STRANGE AFFAIRS AT CHRISTCHURCH

Introduction

The study of genealogy often leads the curious one into the field of family history; then from the bare bones family tree onwards to the forest of history itself. This is what happened to me, when I became connected to the internet, and began to discover the previously uncharted course of my ancestors’ history. Through the rapidly expanding genealogy websites on the internet, I discovered many tidbits that gradually filled out the small amount of information that I already had.

It all began with a family legend that my father had often spoken about. That was that our family was descended from Peter Mews, Bishop of Winchester 1684 – 1706 who fought at the battle of Sedgemoor. My father knew very little more than this. However, he did have an old photo, taken by his father many years before that showed a family stone at the foot of the steps to the Salisbury Chapel in Christchurch Priory in Hampshire. The stone was marked as being the burial (or memorial) site of our ancestors. On two occasions, I visited this very spot myself. On the first in 1952, the engraving on the stone was very faint. On the second occasion in 1971, the stones had been worn smooth by centuries of passing feet, and there was nothing to see. Fortunately, in the 1880s, my grandfather had carefully recorded the inscription, so that was safe for future generations.

As soon as I became connected to the internet, I searched for “Peter Mews”, and found almost nothing. But soon I began to browse genealogy websites, and bits of information began to accumulate. I learned that Mews descendants in Australia, New Zealand, the United States, England and Canada all share the same misty story of descent from bishop Peter Mews. Some were offended when I pointed out that there is no solid proof that this Peter Mews married and had children. Both events, if they happened, probably would have taken place during the Civil War and the Commonwealth in England, between 1640 and 1660 when Church of England records were either destroyed or not kept at all. I feel that it is better to be realistic until some solid evidence appears.

As time went by, I learned more about the Mews family, including a recent discovery of an amazing sort related to Bishop Peter Mews’s nephew, Sir Peter Mews of Christchurch. Therein lies the content of this book.

After nearly 300 years, I suspect that many of the details surrounding the lives of Sir Peter Mews and Lady Lydia Mews may never be uncovered. Meanwhile, I continue to study these fascinating events, with the assistance of several skilled researchers in England.

While there are a number of portraits of Bishop Peter Mews, some of them available for viewing online, there are none that I know about of Sir Peter Mews. If anyone can tell me where such a portrait can be found, I shall be delighted.

To make easier reading, I have modernized the spelling in some of the direct quotations from letters and documents.

Dorothy Turcotte

Chapter One – The Marriage

The first week of September 1719 must have been a hectic one for the staff at the house at Hinton Admiral. The Lord of the Manor of Christchurch was coming home, bringing his bride. One can easily imagine the hustle and bustle in the house as every nook and cranny was cleaned, bedding aired, silverware polished, and all sorts of delicacies prepared in the kitchen.

Foremost in the minds of the staff must have been the question “What is she like?” They already knew their employer, the bachelor Lord of the Manor who spent much of his time in Winchester and London. Even when in residence at Hinton Admiral, he was not a demanding person, as long as his friends and colleagues could be entertained in a suitable fashion.

The new Lady Mews, however, might be another matter. The staff were aware that she was not a young bride who could be easily moulded to fit into the routine of the household. Because of her husband’s lifestyle, she would be spending much time alone at Hinton Admiral. No one knew much about her. They could hardly help wondering about changes in the lifestyle of the Hinton Admiral household. The new Lady Mews was 43 years old, compared to her husband’s 47 years. She had never been married before, as far as anyone knew. Had she ever been in charge of a large home of her own before? What was her disposition? She might be very sweet or she could be a termagant. One thing was certain, she would have a well-developed personality of her own, and the staff would have to deal with it.

There was also the interesting question of why Sir Peter had chosen to bring his bride immediately to Hinton Admiral. The wedding had taken place on September 3^rd in the Henry VII Chapel in Westminster Abbey, a site that has been described as “the most beautiful chapel in all Christendom.” After what must have been a rather grand wedding, the couple came to Hinton Admiral almost at once rather than going on a lengthy honeymoon to Scotland or even abroad. Perhaps, it was speculated, it had something to do with the election of mayor for the Manor of Christchurch which was due next week. As Lord of the Manor, it was Sir Peter’s responsibility to administer the election.

Marriage was not something Sir Peter had suddenly thought of. In June of 1712 when he was 40 years old, he had prepared a careful inventory of the property he held. This included £250 per annum for the Honour of Christchurch; a mill newly built for £50 per annum; the Parsonage of Christchurch held by lease from the Church of Winchester, £500; Holdenhurst Farm, £90; £200 from the hire of the Manor of Overton; £500 from the properties left to him by his cousin, William Sherrington; £300 as chancellor of Winchester; £100 from his mother’s house in London; and £100 from an estate in Derbyshire. The total of his annual reported income was £2700, not a huge sum for a man who had paid £22,000 for the Manor of Christchurch.

In an accompanying note to a third party who must have been a go-between in the proposed match, he wrote “As I am infinitely obliged to you for your good offices so I am very much to Mr. Gore for his good opinion & should think my self completely Happy if my proposal might meet with his approbation as well as yours.” Peter’s mother’s second cousin married Dorothea Gore, daughter of William who was Lord Mayor of London in 1701. This may have been the Mr. Gore referred to, and he may have been the father of the intended bride, for Dorothea.had a younger sister.

On a separate sheet, another more complete inventory, undated, concludes with the words “Thus I have given a clear account of my Affairs, which if it be acceptable will make me perfectly happy as I shall endeavour to make the Lady so.”

Sir Peter had been knighted by Queen Anne July 13, 1712. It was a non-hereditary honour, but nevertheless, his wife would be known as Lady Mews, or Dame plus her first name.[1] As owner of Christchurch Manor, Mews represented Christchurch as Member of Parliament. Clearly, he was a good ‘catch’ for some young or not-so-young lady. Yet for some reason, the proposal of 1712 did not end in marriage as he had hoped

The 18^th century is sometimes referred to as the Age of Reason, or the Age of Enlightenment. It has been suggested by some that it might better have been called the Age of Insanity. While there was a resurgence of interest in the sciences, there was also an almost 1990s-like obsession with material possessions. Seldom in the history of England had there been a greater emphasis on the quest for money, land, manor houses, jewellery, silks and fine clothes. There were plenty of opportunities for gamblers large and small to make money on the plethora of lotteries and investment schemes that were being thought up by creative minds.

In this period, marriage often had less to do with affection between husband and wife than with the dowry or lifestyle that could be achieved through the union. Women searched assiduously for a mate who could support them in the manner to which they were accustomed – or would like to become accustomed. The man who had lost his savings in some wild financial adventure or at the gaming table sought out a wealthy widow so that he could squander her fortune recklessly There are hundreds of stories of fortunes made and lost with astonishing speed through marriage.

While the Bank of England and South Sea House on Threadneedle Street in London were the centres of much financial activity of the early 18^th century, rural England was greatly affected, too.

For example, the Manor of Christchurch on the south coast of Hampshire was undergoing some interesting changes in ownership. It had been in the Redvers family for centuries, but had been given to Edward Hyde who had been created Earl of Clarendon and Viscount Cornbury by Charles II on his Restoration in 1660. Clarendon served as the monarch’s secretary of state, and later chancellor. Although he refused many of the land grants that Charles offered him, Clarendon did accept Christchurch. For a time, he had a grand scheme for developing the harbour and promoting trade up the Avon River as far as Salisbury. Plans were drawn up by Andrew Yarranton, but, alas, Clarendon fell from the royal grace of Charles II, and went into exile abroad. He died in 1674, and the plans for Christchurch came to nothing. Clarendon’s son, Henry, inherited Christchurch, but he does not seem to have been much interested in it. He certainly was not willing to pursue the plan to develop trade on the Avon. He was all too eager to get rid of this annoying burden. According to an article which appeared in Country Life in October, 1910, Henry sold Christchurch to pay the debts of his son, Edward, who was described as “a vicious fellow”.

At any rate, when Peter Mews agreed to buy the Manor of Christchurch for £22,000 in 1708, the deal was quickly finalized. Henry, second Earl Clarendon, died the following year. When the property came into the hands of Sir Peter, it was the first time in 500 years that it had been out of the hands of nobility.

The Manor of Christchurch was not a stately manor house as we would think of it today. In fact, there was no manor house when Sir Peter acquired the property, only a very modest dwelling. It was probably not to Dame Lydia’s liking, so Sir Peter built a fine house for his bride in 1720. The manor was designed in the Palladian style, and may have been designed by John James, the popular Whig architect of St. George’s, Hanover Square. The house was badly damaged by fire in March, 1777. Dame Lydia’s great-nephew, Joseph Jarvis Clerke was the owner at the time. He began rebuilding in July of that year, but sadly did not see the completed manor, as he died thirteen months later. According to the account in Country Living, however, he followed the plan of the original house to a great extent, even having the kitchen in a separate building “which must have condemned Sir Peter Mews and Joseph Jarvis Clerke to desperately cold food in wintry weather.”

The Manor was much more extensive holding than just a manor house with spacious lawns, gardens and peacocks. It was a huge tract of land reaching as far west as the present city of Bournemouth, and as far east as the 21^st century city of Southampton. It also seems to have included the Liberty of Westover, a distinct area which for some reason fell within the broader area of Christchurch. The owner of Westover was always the Lord of the Manor of Christchurch, although during the 14^th and 15^th centuries, Westover had had a manor of its own,

Not only was this a very expensive purchase for Peter Mews; it gave him, as Lord of the Manor, complete control of this large area. It was his responsibility to supervise the election of local officers – mayor, recorder, bailiffs, alderman and common councillors. In 1710, he became Member of Parliament for Christchurch, a “rotten borough.”, a constituency in which the Member of Parliament was more or less self-appointed since there were very few eligible voters, and those few could often be influenced for future benefits. The rotten boroughs were noted for providing no representation in Parliament for their residents. In fact, some MPs from rotten boroughs never attended any parliamentary sessions at all. This was not true of Peter Mews who participated in four Parliaments, in the years 1710, 1713, 1715 and 1721. In each case, he was described in parliamentary records as a Tory. It would be interesting to know if he ever spoke in Parliament, and if he did, to learn the substance of those speeches. However, no record is extant of parliamentary speeches of that period. What a loss to our understanding of men like Sir Peter Mews!

In recent years, there has been much speculation about how Peter Mews, who seems have been impecunious, could have acquired the money for a large purchase such as the Manor of Christchurch. He may have acquired enough actual money to do so. This might have come about through legacies, although the evidence is against this. Or he may have been one of the fortunate ones to make great profits through one of the financial boondoggles of the day. If he did not have such newfound wealth, but had the expectation of future income, he may have been able to make regular small payments against the mortgage. This could be a risky venture, for many a confident landowner in that time and since has fallen upon hard times and lost everything through such an arrangement. If Peter Mews was confident about his future earnings, he had a right to be, for his ownership of the Manor seems to have been secure. Lady Mews continued to live at Hinton Admiral until her death many years later.

Christchurch may have seemed attractive to Mews for several reasons. For one thing, the Earl of Clarendon’s plans to make the town a trade center had never materialized. Perhaps Sir Peter saw that as a possibility for the future. Also, Westover included Stourfield Chase, a hunting estate which he may have seen as a profitable venture. Furthermore, Peter Mews had roots in this part of England. His father was born in Purse Caundle, a tiny Dorset village not far away. Hampshire, Dorset and Somerset were full of Mews relatives, most of them quite distant, while Ringwood, the Manor adjacent to Christchurch to the north, had a thriving population of Mewses.

Two years after he acquired the Manor, Peter Mews was knighted for his service to Queen Anne. It is said that knighthood was his reward for uncovering corruption in the government. This seems like a paradox, for a closer look at Sir Peter’s life does not reveal a man who would be outraged by corruption, unless of course its disclosure had some benefit to him.

Chapter Two – Meet Sir Peter and Lady Mews

We know very little of the early life of Peter Mews. He was the son of Col. John Mews of London and Sarah Mellish, daughter of John Mellish, Merchant Taylor of London. The couple married on July 23^rd, 1667 at St. James Duke’s Palace, London. Sarah was 21 years old, and Col. Mews was 47.

It’s possible that the Colonel had been married before. He had been born in Purse Caundle, Dorset in 1620, and baptized at St. Peter’s, the village’s little 15^th century church on March 12^th of that year. Of his three siblings, the most notable was Peter, older than John by a year. It may have been that there had always been some rivalry between the two brothers, for as a lad, Peter was educated at Merchant Taylor’s School in London, at the expense of his uncle, Thomas Winniffe who at the time was the Dean of St. Paul’s.

We know nothing of John’s education, and little else about his life, except that there was obviously friction between him and his elder brother. Genealogist F.C. Beaszley, writing in 1886, recorded that in 1651, a John Mews received a commission as Captain of Volunteers in London to resist Charles II. If this is Peter’s brother, as seems likely, it would indicate a break between the brothers, as Peter was always a staunch royalist.

It seems that John Mews was established in London, for Beazley also refers to a license he received in 1651-52 to import “several parcels of linen” from Holland via Flanders. Yet there is another puzzle here, for at that time, John’s elder brother Peter was in Holland, acting as a spy for the young exiled Charles II. Surely the brothers were not involved in business together! If they were, it may account for the disagreement that arose between them.

In July 1659, when the Long Parliament had been restored, John was included in a list of commissioned officers recommended to Parliament by Major-General Skippon. These were men considered by the Major-General to be qualified to command one of the regiments being raised within London and its Liberties. John Mews was recommended for the Blue Regiment. This seems to be the same John, Peter’s brother, who had military experience and is often referred to as colonel.

After his education at Merchant Taylor’s School, John’s brother Peter went on to St. John’s College, Oxford, where he earned Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts degrees. Then he was ordained in the Church of England, perhaps inspired by his uncle’s example.

Peter’s ordination came at an inconvenient time. In 1642, the Civil War was heating up as Cromwell’s Puritan party began to actively protest the stubborness of Charles I. Charles was a strong believer in “the divine right of kings,” a conviction that the monarch was appointed by God himself, and therefore could do no wrong. The clergy, like everyone else, were obliged to take sides – either adhere to the “romanish” Church of England and support the King, or join the austere Puritans and support Parliament. Like many others, Peter Mews chose the former. Oxford had become a hotbed of Royalist support and many students took up arms in the royal cause. Indeed, Peter Mews chose this route as well, and fought at the battle of Naseby where he was wounded and taken prisoner. Consequently, in 1648, when parliamentary visitors came to the College to smoke out the opposition, Mews was ejected from his fellowship and from the university. In 1650, he left England for Holland where he served for several years as a spy for the exiled Charles II, using the code name “757”. He regularly sent messages back to England, reporting to Sir Edward Nicholas, the Secretary of State. In 1653, he was appointed secretary to General John Middleton who was in charge of Royalist forces in Scotland. At one point, while traveling incognito in Scotland, Mews was captured by rebels and was on the verge of being hanged when he somehow managed to extricate himself from peril. This event is mentioned in several sources, but unfortunately with no details, making it one of those mysteries of the Past. Mews was well known for being able to disguise himself with amazing skill, so it is not surprising that he was often chosen for secret missions that required travel between the Continent and Britain..

At this point in his life, Peter Mews suffered a rift with his family. While he was in Holland serving Charles II during the Commonwealth, his uncle and benefactor Thomas Winniffe had died. He left Peter £100 and the advowson of the parsonage in Lambourne, Essex. To Peter’s younger brother, John, he left nothing but did forgive a loan of £100 pounds that he had made to him.

In January, 1655, Captain Peter Mews wrote from Holland to Sir Edward Nicholas, his friend and mentor:

“…so long as I may have bread and water with my conscience I shall not think my condition ill, though by the unworthiness of some who will give me no account of that Fortune my uncle left mee since I went to Scotland I am like to bee reduced to great necessity. I cannot by any importunity procure so much as a letter from my brother since my return, and am told by a merchant from whom I used to receive moneys, who saw him about 5 weeks since, that he says he knows I am now seasoned to hardness and may return to my friends in the highlands. So little are relations of blood of force in this degenerate age!”[2]

Peter Mews never did receive a penny of his uncle’s £100 nor the benefit from the advowson of Lambourne. Nevertheless, no matter how impoverished he may have been for a time, he was amply rewarded once Charles II returned to England. No doubt his brother later was glad to claim relationship to a rising star in the ecclesiastic world. Some amends must have been made for John’s son was named Peter and later given a place in his uncle’s household.

After Charles’ restoration to the throne in 1660, Peter Mews was honoured for his service with many choice preferments. He eventually succeeded his father-in-law as president of St. John's College, became Bishop of Bath and Wells, and finally Bishop of Winchester. It was while in the latter position that he was called by the King, at the request of the men of Somerset, to the battlefield at Sedgemoor in 1685. Having had some experience in battle, both in England and in Holland, he quickly saw the weaknesses in the King’s position and used the horses from his own carriage to move guns into a more advantageous position. The battle was won, and the Duke of Monmouth, pretender to Charles II’s throne, was captured, imprisoned and eventually executed. In a sermon the following Sunday, Bishop Mews pleaded for leniency for those simple countrymen who had supported the Duke of Monmouth. Judge George Jefferys ignored his plea, however, and 320 of those found guilty were hanged and quarters, or transported to penal colonies. .The trials became known as the Bloody Assizes.

To many, Bishop Peter Mews was a hero, and a fine fellow. Many remembered him for his love of social gatherings, or for his heroic actions on the field at Sedgemoor. Nevertheless, by the end of his 21 years as Bishop of Winchester, he was becoming rather careless, due both to age and the consequences of his war wounds. Shortly after his death, a group of citizens petitioned Queen Anne regarding her choice of a successor. The petition reads in part:

“Ye late Bishop Mews was entirely careless of discharging the duty of his

function thro the whole time, which was about 22 years, yet he was Bishop of

our Diocese: so at once we have suffered under all the inconveniences of

neglected visitation, and want of confirmations, and very irregular ordinations,

and the total neglect of discipline in the diocese to the great scandal of our

Church and prejudice of our holy religion.”

The petitioners asked for a “learned, diligent, good-tempered and exemplary bishop,” They were rewarded with the appointment of Jonathan Trelawney in 1707.

Sir Peter Mews’s mother was also from a substantial London family. Her father, John Mellish was a Merchant Taylor, and later her brother Edward was a successful merchant in Portugal; with extensive real estate holdings in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire.

In Woodward’s History of Hampshire, the author says that Sir Peter was the nephew of Jonathan Trelawney[3] who was first Bishop of Bristol, then Bishop of Exeter 1688, and finally succeeded Mews as Bishop of Winchester in 1707. However, no search has turned up a connection between the two families, although there certainly must have been at least an acquaintance.

It was against this dashing family background that young Peter Mews grew up.

Col, Mews died in 1679, when his son was only seven years old. Sarah married within the year to Sir John Matthews, a gentleman of many financial interests. Before 1660, he had been a merchant in Cadiz, Spain, and later was appointed consul to Cadiz. By 1680 when he married the widow Mews, he was listed as a director of the Royal Africa Company, the institution which between 1680 and 1688 provided 46,396 African slaves to the plantations in the West Indies.

Letters from Lady Matthews to her brother Edward reveal an emphasis on money. It seems that, although Sir John was generous enough with his wife and stepson, Lady Matthews never seemed to have enough cash for her own and her son’s use. It seems that her first husband, John Mews, had not left her with any great fortune. Her brother Edward frequently sent her money through a third party, usually their brother-in-law John Gardner. On January 19, 1685 when Peter was only 13 she wrote: “I have not been to wait on my cozen Gore according to your desire, and my only reason of the small pox her children have lately had, but I sent my son who desired the money for which I thank you.”[4] Apparently the risk of smallpox seemed small in comparison to the need for the money.

Throughout the years, Sarah’s letters to her brother often mentioned thanks for the money he had sent through John Gardner. In September, 1692, she told Edward that Peter had had great expenses that year due to having to spend time at Astrop Wells for his health, in addition to receiving only a small compensation as a fellow at All Soul’s, which scarcely covered his food and lodging. Sir John had already spent £400 on Peter’s education and had told his wife that that “is a child’s good portion”, so that she could expect no further help from him in this respect. Perhaps the money from her brother was always sent to her through a third party so that Sir John would not know about it. Nevertheless, Sarah’s letters always ended with a polite postscript such as “Sir John gives his service to you. And my son presents his humble service to you.”

The letters reveal little, except perhaps that Sarah could be a little spiteful at times. In 1691, she wrote to her brother that she had been visiting friends and had been caught up in wedding preparations of his mistress, Frances Parker who was to become the bride of Sir John Pakington. Ït seems that Sarah had introduced Miss Parker to her brother, for in an earlier letter, she wrote “Ï have two young Ladies with me one Mr. Parker’s daughter in Warwickshire that have been with me ever since I came out of the country and very good company. I was in good hopes that you might come to town that we might have been more together for I know Ladies that are young & pretty are very agreeable to your inclincation.”[5] She later added that when Edward came to stay, she had a room for him on the same floor as the young ladies, which would be very convenient.

After the marriage of Frances Parker and Sir John Pakington, Sarah made sure to keep her brother in touch with the couple’s life. At one point she remarked that the bride “must be breeding, as she looks very thin and ill”.[6] Later, she remarks on the young woman’s expanding belly. She continued to try to find a substitute for her brother’s lost lover, remarking teasingly on their nephew John Gardner’s future bride who was 30 years of age and would have been a good candidate for Edward, except that she was about 15 years too old. At this time, Edward was in his sixties.

When Lady Pakington was delivered of a daughter, Edward was promptly notified. He took it all with stoicism and dignity, expressing kind wishes for his former mistress’s happiness.

When Sir John Mathews died in March 1694, Sarah sent a letter to her brother almost at once. She was very disturbed to find that from an estate of £15,000 her husband had left large legacies to his four sisters, his brothers, his mother and several nieces and nephews. This left the widow with only £2,500, and two pieces of property in London. To add insult to injury, he had left his stepson Peter only £100 and his library of books. This does seem a rather small bequest, in view of the size of the estate. However, Lady Mathews admitted that her husband had spent a good deal of money on his stepson’s upbringing. He had already reminded her that. Peter had had more than “a child’s good share.”

It raises the question of whether or not Sir John had developed distaste for his stepson, and decided that he had already contributed quite enough to his upkeep and education. After all, his estate was large enough that he could have added a further bequest if he had felt genuine affection.

Certainly Lady Mathews could see no wrong in her son. When Peter was 17, she wrote to her brother Edward, “….I assure you, Brother, I have a very grateful sense of your kindness both to me & my son & merits me more than I am able to express. I bless God he is a very sober youth as I heard a very good character of him indeed to

admiration which I hope will both encourage & continue your {friendliness} and kindness to him.” [7] Edward’s continuing kindness seemed to be of great importance to both Lady Mathews and her son.

Chapter Three – Peter’s Family Connections

During the 1690s, Peter wrote several letters to his uncle Edward, all showing the utmost respect and interest in family members, as a young man of that era would have been educated to do. In July, 1696, he wrote that he had decided to stand at Gresham College. He asked his uncle to speak to the Lord Mayor on his behalf in this matter, especially since the Lord Mayor had a double vote. Edward Mellish was most willing to fulfil this request. Apparently Peter’s application was successful, as he expressed his thanks in a later letter. But he does not seem to have an impact on Gresham College.[8] There is no record of his presence there.

A year later, Peter was again requesting a favour, this time to support him with a signature in an unspecified transaction. At the age of 25, he seems to have been involved in business ventures, rather than academic matters.

It seemed that Peter could do no wrong in the eyes of his uncle Edward either. When Edward Mellish made a detailed will in 1699, he made Peter Mews one of his chief heirs, along with other nephews. Peter Mews was to inherit the lands of Hognaston in Derbyshire. For his lifetime, he was to possess the mansion house at Blyth in Nottinghamshire, and other lands in Middlesex, Nottingham, Derby and York. Edward also requested that the children of Peter Mews and another nephew William Luckyn, should bear the name of Mellish which would otherwise die out in this branch of the family.

Peter seemed to be the golden-haired child. So what happened between 1699 and 1703 when Edward Mellish realized that he was close to death? How did Peter transform from golden-haired child to pariah?

There is some evidence that Peter Mews may have been involved with the slave trade, although at the time that was a respectable enough business venture. Almost all of the notable people of the day supported slavery and invested in it, including the monarch. In fact, Thomas Mellish, a relative of Peter’s mother, was agent-general for the Royal Africa Company at Cape Coast in western Africa from 1673 to 1675.

The fact of the matter is that England was involved in the slave trade to North America and the West Indies from the reign of Elizabeth I on. It rapidly became such a profitable business that following royalty and indeed anyone with money to invest were eager to get involved. This was an era when no thought was given for the dignity or human rights of Africans. That continent was regarded only as a source of gold in human form, waiting to be mined.

Peter’s stepfather, Sir John Mathews was certainly an investor in the slave trade. His name is listed as a subscriber to the Royal Africa Company in 1678, 1680 and 1683.[9] According to his will, Sir John owned property in Jamaica which he left to his nephew, John Ballard. His connection with the West Indies may have gone back even further, for a 1650 map of Barbados shows the names of landowners on that island, including Mathews.[10] With Sir John’s introduction, it is possible that the impecunious Peter saw the slave trade as means of making some money.

Sir John Robinson, a relative by marriage through Peter’s uncle the Bishop of Winchester, was also an investor in the slave trade. In his early years, the bishop was married to Mary Baylie whose mother was Elizabeth Robinson, sister of Sir John. Robinson. This gentleman was Lord Mayor of London in 1662, and later was Lieutenant of the Tower of London. From 1672, his name appears as an investor in the Royal Africa Company[11]. Robinson was the son of John Robinson, Archdeacon of Nottingham whose father was half brother to Archbishop William Laud[12]. It is likely that he would have been acquainted with the family of young Peter Mews, since both families had a presence in London. It does not seem likely that Peter would ignore an opportunity to keep in touch with a distinguished relative.

At that time, England was ablaze with financial enterprises which were virtually guarantees to make money for investors. The year 1708 was too early for Sir Peter to have taken a plunge into the South Sea Bubble, although he apparently did invest later on. There is in existence at the National Maritime Museum in London a share certificate in the South Seas Company held jointly by Sir Peter Mews and Thomas Marriott of Lincoln’s Inn. The document, dated August 21, 1723, is signed by Sir Peter, and gives Marriott permission to sell the stock[13]. Marriott died the following year, so it is possible that the stock was never cashed in.

This certificate has given the mistaken impression to some researchers that Sir Peter Mews was an admiral. He never had any connection with the navy. He was in fact a resident of Hinton Admiral, County of Southampton, and the word Hinton was simply omitted from the certificate. In this case, Admiral is a corruption of a much earlier connection with that area. In 1240, the property was owned by Reginald de Aubermarle. The name gradually changed over the years to Aumarle, then Amerell, and finally in 1592 it became Admyrall.

Around the turn of the 18^th Century there were many ways to invest successfully. One of the most widely accepted was the slave trade, being vigorously carried on between the west coast of Africa, and the West Indies and America. However, investing in the slave trade at the time was considered to be a wise financial move, and would not have caused family members to turn away from a young man who took this route financial gain. Everyone did it..

So what did sour Peter Mews’s stepfather and uncle against him? It may have been a serious flaw in his character, evidenced early on by his willingness, as a lad, to risk smallpox at his cousin’s house in order to pick up money left there by his uncle. Events in the future show that Mews cared little for the opinions or feelings of others.

So how did he manage to acquire the £22,000 required to purchase the Manor of Christchurch in 1708? Some researchers believe that he inherited this money from his uncle, the Bishop of Winchester, and his stepfather Sir John Mathews and his uncle Edward Mellish. Wills of the latter two prove that this was not the case. Neither legacy was extravagant. In fact, they would most certainly have been considered insulting.

No will of Peter Mews the bishop is known to exist. If he wrote one, it may have been destroyed before or after his death. During the decade before his death, his nephew Peter was an integral part of the bishop’s household. In fact, for some years he was chancellor of the diocese of Winchester. After 1702, the Bishop gave his nephew the authority to sign the household accounts. Peter the younger would have had the opportunity to take advantage of the situation, as well as to get rid of any will of the ailing, elderly prelate that was not to his advantage. At any rate, the bishop was considered to have died intestate. His nephew Peter declared that he was the legal heir, being the son of the bishop’s eldest brother. According to Sir Peter’s will, all he inherited from his uncle was debts. He declared that he had already paid £700 to discharge the bishop’s debts, and that now twenty years later, he gave a further £500 to be paid to the tradesmen in and around Farnham, Surrey, to pay the remainder of the debts. While it is well known that Bishop Mews enjoyed a comfortable lifestyle, there is some question about the validity of his nephew’s claims. For one thing, as we shall see, there is some question about whether or not Sir Peter’s will was genuine. If it was not, these claims like all the rest of the document are spurious. This raises the next question of whether Sir Peter actually did receive money from his uncle’s estate. If he did, would it amount to £34,000 or more? It seems very unlikely.

One answer to the question of where the money came from may be the vast natural resources of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire where his uncle Edward Mellish owned extensive property. For a few short years, it looked as though Peter Mews would inherit half of this great wealth. His hopes were dashed, however, when Mellish rewrote his will, leaving only a pittance to Peter and his mother

Edward Mellish had been the helpful advisor, the protective older brother to Peter’s mother, Sarah throughout her two widowhoods. He had helped his sister and her fatherless son (who sometimes referred to himself as an orphan, the legal term for a person under 21 years of age who had lost their father) in every way possible, even providing extra money when Sarah’s wealthy second husband didn’t seem willing or able to supply enough.

In 1699, Edward had reached the age of 71, and decided it was time to make his will. He chose three of his nephews as co-heirs of his estate. One was Peter Mews; the others were Sir William Luckyn husband of his niece Mary Sherrington, and Joseph Mellish, son of his cousin Samuel. Also included were Elizabeth and William Houghton of Middle Temple, London. Although Edward Mellish and Sarah Mathews came from a family of eleven children, in addition to these two, only sisters Elizabeth Gardner and Mary Sherrington were still living. The others, including four male siblings had all died before 1678.

In his 1699 will, Edward specifically left Peter Mews his manor house at Blyth in Nottinghamshire with its accompanying gardens, fishponds and appurtenances, plus his extensive lands in Hognoston, Derbyshire. This was land that had been left to Edward and his younger brother, Thomas, by their father in his will of 1672. Thomas had died before their father’s will was probated in 1678, and therefore Edward had inherited a large number of messuages, mills and land in Hognoston. Edward Mellish’s will is lengthy, and repetitive in true legal fashion of the time. It is complicated, covering every legal loophole imaginable. Near its end, the testator requested that legal sons of Peter Mews and William Luckyn should take the surname Mellish which would otherwise become extinct in this line. Such a will, if they knew of it, would certainly make the prospective heirs very happy. They may even have been quite willing to change their surnames.

Between 1699 and 1703, when Edward Mellish was ailing and knew he had not long to live, something happened to change the legacies. On September 1, 1703, just ten days before he died, Edward made a new will. In this will, he left all of his lands to Joseph Mellish, the son of his cousin Samuel Mellish. To his sister, Mary Gardner and her husband he left £50 each. To “Lady Mathews & her Son Twenty Pounds.” This must have been a severe blow, particularly in view of the fact that the next legacy listed was £140 to his servant Robert Bellamy. There was no mention of William Luckyn who must have also fallen out of favour, although William Houghton and his son each received £20.

The new will was not well received by the rejected heirs. They immediately challenged it. On February 23^rd, 1703 [14], three gentlemen went to Blyth to take depositions from witnesses. Representing the High Court of Chancery were Leonard Childers, Isaac Knight and J. Arthur. The depositions were made by William Heron, Mellish’s clerk; the three people who witnessed the final will, and Edward Mellish’s cousin, Samuel. All swore that at the time of dictating the will, Mellish was of sound mind. Those challenging the will were Edward Mellish’s sisters, Mary Gardner and Sarah Mathews on behalf of their sons who had been left out of the most recent document.

As a result of the depositions, it seems that Edward Mellish had been ill for some time. His second cousin, Joseph, had visited him often and in fact had been the one person Edward asked for most. He always came when asked, even though this sometimes was inconvenient and involved a lengthy journey. On September 1^st, Samuel who was staying in the house came, downstairs to find Edward at his desk, preparing to write a new will. However, he felt weak and called upon his servant Robert Bellamy to write the will which he dictated, his head resting on his hand. He was then helped back to bed where he asked Bellamy to draw up the will in proper form. This was done, and the will was read aloud to him to make sure that it was accurate. When Edward was satisfied with it, the three witnesses were called to the bedchamber. Edward was raised up in the bed so that he could sign the will in their presence. Each was taken to a window recess where he signed the will. Then the will was entrusted to the care of Samuel Mellish.

The representatives of the Court of Chancery seemed to agree that Edward Mellish’s will was legal in every sense of the word. That did not end the controversy, however. In November, 1703, Joseph Mellish launched a case against Mary Gardener, Sarah Mathews and William Sherrington, calling upon them to desist from making statements that Edward Mellish was not of sound mind when he made his will on September 1^st. Nor were they to say that he did not make a will on that date. The defendants continued to insist that they were Mellish’s closest relatives, and were not sufficiently disbarred from the will. It was indeed true that they were closer relatives than Joseph Mellish who was only a second cousin, but the will was very clear in its intent.

It seems obvious that something of great importance had happened to change the mind of Edward Mellish about most of the people whom he had chosen as heirs. Whatever it was, Peter Mews did not seem about to let the matter drop. He was determined to acquire at least part of the property that had originally been given to him by his uncle’s previous will. While his mother took us his cause in the courts, Peter used other tactics.

In 1704, a draft copy was prepared for an indenture between Peter Mews and his cousin, Joseph Mellish who had replaced him as chief beneficiary of Edward Mellish’s estate. The document is written in two different handwritings and seems to have been pieced together. It refers to the desires of the late Edward Mellish, implying that the indenture was the fulfillment of his wishes, in spite of the fact that his final will spoke very clearly about his feelings for Peter Mews. The indenture gave permission to Peter Mews for 99 years’ use of the land at Hognoston. It is all-inclusive, reading in part:

“…all timber wood and other trees now growing or to grown on the premises and all mines of lead and coal or other minerals lying within the ground of the Said

presmises with free liberty to boar and Dig the ground for the same in any part of the premises and to lay the Earth Lead and Coal So Dug up and got on Some 0part of the premises, and to make and for water below and above ground as need Shall require, together with free liberty of ingress and egress abiding and tarrying those for him his heirs and assigns Servants Workmen labour doers with hoofs Carts and carriages to Carry off the Said lead and coal as occasion Shall require.”[15]

If this enterprise, which involved raping the Hognoston property of all its natural resources both above and below the ground, had been carried through, it would have been very profitable. It could very well have paid for Christchurch Manor a few years later. Even in the 18^th century, lead, coal, timber and water were valuable resources.

Did Peter Mews use threat, trickery and subterfuge to get control of part of his cousin’s inheritance? Quite possibly he did. We know that his stepfather became disenchanted with him. So did Edward Mellish. Was it a coincidence that his uncle the bishop of Winchester surprisingly died intestate with Peter supposedly as his only relative?

Chapter Four – A Career Unfolds

For a few years, we hear nothing from Peter Mews. He must have been busy enough, however, since he was appointed Chancellor of Winchester on August 20^th, 1698. During this time he was living in his uncle’s household, and to a great extent was managing the bishop’s affairs, so it is likely that the post was arranged for him by the aging prelate. Although he had graduated from All Souls, Oxford in 1695 with a degree of Bachelor of Civil Law, he was still relatively young and inexperienced in his chosen field. Fellows of All Souls were expected to take holy orders, but it seems that Peter Mews never did so. It was not a rule that was strictly adhered to, however, and some fellows avoided it by saying that they were going to study medicine. If there was a loophole, Peter Mews would take advantage of it.

Peter’s appointment as chancellor of Winchester was a big responsibility for a young man of 26. The position had considerable powers which at that time his uncle may have been unwilling or unable to execute himself. As chancellor, young Peter Mews was the principal officer of the diocese. He might sometimes be required to act as vicar-general or even as a judge when the bishop was absent on travels throughout the diocese. Illness of the bishop might have also made it necessary for Peter to fulfill these duties, for the bishop had been injured in battle during the Civil War many years before, and suffered from his injuries until his death. The appointment as chancellor of Winchester was a fine opportunity for Peter Mews the Younger to wield power and create steppingstones for his future career.

In view of this close association with the bishopric, it seems odd that the marble memorial to Bishop Peter Mews in the Guardian Angels Chapel of Winchester Cathedral was not provided by his nephew Peter, but by Edward Butler. Perhaps Peter felt that he had already done enough by paying off the bishop’s debts.

In letters to his uncle Edward Mellish throughout 1694 and 1696, Peter speaks frequently of the “favours” granted to him, but is never specific. In March, 1696, he writes: “I am obliged to thank you on many accounts, more particularly for your late Favours at London, it shall be my endeavour to preserve your good opinion & merit the kindness you have always shewed me. I can’t sufficiently acknowledge your great concern for my Mother & my self, in a matter lately of the highest importance, & I attribute it to your Prudent and good advice that the event prov’d not fatal to us.” [16] If only we could know what that “event” was!

In July, 1697 Peter wrote his uncle Edward to give him account of the trial of Lord Abercorn. Peter’s account is not first-hand, for he says that there was such a crowd of people trying to get into the courtroom that even people of influence had trouble obtaining admission. It seems that Lord Abercorn was accused of murdering a Mr. Prior. The only witness was the gardener (unnamed) who testified that Lord Abercorn called him out of a back garden and told him that he had killed Mr. Prior. The gardener saw the body lying on the bowling green whereupon His Lordship made him promise to keep quiet about the event, but to help him carry the body “to the Place where it was found”.

Throughout the trial, according to Peter Mews’s account, Lord Abercorn behaved as an innocent, guileless victim of circumstances. He admitted to being the last person to see Mr. Prior alive, but said that Mr. Prior let himself out of the garden with his own key. The Duke of Norfolk, the Earl of Arran and the Bishop of Oxford all spoke on Abercorn’s behalf, declaring him to be a man of great honour. In the end, the jury found that there was not enough evidence to find him guilty. In fact, the gardener was made to look like the villain in the piece. In spite of his seeming guilelessness, Lord Abercorn implicated his unfortunate employee in forgery and perjury, reporting the gardener’s comments that Mr. Prior “should not long enjoy what he had.”[17] There was in fact some legal affair involving Lord Abercorn’s family and a property called The Priory, but no connection has been made between the property, Mr. Prior, and the dispute which resulted in his death. In fact, diligent research has turned up very few references to the trial which the Hamilton clan[18] would most likely want to forget

Chapter Five – A Legacy Snatched Away

Edward Mellish seems to have kept meticulous records of letters sent and received within the family. He added a date on the back of some of his sister’s letters, many of which were not dated by year. He often wrote drafts of replies on the back of the letters. Yet the last recorded letter from his sister Sarah was dated September 9^th, 1696. In this letter, she chides her brother for not writing to Sir John Hubland on behalf of her and her son as requested. A word from Edward would have put “all forward our business”, and she begged him to write the letter at once, if it was not already too late. [19]

It is interesting that Sarah wanted her brother to intercede for her and her son Peter with Houblon. He was the first governor of the newly formed Bank of England. This institution was established in 1694 by a Scotsman, William Paterson. Its purpose was to act as banker to the Government. No Stuart monarch had been willing to charter such an institution to act as banker for the government, but William III was experienced in banking in his home country of Holland, and was not adverse to establishing the bank. Sir John Houblon’s two brothers, Sir James and Abraham, were elected as directors of the Bank at the time of its establishment. Sir John and Abraham, along with King William III and Queen Mary II each contributed the maximum sum allowed according to the charter – the sum of £10,000 each.

At first, the Bank of England was located in the Mercer’s Hall in Cheapside. Later that year, it moved to Grocer’s Hall in Old Jewry, probably with the assistance of Sir John who was a member of the Worshipful Company of Grocers. After Sir John’s.death, his house and garden on Threadneedle Street came into the possession of the Bank which later built its permanent home on that property and surrounding ones[20]

Sir John Houblon was a very well known person indeed, for in 1695 he had been Lord Mayor of London. He was clearly a very powerful ally for Sarah to approach through her influential brother.

The last preserved letter from Peter to his uncle was written exactly a year later. It is much shorter and more formal than previous correspondence. It requests that Edward Mellish meet with Peter and Dr. Brannon at the Grecian Coffeehouse at 6.30 p.m. It also includes thanks for “your Supply”, for which a receipt has been sent. It would be interesting to have eavesdropped on that conversation.

No further correspondence follows. Did business arrangements within the family go sour, causing a rift between Edward Mellish, his sister and her son? In view of Edward’s last will and testament, it seems probable.

We hear very little of Peter Mews between the time of his uncle’s death in 1703 and the purchase of the Manor of Christchurch in 1708. Mystery surrounds this period, for we do not know exactly what he was doing, or how he acquired the £22,000 he needed to purchase Christchurch. At any rate, owning the Manor gave Mews the opportunity to sit in the House of Commons on behalf of his constituency. He was not elected to this position, but assumed it as lord of the manor, sitting for the first time in 1710

The Mews family had traditionally been Tories, and strong supporters of the monarch, whoever he or she might be. Peter Mews, therefore, sat as a Tory and was so referred to in the “Hanover List” and other parliamentary lists.[21]

When he was knighted by Queen Anne on July 13, 1712, it was said to be for being one of those ‘worthy patriots’ who exposed the mismanagement of the previous administration. Apparently Sir Peter did not play a significant enough part to earn great public acclaim, but he was certainly involved in the rivalry between Whigs and Tories at that time. Although there is no record of membership in the October Club, it seems likely that he was a member of this group which met at the Bell in London to discuss matters of state and drink “the Plebian Juice of the Barley Corn”.[22]. Even within this group, there was dissension and treachery, weaving a pattern of intrigue.that may have delighted Peter Mews. Whatever his part in it all, he came out of it well, earning a knighthood.

At the same time, Mews was still very much involved in legal affairs In 1714, he was one of the orators, along with his cousin Elizabeth Gardiner and her husband Thomas Nugent, against his cousins John Gardiner, Joseph Mellish and Thomas Morley who had married Sarah Gardiner. It seems that when Elizabeth’s father died, he left property on Fanchurch Street in London in trust for Elizabeth and her sister Sarah. This was to be managed by their brother, John Gardiner until they married. Now the sisters and their spouses were pitted against each other. It seems that Gardiner borrowed money against the properties, and allowed them to deteriorate. When he was asked to pay his sisters their share of the profits from the properties over the past twenty years, Gardiner said that the property had been in the family for many years, and he did not want to sell it. Furthermore, he would not be able to sell the premises for enough money to pay them the required sums which had been calculated down to the last farthing and ha’penny.

This seems to have been a family in crisis.

Chapter Six – The Marriage

At the age of 47, Sir Peter Mews once again had the desire to marry. He may have still hoped for an heir, but if that was the case he chose his bride rather unwisely for Lydia Jarvis was only three years younger than himself. Lydia came from a family of twelve children born to George Jarvis of Islington and his wife Mary Picken. In his will, Jarvis refers to himself as Merchant Taylor although an anonymous source disparagingly calls him “a man who sold clothes around the streets of London”, and says his wife was “a market woman”.

Whatever his business interests, George Jarvis acquired a great deal of property

He was particularly generous with his daughter Lydia. Perhaps this was because at the time that he made his will in 1718, she was still single while her sisters were married. He seems to have doted on this youngest of his daughters. Although he was generous with his grandsons too, he left Lydia his house in Islington as well as other houses, shops, messauges, tenements, cellars and warehouses in Bride Lane and elsewhere in St. Bride’s. He also left her all of his household goods, furniture, rings, watches, plates, china, books, pictures, linen, wool and wearing apparel. In addition to this, Lydia acquired four fields, grounds and enclosures in Marden Lane, Islington which he had previously given to a granddaughter.

His final bequest to Lydia was a strange one. In spite of her age at the time, he mentioned the “first son of the body of Lydia Jarvis – lawfully begotten – “ to receive the same sum left to his other daughters and their heirs. As if this were not optimistic enough, he also mentioned second, third and up to tenth sons of Lydia, as well as “all and every daughter” she might produce.

Perhaps both Lydia and Sir Peter were looking for heirs, as well as for the opportunity to amalgamate their considerable holdings and possibly even considerable debts. If one of them was looking for a fortune to marry, Lydia seems to have had the most wealth of the two. She had inherited £9,000 from her father the year before, and hd an income of £340 per annum. Meanwhile, Sir Peter had his knighthood and the Manor of Christchurch to offer as an enticement to the lady in question. However, much of his property was mortgaged. At that time, he had a total debt of £6,600-

Whatever the reasons for the marriage, it does not seem to have worked out well. According to some accounts, they lived apart for several years, and were not on amicable terms.

Chapter Seven – The Scandal

Sir Peter and Lady Lydia Mews were married on September 3^rd, 1719 in the historic 16^th century Henry VII Chapel in Westminster Abbey. Almost at once, they returned to Hinton Admiral, for the annual elections were about to take place, and it was important for Sir Peter to be there. He was determined to influence the outcome of the election in accordance with his preference for certain candidates.

The trouble in Christchurch had begun the previous year. On September 8^th of each year, it was customary for the mayor and resident burgesses to meet in the town hall to nominate three candidates for mayor for the following year. On September 14^th, the candidates would then be presented to the public who would choose one of them. The successful candidate would be sworn in at the Michaelmas[23] Court Leet[24]. One of the requirements of this occasion was that the out-going mayor must be present at the swearing in of the new mayor.

In September of 1718, John Stevens was the successful candidate. He expected to be sworn in at the appropriate time. However, Sir Peter as Lord of the Leet, with the support of his steward, Charles Hackman and several of the burgesses refused to hold a Court Leet at Michaelmas. Therefore, there was no mayor.

In April of the following year, a person completely unknown in the Manor appeared and called a Court Leet. He swore in some officers of the court, but when John Stevens presented himself to be sworn in, the unknown person refused to acknowledge him. The Court Leet was broken up by the unknown man who thereafter disappeared and was not heard from again. Christchurch was still without a mayor.

At this point, John Stevens moved for a mandamus in the King’s Beach. For his part in the event, Sir Peter’s steward, Charles Hackman was taken into custody, fined and released. When questioned about his part in the affair, he had little to say, except that he had been discharged by Sir Peter in October 1718, just after the legal Court Leet should have been held.

All of this, it seems, was at the instigation of Sir Peter who did not wish to see John Stevens as mayor. Stevens was an experienced candidate, having served as mayor of Christchurch 1689 – 1691. Perhaps Sir Peter did not want an experienced person in office. Sir Peter’s great aversion to Stevens also may have been due to another legal matter which was dealt with at the Dolphin Inn at Christchurch in September, 1716. Sir Peter brought suit against Robert Bascombe and other neighbours for cutting weeds in a small rivulet called Mead Mill Stream which ran out of the River Avon. The complaint was that this diverted the water from the River Avon, thus adversely affecting Sir Peter’s mills and damaging the salmon fishery. James Perkins, one of the defendants, said that he had been ordered to cut the weeks John Stevens was one of three men commissioned to judge the matter. It doesn’t seem to have gone in Sir Peter’s favour.

Stevens next sought a mandamus (a court order) for a Court Leet to be held, but this wasn’t done until July, 1919. At that point, John Stevens refused to attend because he said that only a few weeks were left before the next election was due. During the summer, other attempts were made to swear in John Stevens, but in each instance he declined. There were more complications. The former mayor, the only person who could have legally observed the swearing in of John Stevens, was James Stevens, the previous mayor who was technically still in office although he had not performed any of the mayoral duties since the previous September. James Stevens inconveniently died in April 1719.

It was into this situation that Sir Peter and Lady Mews arrived just after their wedding. On September 8^th, Sir Peter met on the street with some of his friends who were burgesses and agreed to put forward as their candidate Francis Gwynn who had been Member of Parliament for Christchurch 1689 – 1710. Christchurch had two MPs, one chosen by the Lord of the Manor (Sir Peter Mews who chose himself) and one chosen by the burgesses. Gwynn was later to be MP for Christchurch 1722 – 1724.

Although John Stevens protested strenuously, Gwynn was elected mayor and was sworn in at the Michaelmas Court Leet. He chose as his deputy James Colgill who had been a partner in the previous machinations.

Those who opposed the fraudulent election of Francis Gwynn immediately applied for a Quo Warranto against Gwynn and Colgill for exercising their offices without legal authority. Gwynn was tried and a judgement was entered against him. Colgill was about to be tried, but withdrew his not guilty plea and gave evidence which resulted in the ouster of both himself and Gwynn.

By an amazing coincidence, John Stevens died on September 28^th. Now there was no candidate for the office of mayor, and no legal mayor to swear one in. In the hope of restoring some structure to the local administration, two petitions were put forward. One was put forward by members of the Stevens family and Charles Hackman who seems to have changed sides. This petition asked for new Letters Patent so that there might be reincorporation of the borough and a fresh start.

The second, put forward by supporters of the unauthorized mayors, asked for a Royal Writ to give them power to carry out their supposed duties. The Attorney Solicitor General sought legal opinions on both petitions. The Privy Council, having heard all parties to both petitions, made their decision on October 17^th, 1721. It was decided that a charter should be granted to Christchurch, and that provisions should be made so that similar inconveniences could not arise in the future. The matter rested there.

It all meant nothing to Sir Peter and Messrs. Gwynn and Colgill. They carried on as if they were acting legally, and went so far as to swear in five new burgesses.

The people of Christchurch had been without a mayor since 1719, and were eager to see things put to rights. Another effort was made to choose a mayor legally. On the traditional date of September 8^th, 1725, the legal resident burgesses of the borough – ten in number, plus the five that had been created illegally during the interim – met at the town hall to choose the mayoral candidates. Five of the legal burgesses chose their candidates – Ferdinando Young, Matthew Imber and Samuel Hookey, all “out” burgesses. However, the other five legal burgesses along with the five created during the period of usurpation, put forth a different list of candidates – Edward Bourne, William Forbes and James Bullock.

This was not a good beginning, Nor was the dispute over who should preside at the meeting. Joshua Stevens, the last person present to legally execute the office of mayor[25], believed that he should preside as the person empowered by the late Act of Parliament. He cast a ballot in favour of the Young/Imber/Hookey slate of officers. Then Richard Holloway, the senior burgess present, said that he had the right to preside, and cast his vote for the same candidates, thus rejecting the votes of the five illegal burgesses.

On the traditional election date of September 14^th, the two lists of candidates were read to the electors of the town, and the votes were taken. It was said by his supporters that Mr. Hookey was elected “by a majority of good votes”, while the opposing group said that James Bullock had been elected. The entire group adjourned to the Town Hall where each party continued to declare its winner.

Two days later, Sir Peter announced that James Bullock was winner, and presented him as mayor for the coming year. Sir Peter’s steward, James Willis, performed the swearing in, contrary to the regular procedure which required that the previous mayor be present. Of course, since there was no previous mayor available, this presented a problem anyway. Also, tradition required that a jury be sworn by the Steward of the Court Leet (in this case, James Willis). Such a jury had been appointed to represent Samuel Hookey, and at this point Joshua Stevens presented the jury and Mr. Hookey to be sworn in as well. Willis called the traditional ceremony “Nonsense & Scandalous”, and refused to swear the jury or Mr. Hookey. .

The whole situation was in a terrible mess. The one person who could have taken a stand to find a solution was the person who had manipulated affairs in the first place – Sir Peter Mews. After six years, Christchurch was no closer to having a legally chosen mayor than ever. Thomas Pengelly, Chief Baron of the Exchequer, was called upon to give his legal opinion of the situation. His statement came down on October 18^th when he said that although Messrs. Gwynn and Colgil were usurping the offices of mayor and deputy mayor, they still had the right to be burgesses. However, he felt that they should be removed from office. Most of his reply was as complicated as the situation itself. It seems that if a leading member of the Court of Chancery could not solve the problem, no one could.

Chapter Eight – Sir Peter’s Will

Sir Peter Mews died on March 18, 1725 at his home in Hinton Admiral. He was 53. We do not know the state of his health at the time. There should be no mystery about his death, yet there is. In his detailed History of Dorset, historian Hutchins wrote of the bishop Peter Mews “He was suffocated by a phial of hartshorn poured down his throat by mistake.”

Francis Atterbury, Bishop of Rochester wrote to Bishop Trelawny about his predecessor’s death. In reference to Bishop Peter Mews, he wrote:

“This Prelate died in a sudden and extraordinary manner. Being subject to fainting fits, from which spirits of hartshorn, applied to the nose, usually recovered him, in one of these a gentleman who was with him, on his Lordship’s pointing to a phial in the window in his confusion, poured the contents down the Bishop’s throat, by which he was suffocated.”

In The Lives of The Bishops of Winchester, however, Cassan refutes this, saying that the manner of death was actually that of the bishop’s nephew. Because both uncle and nephew were named Peter Mews, it is possible that there was confusion about this. There is reason to doubt that Sir Peter died of natural causes.

Sir Peter’s will is a marvelous document. It is quoted in its entirety in the body of the proceedings of the law case between Lady Mews and “the pretender”, as she called . Whether a true copy of the will existed independently is another matter. The first beneficiary mentioned was Sir Peter’s god-daughter Mary Burrows, daughter of Thomas Morley, sergeant-at-law. Mary was Sir Peter’s first cousin once removed, daughter of his cousin Cathy Mellish.

The main beneficiaries of the will were “my beloved wife Dame Lydia Mews” and Dr. Thomas Rivers[26], prebendary of the Cathedral Church of Winton.”[27] In addition, £300 was provided to build a new chapel at Hinton Admiral and £20 a year for the curate at said chapel. The parish of Christchurch received £50, and a like sum was bequeathed to the poor of the parish of Overton Sir Peter’s steward, James Willis, received £100. Dr. Rivers was remembered with £500, while All Souls College received £100 for its building fund “in grateful remembrance of my Education.” The rest, all “Manors Hundreds Castles Liberties Rents Services Courts Leet Courts Barrons Wrecks of Sea Rents Reservatiion Reversions Messauges Tenements Farms Commons Waters Ffishings” were to go to Lady Lydia.

The testator’s final request was to be buried in the south aisle of the parish church of Christchurch in the vault with his mother. Dame Lydia and Dr. Rivers were appointed executors.

There are several strange things about this will. For one thing, it was witnessed by three people, one of whom was James Stevens, the person whom Sir Peter was actively preventing from becoming mayor of Christchurch. Furthermore, no other relatives were mentioned, save for the godchild.

To all intents and purposes, Lady Lydia became the main beneficiary of her husband’s death. Sir Peter had no children, and apparently no close relatives.

Now we find that all may not be as simple as it seems. For one thing, the Manor of Stoke Charity which Sir Peter left to his wife may not have been his to dispose of.

In the Somerset County Archives, there is a copy of an anonymous letter sent to Mr. Thomas Mew of London.

According to this letter, Thomas who was then still a few months short of the age of majority, was the rightful heir to Bishop Peter Mews, for his grandfather and not Sir Peter’s father was the bishop’s eldest brother. The letter went on to say that Sir Peter tricked the bishop’s creditors into accepting half of what was actually owned to them, and said that the bishop had owned his father money, a statement which “nobody believes”. The letter writer urged Thomas to pursue this matter in the courts, telling him that he could not lose by doing so, even if he paid the bishop’s debts fully. The letter goes on:

“Everybody wishes for you that you may get what Sir Peter left, but everybody

hates My Lady Mew and wish she may lose the estate. They say that she is a

mean miserable woman and tricking. That she will tell lies and swear falsely to

get by it and her father sold old clothes about London streets and that her mother

was a market woman. What base ways she used to draw Sir Peter to make a will

in her favour in your wrong no body knows, but all say Sir Peter hated her and

spoke ill of her to everybody, so that ‘tis sure Sir Peter was not in his senses when

he made the will or that she made the will for herself.” [28]

The letter furthermore alleged that Sir Peter and Lady Mews had not lived together in several years, so that he would not likely have referred to her as “my beloved wife” in a will that made without duress. The will had to be a fabrication.

Young Thomas took the anonymous letter-writer’s advice and proceeded with the lawsuit as soon as he reached the age of majority, 21. He was born July 12th, 1705, and therefore was not able to take legal action until July 12^th 1726. It was not his intention to claim all of Sir Peter’s extensive estate, but only the properties at Hinton Admiral and Christchurch. On the day of his 21^st birthday, Thomas was approached by James Willis, the lawyer who had drawn up Sir Peter’s Will. Willis had discovered where Thomas lived in Cripplegate, and went to ask him about his relationship to Sir Peter. He then told him that he was entitled to a large inheritance which included the parish of Stoke Charity. If the will Willis was reading from was the same one that was later produced in court and finally probated, this is rather strange, for it makes no mention of Thomas or any Mews except Dame Lydia. It may be that there were two wills, one of which was later destroyed.

On July 16th, Thomas and two friends went to visit Willis who asked if these men were lawyers. When he was told that they were not, Willis read out Sir Peter’s will which said that his estate was to go to the nxt male heir – young Thomas. Willis then offered to act as Thomas’s lawyer, send him to school and provide clothing so that he could be prepared to administer the great estate that was within his grasp. This must have seemed like a dream come true for Thomas who had grown up in poor circumstances and could not even sign his name. However, he was not totally without common sense. When Willis asked him to sign a document giving use of the estate to Lady Mews as a condition of sharing the legacy. Thomas was immediately suspicious and refused.

Lady Mews was furious, and threatened to keep Thomas from any part of the estate. On July 12^th, 1726, Lady Mews filed a complaint with the court declaring that Thomas Mews and his confederates “gave out in speeches” that he was the rightful heir by pretending to be a cousin of the late Sir Peter. She also claimed that Thomas Mews and “persons unknown” had threatened to physically evict her from “the said Manors, Messuages, Lands and premises soon as the witnesses to the said Will are dead.” It sounded very ominous indeed, although one wonders how Thomas Mews and a few of his friends could successfully evict her from so many widespread properties. Either the defendant or the oratrix had a very vivid imagination. Lady Mews demanded that Mews be subpoenaed to appear before the court to answer her charges. truthfully and prove his statements “if he can.”

In due course, Thomas’s reply was presented. He admitted that Sir Peter may have made a legal will, but said that he never at any time said that Sir Peter was not of sound mind when the will was made. He also asserted that he did not pretend to be Sir Peter’s cousin, but was in fact a cousin, being the eldest son of John Mews, gentleman, who was grandson of Sir Peter’s father’s eldest brother.

Dr. Rivers replied to Thomas’s complaint, saying that he did not believe that Lady Mews and Sir Peter were ever separated, but as far as he knew lived together in “mutual confidence and affection” right up to Sir Peter’s death. He furthermore said that Lady Mews tended her husband throughout his illnesses, and that Sir Peter often expressed great affection for his wife.

. The matter went to court with both Lady Mews and Thomas Mews providing rough (and probably inaccurate) lines of descent for Sir Peter’s father. This again in spite of the fact that at one point Lady Mews said that her husband told her that he had no known relatives. In view of the fact that there were many members of the Mews family throughout southern England, not to mention a substantial number in London itself, it seems strange that Sir Peter did not know of any of them. It is true that he was an only child, and that his father seems to have been estranged from his uncle the bishop[29], but it would be a stretch of the imagination to believe that he did not know of any relatives at all. A prominent resident of Winchester where Sir Peter lived for so many years, was Ellis Mews who held the positions of alderman, bailiff and mayor at Winchester during the last quarter of the 17^th century. Ellis was Sir Peter’s cousin, so it seems highly unlikely that he did not know him, or at least know of him, or had never spoken of him to his wife.

Furthermore, in a statement regarding the death of Arthur Mews of Portsea in 1716, his widow Ann requested that she be allowed to appear before the “Right Worshipful Sir Peter Mews Bachelor of Lawes and Church Law of the Diocese of Winton” with her petition. Arthur had died without a will, and his wife Ann wanted to make sure that his estate went to his infant daughter by a previous marriage. Why would she have made this request, unless she expected that an elevated relative of her late husband would be sympathetic to her statement regarding her late husband’s wishes after he had died intestate?

Thomas’s accusations were many. His lawyer argued that Thomas’s late father, John, was the true heir to the bishop of Winchester, not Sir Peter Mews who had “made himself heir.” Sir Peter, he added, had often told his friends that, having no children or siblings of his own, he wanted his estate to go to the nearest male relative. It was claimed that Sir Peter had in fact died intestate, because the beautifully crafted will that we can see today was drawn up without his knowledge or approval by Dr. Thomas Rivers, prebendary of Winchester cathedral, and lawyer James Willis. The latter must have been a reprehensible character, for he had previously been Sir Peter’s steward. In court, it was claimed, if Sir Peter signed the will, he had not read it or because of his illness was not able to understand it. Furthermore, James Willis had by deceit tried to pressure Thomas Mews to sign away his right to the estate.taking advantage of the young man’s ignorance of legal matters. Asking for this signature was surely an admission that Thomas had a legitimate claim against the estate. Furthermore, it was said in court that Sir Peter had often said, in the presence of other people including his wife, that he intended his entire estate to go to his next male heir.

Lady Mews, speaking through James Willis, declared that all of Thomas’s claims were false. She had asked Sir Peter about his father’s family, and he always said he knew of none, and that at any rate they would be three or four generations distant. He told her that the entire estate was his of dispose of as he pleased, She did not know, for example, that the Manor of Overton was held by copyhold [30] under a lease from the late Bishop of Winchester. Nor did she know that Sir Peter’s ownership of Stoke Charity was questionable, the previous owner never having had the right to sell it to Sir Peter. Stoke Charity was a thorn in Lady Mews’ side for years.

Lady Mews insisted that the will was made by James Willis at the request of Sir Peter himself, after he recovered from a short illness, but not long before his demise. She said that Sir Peter came to her room to get her approval .She denied that she and her husband had been separated for several years, or that she had held back deeds

In November, the Court ruled that Thomas Mews had not sufficient proof that Sir Peter’s will was a forgery, and therefore Lady Mews was entitled to the entire estate.

Unwilling to get embroiled in any more legal tangles – she already had others as well - and perhaps fearing that her case was not strong enough to stand up in further court proceedings, Lady Mews decided to take another approach to Thomas Mews, It is said that she made overtures to the plaintiff in the lawsuit and they were “reconciled”. As a gesture of kindness, Lady Mews then arranged for Thomas to go to sea, whether willingly or unwillingly we do not know. Only a few weeks later, the master of the ship sent back word that Thomas Mews had drowned off the coast of Denmark on August 22nd. Two members of the crew signed an affidavit to this effect, dated October 11, 1728. It seems very timely indeed.

As far as Lady Mews was concerned, this had solved one of her problems. There would be no more claims from her late husband’s family. Thomas was dead. Or was he?

On May 20^th, 1728, Thomas Mews, coachman, of Hammersmith, Middlesex made a brief will leaving everything he owned to Dorothy Horogill, spinster. He apparently did not have a lot to leave to her, but his will included the additional provision “and all rights and Title to Sir Peter Mews Estate”. He must have known that his life was in peril. He wanted to make sure that any judgment in his favour would not default back to Lady Mews, and therefore he bequeathed everything to a young female friend. Of course Lady Mews through her determination and financial means, got it all, anyway.

This will introduces another mystery to the whole affair. Although it was said that Thomas died of drowning in August, 1728, the will was not administered until May 3, 1774. By this time, Dorothy Horogill had married a Mr. Russell, been widowed, and had died. Whatever estate there may have been went to her unmarried sister Elizabeth. If it was common knowledge that Thomas died in 1728, why did his heirs wait 46 years to claim the little he may have left them? Perhaps in fact he came back from the grave and lived out his life quietly in Hammersmith or elsewhere, trying to remain out of the way of Lady Mews and all associated with her.

It was also said that Thomas Mews had a younger brother who, after the death or believed death of his sibling, might be persuaded by his family and friends to pursue the same legal route. No more was heard of this younger brother. Was he indifferent to the prospect of sharing some of Lady Mews’ wealth, or was he intimidated by her? The latter is a distinct possibility.

Sir Peter’s will continued to have repercussions, long after his death. In March, 1712, Sir Peter’s aunt, Mary Gardiner, bequeathed to Sir Peter and her son-in-law Thomas Morley the sum of £500 in trust for her daughter Elizabeth and her husband, James Nugent. The sum was to revert to the three daughters of Mary’s son, Joseph Gardiner. When Mrs. Nugent died in 1747, Joseph’s sisters, Elizabeth Orem, Mary Gardiner and Beatrix Shaw each claimed £100 plus interest from Sir Peter’s estate.

Chapter Nine – The Stoke Charity Affair

Meanwhile, Lady Mews had to contend with numerous legal issues. For example, in 1728, she tried to sell Stoke Charity to The Hon. Mr. William Heathcote who wisely asked for legal opinions before making the deal. It seems that there were encumbrances on the property when Sir Peter bought it for £7,500 in 1723. Both Sir Peter and Lady Mews knew this, but went ahead with the purchase anyway.

In 1691, Stoke Charity had belonged to Dame Marina Phillips, widow of Sir James Phillips, a Catholic who had supported King James. After Dame Marina’s death the property was to go to Sir James’s sisters Elizabeth, and Susan then both spinstera. The estate included the entire parish of Stoke Charity, but when Dame Marina was in need of money in 1694, a Bill of Chancery allowed it to be divided in two halves – one half to be sold to provide Dame Marina with money, and the other half to remain the property of her sister-in-law Elizabeth. Because the family were Roman Catholics, the inheritance was accompanied by limitations and restrictions which had been kept secret. It seems that even the lawyers concerned did not have a clear understanding of the terms. Nevertheless, Dame Marina parted with her section of Stoke Charity in what may have been an illegal sale. By the time Sir Peter Mews came on the scene in 1723, half of Stoke Charity was owned by Elizabeth Phillips, now married to a Mr. Bolney and residing “beyond the seas”. The other half of Stoke Charity was owned by William Holman who had inherited the property through his late mother, the former Susan Phillips..

An anonymous letter to Mr. Heathcote from someone who signed himself “W.I.” warned him of the pitfalls associated with Stoke Charity, and urged him to pay no more than £4000 for the property. The farmer, he said, would say that the estate would bring in £400 a year, but he would simply want to get rid of his landlady (Lady Mews) who was treating him badly. Furthermore, the writer said, the property may actually belong to someone “beyond the sea” so that foul play and juggling were being used to get rid of it. The anonymous correspondent added that everyone in the neighbourhood knew that there were some secret dealings associated with Stoke Charity, and further warned that the late Sir Peter’s heir-at-law or his heirs might have a claim on the property.

Nevertheless, Heathcote wrote to his lawyer saying that he would come closer to Lady Mews’ price by offering £17,200. Having dealt with the lady before, and learned of her temper, Heathcote was not eager to tangle with Lady Mews again. He suggested that another person go to her on his behalf, saying that Mr. Heathcote was tired of her stiffness, and would rather invest his money elsewhere. The go-between would then try to complete the deal by saying that Mr. Heathcote’s money was ready at hand, and that Lady Mews would not easily find another buyer. Apparently, she realized that the encumbrances on this property made is virtually unsaleable. She accepted the offer.

This may have solved Lady Mews’s immediate problems, but it did not solve the entanglements at Stoke Charity. The wrangling went on and on. As late as October, 1890, a descendant of Sir Williams’s, C.G. Heathcote, was obliged to write a letter regarding Stoke Charity, assuring the recipient that Sir William, first Baronet of Hursley, had purchased the property from Lady Mews in 1728. So all the secret dealings had repercussions down through the ages, and in fact may still be going on!

Lady Mews must have enjoyed litigation, for she often resorted to it.. In 1731 she boldly filed a complaint against Philip Yorke, 1^st Earl of Hardwick who at that time was lord chief justice of the King’s bench. We do not know the specifics of her complaint, but in his reply to the Court, Yorke denied any knowledge of the matters mentioned in her Bill of Complaint, and suggested that the charge be dismissed

Chapter Ten – Another Christchurch Scandal

With Sir Peter and young Thomas Mews gone, you might expect that life would be very quiet for Lady Mews in Christchurch. However, she was still there, living at Hinton Admiral and pulling strings behind the scenes. Christchurch still did not have a mayor.

In 1727, another attempt was made to select a mayor. On August 18^th, a poll was taken of the eighteen burgesses in an attempt to choose candidates for the office. Once again, chaos ensued. Richard Holoway, a senior burgess declared his intention of voting for William Forbes for mayor. On August 10^th, Holoway was visited at his home by John Tarrant, an attorney who had been acting as under-sheriff for the county. Tarrant urged Holoway to give his votes for mayoralty candidates to Joseph Hinxman and Charles Wither. Tarrant offered him £100 and as Holoway later said, ”forced” him to take the money. Tarrant cleverly asked for a receipt which he took with him when he left the house. Although he was an experienced local politician, Mr. Holoway seems to have been rather naïve.

On September 4^th, Holoway was approached by Joseph Hinxman who offered him £30 per annum for life is he would vote for Samuel Hookey as mayor on September 8^th.

Holoway found himself in receipt of “£30 or thereabouts in part of such annual payments.” When Holoway realized he had made a mistake and tried to return Tarrant’s £100, lawyer would not accept it.

While Holoway was traveling the eight miles from Christchurch to Lymington one day, he was arrested by four bailiffs from the Counties of Wiltshire and Southampton on charges placed against him by John Jennings who said that Holoway owed. him money.. Holoway did not deny that he owed the money. He asked the bailiffs to wait while he sent to his home for the money so that he could be released. They refused. He then asked them to allow him to send to two of his cousins who lived about a mile away, and whom he was sure would provide the money. The bailiffs replied that they would not accept any money, but there going to take him to the lawyer, James Tarrant at Fordingbridge, about 15 miles away. Holoway went with the bailiffs, feeling sure that it would all be put to rights when he saw Tarrant. However, instead of going to Fordingbridge, the bailiffs took him through by-ways into the county of Wiltshire where he was detained overnight at a place called Sherval Hatchet. Along the way, an innkeeper named John Heather served dinner to the group. He later testified that he heard Holoway offer £100 pounds to the bailiffs if they would only release him so that he might get home in time to vote for the mayor in Christchurch. One of the bailiffs said that he would not betray his friends for £500, while another said that they had a warrant that would allow them to keep him in custody for a week or even a month.

Unknown to Holoway, two of his friends learned of the situation and offered to pay Tarrant bail for his release. However, Tarrant refused to accept the money, so the two friends, William Blake and Edward Lisle, set out to try to find where their friend was being detained. They even went so far as to offer a reward of 20 guineas Finally, on the 8^th, they learned that he was in Winchester gaol. They offered once again to pay his bail, but this was not accepted until after the Nomination Day was over.

Meanwhile, at four in the morning, Holoway was spirited away from Sherval Hatchet. He was “carried….over hedges, and through Coppices to avoid meeting Persons on the Road” to another unknown place. No one would tell him where he was. To add insult to injury, one of the bailiffs named Richard Harrison robbed him of eleven shillings to pay for expenses. By this time, Holoway knew that he was being kept away from the election of candidates as part of a plot to prevent him from breaking a tied vote. The next day, the bailiffs hurried Holoway to Overton in the county of Southampton where he was kept all night. In the morning, he was taken into Berkshire where he was kept out in the woods all day before being taken to Barton Stacey near Winchester. On the Friday the 8^th of September, he was interred in the gaol at Winchester. At last, on Monday the 11^th, upon payment of £5, 15 shillings in gaol fees and expenses, he was released

While Richard Holoway was detained, well away from Christchurch, a great deal was happening in that town. At about ten o’clock on the morning on September 8^th, a group of nobles supporting Joseph Hinxman and Charles Withers entered the town accompanied by all the Keepers of the New Forest in their green liveries, each keeper with four men on horseback, armed with clubs. The whole group consisted of more than 130 men. No violence ensued for two reasons. For one thing, the inhabitants could.hardly oppose such an organized and well-armed group. Secondly, some of the wiser gentlemen managed to persuade both sides to keep calm. Nevertheless, the people of Christchurch were so outraged that they encouraged the ringing of the church bells backwards as the troop rode out of town.

Wrangling over the voting continued. Four burgesses voted for Mr. Forbes, four for Mr. Hookey. Holoway who was not present, had made it known that he would vote for Forbes which would have given a clear cut victory. Although William Forbes was finally declared the winning candidate, there was disagreement over the eligibility of some of the votes in his favour. It was said that one of the burgesses who supported him had lived out of town for some time, and therefore had no right to vote. James Stevens, another Forbes supporter, had been chosen as a burgess in 1718 when he was only 18 years old, three years under the age of majority. Thomas Jeans who had voted for Mr. Hookey had also been made a burgess when he was still a minor, and therefore his vote was ineligible.

Furthermore, John Hancock who had presided at the election was not the senior burgess as he had claimed, and was at the time being prosecuted for having defrauded His Majesty’s Customs of a huge sum of money. Richard Holoway, the man being held in Winchester Gaol, was in fact the senior burgess who should have presided at the election.[31]

Richard Holoway launched legal proceedings against the under sheriff and the bailiff for abuse of Process of the Court of Court Pleas. His deposition and those of his supporters were printed in a little booklet which was widely distributed, much to the annoyance of Lady Mews and her supporters. Nevertheless, for the first time in ten years, Christchurch had a person enacting the duties of mayor. The said Samuel Hookey was declared winner of this honour. He was later chosen again in 1743

In 1728, Lady Mews was ordered by the court to hold an election at which a mayor would be legally chosen. This was apparently done, with John Hancock elected to the office.

On several occasions during the 18^th century, the name Mews appears on the list of mayors of Christchurch. Thomas Mews Sr. served in that office in 1754, 1759, 1763, 1765 and 1775. His nephew, Thomas Mews Jr. was mayor in 1773. It was more than 100 years before Christchurch received a new charter. That did not occur until 1886.

It is puzzling that for generations there had been members of the Mews family in Ringwood, the next manor north of Christchurch. None of them ever seemed to venture into Christchurch, however, until after the death of Sir Peter. Then Thomas Mews arrived. This was not the Thomas who supposedly drowned in 1728, but an older Thomas, born about 1690. This Thomas left no known children, but his brother Roger’s son, Thomas, moved from Cranborne to Christchurch. Thereafter there was a group of members of the Mews family in Churchurch for about 100 years. Did they come out of curiosity to learn more about their cousin, Sir Peter Mews, and try to untangle the knotted legalities surrounding the many properties he had owned in Christchurch and elsewhere nearby? They could not have been invited to Christchurch by Sir Peter because he told his wife that he did not know of any close relatives. Yet if they were in the same comparatively small community, he must have known about them. In fact, after Sir Peter’s death, Lady Mews lived on in Christchurch where there was a growing Mews clan of which she must have been aware.

Chapter Eleven – Epitaphs

Although there is plenty of evidence that Lady Mews was feared and disliked by those who had dealings with her, her family seems to have held her in high esteem, bearing in mind that her nephew Benjamin Clerke was the chief beneficiary of her will. The memorial stone in St. Mary’s churchyard at North Mymms reads:

Near this Monument

Lyeth interr’d the Body of

Dame LYDIA MEWS

Relick of the late Sr. PETER MEWS

OF Hinton Admiral in the County of

Southampton Knt.

Who was many Years Chancellor of the

Diocese of Winchester, and Member of

Parliament for Christ Church in that County

She departed this life on the 6^th Day of

April 1751 in the 75^th year of her Age.

She was one of the Daughters and Coheirs

Of the late GEORGE JARVIS of Islington

In the County of Middlesex Esqr.

She was an Indulgent Wife,

A kind Friend to the Poor,

And tender to all her Relations

To whose memory this Monument is Erected

As a Grateful Tribute of his Duty and Affection

By her Nephew BENJAMIN CLERKE Esqr.

This description of Lady Mews does not match that of other sources. She may have mellowed in her later years. Or perhaps we should remember that the monument was created by her nephew who was the main beneficiary of her will. He may have seen an entirely different side of her character.

According to Bingley’s unpublished History of Hampshire, in her later years Lady Mews worried that she might not have enough money to last her lifetime. She devised a plan to make and sell pies. Of course she didn’t make the pies herself; they were made by her servants. However, she took them into town, driving in her carriage and clad in black silk. Children flocked to the carriage to buy her pies. Still apparently worried about her income, Lady Mews took steps when a tax was put on carriage wheels. She had her carriage mounted on rollers. However, this was not successful, and she only used the vehicle a few times.

Lady Mews may indeed have had cause to worry about her finances. At the time of her death, she had a total of £9,000 in debts and demands against her estate. This included a considerable sum paid to her sister, Agnes Greenhill to travel to the funeral, and to the interment in North Mymms, as well as £6.6 for a lead coffin. Nevertheless, the sum of £1,130. 3 & 11 in cash was found in the Manor at Hinton Admiral.

In addition to leaving £200 for distribution to the poor who attended Sunday services, Lady Mews left the church a very precious gift. It is an amber tankard, made in Nuremberg in 1659. The amber panels, set in silver, are carved with symbols of the virtues, while animals and St. George and the dragon also grace this rate artifact. Lady Mews specifically instructed that the tankard should be kept on the altar of the church

where all might see it. Because of its great value, the tankard was instead kept in a safe place, and was only brought out for viewing by important visitors to the church. There must have been many such visitors, for by 1806, the tankard required repairs that cost the parish £2/1/-.

At the end of the 19^th Century, the tankard became the subject of controversy. Having been shown many times and carelessly handled, the tankard needed repairs. It was suggested that the vessel, which after all had originally been created as a beer stein, be sold to pay for more pressing repairs to the church bells. The issue became even hotter when the vicar visited the British Museum and learned that the tankard was worth £400. At this point, the Rev. G.S. Batty began to take the tankard into the vicarage each night to keep it safe from thieves. Some in the parish thought the tankard should be sold immediately, while others felt that the evaluation made it even more of a local treasure. Much debate followed, and the issue created a great deal of dissension within the parish.

In the end, a memorial to Lady Mews was placed on the north wall of the church, and it was decided to offer the tankard on permanent loan to the British Museum where it would at last be safe from thieves and the rough handling it had received over the years. In the midst of all this, an urn fell from the top of the memorial to Lady Mews and cracked the seat below. Some parishioners thought this was a sign that Lady Mews was angry that sale of her tankard had ever been considered. Those on the opposite side of the argument interpreted it to mean that she wanted to see the bells repaired. Eventually, the bells were repaired with money raised as a memorial to Queen Victoria. The tankard can be seen in the British Museum.

One might expect that in visiting Christchurch today, there would be some evidence of Sir Peter’s life there. That does not seem to be the case. In the guildhall, now used as a bank, there are windows dating from the 14^th century, as well as stained glass created around 1875. One of the stained glass windows displays the arms of famous people associated with the history of Hampshire. One of these is dedicated to Bishop Peter Mews, with his mitre clearly visible. Yet the dedication reads “Sir Peter Mew Bishop”. Even in Hampshire’s own history, there seems to be confusion and misunderstanding about the lives of Peter Mews, Bishop, and Sir Peter Mews, his nephew.

In Christchurch Priory itself, one would also expect to see some sort of glorious monument to Sir Peter Mews - perhaps a tomb with a reclining effigy, or at least a memorial plaque similar to that in North Mymms church for Lady Mews. After all, Sir Peter’s will not only left £300 for the erection of a chapel at Hinton Admiral, but also directed that the south aisle of the priory be repaired and adorned in manner suitable to his and his mother’s burial.there.

Such is not the case. There is no visible monument or plaque or effigy, or any sign of respectful remembrance. Nor is he mentioned in the guide booklet entitled A Walk Around the Priory Church. This seems odd for a notable local dignitary who, according to his will, left a great deal of money to the Church.

For several years, I corresponded with the sacristan at Christchurch Priory, Charles Sawyer who kindly sent me some information from the parish registers about other members of the Mews family from whom I am descended. In 1997, I asked him about Sir Peter’s tomb which, according to family information, is in the Tapps-Gervis-Meyrick family vault. This large vault is under the south transept of the church where there is no natural or artificial light. Going the extra mile on my behalf, Mr. Sawyer ventured into the crypt of the church with a torch and found Sir Peter’s resting place in the bottom right-hand corner of the vault. The inscription as he sent it to me reads:

Sir Peter Mews of Hinton Admiral

Knight

Who was elected one of the representative of this Borough in 1722[32]

Died March 19^th 172- (the rest obliterated by time)

It’s an extremely brief memorial.to someone who played a very important part in the life of Christchurch, and who, in his will, left large sums of money for the Church.

Sir Peter Mews, it seems, led a life full of dark corners. His resting place is in a dark corner, and for much of the world he has been forgotten. Perhaps the Mews family and the rest of Christchurch were only too glad to leave this part of their history in the dark.

In January, 2006, genealogist Stephen Gadd of Winchester braved the damp, dark environs of the crypt to view the vault. He e-mailed me that “I was slightly disappointed to find that it had been obviously overhauled by the later Tapps occupants. Not as dirty, dark or spooky as I’d imagined.” The plaques on the vaults all seemed to be of the same period, about 1830 which may account for the fact that some of the information on them was incorrect. For example, Sir Peter’s mother, Lady Mathews is called Mary instead of Sarah. Sir Peter’s date of election to Parliament is given as 1722 rather than the correct date of 1710. This lends credence to the belief that Sir Peter left no direct descendants, for surely they would have had accurate information.

-30-

Thanks

The professionals at Mills Memorial Library, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario; the University of Nottingham, Manuscripts and Special Collections, Nottingham, England; and National Archives, London, England all assisted me in supplying documents and sources that have made it possible to put this story together.

This document would not have been possible without the assistance of some other outstanding professionals as well. Sue Newman, genealogist, Christchurch, Dorset discovered much information about the Mews family in Christchurch, especially uncovering the scandal of the mayoral elections of the 1720s. Also helpful with countless details and some excellent photographs was Stephen Gadd, a genealogist from Winchester, Hants. Michael Stead, of Bournemouth, Hants. joined in the quest to find out where Sir Peter acquired the money to purchase the Manor of Christchurch.

My cousin’s husband, Patrick Larkam of Derby did endless research on the Mews family until ill health forced him to withdraw from the fray. Margaret Love, a distant Mews cousin who lives in Dalkeith, Western Australia had also been trying to unravel the Mews mysteries for some years, and her input and encouragement have been a great help.

I must also thank my patient husband, Jim, who has put up with my hours spent at the computer or poring over books and documents. He has always been my most faithful supporter.

Bibliography

Bingley, the Rev. William.. Bingley’s History of Hampshire. Unpublished, 1807 – 1813. Hampshire Record Office.

Byrnes, Dan. The English Business of Slavery, a website book at http://www.danbyrnes.com.au

Casson, the Rev. Stephen Hyde A.M., The Lives of the Bishops of Winchester Vol. II, C. and J. Rivington, London, 1827.

Colville, Dorothy. North Mymms – Parish and People. Brookman Park Newsletter. http://brookmans.com/history/colville/index.shtml

Davies, K.G., The Royal African Company, Longmans, Green and Co., London, 1957.

Woodward, B.B., A General History of Hampshire Vol. III, London, James S. Virtue. No date.

- Country Life, October 8, 1910 – “Country Homes & Gardens Old & New. Hinton Admiral Hampshire, Seat of Sir George Meyrick, Bart.”

- The Case of Mr. Richard Holman, One of the Burgesses Inhabiting the Town of Christchurch in the County of Southampton, 1727

- The History of the October Club from its Original to this time by a member. London, 1711.

- The History of Commons 1690 – 1715. Vol. IV, edited by Evelin Cruickshanks, Stuart Handly and D.W. Hayton.

-

- The Nicholas Papers. Correspondence of Sir Edward Nicholas, Secretary of State. Vol. II, edited by George F. Warner, Camden Society, Johnson Reprint Corp. New York, 1894.

---

[1] Sir Peter may have been a Knight Bachelor, the lowest level of knighthood. The honour is awarded for public service and does now allow post-nominal letters. His name is often followed by the letters Kt.

[4] University of Nottingham, Manuscripts and Special Collections MeC 4/1/1

[5] University of Nottingham, Manuscripts and Special Collections MeC 4/1/4

[6] University of Nottingham, Manuscripts and Special Collections MeC4/1/15

[7] University of Nottingham, Manuscripts and Special Collections M3C4/1/6

[8] Gresham College was founded by Sir Thomas Gresham in 1538. It was modelled on the Antwerp Bourse, providing lectures on astronomy, divinity, geometry, law, music, physic and rhetoric. Until 1768, the lectures were given in Sit Thomas’s mansion in Bishopsgate. It was at this institution that the Royal Society got its start. Tenured professors included Sir Christopher Wren who was appointed August 7, 1657 to lecture on astonomy.

[12] Beheaded 1645 for treason. Laud’s inflexibility and arrogance had made him very unpopular with the populace, as well as with Charles I. Before his rise to prominence and fall from grace, he had been president of St. John’s College, Oxford, a position later held by his nephew-in-law Richard Baylie, and Baylie’s son-in-law Peter Mews, later Bishop of Winchester.

[13] http://www.portcities.org.uk/london/server/conMediaFile.854/Share-certificate. December 17, 2004

[14] At that time, the new year began on March 25^th, so February was still in the same year as September.

[15] University of Nottingham, Manuscripts and Special Collections MeE2/14

[16] University of Nottingham, Manuscripts and Special Collections, Mellish Collection MeC4/2/6

[17] University of Nottingham, Manuscripts and Special Collections, Mellish Collection MeC4/2/5

[18] The surname of the Earls and Dukes of Abercorn is Hamilton.

[19] University of Nottingham, Manuscripts and Special Collections, Mellish Collection Me C 4/7/27

[20] http://parish.ashtead.org/people/jh2.htm. December 4, 2004

[23] The Feast of St. Michael, September 29^th.

[24] A list of people designated as eligible to hold office.

[25] Before James Stevens, mayor in 1717, who had died 1719.

[26] Rivers, born 1668 in Chafford, Kent, was probably a friend of Sir Peter’s who, at the time of the law suit, was record of Easton in Hampshire. He died in 1731 and is buried in Winchester Cathedral.

[27] The Latin form of Winchester

[28] Somerset County Archives, Thomas Seral Collection DD/GS 3

[29] During the Commonwealth, when Peter Mews (later Bishop of Winchester, was in Holland acting as a spy for Charles II, his uncle Thomas Winniffe died and left him some money. Peter Mews was never able to get this money which he said his relatives had taken in his absence. Messages to his brother John about this went unanswered.. Mews the secret agent was living in poverty, and was naturally bitter.

[30] Tenure of land and buildings whereby the holder keeps a copy of the manorial court roll, and the land returns periodically to the disposal of the lord of the manor.

[31] The Case of Mr. Richard Holoway, One of the Burgesses Inhabiting the Town of Christchurch in the County of Southampton. 1727

[32] All other sources refer to Sir Peter’s election as 1710.