MOHUN, Charles (1649-77)

Mohun was born in the year of Charles I’s execution. His family, which had been royalist, chose to submit to the times and reached an accommodation with the Protectorate but was later successful in reasserting its position after the Restoration. Little is known of Mohun’s early life or education, though he seems to have travelled overseas before attaining his majority. He was still abroad at the time of his father’s death but presumably returned soon after as he was noted as being on the point of going to sea with James, duke of York. His imminent departure was the occasion of an order from the king to the dowager baroness requiring her to release into the new lord’s custody the deeds of his estate in accordance with a chancery decree, and in spite of the express desire of the 2nd Baron in his will that his wife retain control of the estates for a year after his heir attained his majority. HMC 8th Rep. 161; CSP Dom. 1664-5, p. 399.

With the barony Mohun inherited a substantial estate in Devon and Cornwall, but it was heavily indebted and encumbered by bequests. HMC 8th Rep. 161; V. Stater, High Life, Low Morals, 13. In May 1667 a warrant was made out committing Bridget Dennys, a collateral relative of the Dennys family of Devon, to Mohun’s care in the event of her being found to be an idiot. Such arrangements were often profitable, but it seems that the Mohun family were unable to reap the expected profit for in July 1668 custody and guardianship of Bridget Dennys went instead to Charles II’s physician, Sir Alexander Fraizer. CSP Dom. 1667, p. 133; VCH Hants v. 280; Herald and Genealogist ed. J.G. Nichols, iv. 138-9. Later, on 19 Dec. 1667, Mohun’s own guardians were compelled to appeal to the House to be allowed privilege of Parliament to protect them from legal action, which was granted accordingly. The same month Mohun was caught up in a lurid scandal involving John Dolben, bishop of Rochester. Mohun was accused of being the bishop’s catamite. Although at least one reporter thought that ‘no sober man gives it credit’ and the bishop was ultimately exonerated, the taint of the story lingered. Add. 36916, f. 56; NLW, Wynn of Gwydir, 2527.

Mohun took his seat in the House on 16 Nov. 1670, after which he proceeded to attend on 67 per cent of all sitting days in the session. He was named to 21 committees besides the sessional committees, including that examining the ‘assaulting, wounding and robbing’ of the lord steward, James Butler, duke of Ormond [I] (then sitting in the House as earl of Brecknock), the committee for the bill to prevent the growth of popery and the committee to take accounts of money given to indigent officers. On 22 Apr. he was added to the committee for the Journal. Mohun soon came to be identified with George Villiers, 2nd duke of Buckingham, whose father had secured the peerage for Mohun’s grandfather, and Anthony Ashley Cooper, Baron Ashley (later earl of Shaftesbury), an associate from the West Country. EHR, xxxxv. 58-77.

Such influential friends did not prevent Mohun’s family from continuing to experience the tribulations of indebtedness. On 14 Jan. 1671 Mohun’s mother submitted a petition to the House of Lords complaining of breach of privilege in the arrest of her domestic servant, Eleanor Burford. Lady Mohun’s petition brought to the fore the issue of the ‘privilege of peeresses’, which the committee for privileges was ordered to consider. The Lords later decided that noblewomen and the widows of peers should enjoy privilege of Parliament. PA, Braye ms 9, f. 84. On 8 Feb. Mohun presented a petition to the House in an effort to improve his own precarious financial situation. Consideration was put off to the following day and it was not until 10 Feb. that the petition was finally read. Mohun rehearsed how he had inherited his peerage while overseas and complained that his mother had brought a writ of dower against him. She had also taken possession of all the papers relating to his estate making it impossible for him to answer the action. Having brought two chancery actions against her, he now sought the Lords’ intervention. Nothing came of his request but by the close of the year he appears to have succeeded in making progress in his actions in chancery. Perhaps more significantly, he also seems to have used the opportunity to begin to court some of his Cornish countrymen from whom he expressed regret that his long absence from the county had estranged him. HMC 8th Rep. 161; Stater, 15-16; Cornw. RO, PB/8/9/96-97.

Mohun achieved further redress when his case was heard by the council in November. Add. 40860, f. 21. He took his seat in the subsequent session on 4 Feb. 1673, after which he was present on 93 per cent of sitting days. He was named to more than a dozen committees in addition to the sessional committees. On 18 Mar. he reported from the committee for William Gery’s bill, which was recommended as fit to pass, though the measure was then the subject of further debate after it was suggested that Gery’s consent had not been fully obtained. On 20 Oct., the final day of the session, Mohun introduced Richard Butler, as Baron Butler of Weston (better known as earl of Arran [I]). Bodl. Carte 77, f. 638.

Alongside such activities, Mohun continued to seek a resolution to his financial woes. He looked to marriage as a solution and in April 1673 began courting Lady Philippa Annesley. Add. 40860, f. 45. Lady Philippa’s father, Anglesey, seems to have been attracted by Mohun’s desperation and hence his willingness to accept a relatively modest settlement. The eventual settlement, which was agreed almost exactly a year after Mohun had first made his suit, failed to alleviate Mohun’s monetary worries. The marriage proved similarly disappointing. Within little more than a month Anglesey was forced to intervene after his daughter almost expired from a fit brought on by Mohun’s (reputed) ill-treatment. It proved to be the first of many occasions when Anglesey was called upon to mediate between the two. Both parties seem to have been at fault though after one such incident, Anglesey recorded how he thought his daughter was most to blame: describing her as ‘an impudent baggage … if she had not been married I had beat her … she carried herself like a whore’. Ibid. ff. 67, 71, 76, 77, 79.

Mohun returned to the House for the brief four-day session that convened towards the end of October 1673, of which he attended three days. He took his seat once more at the opening of the ensuing session on 7 Jan. 1674, after which he was present on each of the session’s 38 sitting days and was named to a total of six committees, including the sessional committees. Mohun then attended all bar one of the sittings of the House between 13 Apr. and 9 June 1675. Again he was named to a number of committees, but from the outset Mohun’s identification with the opposition was firmly apparent. On 13 Apr. he joined those registering their dissent at the resolution to thank the king for his speech. The following day the House took notice of an ill-tempered exchange between Mohun and John Mordaunt, Viscount Mordaunt, following which Mordaunt was obliged to apologize for his conduct. Both peers were charged not to allow their conflict to continue beyond the floor of the House. Later that month Mohun was to the fore in managing the opposition to the non-resisting test. Between 21 and 30 Apr. Mohun subscribed a series of protests against the passage of the bill, which those opposed to the measure considered an ‘invasion of the liberties and privileges of the peerage’ as well as being ‘destructive of the freedom which they enjoy as members of Parliament.’ Browning, Danby, iii. 125; Timberland, i. 138-41. On 30 Apr. the House resolved that no oath should be imposed on peers but a further decision of 4 May 1675 contradicted this and added a clause to the bill enforcing an oath. Once again Mohun was among those who lodged a protest against this clause. On 27 May he subscribed a further protest against rejecting the ‘opportunity to justify and preserve the right of the Lords in judicature’ in the case of Stroughton v. Onslow.

Following on from his opposition to the non-resisting test, Mohun also proved to be a central participant in the dispute caused by the case of Sherley v. Fagg. Mohun intervened personally to prevent the serjeant at arms from serving a warrant on Sherley in the Lords’ lobby. He then confiscated the document and presented it to the Lords for their consideration. The Commons complained about Mohun’s actions and demanded that the Lords censure him for his behaviour. Although the Lords agreed to consider the Sherley affair, the House insisted that Mohun had done nothing wrong. Perhaps significantly, Anglesey and Christopher Monck, 2nd duke of Albemarle, registered their dissents at this resolution. Marvell ed. Margoliouth, ii. 151-2; LJ, xii. 691-2.

Following the prorogation Mohun joined Shaftesbury in campaigning on behalf of Thomas Moore^‡ against John Digby, styled Lord Digby (later 3rd earl of Bristol) in the Dorset by-election. Shaftesbury had initially offered to back Digby but then reneged on the agreement, which helped to contribute to a particularly fractious election. The result was a landslide victory for Digby, but he was later sued for scandalum magnatum and ordered to pay £1,000 to Shaftesbury, in part as a result of compelling evidence provided by Mohun. Haley, Shaftesbury, 407. The case did not end there as Digby subsequently sought an arrest of judgment on the grounds that Shaftesbury’s lawyers had made some errors in their drafting of the complaint. The prospect of the suit failing was said to have caused considerable disquiet for a number of other peers prosecuting similar actions. Mohun himself was one of these, having brought an action against someone who had accused him of being ‘good for nothing but to sit in ladies’ chambers and thread their needles.’ Hatton Corresp. i. 123-4.

Mohun returned to the House at the opening of the new session on 13 Oct. 1675, after which he was present on 95 per cent of all sitting days. He was nominated to the three sessional committees and to an additional five select committees, including that considering the explanatory bill for the act against popish recusants and the committee for discovery of the publishers of the Letter from a person of quality, which was ordered to be burnt. The early stages of the session were again dominated by the dispute between Lords and Commons over Sherley v. Fagg. Mohun continued to play an active role in the affair, and on 19 Oct. he presented Sherley’s petition to the House. The Lords later resolved that Sherley, the king’s physician, was entitled to privilege as he had a suit pending before them. Verney ms mic. M636/28, W. Fall to Sir R. Verney, 21 Oct. 1675.

Family disagreements emerged once more in November 1675 when the House was informed of differences between Mohun and his mother over finances. Shaftesbury, Arthur Capell, earl of Essex, and Denzil Holles, Baron Holles, were appointed to arbitrate but the dispute was never resolved. LJ, xiii. 17; Stater, 15. On 20 Nov. Mohun moved that the House address the king to request the dissolution of Parliament. The motion was seconded by Shaftesbury and attracted the support of both Buckingham and York. CSP Dom. 1675-6, p. 413; Verney ms mic. M636/29, W. Fall to Sir R. Verney, 22 Nov. 1675; Timberland, i, 175-83. During the ensuing debate intemperate words passed between Bristol, who opposed the motion, and Shaftesbury and Mohun. Bristol’s demeanour was undoubtedly the result of the ill-feeling that had been apparent in the Dorset election but the House took Mohun and Shaftesbury’s part. Bristol was censured and ordered to apologize. Following the failure of the motion to address for a dissolution, Mohun was one of those to register his protest.

Mohun was not one of those summoned to act as a tryer for the trial of Charles Cornwallis, 3rd Baron Cornwallis, in July 1676 but it was noted that throughout the proceedings he, Shaftesbury and Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton, ‘sat in the king’s sight, whispering together all the time.’ Hatton Corresp. i. 136. The same month he was included within a list of politicians who met as a club (other members including Sir William Cope, a member of Shaftesbury’s circle and Paulet St John, later 3rd earl of Bolingbroke, though it was pointed out that he had not been so regularly in attendance of late. Eg. 3330, f. 5. That autumn Mohun was again the subject of an embarrassing incident when two exchange women, to whom Lady Mohun was indebted, presented themselves at Mohun’s residence to demand what they were owed. They were supported by ‘four bravos’, one of them a trooper in the lifeguards and said to be related to Robert Sutton, 2nd Baron Lexinton. In the altercation that ensued the women were said to have spat in Lady Mohun’s face while their associates harangued Mohun as the ‘son of a whore’. Mohun and a servant, armed with swords and pistols, confronted the men and a shot was fired. The men fled leaving Mohun injured in his hand but the women were detained. Subsequent attempts by the high constable and 12 bailiffs to take the men into custody failed. Verney ms mic. M636/29, Dr. W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 5, 12 Oct. 1676.

The following month, on 17 Nov. Mohun again found himself embroiled in a violent altercation. The occasion was a duel against an Irish officer in the French army, John Power, in which Mohun acted as second alongside his friend William Cavendish, styled Lord Cavendish (later duke of Devonshire). Add. 18730, f. 19. Cavendish had apparently caused offence to two Irish women and Power at a ball the previous night in Whitehall. In the resulting duel that took place behind Southampton House, Cavendish and Mohun faced off against Power and Edward Bermingham (later Baron Athenry [I]). Mohun and Cavendish disarmed their opponents and with honour satisfied returned Power and Bermingham their swords. As they left the field a second brawl broke out between Power and Mohun. The cause was said to have been a disagreement about who had best acquitted themselves in the previous encounter, though it seems possible that other factors were in play. Mohun may still have been smarting from his earlier encounter with Power’s compatriots, though it is possible that the quarrel arose from a family feud as Power may have been related to the former viscounts Valentia, whose title had been recreated for Mohun’s father-in-law, Anglesey. Whatever the reason, in the second bout, Mohun was ‘run through the guts’. HMC Rutland, ii. 32; HMC Le Fleming, 130; HMC 7th Rep. 494; Verney ms mic. M636/30, Dr. W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 20 Nov. 1676; HEHL, HM 30314 (11),; CSP Dom. 1676-7, p. 420; Herts. ALS, DE/P/F26. In spite of this he managed once more to disarm his opposite number.

Medical opinion was divided about the severity of Mohun’s injuries. Within a few days of the encounter he was believed to be making a good recovery, but his case was uncertain and over the next few months his condition remained in the balance. In December, with his prospects for recovery fading, it was noted that he had very generously signed a declaration seeking to clear Cavendish of any involvement in the second duel. Cavendish on the other hand was heavily criticized for showing scant regard for his companion’s condition. Add. 18730, f. 19; HEHL, HM 30314 (12, 13); Verney ms mic. M636/30, J. to E. Verney, 23 Nov. 1676; Sir R. to E. Verney, 28 Dec. 1676; Kent HLC (CKS), U269/c17/62; Hatton Corresp. i. 142-3. By the beginning of 1677, with Mohun now believed to be on the point of death, he was persuaded by Shaftesbury to ‘get his wife out of the way’ and put his affairs in order. Whatever settlement was decided upon, it did not meet with the agreement of Anglesey and there was said to be ‘great anger and trouble amongst them’. HMC Rutland, ii. 35.

Mohun defied his doctors’ predictions and rallied in February. Prideaux Letters, 57; Verney ms mic. M636/29, Sir R. to E. Verney, 5 Feb. 1677. As the new session approached Edmund Verney expressed the hope that Mohun would be well enough to attend the House being a ‘good Commonwealth’s man’, but he was still too sick to take his seat at the opening, opting instead to register his proxy with Shaftesbury. Verney ms mic. M636/31, E. to Sir R. Verney, 9 Feb. 1677. On 9 Mar. 1677 he was excused at a call on the grounds of ill health. The proxy was vacated by Mohun’s return to the chamber on 26 Mar. but he attended on just that day before retiring for the last time. On 11 Apr., in his absence, his privilege was upheld in the case of the arrest of his two servants Elizabeth Morrell and Anne Gay. In May, unsurprisingly, he featured in Shaftesbury’s analysis of lay peers as ‘thrice worthy’. By then Mohun was again seriously ill, the relapse blamed on the poor treatment he had received from his French physician. Throughout the summer of 1677 Mohun’s health continued to decline, and by early September he was once more close to death. Ibid. M636/30, J. to R. Verney, 31 May 1677; A. Nicholas to Sir R. Verney, 19 Sept. 1677. His demise was reported prematurely on 25 September. Derbys. RO, Fitzherbert of Tissington, D239 M/O, 1057. He lingered for a further four days before succumbing at last to the wounds he had received in the duel almost a year previously. On 30 Sept. his corpse was subjected to an autopsy following which the coroner’s jury concluded that Mohun’s death should be treated as murder. Despite this, Power appears never to have been tried. Add. 18730, f. 29; Verney ms mic. M636/30, A. Nicholas to Sir R. Verney, 3 Oct. 1677; J. to Sir R. Verney, 8 Oct. 1677.

Mohun was buried at St Martin-in-the-Fields on 3 Oct. 1677. He was succeeded in the peerage by his six-month-old son, Charles Mohun, as 4th Baron Mohun. Add. 18730, ff. 20b, 21. Lady Mohun continued to be embroiled in controversy. In April 1678 she was involved in another indecorous row in lodgings belonging to one Love, where it was reported that ‘ill words and candlesticks’ were thrown. Lady Mohun claimed privilege and her father Anglesey brought Love’s suit before the House of Lords only to have it thrown out after evidence was brought against Lady Mohun. The gossip apparently amused the king who offered to check Lady Mohun’s knee for bruises. HMC Rutland, ii. 49. She later remarried and remained a troublesome presence in the family for the remainder of her life. A bill enabling the new lord’s trustees to sell property for payment of debts was presented to the House on 5 Apr. 1679. It passed the Lords but was later lost in the Commons, overtaken by greater national events.