MOHUN, John (c.1592-1641)

Mohun was descended from a junior branch of the medieval barons Mohun of Dunster, whose title finally fell into abeyance in 1594. His family were also joint heirs to another extinct peerage line, the Courtenay earls of Devon, from whom they inherited a share of the honour of Okehampton, Devon. Mohun’s principal Cornish seat, Boconnoc, was another former Courtenay property, and these ancestral links were an important factor in his family’s local standing.24 Vivian, 107, 324-5; Hist. of Okehampton ed. W.H.K. Wright, 85-6; R. Carew, Survey of Cornw. ed. P. White, 74. At the start of the seventeenth century Mohun’s father, Sir Reginald^‡, was the county’s leading gentleman. Cornwall could boast no resident peers, and consequently Sir Reginald took precedence over all his neighbours in local commissions. He consolidated his position in 1611 by becoming Cornwall’s first baronet, while five years later Mohun’s brother-in-law, Philip Stanhope^*, was created Baron Stanhope of Shelford, adding further indirect lustre to the family’s reputation.25 C66/1748; 66/1942/12; Vivian, 325.

However, the Mohuns’ provincial pre-eminence suffered a major setback in 1625, when another Cornishman, the merchant’s son Richard Robartes^*, purchased a peerage, becoming Baron Robartes of Truro.26 Duffin, 8. Sir Reginald doubtless felt his loss of prestige keenly, but probably lacked the money to compete directly with Robartes, having recently lost a long-running legal battle with his son, the subject of this biography, over the latter’s share of the family estates.27 STAC 8/208/27; C2/Chas. I/M16/19. Instead, the challenge was taken up by Mohun himself, who set about ingratiating himself with the royal favourite, George Villiers^*, 1st duke of Buckingham. In the aftermath of the 1626 Parliament, the duke sought to wrest control of Cornwall from his political rival, William Herbert^*, 3rd earl of Pembroke, but he had few active allies at local level. Mohun promptly offered his services, and, with the help of Sir James Bagg^‡, the duke’s leading West Country client, persuaded Buckingham to procure him the vice wardenship of the Cornish stannaries, one of the county’s most significant offices. Considering that Mohun had little previous experience of public life, beyond undistinguished service in the 1624 and 1625 parliaments, this was a remarkable advancement, but he did not rest there. In October 1626 he announced his desire for an English peerage, and continued thereafter to drop hints via Bagg that such an honour would bind him even closer to the duke.28 SP16/37/6, 91; 16/84/93; HP Commons 1604-29, v. 338.

Matters came to a head in the spring of 1628, when Mohun stood for election as a knight of the shire for Cornwall, but was defeated by two of Pembroke’s erstwhile followers, Sir John Eliot^‡ and William Coryton^‡. Reporting this news to Buckingham on 17 Mar., Bagg renewed his pleas for Mohun to receive a peerage: ‘enable him by honour to be fit for you, so in the upper House or in the country will he be the more advantageous to you’. The unspoken subtext was doubtless that elevation to the Lords would also protect Mohun from his enemies. Bagg was clearly confident of success, and continued: ‘he desires to retain the name of Mohun; and to be baron, either of Polrode, Launceston, Bodmin, Lostwithiel or Boconnoc’, all locations in Cornwall.29 Procs. 1628, pp. 138-9. Negotiations now moved on apace. By 6 Apr. Mohun had settled on Boconnoc as the preferred seat of his barony, though this choice was evidently rejected by the heralds. His patent, sealed on 15 Apr., created him Baron Mohun of Okehampton, and cited his good service as a Cornish magistrate and deputy lieutenant, and as vice warden of the stannaries.30 SP16/100/47; C66/2494/5.

Mohun took his seat in the Lords on 12 May, supported by Edward Noel^*, 1st Lord Noel and Edward Montagu^*, 1st Lord Montagu.31 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 409. Thereafter, he attended on all but six possible occasions. His longest period of absence was between 26 and 28 May inclusive, and the timing was significant. During the previous two months, Eliot and Coryton had led Commons’ inquiries into both Mohun’s recent electioneering in Cornwall and his conduct as vice warden. Following his summons to the Lords, the lower House stopped pursuing him over the first of these two issues. However, on 27-8 May Eliot presented an elaborate report on his vice wardenship, accusing Mohun of corruption and abuse of power, whereupon another Buckingham client, Sir Francis Annesley^‡, was dispatched to see whether Mohun would appear before the Commons to answer these charges.32 CD 1628, ii. 29-36, 398; iii. 60, 623-6; iv. 3-6. No doubt aware that such a summons raised sensitive questions about the Lords’ privileges, Mohun notified his fellow peers on 29 May, and requested their permission to make his defence in the Commons. Probably as expected, this proposal met with some opposition, and Mohun was eventually told to use his own discretion.33 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 554-5, 557-8. Needing no further hint, he informed the Commons the next day that he would make his defence in the Lords, should the charges be sent up there. In the event formal articles of complaint had still not been perfected on 20 June, when the witnesses against Mohun were discharged, and the matter was allowed to drop.34 CD 1628, iv. 23, 28, 308-9, 388. This episode aside, Mohun attracted little business during this session, being named to just two bill committees which concerned attendance at sermons, and unlicensed alehouse keepers.35 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 579, 678.

In July 1628 John Holles^*, 1st earl of Clare noted Mohun’s elevation and the rewards recently granted to his Cornish confederates, sourly observing that ‘to be censured by either House, is a sure way of preferment’.36 Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxvi), 383. Later that month, Mohun reaffirmed his ties to Buckingham’s circle by selecting Annesley and another of the duke’s clients, Sir Robert Pye^‡, as potential guardians of his children. However, Buckingham’s assassination on 23 Aug. left him feeling vulnerable, and in October 1628 he complained to Bagg that Eliot and Coryton had begun collecting additional evidence on his conduct as vice warden.37 CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 199; SP16/118/37.

When Parliament resumed in the New Year, Mohun was again assiduous in his attendance, missing only two days of the 1629 session. As expected, Eliot attempted to revive the charges against him, but although witnesses were summoned back to London, nothing further was accomplished.38 CJ, i. 923b, 925a; H. Hulme, Sir John Eliot, 302. Meanwhile, Mohun began to find his feet in the Lords, and was nominated to four legislative committees, whose subjects included trade, preservation of the crown’s revenues, and the maintenance of almshouses. He was also named to help draft bills on decayed churches and curates’ stipends.39 LJ, iv. 8a, 10b, 31a. Latterly Mohun was drawn into several issues which touched on parliamentary privilege. On 12 Feb. he helped to inform Francis Leak^*, 1st Lord Deincourt (later 1st earl of Scarsdale), that he could not use privilege to avoid complying with a Chancery decree. A week later, Mohun was named to a committee to consider the compensation due to Edmund Dunrich, a stannary official imprisoned in breach of privilege. As vice warden Mohun took a personal interest in Dunrich’s case, and the same day he successfully called for several men to be summoned ‘concerning the complaint made of the infringement of the immunities belonging to the stannaries’, though these allegations were not ultimately proven.40 Ibid. 29a, 35a; HMC Buccleuch, iii. 337.

In late 1629 Pembroke dismissed Mohun from the vice wardenship, pointedly reinstating Coryton. Perhaps disillusioned by this setback, Mohun thereafter became less cooperative towards the crown. Although appointed a commissioner for knighthood compositions in 1630, he was himself summoned before the Privy Council in December 1631 for non-payment, and only finally contributed £200 in the following May.41 Cornw. RO, CY 7241; PC2/41, f. 141v; E401/1919. In October 1631 he and Lord Robartes were called before the Council charged with obstructing the king’s purveyors, though he was subsequently adjudged merely to have responded overzealously to local reports of malpractice.42 PC2/41, ff. 95v, 127; 2/42, ff. 3v-4.

In August 1632 Mohun commissioned James Howell^‡ to write a short account of the history and methods of the Spanish Inquisition.43 J. Howell, Epistolae Ho-Elianae (1754), 232-4. This letter’s date can be verified from internal evidence. This new-found fascination with investigative techniques coincided with the start of detailed inquiries into the activities of his old friend Bagg, from whom he was now clearly estranged. In late 1632 Mohun informed Charles I that Bagg had defrauded the crown of £30,000 while ostensibly helping to equip the naval expeditions of the late 1620s. Evidently seeking to promote himself as a champion of West Country interests, he also presented the attorney general, William Noye^‡, with the names of those allegedly owed money by either Bagg or the king, a dangerous ploy that prompted the Privy Council in January 1633 to inquire into how he had obtained this information.44 CSP Dom. 1635, p. 30; PC2/42, f. 178v. Mohun’s own record was far from irreproachable, and a month later he too was investigated by the Exchequer over claims that he had smuggled cloth out of Fowey, Cornwall to avoid customs duties. Bagg, confident of defending his own performance, sued Mohun in Star Chamber in early 1634 for defamation and unauthorized examination of his accounts.45 E178/5199; E125/14, f. 37; CSP Dom. 1633-4, pp. 226, 574; C115/106/8439-40. Mohun responded that autumn with a countersuit additionally accusing Bagg of supplying corrupt victuals to the 1627 Île de Ré expedition, then brought further suits against him in late 1636 alleging misappropriation of prize cargoes and the unlawful sale of royal munitions.46 C115/106/8440, 8442; Bodl., Rawl. C827, ff. 77-8; CSP Dom. 1636-7, p. 389. This tactic persuaded the court to hear all the suits together, despite the king twice intervening to support Bagg. A final verdict was thus delayed until June 1637, when Bagg won by a majority vote, and Mohun was fined £500 for ‘undue inquiries into his Majesty’s debts’.47 CSP Dom. 1635, pp. 29-30; T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, ii. 270; Strafforde Letters (1739) ed. W. Knowler, i. 423, 426; Bodl. Rawl. C.827, ff. 48v-87v; SP16/362/103; C115/108/8515, 8614. Despite this defeat, Mohun’s methods must have made a lasting impression on the government, for in November 1637 he was appointed to lead an inquiry into illegal practices in the port of Bristol, where his ruthless response to stonewalling soon had the merchants running to the Privy Council for protection.48 CSP Dom. 1637, p. 576; 1637-8, pp. 138, 168-9, 177, 196.

A retrospective poem by his kinsman, Sir Aston Cokayne, describes Mohun living in the country ‘in a plenteous wise’, he and his wife passing ‘their days in as much quiet as in bed they spent their nights’.49 A. Cokayne, Small Poems of Divers Sorts (1658), 157-8. However, such a rural idyll seems improbable in view of Mohun’s restless personality. Moreover, during the 1630s he spent increasing amounts of time living at St Martin-in-the-Fields, close to Whitehall. His earliest recorded appearance at court went badly: while attending Prince James’s baptism in 1633, he caused an incident by accidentally treading on the foot of Mountjoy Blount^*, 1st earl of Newport.50 Bodl. Bankes 14/25-6; Strafforde Letters, i. 166. Nevertheless, he gradually gained acceptance in aristocratic circles, and around 1636 he was named as a trustee by Sir James Ouchterlony, a gentleman of the Privy Chamber, along with Theophilus Howard^*, 2nd earl of Suffolk, and Robert Kerr^‡, 1st earl of Ancram.51 PROB 11/172, ff. 67v-8.

Mohun finally succeeded to his patrimony in 1639, but his frequent absences from Cornwall apparently served to undermine his electoral influence there. Accustomed during the later 1620s to make nominations in up to four boroughs, he secured just one seat in the two elections of 1640, for his son-in-law James Campbell^‡, who represented Grampound in the Long Parliament.52 HP Commons, 1604-29, v. 338-40; Vivian, 326; OR. Mohun attended the Short Parliament, but it is not known whether he travelled to York that autumn for the Great Council of Peers. When the Long Parliament met, he was excused attendance, presumably on grounds of ill health, and he died in March 1641. Mohun was most likely buried in the family vault at Boconnoc, but the documentary records no longer survive. His will was proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury on 13 July 1641 by his son Warwick^†, 2nd Lord Mohun, but its text was not registered.53 LJ, iv. 92a; Hist. of Cornw. ed. S. Drew, ii. 81; Probate Acts in P.C.C. 1640-4 ed. J. and G.F. Matthews, 127.