Legal Opinion regarding Christchurch Borough
given by Thomas Penjelly, 17th October 1719

The Borough of Christchurch is by prescription the Mayor and Burgesses meet the 8th of September and prick 3, one of which was the present Mayor.

On the 14th September at a General meeting of the Inhabitants the Mayor names the 3, and he being one, the Inhabitants choose one of the 3 and he is Mayor and sworn the next Court Leet.

In the year 1717 Mr. James Stevens was sworn Mayor and held that year.

In 1718 Mr. John Stevens was chosen Mayor, but Sir Peter Mew refusing to hold a Court Leet, he was never sworn. He moved for his Mandamus and for a contempt against the Steward and an Information against the Lord.

The steward was committed last Term, and an Information granted against Sir Peter Mew, but to respite, to see if he would put things right and let Mr. John Stevens have his year's Mayoralty, and the Court doubtful whether the Corporation could be saved by any other method, the Mayor being  necessary person to make any Assembly.

Instead of pursuing the directions of the Court and letting Mr. Stevens take the Mayoralty this last Michaelmas for the next year, Mr. Hackman reassumed his Stewardship and gave notice to hold a Court Leet the 6th July last, and that he would then swear Mr. Stevens though there was no Adjournment of any Court Leet to that day, but pretended to hold an Original Court.

Mr. Stevens did attend but Mr. Hackman never came to hold the Court but pretended to hold a Court the 7th which Mr. Stevens said was Irregular.

On the 13th Mr. Stevens had Notice of a Court for the 21st and that he might then be sworn, and a Court was held accordingly but Mr. Stevens did not attend.

-See the reasons in his Affidavit - [sic]

On the 8th of September Mr. Stevens came and demanded to be chosen Mayor and admitted as successor for the year ensuing, and at that time protested against all their proceedings and then withdrew.

Notwithstanding which, and that Mr. Stevens had a majority of the resident Burgesses who are the proper persons to appoint the 3 persons to be pricked, Sir Peter Mew with a select party of his own Resident and non-Resident without any Mayor proceeded to a Nomination and on the 14th pretended to choose Mr. Gwyn, the Member of Parliament, Mayor. And for this very thing had all the arbitrary proceedings been throughout the year.

On 21st September last Mr. John Stevens the former Mayor Elect died.

QUESTION 1: Mr. John Stevens being dead may not the Burgesses resident or Major part now meet being duly summonsed by the order of Mr. Joshua Stevens the Mayor for the year 1716 and the last legal mayor to prick 3 for Mayor, and may not he Inhabitants at large on another day proceed to elect one of those 3 for Mayor (pursuant to the prescriptive right though not on the prescriptive days) or may it be done on one and the same day. There is no instance of a mayor dying within the year.

The Office or Right to the Mayoralty of Mr. Joshua Stevens was determined by the election and swearing of James Stevens and his Acting as Mayor. Therefore his summons will be of no avail and I think an Assembly of the Majority of the Resident Burgesses at a time and in a manner not allowed by the Ancient Usage of the Borough will be irregular, and an election made at such Assembly will be void, but such election will have a better colour[?] than the late election of Mr. Gwyn by the minority, if the Burgesses apprehend any benefit to themselves by proceeding to such New Election.

Or must we let things rest as they now are and insist that Mr. Joshua Stevens reassume the Mayoralty, and may he do the same legally for the ensuing year, or what will be the most proper method for the Burgesses resident who are a majority to take to prevent Mr. Gwyn being Mayor, and to have a legall Mayor in Mr. Joshua Stevens's room of their own party?

I think the more probable and safe expedient in this difficulty is for Mr. Joshua Stevens to run the hazard of reassuming the Office of Mayor if he was not consenting to the proceedings at the Assembly when Mr. Gwyn was elected, and Mr. Joshua Stevens may let the Office drop or continue to act as shall appear most advisable. But this ought to be done at the request of the majority of the Resident Burgesses, and Mr. Joshua Stevens ought to be indemnified by them.

QUESTION 2: Can Mr. Gwyn's election be good there being no Mayor to preside and what will be the proper method to proceed against him? Note all things relating to him were acted in the Street for Mr. John Stevens had the key of the Town Hall.

His election is not good and if he be sworn and take upon himself to act as Mayor the proper method is to proceed against him by Information in the nature of a quo Warranto for usurping the office of Mayor.

QUESTION 3: Note there was a Charter granted in King Charles II's time at the Rolls but not acted under, and if the Prescriptive Right be lost may not the Burgesses Resident petition to revive the Charter?

After Mr. Gwyn is removed either by Judgment or Disclaimer or by his ceasing to Act, Mr. Joshua Stevens and the majority of the Burgesses may petition for a New Charter or for a Reviver and Confirmation of the Charter granted by King Charles as shall be esteemed most beneficial to the Inhabitants.

Thomas Penjelly
17th October 1719