Sir John EARDLEY-WILMOT 1st Bt [23121]

   Cause of his death was pneumonia.

  General Notes:

Sir John was an MP for North Warwickshire and a Fellow of the Royal Society, he held office as the Governor of Van Dieman's Land, his posting did not end well.

Sir Eardley Wilmot.
Since the publication of our journal of last Saturday, the melancholy intelligence has reached us, of the death of that lamented gentleman and accomplished scholar, Sir Eardley Wilmot, which took place at Hobart Town early in the month of February last. The event was thus announced in a Colonial print: "death of Sir John Eardley Wilmot, Bt. Died at Hobart Town on 3 February, Sir John Eardley Eardley Wilmot, Bart, late Lt Gov of Van Diemen's Land.
Sir Eardley Wilmot represented a branch of the Derbyshire family of Wilmot of Osmaston, and was a descendant from the ancient house of Eardley of Audeley in Staffordshire. Sir Eardley Wilmot was born in 1783, and was twice married; first, to Elizabeth, daughter of C H Parry, Esq, a celebrated physician at Bath; and, secondly, in 1819 to Elizabeth, eldest daughter of Sir Robert Chester, of Bush Hall, in Hertfordshire. In politics, Sir Eardley Wilmot was of the moderate Tory party, and was returned by the Liberal interest for the County of Warwick. Early in 1843 Sir Eardley Wilmot received the appointment of Lieutenant Governor of Van Diemen's Land, and was superseded in his appointment by Charles Joseph Latrobe, Esq, who arrived on 13 October 1846, as administrator of the Government. The cause of Sir Eardley's death is stated to have been complete exhaustion of the frame, a decay of nature. This melancholy event, subduing all private and party animosity, has called forth the usual demonstrations of regret. We believe it was his expressed wish, previously to his decease, that his remains should be conveyed to England, to be placed in the family "resting place".- Hobart Town Paper. We regret to add a perfect conviction, that, humanly speaking, the decease of our late talented representative, was accelerated by distress of mind at the treatment he had lately experienced. It will be seen by the Parliamentary proceedings of the week, that Mr Spooner, owing to the kind permission of Lord Lincoln, would have taken precedence on Tuesday evening, and introduced the motion of which he had given notice to the House of Commons, but that Mr Hume, whose motion stood third on the paper, and could not by any possibility have come on, in the true spirit of his own peculiar liberality (!), objected, and, consequently the subject was not brought forward at all. We have good reasons, however, for stating that Mr Spooner will move the matter fully, on the House going into the Committee of Supply.
We deeply regret that Sir Eardley did not survive the triumphant vindication which will yet be made of his public and private honour. In a few days, we doubt not, that, from the highest official sources connected with the late government, a very handsome and unequivocal refutation will be given of the unfounded charges which, up to this moment necessarily attach themselves to the memory of the honourable Baronet's long and useful public career, as a Country Gentleman, a Parliamentary Representative, and a Colonial administrator of Sovereign authority. It is not too much to expect, that as death has prevented the present Government from doing ample justice to Sir Eardley Wilmot during his lifetime, they will not hesitate to recommend to the Queen some proceedings which, whilst it marks their tardy sense of right towards the deceased, will evince that the successor to his title and virtues, in manfully vindicating his father's cause, has deserved the gracious favour of that Sovereign, to whom the late Sir Eardley appealed as "the fountain of honour and justice".
Leamington Spa Courier 5 June 1847.

Death of Sir J Eardley Wilmot.
In the death of Sir John Eardley-Wilmot, Bart, which sad event occurred at his residence, Thurlee square, London, on Monday, Warwickshire has lost one of its worthies and one intimately associated with it for a long period of time. The illness which led to the death of Sir John, who was in his 82nd year, commenced just before Christmas, with an attack of the prevailing epidemic of influenza. He visited Leamington, as was his annual custom, at the beginning of November, and the appearances of his tall form, upright carriage, and genial countenance was hailed with great pleasure by his multitude of friends. He stayed in apartments in Dale Street, and left for London after a brief visit of 6 weeks. Within a very short time he was seized by the illness which terminated fatally. Pneumonia supervened upon the attack of influenza, but it was hoped, at first, that, despite advanced years, his robust form would withstand the disease. These hopes, unhappily, were not realised.
His medical attendants were Sir Andrew Clarke, Dr Harvey, and Dr Broadbent, with whom his nephew, Dr Eardley-Wilmot, was brought into consultation.
Sir J Eardley-Wilmot was descended from a branch of the ancient family of Wilmot, in Derbyshire, and the Eardley's of Eardley Hall, in the County of Stafford. The Berkswell property, which the late Sir John, by cutting off the entail with the consent of the present baronet, disposed of in order to honourably discharge the debts incurred by his father, came into the family by the marriage, in 1738, of Robert Wilmot, with the daughter and heiress of Sir Samuel Marrow, Bart, and the old crypt at Berkswell is full of the remains of the Marrows and Wilmots, and there are many memorials of them in the church. The earliest titled ancestor of the Eardley-Wilmot family is given as Sir Nicholas Wilmot, of Osmaston, Derby, who was a Sergeant at law and the Deputy Recorder at Nottingham. He was knighted at Hampton Court in 1674. Sir John Eardley Wilmot's great-grandfather was Sir Eardley-Wilmot (Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas). He was a lawyer of eminent and acknowledged ability, but so adverse to politics that he twice refused the Chancellorship, with a Peerage, once at the termination of the Duke of Grafton's Administration, and again upon the death of Chancellor Yorke. Sir John's grandfather, Mr John Eardley-Wilmot, was born in 1750, and resided for many years at the old Hall at Berkswell, of which he was Lord of the Manor. In 1784, Mr Eardley-Wilmot contested the Parliamentary representation of Coventry, with Sir Sampson Gideon, against Lord Sheffield and the Hon W Seymour Conway, a member of the Hereford family. Their opponents giving up the fight, which lasted a fortnight, Mr Wilmot and Sir S Gideon were returned. Six years later, Mr Wilmot again fought the election at Coventry, and was returned, having as his colleague Lord Eardley, his brother-in-law, who had been raised to the Irish peerage by Mr Pitt (the Premier), whose friend Mr John Wilmot was. The father of Sir John was born on February 21, 1783, and, being educated at Harrow, joined the higher branch of the legal profession, which he quitted on his marriage with the daughter of the celebrated Dr Parry, of Bath, and went to reside at his seat, Berkswell Hall.
By his first marriage he had 6 sons, viz: 1 Sir John E Eardley Wilmot, 2 the late Major-General F Eardley Wilmot, 3 the Rev Canon Edward Revell Eardley-Wilmot, the father of Alderman Dr Eardley Wilmot, 4 Adml Arthur Parry Eardley-Wilmot, 5 Major Henry Robert Eardley-Wilmot, 6 Augustus H Eardley-Wilmot, and two daughters one of whom, Mrs Abbott, is still alive.
By his second marriage, with the eldest daughter of Sir Robert Chester, of Bush Hall, Hertfordshire, late Master of the Ceremonies to the Queen, he had two sons. Robert Charles Chester Eardley-Wilmot and Charles Octavius Eardley-Wilmot.
In August 1821 he was created a baronet by King George the IV, as a reward for the public services of his grandfather, his father having repeatedly refused to accept any distinction. He was first returned for North Warwickshire in 1832, in the Conservative interest, in conjunction with the late Mr Stratford Dugdale, and continued the representation, fighting to other contested elections, until 1864, when he was appointed Gov of Van Dieman's Land, in the place of the late Mr C Newdigate-Newdegate (sic), and held that position until 1846 when he died at Hobart Town.
The late baronet was born on November 16, 1810, at Woodcote, the family house at Berkswell being then occupied by Mrs Knightley, who had it for some years. He was educated at Winchester, where he was gold medallist in 1827, and at Balliol College, Oxford, and where he won the open scholarship in 1828 and, in 1829, the University prize for Latin prose. In addition to his scholarship, Sir John was a noted athlete, and excelled in cricket and rowing. In June, 1837, he was placed upon the Commission of the Peace for the County of Warwick by the then Lord Lieutenant (the late Earl of Warwick), and he took up his residence at Leamington, being a regular attendant at the County Petty Sessions at the old Town Hall, and, in 1839, upon the advice of Mr Percy, who was then the Justices Clerk, he entered at Lincolns Inn, with a view of joining the Bar. In April of the same year, he married, at the parish church Leamington, Eliza Martha, the sister of Sir Richard Bulkesley Williams Bart, and niece of Lord Dinorbea. By his marriage with Miss Williams Bulkesley, who died in October, 1887, Sir John had six sons and two daughters, all of whom are living but one. His eldest son, who succeeds to the baronetcy, William Assheton, last year became Col in the Northumberland Fusiliers, and holds the office of Military Deputy Judge Advocate in London. He was born on 16 May 1841, and married in December 1876, Mary, the third daughter of Mr David Watts Russell, of Biggin, of Northampton, by whom he has two daughters, Cicely Marguerite and Sylvia Mary. The second, Revell, Col in the 14th Bengal Lancers, has, for some time, been Assistant Adjutant General in India, under Sir Richard Graves. The third, Edward Parry, is a clerk in the new Government Department of Agriculture at headquarters. The fourth Frederick Henry, a very promising young officer of Artillery, was killed in action against the Ashantees, in December, 1873, when under the command of the late Sir Francis Festing, who gallantly rescued him, when mortally wounded, from the hands of the enemy, in a hand-to-hand fight. The fifth son, Sydney Marrow, is a Post Captain in the Royal Navy, and till very lately was employed in the Intelligence Department of the Admiralty. The youngest, Hugh Eden, was recently appointed County Court Judge for Norfolk and Suffolk.
The late Sir John was called to the bar in 1842, and went on the Midland Circuit. On the death of his father, in 1847, he succeeded to the baronetcy. four years later, he was appointed Recorder of Warwick, in the place of Mr Spencer Walpole, and in 1854 he was appointed Judge of the Bristol County Court, from whence he was promoted in 1863, to the Marylebone County Court, which he held until 1871. In 1874, Sir John contested South Warwickshire in the Conservative interest, and then resigned his Recordership of Warwick. He was returned, and, in 1880, when he ran with the Earl of Yarmouth as the second candidate, he was again returned at the head of the poll with 2669 votes, while the Hon Gilbert Leigh, the Liberal candidate, with 2550 votes, came next, and Lord Yarmouth was rejected. In 1885, Sir John was elected chairman of a committee appointed by the House of Commons to investigate the Irish Industrial question, but it's labours were brought to an abrupt termination by the dissolution of Parliament.
The passing of the Redistribution of Seats Act resulted in the County of Warwick be divided into four Parliamentary divisions. Sir Eardley-Wilmot, by his residence at Berkswell Hall, was mainly associated with the South West, or Stratford on Avon, which embraced the greater part of the old Southern Division; but the Conservative party in the new district selected Mr S S Lloyd (Sir John's former colleague) as a candidate. Sir Eardley-Wilmot, therefore, was left out in the cold by his party, but he was not forgotten by his friends in Birmingham. He had been a subscriber to the funds and a member of the Birmingham Conservative Association since 1877, and when Birmingham was divided into seven consistencies, he was asked to stand as the Conservative candidate for the Edgbaston Division at the General Election in 1885. He acceded to the request, and was formally adopted as the candidate in July of that year. He was elected a vice president of the Divisional Association, and as the election drew near, he addressed many meetings in every part of the division. But on the day of the poll he was rejected by a majority of 1191, Mr G Dickson, MP, receiving 4098 votes, and Sir Eardley Wilmot to 2907 votes. Notwithstanding this defeat, he maintained his political connection with Edgbaston, and after that contest, he occasionally attended Conservative meetings, took a great interest in the Edgbaston Conservative Club, and did his best to help forward the Conservative party in Birmingham. It was well known that he would be willing to contest the Edgbaston division again, but when the split occurred in the liberal party he was one of the first to urge the importance of maintaining the Unionist alliance in Birmingham, and strongly advocated the support of the Conservative party being given to his former opponent, Mr Dixon. Since then he took no part in politics, beyond occasionally attending a meeting in Birmingham. His connection with the party in Edgbaston remained unbroken, and up till the time of his death he was a vice president of the Divisional Association.
Sir John was a strong supporter of Fair Trade views. He had extensive legal knowledge, and was of great assistance to the House of Commons on committees. Though not among the most frequent speakers in the house, he was never slow to rise when ever he deemed his words would be of benefit, and his assistance an advantage, and during the time he sat in Parliament he was one of the most respected of its members. He was regular in his attendance, judicious, reliable in his action, and always anxious to represent honestly and fearlessly the views of his constituents. Among the many questions in which the late baronet interested himself, and on which he wrote largely to the Times and this journal, was that of the Irish industries, which he sought by every means in his power, by speaking at public meetings and otherwise, to advance. The last time he spoke in Leamington, was at a meeting held at the Public Hall for that purpose, by the Irish Industrial League, which he was largely instrumental in forming, and of which he was the president. He also actively advocated various legal reforms, especially those connected with the Reformatory question, in which his father, the first baronet, was especially distinguished, he having been one of the founders, if not the founder, of the once famous Reformatory, the pioneer of such institutions, at Stratford-on-Dunsmore. Sir John also took a great interest in various schemes of Parliamentary reform, including "proportional representation", and on these subjects frequently wrote letters, and published pamphlets of an interesting character. He was the author of several able legal and political works, and published a set of Latin verses "Mentonie Florilegium" in 1887, which was highly spoken of by many eminent classical scholars, and also a life of Mr Assheton-Smith noted sportsman. He was a Deputy Lieutenant for Warwickshire, and a Justice of Peace for Kent.
The funeral took place at the Extra-mural Cemetery, at Brighton, at 1:45 pm yesterday (Friday), and was purely of a private character.
The deceased baronet (says the London correspondent of the Manchester Guardian) was a highly respected member of Parliament, of that independent type which in these days of strict party organisation is extremely rare. He was a Conservative by conscientious conviction but by no means a mere disciple of the Carlton and the Whip. He thought for himself, took his own line, and was never afraid of stating his opinion, however widely it might differ from the accepted doctrine of his party. His special hobby was humanity in its widest sense. Harshness and injustice to men and cruelty to animals were equally abhorrent to him, and, as long as he sat in Parliament, a prisoner convicted on uncertain or insufficient evidence never lacked an advocate.
Leamington Spa Courier 6 February 1892

Eardley-Wilmot, Sir John Eardley (1783-1847)
by Michael Roe.
This article was published in Australian Dictionary of Biography , Volume 1, (MUP), 1966
Sir John Eardley Eardley-Wilmot (1783-1847), lieutenant-governor, was born on 21 February 1783 in London, the son of John Eardley-Wilmot and his wife Frances, née Sainthill. His grandfather was chief justice of common pleas, his father a master in chancery. Through this background, rather than as a result of personal achievement, Wilmot was created a baronet in 1821. He was called to the Bar in 1806 and was chairman of the Warwickshire Quarter Sessions from 1830 to 1843. He published An Abridgment of Blackstone's Commentaries … (1822) and A Letter to the Magistrates of England (1827), and received an honorary D.C.L. from Oxford (1829). The Letter urged various reforms in the criminal law, especially as it affected juveniles. A fellow of the Royal, Linnean, and Antiquaries' Societies, Wilmot had wide if not deep intellectual interests. He married twice: in 1808 Elizabeth Emma Parry (d.1818; six sons, two daughters), and in 1819 Elizabeth Chester (d.1869; two sons, two daughters).
Wilmot represented North Warwickshire in the House of Commons from 1832 to 1843. He first supported the Whig government, but became attached to Stanley 's embryonic third party. This group united around opposition to the government's interference with the revenues of the established Church in Ireland. His biggest coup in parliament was to carry a motion for the end of negro apprenticeship. He continued working for law and prison reforms, urged the need for widespread grammar schools with a commonsense syllabus, and reiterated the importance of the squire-magistrate in the social scheme. Altogether, he justified his self-description as an 'independent country Gentleman', 'A Conservative … who had left Toryism, and who desired to preserve a constitutional and a rational reform' (Parl. Deb., (3), 42, 1215). When, with all these qualifications, and especially his interest in criminal law, Wilmot was appointed lieutenant-governor of Van Diemen's Land, The Times criticized the appointment, which indeed had a taint of jobbery. Stanley, who was then secretary of state for the colonies, said that he chose Wilmot to administer the probation system because of his interest in juvenile delinquency; that he had recently called the baronet 'a muddle-brained blockhead' (Morrell, Colonial Policy, 389) made his decision strange and culpable. Wilmot later denied having sought the position, but probably its endowments determined him to accept. His three youngest sons, Augustus Hillier, Robert Charles Chester, and Charles Octavius, went with him to Van Diemen's Land, each receiving a public office; Lady Wilmot stayed in England.
When Wilmot arrived at Hobart Town in August 1843, colonial affairs were dominated by the probation system of convict discipline and by economic depression. Probation aspired to new standards of scientific and effective punishment. Early in their sentence convicts would remain in gangs, preferably employed so as to defray their upkeep; later they would enter the labour market as wage-earners. Settled colonists thus reaped no benefit of cheap assigned labour, and therefore abhorred the new system. They objected most to paying all local police and judicial expenses, insisting that these largely arose from Britain's use of the island as a convict dump and hence should be met by the British Treasury. Feeling against Whitehall rose very high.
The trade depression, which since 1841 had brought most colonists close to insolvency, added fuel to such flames. Everyone grudged, even should they possess, the money to pay taxation. All sources of public revenue, especially land sales, withered; by 1844 the colony was virtually bankrupt. There was market for neither the produce nor the labour of pass-holders.
Wilmot was in a dilemma. Government must go on, but colonists and British government alike refused to pay. In his dispatches he generally took the colonists' side, arguing that police and judicial costs were Britain's responsibility. In 1844 he suggested that the 1842 Act, which set £1 an acre as the minimum land price, be not applied in Van Diemen's Land, that ex-convicts be granted small holdings, and that gentlemen settlers receive larger estates, virtually by grant. He encouraged Major (Sir) Sydney Cotton to plan irrigation works, and urged their execution upon Whitehall. Several dispatches attacked Britain's differential duties against colonial corn. Wilmot advised that conditionally-pardoned convicts should have free movement throughout Australia, not merely Van Diemen's Land. The immediate financial problem he met by drawing upon the funds supplied directly from Britain for convict and military needs.
Wilmot's efforts bore some fruit. In 1845 the British government did suspend the 1842 Act and liberalize conditional pardons. More important, in 1846 the Colonial Office at last persuaded the Treasury to accept responsibility for two-thirds of the police and judicial costs. Meanwhile Wilmot had pared the expenses of local government very low. Ultimately he could, and did claim that his term saw the lifting of the grim depression. Nevertheless he became desperately unpopular.
The Colonial Office found Wilmot slap-dash in administrative procedures, too lenient in creating new jobs and granting leave of absence, arbitrary in his judgments, careless of referring major issues to Whitehall, cursory in describing local affairs. Whatever Wilmot's virtues, he was guilty on every count. Between March 1844 and February 1846 dispatches brought him twenty-seven separate rebukes. In particular, the Colonial Office deplored his neglect to explain the working of probation. In Whitehall's view this was a crucial matter, but Wilmot did little more than add covering notes to the returns of the convict comptroller-general, Matthew Forster . As these were generally more statistical than descriptive, and Forster was unlikely to admit grave faults within his department, Wilmot's failure to exercise independent criticism was the more unfortunate.
Relations between Wilmot and most colonists had also become very sour. Sympathetic to their plight, he nevertheless had to bear the odium of representing Whitehall. His response was increasing acerbity. A climax came with the August and October 1845 sittings of the Legislative Council. Private members expressed their hostility to probation and its costs by obstructing all financial measures. The Patriotic Six finally resigned their seats, and closed the session in confusion. Wilmot declared their actions 'radical, in fact Jacobinical' and argued his case to the Colonial Office with unusual heat.
The near-unanimity of feeling against Whitehall caused factions within colonial society and politics to be less active than in earlier years, but Wilmot nevertheless entered their toils. Soon after arrival he founded the Royal Society of Van Diemen's Land: a worthy venture, but an affront to a society already established by Franklin. Much more important were disputes arising from religious feeling. Throughout his term Wilmot disputed with Bishop Francis Nixon on the relative powers of church and state, especially with chaplains employed in the convict department. They also differed over education, the bishop wanting state aid for denominational schools while Wilmot maintained the British and Foreign Schools Society plan. Non-Anglicans supported him, giving the administration what backing it had from local interests.
Further troubles accrued to Wilmot from tales of his licentious behaviour that carried to New South Wales and to England. After their publication in the London Naval and Military Gazette, October 1845, leading colonists signed a repudiation. The validity of the charges remains doubtful. Sir John Pedder certainly declared them false in a letter to Sir George Arthur , 18 February 1846, but George Boyes , another signatory to the repudiation, appeared to accept their truth in his diary.
All these elements of discord coalesced in the one dramatic event of Wilmot's career, his recall. In 1845 W. E. Gladstone replaced Stanley at the Colonial Office and soon studied Wilmot's faults and critics. He and James Stephen became increasingly disturbed by the apparent failure of probation, and in particular by reports of homosexual practices among convicts. In their eyes such behaviour was utterly abominable. Wilmot himself had indicated its existence; the evidence, though often vague, leaves little doubt. The Colonial Office decided that Forster should give way to someone more energetic, and John Hampton received the post. Meanwhile Gladstone, while accepting that Wilmot was justified in denying Nixon control over convict chaplains, showed his High Anglican sympathies in supporting denominational education and in reversing a particularly stringent application of the colony's Church Acts against Nixon. Spokesmen of colonial interests received a friendly hearing at Downing Street; they made propaganda of the convicts' supposed homosexual behaviour, and of Wilmot's alleged amours.
During April 1846 Whitehall received details of the constitutional crisis of six months earlier. Stephen was little impressed by Wilmot's apologia: did not his own earlier dispatches justify the colonists? But, the under-secretary now argued, the real blame for colonial ills lay with the imperial authorities: with the Treasury for so long refusing to meet police and judicial costs, with the Colonial Office for not forcing that issue earlier, and with the government generally for channelling convicts into the probation system. With dubious logic, Stephen then suggested that the solution was to recall Wilmot for reasons other than the constitutional crisis. Gladstone accepted this advice, the ground decided upon being neglect of the convict system. Wilmot was immediately to hand the government to Charles La Trobe , the superintendent at Port Phillip.
A dispatch of 30 April 1846 carried the news to Wilmot. Simultaneously Gladstone wrote a private letter telling him that the rumours concerning his private life rendered him ineligible for further employment in colonial service. Gladstone had learned of Wilmot's alleged misdeeds primarily through the correspondence of Nixon with their mutual friend, Edward Coleridge. The dismissal certainly derived in part from Gladstone's lingering belief that the government should uphold the Church of England with all possible strength.
The dispatch reached Hobart in September, the private letter in October. Wilmot at once made the latter known, and asked the Executive Council to appoint a committee of inquiry. This reported that charges so vague were beyond investigation, but denied their import. Wilmot's own letters of this period became passionate as he declared himself 'The Victim of the most extraordinary conspiracy that ever succeeded in defaming the character of a Public Servant'. He demanded redress, and stayed in the colony to gather rebutting evidence. Soon he became ill, and died of no diagnosed disease on 3 February 1847.
Friends and family maintained Wilmot's cause. The issue was brought against Gladstone in the Oxford University election of 1847; for support he appealed to Nixon, who clung to an earlier public statement so worded as to uphold Wilmot. Both Gladstone and his successor, Earl Grey , recanted the personal allegations, while maintaining the validity of the recall. The colonial press discussed the episode with heat, using it as a weapon in their squabbles. Feeling for Wilmot gathered weight, the Colonial Times, 9 February 1847, even declaring him 'murdered'. Citizens of Hobart subscribed to a Gothic mausoleum for Wilmot; erected in 1850, it still stands in St David's Park.
A portrait by an unknown artist is held by Wilmot's descendants, and he is among those depicted in R. B. Haydon's 'The Anti-Slavery Convention, 1840' in the National Portrait Gallery. Wilmot's sons remained in the colony for various periods. All married daughters of John Dunn of Hobart, and descendants have since lived in Tasmania. The second baronet maintained his father's interest in public affairs.
Wilmot's was a tragic story. Through many years, manner and inheritance won him greater reward than his abilities merited. At the end, he was set a vast, probably insuperable task. Under this strain, his paternalism and sense of duty took the shape of autocracy; his open-mindedness, of vacuity; his urbanity, of indolence. Thus he lay open to his enemies' attacks.

  Research Notes:

Sir John had at least 11 children by his 2 wives for more details see
The Peerage http://www.thepeerage.com/p22191.htm#i221907
Also Ancestry Tree: http://person.ancestry.com.au/tree/81379092/person/34453593805/facts

John married Elizabeth Emma PARRY [23122] [MRIN: 8306], daughter of Caleb Hillier PARRY MD FRS [23618] and Sarah RIGBY [23619], on 21 May 1808. (Elizabeth Emma PARRY [23122] was born on 24 Oct 1789 in Hertfordshire and died on 22 Mar 1818 in Berkswell WAR.)

John next married Elizabeth CHESTER [23123] [MRIN: 8307] on 30 Aug 1819 in Hatfield HRT. (Elizabeth CHESTER [23123] was born on 24 Oct 1798 in Gt Berkhamsted HRT and died on 15 Dec 1869 in Gloucestershire..)