CAREY, Edward (c.1618-57), of Westminster and Marylebone, Mdx.

The younger son of an obscure Huntingdonshire family, Edward Carey followed his elder brother, Walter, to Clare College, Cambridge, and thence to the Middle Temple, which he entered in 1641.17Al. Cant. Called to the bar in June 1648, he went on to serve the commonwealth in various capacities.18MT Mins. of Parl. ii. 966. He was appointed commissioner to take the accounts of the army in November 1649, legal counsellor for the Committee for Advance of Money in February 1650 (with a salary of £150 a year), and examiner to the Commissioners for Compounding (at £160 a year) from September 1650.19A. and O.; CCAM 81, 1506; CCC 312, 322, 363, 439, 821. On 29 September 1652 he was made a commissioner for relief upon articles, and in July 1653 he was added to the commissions for compounding, advance of money and indemnity, with a salary of £300.20A. and O.; CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 2, 8, 318, 427; 1655, p. 97. On 10 February 1654 he became a commissioner for managing the estates of delinquents.21A. and O. He was proposed by the protectoral council for the post of baron of the Irish Exchequer when the Four Courts were revived in June 1655, but he declined the post, much to the disappointment of Henry Cromwell*.22TSP iii. 549, 744; CSP Dom. 1655, p. 207; Clarke Pprs. iii. 44-5; Henry Cromwell Corresp., ed. Gaunt, 55.

Whatever the reason for Carey’s refusal to serve in Ireland, it was not the result of hostility to the regime. His career continued to flourish in 1656: in early April he was employed by the council on various cases; in the same month he was appointed as commissioner for the discovery of concealed rents, and at the beginning of August he became the deputy to the new lord high steward of Westminster, the councillor Sir Gilbert Pykeringe*.23Abbott, Writings and Speeches iv. 395; CSP Dom. 1655-6, pp. 252, 254, 278; Clarke Pprs. iii. 69; J.F. Merritt, Westminster 1640-60 (Manchester, 2013), 181. Later in August, Carey was elected alongside Edward Gravener* as MP for Westminster, both men reputedly receiving over 4,000 votes.24Clarke Pprs. iii. 70; TSP v. 337.

At the beginning of the session, Carey demonstrated his loyalty to the protectorate through his active involvement in the bill for renouncing the title of Charles Stuart. Having been included in the committee on the bill as one of the barristers, or ‘gentlemen of the long robe’ in the House, on 22 September he reported the recommended amendments to the Commons, and on 26 September he again reported on the bill prior to its third reading.25CJ vii. 425a, 426a, 428b. On the same day he joined Pykeringe, and senior lawyers such as Bulstrode Whitelocke* on the committee for the bill on the security of the protector.26CJ vii. 429a. Carey’s main role in the early months of this Parliament was as a legal expert, working with other lawyers. On 23 September he was named to the committee for Scottish affairs and added to the committee on the court of wards to consider abolishing wardships and tenures in Scotland, and on the same day the Commons ordered him to join the Hull lawyer, William Lister*, in preparing a bill for probate of northern wills.27CJ vii. 427a-b. On 25 September Carey was named to committees to release from prison those who could pay off their debts, and to consider abuses in writs of certiorari.28CJ vii. 428a. The next day he was named to a committee to investigate those imprisoned for treason and murder.29CJ vii. 429a. On 18 October Carey was named to a committee to consider incumbrances, alongside such senior lawyers as Edmund Prideaux I, John Glynne, John Lisle and Whitelocke.30CJ vii. 441b. On 1 November he was appointed to a committee for the settlement of small debts, on 20 November he joined the members of the ‘long robe’ on a committee to establish courts of law and equity in Yorkshire, and on 1 December he was added to the committee on the petition of doctors of civil law.31CJ vii. 449a, 456a, 462b.

These legal committees could also have moral and religious dimensions. On 29 September Carey was named to a committee to reconsider legislation on alehouses, gaming and drunkenness, along with all members of the ‘long robe’, and on 4 October he joined many other lawyers on a committee to revise the laws on adultery and fornication.32CJ vii. 430a, 433b. On 22 October Carey was appointed to a committee to improve revenues from papists’ estates, and on the 31st he was named to a committee on the maintenance of the ministry.33CJ vii. 444a, 448b. Carey’s concern for stability extended to the regions. On 28 November he joined John Thurloe and others with interests in the area on the committee on a bill to confirm the liberties of the Isle of Ely, and on the same day he was appointed to a committee to draft a bill to prevent delinquents from being elected to corporations.34CJ vii. 460b, 461a. On 5 December, in the debate on the bill against vagabonds, Carey revealed his intolerance of such disorderly behaviour, arguing in support of Sir Christopher Packe* and Alderman Thomas Foote*, that a 10 mile limit was far too great: ‘you should make it wandering out of their parishes, else the cities of London and Westminster will have no benefit by this expedient, and they have more of such sort than all England besides’.35Burton’s Diary i. 22.

The unsettling case of the Quaker, James Naylor, preoccupied Parliament for much of December. Carey and his fellow lawyer, William Lister, intervened in the debate in committee on 3 Dec., asking that Naylor be allowed to speak to the entire charge, rather than answer specific questions. Although this was taken by some as an unnecessary complication, it may have been a cunning ploy to encourage Naylor to incriminate himself. If so, it worked, as Thomas Burton* commented, ‘by good providence, the gentlemen that doubted were more confirmed by his second answer, and acknowledged he said more, materially, in these last words, than in all the other times of his examination’.36Burton’s Diary i. 11. Characteristically, Carey’s second contribution to the Naylor case, late on 5 December, concerned correct procedure. With Colonel Nathaniel Whetham I*, he objected to tabling a question pertaining to part of the debate that had been adjourned, adding ‘If this about calling Naylor to the bar was not the [current] debate, I beseech you that you would not put this question. Other questions would arise upon it, and you must fetch candles’.37Burton’s Diary i. 36. This was Carey’s last contribution to the debate. His attendance later in December became somewhat erratic, perhaps owing to ill health. He was named to a committee on the bill to settle Wyggeston’s Hospital in Leicester on 9 December, and spoke in the subsequent debate.38CJ vii. 466a; Burton’s Diary i. 83. He was among the lawyers named to a committee on petitions of French and Dutch Protestants on 22 December, but was absent at the call of the House on the 31st.39CJ vii. 472b; Burton’s Diary i. 285.

Carey had returned to the Commons by the beginning of February 1657, but his activity in the following weeks was unexceptional. On 13 February he was among those chosen to draft a bill to fine those who had erected houses illegally in London and Westminster.40CJ vii. 491a. On 28 February he was named to a committee to receive information on the condition of Naylor from the governor of the Bridewell prison.41CJ vii. 497b. On 4 March he was named with local MPs such as Gravener and Sir William Roberts to a committee on the bill to divide the parish of St Andrew’s Holborn, and in the same month he was appointed to three committees on petitions alongside senior lawyers and all the barristers of the House.42CJ vii. 498b, 505a, 514b, 515b. He was named to the committee on the indemnity bill, along with Prideaux and all the gentlemen of the ‘long robe’, on 31 March.43CJ vii. 516a. Most of Carey’s appointments in April and May follow a similar pattern, including committees on a petition of the City of London (1 Apr.), to regulate the court of chancery (30 Apr.), and on the second reading of the bill to restrict building in London and its environs (9 May).44CJ vii. 516b, 528a, 532a. The political and constitutional crisis of the early spring of 1657 seems to have had little impact on Carey. Although he was listed as one of the place-men who supported the protectorate, he did not join Gravener in voting for kingship at the end of March.45Narrative of the Late Parliament (1658), 16, 22 (E.935.5). Carey’s reticence may reflect Pykeringe’s opposition to the offer of the crown. This fits with other evidence from later in the constitutional debates, which suggests a concern to limit the proposed constitutional changes. On 24 Apr. Carey was named to a committee to draft answers to Cromwell’s proposals concerning the 16th article of the Humble Petition and Advice, concerning the continuance of legislation not contrary to the new constitution.46CJ vii. 524a; Gardiner, Constitutional Docs. 457; P. Little, ‘Monarchy to Protectorate; re-drafting the Humble Petition and Advice, Mar.-June 1657’, HR lxxix, 148. On the same day, when the scale of revenue to be allocated to the regime was discussed, he spoke in favour of an additional supply of £600,000, but limited to three years.47Burton’s Diary ii. 26. On 19 May, the title ‘lord protector’ was confirmed (after a division in which Pykeringe’s ally, William Strickland* told in favour of the motion), and Carey joined Pykeringe on the subsequent committee to consider how to restrict the powers exercised by the head of state under the new constitution.48CJ vii. 535a. In a similar vein, on 15 June Carey reported from the committee to ‘methodise the Petition and Advice’, the need for a bill to confirm acts and ordinances passed without parliamentary approval since April 1653, and this was read for the first time immediately afterwards.49Burton’s Diary ii. 248.

Aside from his contributions to the remoulding of the constitution, in the last few weeks of the sitting, Carey’s activity was low key. On 29 April, when a division on whether to continue the marriage legislation passed by the Nominated Assembly was tied, Carey ‘stood up, and said he was mistaken in his vote, for he thought the noes had been ordered to have gone out’, an embarrassing admission that ‘bred a great debate, whether the privilege of one Member, to rectify his mistake’ might cause the result to be changed.50Burton’s Diary ii. 70. On 20 May he was teller with the councillor and general, John Disbrowe*, against putting the question on a proviso concerning compelling members of Congregational churches to attend catechism, perhaps to avoid a rancorous debate in the House.51CJ vii. 536a. At the end of May and beginning of June, Carey was involved in moves to reform the postal service: he was named to the committee on the bill on 29 May, and reported amendments to the House on 6 June.52CJ vii. 542a, 557a; Burton’s Diary ii. 191. On 13 June, in the debate on raising money to satisfy the public debt, Carey argued for a tax to be raised to repay them, as ‘nothing lies harder upon me than this business of the poor people that did so freely contribute’.53Burton’s Diary ii. 240. On 15 June he was named to a committee on a bill to pardon the Scottish peers, the earl of Callander and Lord Cranston, and on 26 June, the last day of the sitting, he was teller with the Andover MP, Thomas Hussey II, in favour of excusing Lambarde Godfrey* from sitting on the committee for public revenue.54CJ vii. 557b, 576a.

Carey died shortly after the adjournment of Parliament. In his hastily drafted will, dated 13 July, he bequeathed his modest landholding in Huntingdonshire to his wife for her jointure together with household goods from their Marylebone home. The rest of his affairs and the guardianship of his children were left to his brother, Walter.55PROB11/267, f. 260. The Walter Carey who owned the manors of Everton Biggin and Everton Netherbury after the Restoration may have been Edward’s son.56VCH Hunts. ii. 370-4.