According to a descendant of the South Cadbury Bailys, “Colonel John Baily is said to have been regarded as the handsomest man in Somerset” but also “seems to have been a thoroughly bad lot and certainly ran through his wife’s fortune.” [i]
John Baily, my 5x great-grandfather, was likely born in 1728. He was baptised at St Thomas à Becket church in South Cadbury, Somerset, the parish where his father, the Reverend John Baily, was the Rector. His mother was Elizabeth Newman. John was the eldest of 9 children. He appears to have been close to his brother William who later became a clergyman
| John’s father, John Baily, was born circa 1697, and hailed from Frome, Somerset[ii]. He attended Balliol college at Oxford University, matriculating the 1 December 1714. He obtained a BA in 1718 and MA in 1721, and was instituted the Rector of South Cadbury, Somerset on the 3 July, 1725. In 1730, he added the parish of Sparkford to his care, and was later made Prebendary of Wells.[iii] He married Eleanor Newman in 1727. |
At the age of 30, on the 17 August, 1758, at Sutton Montis in Somerset, John Baily married Mary Seymour, of Sherborne, Dorset. They married by licence, which he obtained on the 15 August. [iv]
Curiously, some sources give the marriage date as the 30 November of the same year. For example, several of the peerage compendiums[v]:
Furthermore, the marriage notices did not appear in the fashionable press until December:
Note, too, that the London Chronicle says that the ceremony was performed “at her father’s house in Sherborne, Dorset”. This is not true – at least of the first, official ceremony. The marriage very much took place in Sutton Montis, and there is no evidence of an official second marriage ceremony in the church registers of Sherborne.
There is an explanation for the discrepancy.
It appears that the marriage was kept a secret from Mary’s father for at least several months. This was revealed in the Chancery lawsuit relating to Mary’s father’s Will (more on this in another post). Mary’s brother Henry described John Baily as a man who “then followed the Business or Calling of a Farmer and was looked on as a man without any Fortune or at least a very small and Inconsiderable one.”[vi] Given that his father was a clergyman, most likely if John was a farmer, he was a “gentleman farmer” as opposed to someone who did any labouring.[vii]
Mary’s father was Francis Seymour, Esq., who had inherited a large estate from his great-uncle Henry Portman, including his mansion, Sherborne House, in Sherborne, Dorset, only about 5 or 6 miles from Sutton Montis. Francis Seymour was the son of Sir Edward Seymour, a baronet. Francis’ elder brother, Edward Seymour, became the 8th Duke of Somerset. Mary’s mother was the Viscountess Hinchingbrooke, and her half-brother was John Montague, the 4th Earl of Sandwich. Therefore, Mary was from a wealthy and well-connected family, and in comparison, while John Baily would be considered a gentleman, he was not one of wealth or status. She was 26 years old when she married John, and would not have needed her father’s permission to wed, but given the disparity in fortune, she could well have faced serious opposition to the marriage. Hence it is not a surprise that she did not tell her father until it was a done deal.
For Mary, at least, this was likely a love-match. But was it for John? Is it possibly he had a more mercenary motivation?
Mary herself was an heiress. She stood to inherit at least £10,000 set aside as part of her parents’ marriage settlement, as well as an additional amount from her father when he died. This would be a fair prospect for the son of a clergyman with no occupation and not likely to inherit much himself.
Anyway, according to Mary, her father was soon reconciled to the marriage. In fact, “he was so little displeased” that he desired her not to leave, and instead, offered John and Mary to live with him and declared if they did, he would give them £300 a year. From about March 1760, this is what they did. Mary went on to write that her father “took a great liking to … John Baily and became very fond of his Company and was uneasy at such times as he was absent.” [viii] John and Mary’s first child, Edward Seymour Baily, was born at Sherborne House on the 16 August 1761.
From Mary’s point of view, John was charming enough to soften her father’s opinion of him. But Mary’s brother, Henry Seymour, paints a different picture of John Baily.
Francis Seymour’s Will and Codicil, and the Probate Lawsuit
In summary, Henry Seymour alleged a scheme by which John Baily obtained the assistance of his relatives to get the Codicil made. The way Henry saw it, John Baily (with or without his wife’s help) unsealed the Will made in May, in order to familiarise himself with its contents. He sent for Richard Brodrepp, a second cousin of his, to write the Codicil, and his brother William Baily to participate in the scheme. One or other of them is accused of guiding Mr Seymour’s hand to sign his name. The accusations include trying to get servants to cooperate, and to keep the goings-on from the ears of Henry Seymour, as well as trying to hide the “fact” that Francis Seymour did not have the mental capacity to dictate the Codicil. Please see the post on the Chancery Suit for more details.
In the end, the court decided that the residuum of the estate not devised to Mary Baily by the Will should belong to Henry Seymour, and that the residue of the personal estate should belong to Mary Baily as per the Codicil.
Ramridge House, Weyhill
John and Mary left Sherborne House not long after the death of her father. By the description in the chancery depositions, Henry took possession of Sherborne House, and demanded that Mr and Mrs Baily depart quickly. In due course, they settled at Ramridge House, in the parish of Weyhill (also known as Penton Grafton) in Hampshire, where they stayed until at least the mid-1770s.
Their three younger children were all born or baptised there, and various documents described John and Mary as “of Ramridge House” during this period. In 1764, John Baily Esq became a Justice of the Peace for Weyhill, and as of 1774, was still acting in that capacity:
The Northmore properties
In 1774 an agreement between Henry Seymour and John & Mary Baily, pursuant to the Chancery case, was finalised. In the indenture, some of the property originally belonging to William Northmore became the property of the Bailys. The background is that, many decades before, Willian Northmore had obtained a mortgage from Henry Portman. The debt was not paid off in Northmore’s lifetime, nor by his Heirs and Executors, so in the end, Francis Seymour came to own the properties. Among the properties where Whiddon House in Chargford, and Pring Close and Bywood Farm in the parish of Dunkeswell, all in Devonshire.
Indenture between Mary and John Baily
In the end, Mary’s inheritance aside from the abovenamed property was the £6,000 pounds left in Trust to Mary by Francis Seymour, and the £10,000 (also in trust) set aside for her from the marriage settlement between Francis Seymour and Mary’s mother, Lady Hinchingbrooke. Following on from the final agreement relating to the sale of the Northmore estates to create the £6,000 trust, an indenture was signed on the 14 July 1774, between John and Mary Baily on the one part, Mary’s half-brother John Montague, the Earl of Sandwich and John Gawler (a lawyer) of the other part.[ix]
It states (in a rather saccharine way) “for the consideration of the natural love and affection which he hath and bareth for his said wife [John Baily] is desirous to Settle the Sum of four hundred and fifty pounds per annum upon his said wife during [their] Joint Lives for her own separate and peculiar use” to be paid from the rents and profits of the unsold properties and the interest and dividends of the £6,000 which will be invested after the sale of the properties.” The amount she was to receive was to be in no way subject or liable to the “debts, imposition or control” of John Baily.
In exchange, John wanted paid to him £3,900 as soon as that sum could be raised from the sale of the properties. He was “willing to forego and postpone the payment of any other the Claims and Demands which he now has upon the said Trust premises remaining unsold until the said Sum of Six thousand pounds so provided for the said Mary Baily in and by the Will of her said father shall have been raised by the Sale of a sufficient part of the said Hereditaments and premises”.
But, the settlement on Mary “is hereby agreed and declared shall be in lieu and satisfaction of any other provision which the said Mary Baily now is or may be intitled to under the will of the said Francis Seymour her late father or the Decree of the Court of Chancery before cited or otherwise”
While the surplus of rents and profits from the properties “shall from time to time be received by and come to the hands of the said John Gawler his Executors or Administrators unto the said John Baily.”
Curiously included were the penalties should John Baily “intermeddle” or interfere in any way with the collection of the rents! Did this imply he had already been doing so?
Bywood in Dunkeswell, and Whiddon House, Chagford
I have not found anything to show that John and Mary lived together at Whiddon House, but there is some indication that John was linked to Bywood Farm in 1775. Certainly by 1780, John Baily appears in the Devon Land Tax records as the proprietor of Pring Close and Bywood in the parish of Dunkewsell, but he was not then the occupier. From 1782, he is the occupier of Bywood.
John’s run for Parliament
In April 1784, John Baily ran for the seat of Honiton, in Devonshire, but was not successful.
When he died, less than a year later, his obituary noted:
I’m yet to find it there are any more details of his run for Parliament.
Death and Probate
John died in January 1785 at Whiddon House in Chagford, and was buried in the churchyard at the parish church there, on the 10 January. His last Will was dated 15 December 1784. His wife Mary died before him, and is not mentioned in his Will.
He bequeathed to his son Edward Seymour Bailey “all that my Manor of Dunkeswell in the said county and all my Messuages Tenements Lands and premises whatsoever or wheresoever situate and all my plate rings jewels china and all other my personal Estate of what nature or kind … unto and to the use of the said Edward Seymour Baily my son his Heirs Executors Administrators and Assigns for ever”.[x]
Summary:
There is some indication that John Baily was “a thoroughly bad lot”, to quote one of his descendants. If the allegations made by his brother-in-law are correct, he colluded with others to falsely obtain a Codicil to Francis Seymour’s Will, from which he would benefit financially through Mary. Of course, Henry had a vested interest in disproving the veracity of the Codicil, and Henry wasn’t exactly considered a paragon of virtue. The indenture between John and Mary hints at John’s need for immediate funds, and that he was not to interfere in, for example, the collecting of rents.
And certainly by the time their son Edward Seymour Baily inherited Whiddon House, the income from it was barely sufficient to live on.
But I reserve my judgement until I learn more about him.
Unfortunately, there are few descendants who can be asked if they know about him.
Mystery son, Rev John Baily, born 1750
Recently, I came across new information that John Baily may have been married before, to a woman named Elizabeth. I have not yet found the marriage between them.
In 1750, a child named John was baptised at Sutton Montis. His parents are named as “Mr” John Baily and his wife Elizabeth.[xi] A later child, William, was baptised and buried in 1753. [xii] I have not yet found a burial for Elizabeth, but I’m assuming she died by 1758.[xiii]
This son John attended Oxford University.[xiv] He became a clergyman, though I have not yet found information about this.
His obituary in the Hampshire Chronicle on the 19 Sep 1825 certainly ties him to our John Baily, wherein he is described as the eldest son of John Baily, Esq of Ramridge House.
What is curious it that the Rev. John Baily is not mentioned in John’s Will, as he is his eldest son. Perhaps there was a rift between them, or perhaps the property that John had at the time of his death could only be passed on to the children of his marriage with Mary Seymour.
Still some digging to do:
- John was in one place described as “Colonel” – this is new information and I have not yet looked into it.
- John’s run for Parliament
- A descendant of Sapphira Seymour Baily, George Baily Michell, apparently had miniatures of John and Mary Baily. George died in 1929, apparently without issue. His sister also died without issue. Where might these miniatures have ended up? There were also portraits of them at Whiddon – but when Whiddon left the families hands, would the portraits have been sold?
- More information about his first marriage, and about his eldest son.
ENDNOTES
[i] The descendant was probably George Baily Michell, the grandson of Sapphira Seymour Michell, nee Baily, John and Mary Baily’s daughter. Source: private correspondence between Paul Gallagher and David Garway-Heath.
[ii] He was baptized 1 Nov 1697 at Frome, Somerset: Somerset Heritage Service; Taunton, Somerset, England; Somerset Parish Records, 1538-1914; Reference Number: D\P\fr.jo/2/1/1, accessed at Ancestry.com.
[iii] Alumni Oxonienses: The Members of the University of Oxford, 1500-1714, Vol 1, B. Oxford: Parker and Co., 1888-1892.
[iv] Parish registers of Sutton Montis, Somerset, Somerset Heritage Service; Taunton, Somerset, England; Somerset Parish Records, 1538-1914; Reference Number: D\P\sut.mon/2/1/3, accessed at Ancestry.com.
[v] E.g. Collins, Arthur, The Peerage of England : The third edition, corrected and enlarged in every family, with memoirs, not hitherto printed, Volume 1, Woodfall, 1768
[vi] Probate lawsuit Baily v Seymour, concerning the deceased Francis Seymour of Knoyle, Wiltshire but late of Sherborne, Dorset. Allegation, PROB 18/73/58; obtained from The National Archives (England).
[vii] This information about John as a farmer is not quite consistent with the prefix of “colonel” given to him by the Baily descendant. Possibly he was an officer in the local militia, but I have yet to find any information about this.
[viii] Probate lawsuit Baily v Seymour, concerning the deceased Francis Seymour of Knoyle, Wiltshire but late of Sherborne, Dorset. Allegation, PROB 18/73/58; obtained from The National Archives (England).
[ix] Settlement; 1. John Baily of Rambridge, co. Southampton, Esq., and Mary his wife. 2. Rt. Hon John 4th Earl of Sandwich of Hinchinbrooke, co. Huntingdon, and John Gawler of the Inner Temple, London, Esq. HINCH 3/30 23rd July, 1774; obtained from Cambridgeshire Archives.
[x] Will of John Baily of Bywood, Devon, The National Archives; Kew, England; Prerogative Court of Canterbury and Related Probate Jurisdictions: Will Registers; Class: PROB 11; Piece: 1125, accessed at Ancestry.com.
[xi] Parish registers of Sutton Montis, Somerset Heritage Service; Taunton, Somerset, England; Somerset Parish Records, 1538-1914; Reference Number: D\P\sut.mon/2/1/1 accessed at Ancestry.com.
[xii] Parish registers of Sutton Montis, Somerset Heritage Service; Taunton, Somerset, England; Somerset Parish Records, 1538-1914; Reference Number: D\P\sut.mon/2/1/1 accessed at Ancestry.com.
[xiii] The Sutton Montis church records are not available to view online after 1755.
[xiv] Alumni Oxonienses: The Members of the University of Oxford, 1500-1714, Vol 1, B. Oxford: Parker and Co., 1888-1892.
Some Heirs and Graces 
This is very interesting, John Baily is my 1st cousin 9x removed. I will look more at your info to support my research. I’m afraid I don’t know anything first hand or handed down through family. The link is through my mothers side. Edward Hodges Baily sculpted Nelson’s column he is the brother of my 6th great grand father.
Helen
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment, Helen. Let me know if you do find anything more about John Baily. Interesting also to know of the connection to the sculptor of Nelson’s Column!
LikeLike