions against her for detention of deeds regarding the manor of Woodmansterne and ‘Jacombesland’, on condition that she would abide by the award of Sir Ralph Butler, John Fortescue* and others regarding the evidences touching his inheritance and that of the two daughters of his late half-brother Thomas (d.1430). The interests of these two girls (Mercy, later wife of Richard Forde, and Joan, wife of William Saundre), were of great concern to their grandmother, who had demanded that they be restored to the properties in Surrey and Berkshire to which they were entitled under settlements made by her late husband. CAD, iv. A9778; Add. Ch. 23730; Surr. Arch. Collns. xxv. 59-63; Michell, 18. Evidently, our MP was determined to keep the girls out of their inheritance; in 1447 he leased out one of the properties concerned, the manor of East Perle in Sanderstead, for 15 years. Add. Ch. 23654.

This particular matter came to arbitration in May 1451, with Carew on one side and Forde and Saundre on the other, the parties being bound in £200 to abide by the award of John Ellingbridge* and Nicholas Hervy* (chosen by Forde and Saundre), and Thomas Slyfield* and Arthur Ormesby† chosen by Carew. Ormesby might appear to have been a strange choice, for he was now the husband of Carew’s stepmother, but his presence indicates that Carew was prepared to mend the serious rift in the family. The award noted that William Selman* and William Bradford, the surviving feoffees of Carew’s father, had three months earlier entailed on Mercy Forde and her issue a third of the manor of Woodmansterne and lands in Bansted and Chepsted, and on Joan Saundre and her issue lands in Sanderstead and Warlingham. Carew was required to respect these settlements and not disturb his nieces in their possession. He undertook on pain of £200 never to lay claim to these properties again. Add. Ch. 23656. The descent of Woodmansterne and East Purley in Sanderstead went in accordance with this settlement: VCH Surr. iv. 239, 248. For the earlier suit of the girls and their husbands against Selman and Bradford, see C1/19/258-9. The two girls also petitioned Chancery concerning their remainder interest in the principal estates of the Carew family should our MP die without issue; they wanted the feoffees to make them sure of their legal title. C1/18/36.

In a separate matter, Carew faced disputes over Great Purley in Berkshire, the family manor to which Thomas Brown IV* laid claim against Carew’s stepmother and her husband Ormesby. Eventually, after suits were brought in 1449 and 1450, the Carews’ interests prevailed, and in 1454, after his stepmother’s death, Great Purley, Hyde and Sulham were all settled on our MP for life, with remainder to his son Nicholas and the latter’s wife and issue. Carew had been accused of entering Great Purley by force in an attempt to eject Brown, but won acquittal in the courts. CP40/753, rot. 340; 757, rots. 83, 302; Add. Chs. 23864-6; C140/21/40. Brown was bound over in the King’s bench to keep the peace towards him in Hil. term 1451: KB27/759, rex rot. 2d. Mercy had always remained wary of her stepson’s intentions. She did not mention him in her will, made in 1451, although there were bequests to the Fordes and Saundres, and the arbiters of 1440 – Butler (now Lord Sudeley) and Fortescue (now c.j.K.b.) – were named as supervisors and left bequests for their labour. Lambeth Palace Lib., Reg. Kemp, ff. 298v-300, printed in Surr. Arch. Collns. xliii. 53-55. Clearly, she expected them to protect her grand-daughters’ interests.

Carew’s career had begun several years before the death of his father. As ‘the younger’ he appeared in January 1420 on the list sent to Henry V’s council of knights and esquires of Surrey considered suitable for military service in the defence of the realm, and similarly described he offered securities for his father in the Exchequer in April 1423. He attested the Surrey elections of 1423 and 1425, when he was accompanied to the hustings by his half-brother Thomas. E28/97/31B; CFR, xv. 33; C219/13/2, 3. Before his father’s death he possessed lands in Wheathampstead, Hertfordshire, which had probably come to him through his mother, CAD, i. C190. but Surrey always remained the focus of his interests, and it was there that he took the generally-administered oath against peace-breakers in 1434. CPR, 1429-36, p. 380. His wealth and status in the county led to his appointment to the Surrey bench in 1438, and election to Parliament as a shire-knight a year later. By this time his father-in-law Fiennes (who represented Sussex in the same Parliament), had been made treasurer of the King’s household, and their relationship may well have been a factor in Carew’s election. They were associated publicly, for Carew had stood surety for Fiennes at the Exchequer in 1436, and had witnessed his and his brother James’s acquisition of property in Surrey in July 1439, just a few months before the Commons met. On the first day of the second parliamentary session, at Reading on 14 Jan. 1440, our MP joined James Fiennes in providing sureties for Sir Roger. CFR, xvi. 296; xvii. 132; CCR, 1435-41, pp. 282, 377, 460. Nine months after the dissolution, Carew was appointed sheriff of Surrey and Sussex for the first of three terms, all of which fell in the 1440s and during his father-in-law’s lifetime. It was no doubt Sir Roger who introduced him to the royal household, where he received fees and robes as an esquire from about 1446 until 1452 or later. E101/409/16; 410/1, 3, 6, 9. Nevertheless, this did not lead to much in the way of patronage from Henry VI, save that as ‘King’s esquire’ Carew received a grant to him and his heirs in 1448 of the King’s leet at Beddington and Bandon, for an annual payment of 3s. 4d. CPR, 1446-52, p. 144. He played a part in the election to Parliament of his fellow Household men, for as sheriff in 1445 he took responsibility for the returns of John Stanley I* for Surrey and his father-in-law Fiennes for Sussex; and in 1449 he returned John Penycoke* for Surrey and James Fiennes’s son-in-law Robert Rademylde* for Sussex.

Following the death of Sir Roger Fiennes in 1449 and the murder of his brother James (now Lord Saye and Sele), during Cade’s rebellion the following year, Carew lacked for influential contacts at court, and although he remained on the Surrey bench for the rest of his life he was not appointed to any other royal commissions again. He appears to have sought new patrons in this period of national crisis. In November 1450 when he placed certain estates in the hands of feoffees, prominent among them were Henry Holand, duke of Exeter, and Richard Beauchamp, bishop of Salisbury. CAD, iii. A7126. It was to a daughter of another member of the King’s household, Edward Langford*, that he married his son and heir apparent, Nicholas. In July 1453 Langford was bound in 500 marks to him, conditional on his not bringing a writ of audita querela to stay execution of several statutes merchant. Their complex dealings probably explain Langford’s temporary tenure of the Carew manor of Great Purley (currently disputed with Thomas Brown) which as we have seen was entailed in 1454 on young Nicholas and his bride. Add. Chs. 22643, 23865; VCH Berks. iii. 419; CP25(1)/13/86/8; C140/21/40. Carew had had dealings with Langford earlier, in 1446, when he, Sir Roger Fiennes, and various Sussex lawyers acquired from him property in London: London Corp. RO, hr 174/28. Like Langford our MP was summoned on 16 Apr. 1455 to attend a meeting of the great council at Leicester on 21 May following. The other person summoned with him from Surrey was the staunch Lancastrian John Penycoke, and Carew, too, continued to be loyal to the court. The council never met, for the next day the first battle of the civil war was fought at St. Albans. Whether Carew was an active participant in the field is not recorded. Later that year he took out a pardon as a former sheriff. PPC, vi. 341; C67/41, m. 31.

Besides the marriage of his heir, other private matters had concerned Carew in these years. By an unusual arrangement made on 1 Aug. 1454 he had placed his goods and chattels in the keeping of his widowed mother-in-law, Elizabeth Fiennes, and the youngest of his daughters, Emmeline. A deed he had enrolled in the common pleas in Hil. term 1457: CP40/784, cart. rot. 1. His brother-in-law Robert Fiennes* witnessed the will he made on 14 Nov. 1456. Carew asked to be buried in the church at Beddington, where 300 masses were to be said for his soul immediately after his death. He left £100 each to his three daughters, Rose, Margaret and Emmeline, as their marriage portions, instructing the feoffees of his estates to provide revenues or sell timber to raise these sums. The feoffees were also to pay for his younger son, James, to attend an inn of court until he was 26, when he was to receive seisin of the manor of Marham in Kent. James was also to inherit the manors of Stodham and Laniers in Hertfordshire and lands in Bedfordshire and Berkshire after the death of his mother, Margaret, and until he came into these estates he was to receive an annuity of £20 charged on Nutfield. In addition, the widowed Margaret was to keep for life the principal Carew manors of Beddington, Carsalton, Bandon and Norbury. Arthur Ormesby, who held Carew’s manor of Offley, Hertfordshire, for life, was asked to supervise the execution of the will. PCC 12 Stokton (PROB11/4, ff. 93v-95v); VCH Herts. ii. 275, 298. Carew lived on for some time longer. He resolved other outstanding affairs in the autumn of 1457, by making a general release of legal actions to the steward of his household, William Acclond (who held certain lands for life by his grant), and completing the formalities for his wife’s jointure. Add. Chs. 23186-7. He died on 20 Apr. 1458. C139/168/22.

Carew’s widow married Walter Denys, and in 1464 the couple were sued by her son Nicholas for damage done to the Norbury property, which would one day fall to him. He claimed that they had not only allowed the buildings to fall into disrepair, but that Denys had cut down and sold 600 oaks worth £200, and 200 ash trees worth £40. Michell, 20. The younger Nicholas had entered Henry VI’s service shortly before his father’s death, and had been granted for life the office of constable of Southampton castle. That he proved loyal to the house of Lancaster is indicated by the order for his arrest and imprisonment when Edward IV took the throne, although he obtained a pardon from the new King in February 1462. In January 1466 he obtained a royal licence to enter his inheritance from his parents. CPR, 1452-61, pp. 390, 511; 1461-7, pp. 32, 447; C67/45, m. 45. Nicholas, who was serving as constable of Farnham castle for Bishop Waynflete of Winchester that year, Hants RO, bp. of Winchester’s pipe rolls, 11M59/B1/179 (formerly 155834). survived only a few months more, dying on the following 3 Aug. The young man had been profligate with his resources, and died intestate, leaving substantial outstanding debts, notably to suppliers of furs and luxurious garments. C140/21/40; C1/31/170, 33/308, 315, 88/41, 105/39. The wardship and marriage of his heir, yet another Nicholas (then aged four), was sold by the Crown for as much as 400 marks, while the boy’s mother broke her oath not to marry again without the King’s licence by marrying John Carent* of Dorset. CFR, xx. 187-9; CCR, 1461-8, p. 429; 1468-76, no. 1240; C67/48, m. 12. Young Nicholas came of age in 1484, but died the following year, C141/7/44; CFR, xxii. nos. 1, 2. whereupon his three sisters became heirs to some of the Carew estates. VCH Surr. iii. 223-4; iv. 182. However, the girls’ inheritance of the manors of Beddington, Norbury and Bandon was contested by their uncle James, the younger son of our MP, who claimed that many years earlier these had been settled in tail-male on our MP by his father’s feoffees. James put his legal training to good effect, eventually proving successful in his claim. Sel. Cases Exchequer Chamber, ii (Selden Soc. lxiv), 151-6; CIPM Hen. VII, i. 846; CFR, xxii. no. 465. The quitclaim from the feoffees to our MP and his wife made in Nov. 1457 had not mentioned any such entail: Add. Ch. 23187. Furthermore, by then he had made a potentially lucrative marriage to Eleanor, one of the four daughters and coheirs of Thomas Hoo I*, Lord Hoo and Hastings, and had defeated the attempts of her uncle Thomas Hoo II* to deprive her of her marriage portion of £240. C1/44/185-9; CCR, 1468-76, no. 979.