CARY, Henry (Harry), Viscount Falkland (1634-63), of Great Tew, Oxon.

As the high-ranking son of a distinguished Member, and descendant of public servants and courtiers, in normal times Falkland might have presumed an automatic right to represent his county in the Commons. Late in 1658, however, his upbringing, family and reputation all seemed to tell against him, and thus render his election unlikely. None the less, he emerged victorious in a disputed contest, and on some accounts at least he then made a notable impact on the House, undermining it from within, while simultaneously conspiring from without towards its downfall.

The heroic death in battle of his father, Lucius Cary*, and the demise three and a half years later of his mother after a notably pious life, left several young children and estates which, already encumbered in the first viscount’s time, were probably further depleted by loans to the king and the penalties of royalism.22‘Lucius Cary’, ‘Lettice Cary’ and ‘Elizabeth Cary’, Oxford DNB; CAM 190, 999, 1003; CCC 92. According to Anthony Wood, the heir, Lucius, 3rd Viscount, was ‘a young man of great hopes’, but having spent some time at Christ Church, Oxford, after the city’s surrender to Parliament in 1646, he continued his education abroad and died at Montpellier aged 17. Henry, who succeeded his brother to the Scottish title in September 1649, in contrast received ‘no academical learning’.23Ath. Ox. ii. 571; Great Tew par. reg. He may have had some schooling under Thomas Triplet, who in 1649 was teaching in Dublin and who two years later published an edition of the second viscount’s Infallibility of the Catholic Religion, but by the summer of 1650 Henry was in France, apparently indulging in characteristic dissipation rather than study.24HP Commons 1660-1690; ‘Thomas Triplet’, Oxford DNB. Ralph Verney*, who encountered him at Blois, had little time for ‘my Lord and his roaring boys’.25Mems. of the Verney Fam. iii. 16-17. Wood claimed to have learned from someone in a position to know that he was ‘so exceeding wild and extravagant, that he sold his father’s incomparable library for a horse and a mare’.26Ath. Ox. ii. 571.

Falkland’s marriage at 18 on 14 April 1653 to the 16-year-old daughter of Anthony Hungerford* drew him further into the circles of sequestered royalists but failed to curb his exuberance.27Black Bourton par. reg. Less than four weeks later he was arrested and examined following a fracas in Hyde Park.28CSP Dom. 1652-3, p. 322. In the aftermath of the risings of March 1655, Colonel Unton Croke II* reported with Henry Smith from Oxfordshire on 6 June that in addition to seizing various persons according to instructions received from the protector, they had ‘also secured the lord of Falkland, George Napier, Thomas Whorwood … who are dangerous and disaffected persons’; the prisoners were to be sent next day to Worcester, ‘the nearest place where there is conveniency for confinement’.29TSP iii. 521. Falkland’s detainment was probably brief, and may have encouraged him towards, rather than deterred him from, further intrigue. On 17 July 1656 he obtained a pass to go with four servants to France, where he would have had ample opportunity to cultivate contacts with political exiles – although the length of his stay is unknown.30CSP Dom. 1656-7, p. 580.

Bulstrode Whitelocke* recounted later that during the protectorate Falkland had approached him and ‘earnestly entreated him to procure for him some place of employment under Oliver’, explaining ‘with tears’ that ‘his estate was so wasted that he was not able to subsist without [it]’ and giving assurances of his intention to be faithful to the regime ‘against the king and all of his family’. Motivated by the fact that ‘he was the son of that ingenious Falkland, Whitelocke’s great friend’ the latter attempted unsuccessfully to persuade Oliver Cromwell* to give him a place, but the latter could not be convinced of his trustworthiness. However, Whitelocke had still done what he could as a member of the council of state and a commissioner of the great seal.31Whitelocke, Diary, 599. Whatever the veracity of this, in addition to the backing of voters who saw him as a potential promoter of the traditional order, the viscount must have had some supporters among those in high favour with the regime, and more prepared to give the son of such a father the benefit of the doubt. Equally, it is evident that others were sceptical.

Following the assembly of the third protectorate Parliament in 1659, the Commons heard on 1 February that there had been a double return for Oxfordshire, with the names of Robert Jenkinson* and Falkland on one indenture, and Jenkinson and Sir Francis Norreys* on another.32CJ vii. 596b; Burton’s Diary, iii. 23-4. It is conceivable that the sheriff, Unton Croke II, had been reluctant to formalize the election of the man he had arrested three and a half years earlier, but it is also possible that, as Richard Croke* suggested, genuine confusion had occurred. According to Thomas Burton*, the solution proposed by Sir Arthur Hesilrige* was that Falkland should be admitted, only to be then excluded as a delinquent, while the more sympathetic Oxford don Gerald Langbaine later recounted that opposition to the choice had been voiced on the ground that he had not yet finished sowing his wild oats. 33Burton’s Diary, iii. 24-5. Even some of those who hoped for a restoration of the monarchy had cause to prefer the more experienced and moderate Norreys.34CSP Dom. 1658-9, p. 351-2. However, on 7 February the indenture announcing Falkland’s election was declared the valid return.35CJ vii. 601a; Burton’s Diary, iii. 84-5.

For a while opinion that he had matured into a useful advocate of a conservative standpoint seemed to be vindicated, if not faith in his good will towards the government. Although Falkland was confident enough to move for having a petition read as early as 9 February, in the first few weeks of his service in Parliament he otherwise made no visible contribution, obtaining leave on 26 February to go into the country for ten days.36Burton’s Diary, iii. 154; CJ vii. 608a. But from 16 March Thomas Burton recorded a number of robust interventions in debate. That day Burton noted him expressing, in the context of the petition seeking the release from imprisonment of Colonel Robert Overton (over which he appeared dubious), the sentiment that he ‘would have no difference put between the free-born people of England, but do justice to all’.37Burton’s Diary, iii. 160. In discussions on the status of Scottish MPs and the union with Scotland (as later in other matters) he seemed to be a voice for pragmatism, due process and parliamentary dignity (17, 21 and 29 Mar.).38Burton’s Diary, iv. 170, 215, 294. On 25 March Alan Brodrick†, the Sealed Knot’s regular correspondent with Edward Hyde*, wrote enthusiastically to the latter that Falkland was the king’s most zealous and energetic friend in the House. His royalist sympathies were known, but he had the ear of those in power; while he had been a ‘vain’ youth, he was now transformed.39CCSP iv. 166–7.

Falkland evidently did his utmost to impede the proposed political settlement. On 25 March he seconded a motion of Sir George Boothe* seeking a vote rejecting the Other House, echoing Boothe’s assertion that that House would inevitably take more power to itself than intended.40Burton’s Diary, iv. 281. In a division that day he was a teller for the minority who sought to postpone the question of transacting with the other chamber, while on 5 April, again unsuccessfully, he tried to block the inclusion of ‘both Houses’ in the declaration of a fast day.41CJ vii. 621b, 626a. On 6 April he had a further opportunity for stalling when he was named, with Jenkinson, to the committee considering the manner of transacting with the Other House – an opportunity he almost certainly took judging by an intervention of 8 April – while on 12 April he fought in company with Sir Arthur Hesilrige* a rearguard action against the declaration on the fast receiving formal assent from that body.42CJ vii. 627a, 639b; Burton’s Diary, iv. 371. When Thomas Grove*, despatched by the Commons for that purpose, narrated the difficulties he had encountered, Falkland was quick to pour scorn (15 Apr.).43Burton’s Diary, iv. 434. In the debate on the excise he obstructively proposed settling first the much more contentious point of the chief magistrate (1 Apr.), although he took an interest in the process of collecting money, moving (11 Apr.) that tax farmers be kept in close custody until they paid what was due.44Burton’s Diary, iv. 324, 400.

At the exiled court reports praising Falkland as the king’s leading advocate in Parliament mingled with updates on his covert seditious schemes.45CCSP iv. 175, 177, 190. While Hyde was apparently sceptical, a letter from Charles to Falkland, which he forwarded via Brodrick on 29 April (old style), appeared to encourage the viscount’s subversive intent.46CCSP iv. 190. In the meantime Falkland pursued a complex course at Westminster. Named on 12 April to the committee drawing up articles of impeachment against Major-general William Boteler* for abuses in his administration of Northamptonshire, Falkland spoke up for his prosecution – ‘this gentleman robbed me, and keeps my goods today’ – observing daringly that, having heard ‘much that cavaliers are in town, I wish there be not cavaliers amongst us, that strive to make our friends cavaliers’.47CJ vii. 637a; Burton’s Diary, iv. 406. Included, ironically, on 18 April on the committee to devise means of protection against risings by delinquents who had come to reside in and around London, twice that day Falkland contributed to argument which culminated in the vote to make assemblies of the general council of the army dependent on executive sanction and impose on officers an oath not to coerce Parliament.48CJ vii. 642a. The ‘fourth’ estate were a greater threat than royalists; ‘the way to keep the cavaliers out’, he declared with some effrontery, was to suppress meetings and publications from the soldiery; the army had ‘done well’, but they had also ‘done ill’, ‘pulled us twice out by the ears’ (presumably references to Pride’s Purge and the dissolution of April 1653).49Burton’s Diary, iv. 449, 460-1. The militia, he indicated in the course of several speeches on 21 April, was the only counterweight Parliament had left; control of it by a grand committee and appointed commissioners was the best way to prevent ‘pretenders’ imposing their will by force.50Burton’s Diary iv. 473, 475-7.

Following the dissolution of Parliament the next day, Falkland’s plans for insurrection in Oxfordshire were refined, although rivalries between potential participants make it difficult to establish how developed they were.51CCSP iv. 195, 200. While Hyde wanted Falkland to join Edward Massie* in Gloucestershire once the conspirators declared their hand, intelligence reached him that the viscount had conveyed pistols to Oxfordshire and planned to make for Warwick Castle.52CCSP iv. 202-4, 209 Through June and July misunderstanding dogged communication between Hyde and Falkland, the former anxious over reports of the latter showing his hand too publicly in Westminster Hall, the latter furiously attacking fellow plotters.53CCSP iv. 210, 216, 227, 233, 256, 265, 269-70. Following a warrant for his arrest issued on 1 August, Falkland was taken ‘at his own house’ on the 5th, perhaps by Unton Croke, appeared before councillors of state on the 11th, and was then committed with other nobles to the Tower for examination for high treason.54Bodl. Rawl. 134, f. 19v; A.259, f. 71; C.179, f. 278; Clarke Pprs. iv. 38; Mercurius Politicus no. 583 (11-18 Aug. 1659), 665-6 (E.766.34); CSP Dom. 1659-60, pp. 103, 105. A search at Great Tew duly found a cache of arms and ammunition, and suspects at Oxford gave statements naming him as commander of an abortive rising, but petitions were received in his behalf, including one probably from his kinsman John Cary of Ditchley and Woodstock, a leading member of the Oxfordshire commission of the peace, and on 2 November he was among several aristocratic conspirators who were released.55CSP Dom. 1659-60, pp. 157, 163, 189, 241-2; CCSP iv. 386-7, 390-1; Bodl. Rawl. A.259, f. 138. The disillusioned Whitelocke remarked that ‘this was to ingratiate with the cavaliers’.56Whitelocke’s Diary, 540.

Having been made an assessment commissioner for the county in January, on 13 February 1660, in company with other onetime MPs like James Fiennes* and Edward Hungerford*, Falkland was the leading signatory of the petition to General George Monck* from gentlemen, ministers and freeholders of Oxfordshire which called for the return of a rejuvenated Long Parliament.57A. and O.; CSP Dom. 1659-60, p. 361. On 14 March, with the evident intention of standing for a city seat, he was admitted with other future candidates as a freeman of Oxford; that month he also became a militia commissioner and a justice of the peace for Oxfordshire.58Oxford Council Acts 1626-1665, 254; A. and O.; HP Commons 1660-1690. At the election to the Convention on 5 April he and James Huxley† defeated the recorder, Richard Croke*, and Alderman John Nixon*, who had dominated the city during the previous 14 years.59Oxford Council Acts 1626-1665, 255-6; CCSP iv. 648-9, 656. Falkland was one of the deputation of Lords and Commons received by Charles at The Hague on 16 May (old style) and he was with his own regiment to greet the returning king at his entry to London.60Clarendon, Hist. vi. 229; HMC 5th Rep. 184, 207.

After the Restoration Falkland sought, with mixed success, to capitalize on his record and his connections to gain office and improve his financial position.61CSP Dom. 1660-1, p. 291; 1661-2, p. 121, 162; CCSP v. 334-5. Having advanced a high Anglican and cavalier viewpoint in the Convention, he was re-elected to Parliament in 1661, this time for his county.62HP Commons 1660-1690. He had already become lord lieutenant of Oxfordshire and a gentleman of the bedchamber.63CCSP v. 41; CSP Dom. 1660-1, pp. 108, 265. For a while he was regularly involved in Oxford affairs and a significant presence in the Commons, speaking notably against popery and keeping up from afar with his regiment, stationed at Dunkirk.64Wood, Life and Times, i. 371; Oxford Council Acts 1626-1665, 275, 278, 292; HMC 5th Rep. 202; CSP Dom. 1661-2, p. 37; The Conway Letters ed. M. H. Nicholson, rev. S. Hutton (1992), 188; HP Commons 1660-1690. He also had the opportunity to exact retribution on local former parliamentarians like John Lenthall* and (according to the man himself) Whitelocke.65CSP Dom. 1661-2, pp. 170, 265; Whitelocke’s Diary, 599. But a few months before the disbandment of the Dunkirk regiment in October 1662, Falkland followed family tradition and tried his luck in Ireland, where he rapidly became a privy councillor and member of the Dublin Parliament.66CCSP v. 256, 258, 265; CSP Dom. 1661-2, p. 525, 545. He appears to have had a somewhat cool relationship with the viceroy, James Butler, 1st duke of Ormond, and according to at least two commentators died on 2 April 1663 a disappointed man: ‘poor Lord Falkland’, scarcely out of his youthful ‘heats and passions’, had had ‘his heart … broke[n], with the pure despair of his fortune’.67CCSP v. 275, 283, 302, 306; Bodl. Carte 47, f. 44v. Falkland, who was intestate, left encumbered estates and an only son, Anthony Carey†, who succeeded him as 5th viscount and sat in three Parliaments from 1685.68PROB6/38, f. 81v; CCSP v. 370, 395; CSP Dom. 1670, Addenda 1660-70, p. 266; HP Commons 1660-1690. Falkland’s other legacy, reflecting family literary interests, was a revenge tragedy set in Castile, The Marriage Night, licensed on 16 October 1663.69[H. Cary], Viscount Falkland, The mariage night (1664).