Brewing Controversy: The Contested Will of Charles JARVIS and 19th Century Inheritance

Land's End
Written By Heidi Blanton

Birth and Early Life

Charles JARVIS was born in Bursledon, Hampshire, Great Britain. His birth occurred before official registration began in England, so all that is known is that it happened before his baptism.

His baptism occurred on 4 May 1806 in the Parish Church of Bursledon, which was then and still is St. Leonard’s. The image for the actual baptismal register records his name as Charles JERVIS. His father was Richard, and his mother was Elizabeth.[1]

Transcription of Baptism, Bursledon Parish Registers

Jervis - Charles son of Richard & Elizabeth 4 May

Marriage

Charles JARVIS was a bachelor when he married Sarah STEPHENS, a parish spinster, on 4 September 1832. The ceremony was conducted by George MORRIS, the curate at the time, in the parish church. Charles and Sarah signed the marriage register, and the witnesses to the marriage were Charles BAILEY, Mary PRICE, Thomas BERRYMON, and Ann STONE.[2][3]

Transcription of Marriage, Charles JARVIS and Sarah STEPHENS, Bursledon Parish Registers

 
Charles Jarvis of [this] Parish Bachelor N o 95 and Sarah Stephens of [this] Married in this [ Church ] by [ Banns ] Parish Spinster were this fourth Day of September in the Year One Thousand eight Hundred and thirty two by me George Morris [ Curate] This Marriage was solemnized between Us Charles Jarvis Sarah Stephens In the Presence of Charles Bailey Mary Price Ann Stone Thomas Berrymon { {
 

The original register entry and the Bishops’ Transcript images are on Ancestry, and both are useful for transcribing the records. Neither the bride, groom, nor witnesses signed with a mark indicating they could read and write. However, where the signatures on the parish register are challenging to read, the names are more clearly written on the Bishop’s Transcript, which was copied with one hand. So far, none of the witness relationships have been verified, and neither have Sarah’s parents or exact place of birth. However, investigating other families may reveal her parents over time.

1841 Census

In the 1841 Census for the Parish of Bursledon, Charles JARVIS was the head of his household. Charles, aged around 30, worked as a sawyer, suggesting he cut timber into boards or planks. His birthplace is in the same county, indicating he was born in Hampshire, which is already confirmed by his baptism. Living with Charles is Sarah JARVIS, a female also aged approximately 30 years, who is likely his wife, as evidenced by their marriage record. However, this census year does not explicitly state their relationship. Like Charles, Sarah was also born in Hampshire. The marriage details indicate that she was living in the parish of Bursledon, but at this point, it’s not clear if she was also born there.[4]

Additionally, a young girl named Ann MAJOR, aged ten, is listed as part of the household. Her role within the household is not specified, but she could be a relative or a child under their care. Ann, too, was born in Hampshire.

The census provides limited details, and adults’ ages were rounded to the nearest five years. His baptism record better confirms Charles’ age, and it was known that he was 35 at the time of this census; what is known about Sarah’s age right now is that she could also be slightly older than 30.

Transcription of 1841 Census of England & Wales, Charles JARVIS (head)

City or Borough of _________________________

Parish or Township of Bursledon

PLACE HOUSES Uninhabited or Building HOUSES Inhabited NAMES of each Person who abode therein the preceding Night. SEX AGE* PROFESSION, TRADE, EMPLOYMENT or of INDEPENDENT MEANS Born in same County (Y/N) Born in Scotland, Ireland, or Foreign Parts
1 Charles Jarvis Male 30 Sawyer Y
Sarah Jarvis Female 30 Y
Ann Major Female 10 Y

*The ages of people over 15 years old were usually rounded down to the nearest 5 years. For example, someone 24 years would have their age listed as 20, and someone 27 years old would have their age listed as 25.

It is unclear from this census which cottage they lived in; the location of the Jolly Sailor pub, where they eventually end up, was reportedly a vicarage during this census year until 1845.[5] However, the exact date will need to be verified as the only good source of the date it became a pub and its previous use is from what is written on Wikipedia, which is sourced through an unsourced pub guide. Though given other evidence of when Charles himself started brewing, these dates do seem to align. In this census, there is only one address marked, which is Elm Lodge, and given the proximity of this address on the subsequent page to this household, it would be very close to this area and likely at the top of Land’s End, where the High Street is today.

Early Career

Sawyer

On the 1841 Census, Charles JARVIS was recorded as a sawyer, though he only briefly worked in this field. In a community reliant on shipbuilding, Charles might have been expected to engage in this trade. A sawyer in the 19th century United Kingdom was a skilled labourer responsible for cutting timber, often working in saw pits before the advent of steam-powered sawmills. This trade required significant physical strength and skill, typically acquired through apprenticeships with experienced craftsmen like carpenters or wheelwrights. Sawyers were crucial in supplying timber for various industries, including construction and shipbuilding, which were vital to the economy at the time. However, the rise of steam-powered sawmills during the Industrial Revolution replaced manual labour, leading to a decline in demand for traditional sawyers and affecting their job security and wages.[6][7]

County Parochial Constable

Charles JARVIS became a parochial constable for Bursledon in the Southampton division, as reported in the Hampshire Advertiser on 8 April 1843. He and William SUTTON were appointed as part of a broader selection of constables for various divisions within Southampton.[8]

Transcription of notice from the Hampshire Advertiser, 8 April 1843

 
County Parochial Constables. - The constables for the Division of Southampton were appointed on Thursday last, at the Guildhall, as follows:-Bursledon, Charles Jarvis and William Sutton. Hamble, Thomas Chalk and James Ratty. St. Mary Extra, Joseph Oliver, Daniel Parker and John Chalk. Dibden, Henry Cator and Charles Bull. Hound, George Aslatt, Edward Carter and George Pink. North Stoneham, Job Thorn, J. Wateridge and William Browning. Botley, Thomas Stubbs, Stephen Smith and William James. Millbrook, James Dominey, Thomas Moody, Robert Hunt, Joseph Pope and J. Crocker. South Stoneham, William Fizard, William Rawles, sen. Henry Cross, George Haselar, William Rawles, jun. and Percival Henning. Exbury and Lepe, James Carpenter and G.R. Pepper. Fawley, Moses Ayles, Thos. Barnes, John Burg, Richard Caton, Frederick Howe and John Lewis. Beaulieu, Samuel Carpenter, jun. Thos. Dawkins and Barnard Huggins.
 

Duties of a County Parochial Constable in the 1840s

The role of a county parochial constable in the 1840s involved several key responsibilities:

  • Preserving Peace and Preventing Crime: Constables were primarily responsible for maintaining peace and preventing the commission of crimes within their parish. They had the authority to arrest individuals suspected of intending to commit a felony or found committing misdemeanours.[9][10][11]

  • Executing Warrants and Orders: They were required to execute warrants and court orders issued by justices of the peace, sheriffs, and coroners. These orders might have included apprehending offenders and ensuring they were brought before the courts.[9][10]

  • Monitoring Public Houses: Constables had to ensure that public and beer houses were closed during specified times, such as church services and certain public holidays. They were also tasked with reporting any breaches of the law by public house keepers to the magistrates.[9][10]

  • Handling Vagrants and Beggars: Constables were expected to implement laws regarding vagrants and beggars, which included punishing them and ensuring they did not burden parish resources.[9][10]

  • Community Policing: They were often unpaid and served in addition to their regular jobs, meaning they were part of the communities they policed.[9][10]

Potential Conflict of Interest or Mistaken Identity?

Charles JARVIS eventually became a brewer and a publican. He was fined in 1846 for keeping his pub open too late, a role that constables monitored.[12] Some accounts suggest that the Jolly Sailor didn’t become a licensed public house until 1845, so it is unlikely that he held these dual roles in 1843, nor is it known how long he had the constable position.[5]

If JARVIS was both a publican and a parochial constable, it could have presented a conflict of interest. JARVIS would have been responsible for running an inn or alehouse as a publican. The duties of a parochial constable included maintaining order in such establishments and ensuring compliance with laws regarding public houses, such as preventing excessive drinking or disorderly conduct.[9][10]

Managing conflicts of interest effectively is crucial to maintaining public trust and ensuring that public duties are carried out with integrity. In the 19th century, the management of such conflicts relied heavily on personal integrity and transparency, as formal systems for managing conflicts of interest were less developed than they are today.

It is also worth noting that another Charles JARVIS was living in Bursledon at the same time. This Charles would have been in his 20s around the time, and it’s possible that this constable could also have been him, but that’s not clear from this article. The other Charles is probably his nephew, and we will learn more about him later as he becomes pivotal in his probate case. By accounts of this case, these two did not seem to get on, despite their namesake, and maybe if his nephew were the constable in the area, it would explain why! It may be possible to solve this mystery by researching more into his nephew for clues. For example, did this nephew have a relationship with William SUTTON? Maybe they were friends as a result of working together as constables. It is always good practice to know of others who bear the same names in the same area. The dates of the brewer JARVIS don’t rule him out as a constable, but the knowledge of another with his name in the region could.

Brewing Industry

By 1851, Charles was a licensed brewer, making his occupation as a sawyer somewhat short-lived. Although this census does not indicate addresses, he is assumed to live at the Jolly Sailor’s location. It’s unclear from the records exactly when he switched occupations. However, a mention of him receiving a fine for keeping his beer house open too late was published in the Hampshire Advertiser in 1846.[12]

Transcription from the Hampshire Advertiser, 14 November 1846

 
COUNTY BENCH. THURSDAY.-At the Guildhall, (before Captain Breton, Captain Bold, E. H. Hulton, and J. Bernard, esqrs.) Charles Jarvis , publican, at Bursledon, pleaded guilty to having kept his house open after hours, on the 24th instant, but alleged in mitigation that he had not drawn beer after ten o'clock. Fined 1 l . and costs.
 

On Thursday, 14 November 1846, at the Guildhall in Winchester, the County Bench heard the case of Charles JARVIS, described as a publican from Bursledon. JARVIS pleaded guilty to keeping his establishment open beyond the permitted hours. Despite his plea for leniency, Jarvis was fined one pound plus additional costs. At this point in the research, it’s unknown how he came into this occupation and why he decided to get into the brewing industry when he did; however, with the decline of shipbuilding and the onset of steam power replacing his previous job, this probably seemed to him like the right opportunity to embark down this path.

This mention of a pub in the court records is the first known instance of Charles operating as a licensed brewer or publican. It is the closest indication of when he might have moved to the area of the Jolly Sailor on Land’s End; however, this name was only first mentioned as such in the 1871 Census.

In the 1840s and 1850s, the occupation of a licensed brewer in England was characterised by a blend of traditional brewing techniques and emerging industrial advancements. Brewing was a significant industry, with beer being a staple beverage in British society. As a brewer, Charles’ role would have involved managing the entire brewing process, from ingredient selection to fermentation and quality control. Brewers needed a deep understanding of the brewing process, often gained through apprenticeships rather than formal education, although it’s unknown if Charles had this himself. The Beerhouse Act of 1830 also influenced the industry, allowing more people to obtain licenses to brew and sell beer, leading to a proliferation of small breweries and pubs. Brewers were respected community members, providing a vital product central to social life.[13][14]

1851 Census

In the 1851 Census of Bursledon, Charles JARVIS is recorded as the head of his household. He is a 44-year-old married man working as a licensed brewer, and he was born in Bursledon. His wife, Sarah JARVIS, is living with him, who is 45 years old and a native of Bursledon. Also residing in the household is Charles’ 78-year-old mother, Elizabeth JARVIS, who is listed as a widow. Additionally, a lodger named William SHEPPARD is a 40-year-old unmarried master mariner born in Newport, Isle of Wight.[15]

Transcription of 1851 Census of England & Wales, Charles JARVIS (head)

Parish or Township of Bursledon

Ecclesiastical District of

City or Borough of

Town of

Village of Bursledon

No. of Householder's Schedule Name of Street, Place, or Road and Name or No. of House Name and Surname of each Person who abode in the house on the night of the 30th March, 1851 Relation to the Head of Family Condition Sex Age Rank, profession or Occupation Where Born Whether Blind or Deaf & Dumb
39 Charles Jarvis Head Mar[ried] Male 44 Licensed Brewer Bursledon
Sarah Jarvis Wife Mar[ried] Female 45 Bursledon
Elizabeth Jarvis Mother Widow Female 78 Bursledon
William Sheppard Lodger U[nmarried] Male 40 Master Mariner Newport

His mother’s name matches the one on his baptism, which is more evidence that the baptism found is correct in his instance. This record also confirms that Charles’ father died at least before the census date in 1851. The birth years will be more accurate here for the 1851 Census, and the place of birth will be listed with more than just a county reference.

1861 Census

By the time of the 1861 Census, ten years from the previous census, Charles JARVIS remained the head of his household in Bursledon, though his circumstances had slightly changed. Now 54, Charles continues his work in the local community, but his occupation has expanded to that of a grocer and brewer. His wife Sarah, now 55, is recorded as being born in West Cowes on the Isle of Wight rather than Bursledon. The household has seen some changes; Charles’ mother, Elizabeth, is no longer listed, suggesting she may have died. However, the household now includes their 10-year-old nephew, John BEAVIS, who is attending school and was born in Bursledon. William SHEPPARD, the lodger from ten years prior, is still part of the household. He is now noted as a 50-year-old visitor, still unmarried, and continuing his work as a master mariner from Newport.[16]

Transcription of 1861 Census of England & Wales, Charles JARVIS (head)

The undermentioned Houses are situate within the Boundaries of the

Parish: or Township Bursledon

City or Municipal Borough of

Municipal Ward of

Parliamentary Borough of

Town of

Hamlet or Tything, &c., of

Ecclesiastical District of

No. of Schedule Road, Street, &c., and No. or Name of House HOUSES Inhabited HOUSES Uninhabited (U.), or Building (B) Name and Surname of each Person Relation to Head of Family Condition Sex Age Rank, Profession, or Occupation Where Born Whether Blind, or Deaf-and-Dumb
71 Retail Beer House 1 Charles Jarvis Head Mar[ried] M 54 Grocer & Brewer Bursledon, Hants
Sarah Jarvis Wife Mar[ried] F 55 West Cowes, I of Wight
John Beavis Nephew M 10 Scholar Bursledon, Hants
William Sheppard Visitor Unm[arried] M 50 Master Mariner Newport, I of Wight

Later Life and Incidents

Grocer and Brewer

While Charles has maintained his brewing credentials, he is also recognised as a grocer on the 1861 Census. A dual role as a grocer and brewer would have introduced new dynamics to his occupation. The brewing industry was evolving, influenced by technological advancements and the consolidation of larger breweries, which might have made it difficult for small-scale brewers like Charles to compete with these larger producers. As a grocer, he would have been part of a trade expanding its range of products, driven by the growing availability of goods from the British Empire and innovations in food preservation and packaging. This dual role required balancing the production and sale of beer with managing a grocery business, catering to the needs of a local community that relied on both staples and speciality goods and Charles’ location on the River Hamble would have been ideal for getting these goods straight from the boats into his business.[17]

Victim of theft

The article from the Hampshire Advertiser, dated 2 January 1869, provides a detailed account of several legal cases heard at the Southampton County Bench, including one involving Charles’ business.[18]

The case involving Charles centred around the theft of a cask of beer on 24 December 1868. He became the victim when BUCKLAND, an employee, was delivering a bag of barley meal and had a cask of beer in his cart. After completing the delivery, BUCKLAND returned to find Peter HEATH holding the cask. Although HEATH initially put the cask down after being confronted, the cask disappeared with the help of Henry MARTIN.

Police-constable HARRIS investigated the theft, tracing the men’s tracks and eventually finding the cask hidden nearby. HEATH was taken into custody, and MARTIN was apprehended the following day. During the investigation, it emerged that MARTIN had witnessed HEATH taking the beer but was advised by his father to remain silent. The defence argued that there was no felonious intent, suggesting the act was merely a joke. Ultimately, MARTIN was discharged, while HEATH was committed to trial.

Transcription of events from the Hampshire Advertiser, 2 January 1869

 
Southampton County Bench.- On Monday, before Mr. J. Bernard and Mr. Macnagthen, magistrates, [...] Peter Heath and Henry Martin, for whom Mr. F. Leigh appeared, were charged with stealing a cask of beer, the property of Charles Jarvis, brewer, Bursledon. On Thursday, the 24th ultimo, a man (Buckland) in the prosecutor's employ had to deliver a bag of barley meal at Mr. Warwick's, at Netley, and at the same time he had a cask of beer in the cart. When he came out of the house, after telling them the meal was come, he saw Heath with the cask in his arms. He said to him “That's's not a joke, Peter,” and he put it on the ground. Martin helped Buckland put the beer in the cart again, after which the latter carried the barley meal into the house, and when he returned again he found the cask was gone, and also the prisoners. Heath, who was drunk, beat the horse with the reins. Police-con- stable Harris received information of the robbery. He traced tracks of two men into a copse close by Warwick's house, and on a closer search observed an impression on the ground, as if a cask had been dropped there. After that he saw Heath and said to him “I want that cask of beer that you took away.” He replied, “I don't know anything about it” Harris took him into custody, and the next day he found the cask concealed underneath some fern near the spot where the prisoners were standing when he first saw them. On Sunday morning he apprehended Martin. On the previous night, while at the Manor-house, a publichouse at Hound, Harris heard Martin tell his father that he saw Heath take the beer out of the cart, upon which his father said “Keep your mouth shut, and don't know anything about it if you are asked, and don't go and offer to pay for the beer, or you'll get snapped.” Mr. Leigh contended there was no case against Martin, and that there was no felonious intention on the part of Heath. The beer was taken out of the cart in a joke in the first place, as was clear from Buckland's remarks, and that was the case in the second instance, supposing that the bench believed Heath took it out of the cart again. The bench discharged Martin, and Heath was committed for trial.
 

This account mentions several people who may have ties to the local area, including Charles’ employee who was delivering for him that day.

Prize for Hamble River Regatta

However, not all accounts mentioning Charles are about legal troubles. He was mentioned in an article in the Hampshire Advertiser as a prize winner on the Hamble River Regatta in the 1870s, which would have been an event to draw crowds from all over the area.[19]

The Hamble River Regatta (today known as the Hamble Valley Regatta*) is a regular event dating back to 1868, only a few years before the article found in the paper. It has long celebrated maritime culture and community spirit in the Hamble area. This annual event has evolved, becoming a focal point for residents and visitors eager to witness and participate in water-based competitions.

The regatta quickly gained popularity in its early years, drawing the local nobility, clergy, and spectators. The event featured a range of races, including those for pleasure boats, fishing boats, rowing boats, and punts. Musical performances often enhanced the festive atmosphere and concluded with a spectacular fireworks display. And no doubt, with Charles’ pub located directly on the river and easily accessible by boat, this event would have also been a massive draw for his business. By 1961, the regatta had expanded to include land-based activities such as flower shows and sports days, eventually rebranded as Hamble Week in 1997 to emulate more significant sailing events like Cowes Week.[20][21]

The 1870 Hamble River Regatta was no exception to this tradition of excitement and competition. Among the various events, the fishing boat races were a highlight, divided into categories based on boat size. The races were time-based, with a one-minute handicap per foot of boat length, challenging participants to navigate a course marked by vessels moored at strategic points along the river.

In the race for fishing boats not exceeding 21 feet, the Frolic, captained by James MOODY, emerged victorious, followed by the Wasp, helmed by Thomas BEVIS. For smaller fishing boats not exceeding 18 feet, Arthur ROBINSON’s Tom Tit took the first prize. These races exemplified the skill and competitive spirit of the local sailors.

A notable participant in the regatta in 1870 was Charles JARVIS himself, who competed in the rowing barges race. Partnered with Henry HATCHER, they rowed the Fleetwing to a commendable second-place finish. This race, featuring two-person teams, was a testament to the teamwork and endurance of its participants, with the first prize going to John and Iram WILLSHIRE in their barge, Whiting Pout.

The regatta also included a four-oared yacht gigs race, in which Earl of HARDWICKE in the Susan claimed victory. Mr. E. J. SARTORIS, MP, finished second in the Fleetwing after being fouled by a ferry boat, which added some drama to the competition.

Transcription of rankings from the Fishing Boat races of the Hamble River Regatta, Hampshire Advertiser, 24 September 1870

 
Fishing Boats, not exceeding 21 feet. Prizes to the amount of £12 7s 6d (£5 given by the Earl of Hardwicke and £7 7s 6d from the general fund.) Time race, one minute per foot. Course-From the station-vessel round a mark vessel moored off the Hamble River, thence round a mark boat moored near Brooklands; twice round the mark vessel and twice round the mark boat off Brooklands, finishing at the station-vessel, leaving all on the starboard hand, passing the station-vessel each time on the western side. The following was the result of the race, the time of starting being 11h. 58m. :- H. M. S. Frolic, 20 feet, James Moody ... ... ... 2 52 30 Wasp, 21 feet, Thomas Bevis ... ... ... 2 54 0 Petrel, 20 feet, James Bucket ... ... ... 2 57 30 Unity, 19 feet, James Dimmick ... ... 2 58 0 Bee, 21 feet, Henry Fuger ... ... ... 3 12 0 Clara, 21 feet, Henry Bucket ... ... ... 3 12 30 The Fox, 20 feet, William Edwards, and Merlin, 19 feet, John Woods, were not timed. The Frolic took first prize, Wasp second. Fishing Boats, not exceeding 18 feet. Prizes to the amount of £7. Time race, one minute per foot. Tom Tit, 17 feet, Arthur Robinson .. ... ... 1 Sea Lark, 18 feet, Mr. D. Clark ... ... ... 2 Emma, 15 feet, Mr. J. Sparshot ... ... ... 3 Mary, 12 feet, T. May ... ... ... 4 Margaret, 15 feet, W. Bedbrook ... ... ... 5 Lucy, 17 feet, John Willshire ... ... ... 6 Gipsy, 12 feet, Mr. Hainsworth ... ... ... 7 Margaret, 16 feet, Mr. Dickinson ... ... ... 8 The course in this match was from the station-vessel down round a mark vessel moored off the Hamble River, thence round a mark boat moored near Brooklands, finishing at the station- vessel, leaving all on the starboard hand. Match for Rowing Barges with two hands in each. Prizes to the amount of £2 10s. Whiting Pout, John and Iram Willshire, 1; Fleetwing, Henry Hatcher and Charles Jarvis, 2; Kidlow, Solomon Bevis and Peter Meares, 3. Four Oared Yacht Gigs. First prize, £2 10s; second, £2. Susan, Earl of Hardwicke ... ... ... 1 Fleetwing, Mr. E. J. Sartoris, M.P. ... ... ... 2 This was a good race throughout, the Fleetwing losing what chance she had through being fouled by a ferry boat.
 

Or is this another case of mistaken identity? It’s possible this could be Charles’ nephew once again. His nephew would have been younger and potentially fitter than the publican, and there has been no reference to a skill or interest in rowing barges, though that’s not to say he didn’t have one! To prove this, careful consideration would need to happen with the nephew. Maybe he had a closer relationship with Henry HATCHER, especially if Henry was closer to the nephew’s age, or the nephew could have had an occupation that more closely aligned with the maritime trade; at the moment, we don’t know. Of course, that’s not to say that our Charles wouldn’t have benefited financially from such a significant event!

The results are only a handful of those published in the paper. There’s a chance to revisit this event for other families in the area, as many who participated would have been local to Bursledon, some already recognisable from names captured in the census records recorded here.

* Somehow, we missed this year’s Regatta despite travelling to the area over the past weekend!

1871 Census

Shortly after the regatta, the 1871 Census was recorded, giving more insight into Charles’ household at the pub this year. Now 66 years old, Charles JARVIS still works as a malt brewer and retailer. His wife, Sarah, is 67 and is noted as the malt brewer’s wife. This census is the first in which their residence is called a Public House. Their household now includes their nephew, Charles BEVIS, who is 21 years old and employed as a general domestic servant, though most likely working with his uncle in the pub or brewery. It is currently unknown if Charles BEVIS from the 1871 Census and John BEAVIS from the 1861 Census are the same people. However, the BEVIS family is connected to Charles, which will require further investigation. William SHEPPARD is also no longer listed in this household, so it is possible he has also died within the last ten years since the previous census, appearing to be a long-term resident of the cottages here.[22]

Transcription of 1871 Census of England & Wales, Charles JARVIS (head)

The undermentioned Houses are situate within the Boundaries of the

Civil Parish or Township of Bursledon

City or Municipal Borough of

Municipal Ward of

Parliamentary Borough of

Town of

Village or Hamlet, &c. of Bursledon

Local Board, or [Improvement Commissioners District] of

Ecclesiastical District of Bursledon

No. of Schedule ROAD, STREET, &c., and No. or NAME of HOUSE HOUSES Inhabited HOUSES Uninhabited (U.) or Building (B.) NAME and Surname of each Person RELATION to the Head of the Family CONDITION SEX AGE Rank, Profession or OCCUPATION WHERE BORN Whether 1. Deaf-and-Dumb 2. Blind 3. Imbecile or Idiot 4. Lunatic
89 The Jolley Sailor Public House 1 Charles Jarvis Head Mar[ried] Male 66 Malt-Brewer & Retailer Hants, Bursledon
Sarah Jarvis Wife Mar[ried] Female 67 Malt-Brewer & Retailer's Wife Hants, West Cowes, Isle of Wight
Charles Bevis Nephew Unm[arried] Male 21 General Domestic Servant Hants, Bursledon

Final Years and Illness

The years after the 1871 Census took a harsh turn on Charles. Starting in 1872, he was fined again for keeping his pub open too late[23], and by 1875, his health was drastically declining.[24][25]

From his death certificate and reports from newspaper articles after his death, from the early months of 1875, Charles JARVIS began to experience a decline in his health. This deterioration was marked by symptoms later diagnosed as “softening of the brain,” a term used during the 19th century to describe a condition that modern medicine might recognise as cerebral softening or encephalomalacia. This condition involves the degeneration or softening of brain tissue, often resulting from insufficient blood flow or a stroke, leading to neurological impairments. It was usually associated with the aftermath of strokes or other vascular issues affecting the brain. The lack of advanced medical diagnostics meant that such conditions were generally described based on observable symptoms rather than precise medical imaging or tests.[26]

As the months progressed, Charles’ condition worsened, manifesting in partial paralysis and affecting his cognitive abilities. These symptoms were indicative of the severe impact his illness had on his daily life and his ability to manage his affairs. The Hampshire Advertiser article from 18 January 1879 notes that Charles had been suffering from these ailments for approximately eight months before his death, suggesting that his illness began around March or April 1875, also confirmed by his death registration.[24][25]

Charles’ illness undoubtedly significantly strained his personal and professional life. As his health declined, he faced the dual challenges of managing his business and coping with the impending loss of his wife, Sarah JARVIS, who died on 19 November 1875. This period of illness and personal loss culminated in Charles’ decision to revise his will two days later, which was just days before his death on 23 November 1875.[27]

Death of Wife and Charles’ Death

Charles’ wife, Sarah, died on 19 November 1875 in Bursledon, Hampshire.[28] Two days later, on 21 November 1875, Charles gave instructions to draft a new will.[27] He initially drafted a will in 1849[24], leaving everything to his wife; however, when she died and with no children, he changed his will to leave everything to his nieces and nephews, instructing nephew Richard JARVIS, a baker and grocer of Netley to have the cottage, orchard, and gardens situated near the Church in Bursledon. He also requested his nephew Charles BEVIS to receive the pub business, including the cottages, outhouses and adjoining land. The rest was to be divided equally among his nieces and nephews.

Transcription of Charles JARVIS’ final will dated 21 November 1875

 
I, Charles Jarvis Brewer, of the parish of Bursledon in the County of Southampton, declare this to be my last Will and ± Testament. I do hereby give unto my Nephew, Richard Jarvis, Baker Grocer & of Netley in the parish of Hound all that House Land and premises siutate near the Church in the parish of Bursledon in the aforesaid County (absolutely) and for ever. I also give unto Charles Bevis, son of my Niece Ann Bevis all that Dwelling House known as the Jolly Sailor and now in my occupation, also the Cottages, outhouses, and Land adjoining, with the Business thereof the Legatee to be subject to the Mortgage thereon. I also give this (absolutely) and forever. I also Direct that all my other property, both real and ± personal, of whatever description, together with my Book debts and also all and every sum or sums of money which may be found in my house or about my person at the time of my decease, I Direct that the property be sold within a reasonable time after my decease. And that my funeral and other expenses be paid out of my estate, and the remainder of the money be equally divided amongst my Nephews and Nieces, each one taking an equal share (absolutely and forever). I also nominate and appoint George Annett (Carpenter of Bursledon) and John Sparshott Grocer & of Burseldon To be Executor of this my Will and hereby revoking all former or other Will and Testaments by me at any time heretofore - made I Declare this to be my last Will and Testament In Witness whereof I the said Charles Jarvis have to this my last Will and Testament set my hand this twenty first day of November in the year of our Lord One thousand eight hundred and seventy five. Signed by the Testator {the mark x of the Testator And witnessed by the undersigned and acknowledged by Him to be his last Will and Testament in the presence of us present at the same time and subscribed by us in the presence of the said Testator and of each other. Edward White Bricklayer Bursledon William Boyes Labourer, Burlsedon
 

Charles must have felt his imminent death, which is why he quickly changed his will because, after this event, he died only two days later.

Transcription of Death Registration, South Stoneham, Hampshire, 1875

Registration District: South Stoneham    1875. DEATH in the District of South Stoneham in the County of Hampshire. 471 Twentythird November 1875± Bursledon         Charles Jarvis Male   69 years Softening of Brain 8 months Certified by Allfred Pern FRCS LRCP Charles Bevis present at the death Bursledon Twenty fourth November 1875 William Henry Goodridge Registrar No.   When and Where Died                         Name and Surname Sex Age Occupation Cause of Death Signature, Description andResidence of Informant When Registered Signature of Registrar

According to his death registration, Charles JARVIS, a 69-year-old brewer, died on 23 November 1875 in Bursledon. His death was attributed to softening of the brain, a condition he endured for eight months. The cause of death was certified by Alfred PERN, a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons and a Licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians. The death was reported by Charles BEVIS, who was present at the time of JARVIS’ death. The following day, on 24 November 1875, the death was officially registered by William Henry GOODRIDGE, the registrar for the district.

A notice for both Charles and Sarah appeared in the newspaper shortly after, and they were buried in St. Leonard’s Churchyard the same day.[28][29][30]

Transcription of the death notice that appeared in the Hampshire Advertiser on 4 December 1875 for both Charles and Sarah

 
DEATHS. On the 19th ult., at Bursledon, Sarah, wife of Charles Jarvis, aged 71; and on the 23rd ult., Charles Jarvis, the husband of the above, aged 70.
 

Transcription of their burial registers showing they were buried together on 28 November 1875

 
BURIALS in the Parifh of Bursledon in the County of Southampton in the Year 18 74.5 Name. Abode. When Buried. Age. By whom the Ceremony was performed. No. 648. Charles Jarvis Bursledon Novemb 28th 69 Philip Lewis Vicar Sarah Jarvis Bursledon Novemb 28th 71 Philip Lewis Vicar No. 649.
 

As of yet, very little information is known about Sarah, including whether she was born in Bursledon or Isle of Wight, as revealed by the discrepancy in census record information; a death registration record does exist for her, and at some point, this should be obtained to determine more the events of these final days; however, the following probate case was well publicised in the newspapers and gave some insight, albeit conflicting, into his health and state of mind.

Probate and Legal Proceedings

Charles’ probate drew out for many years after this; lengthy and highly publicised accounts of his final days, provided by descriptions of the legal proceedings in the newspapers, are available from at least three different newspaper sources.[24][31][32]

The probate case “ANNETT v. JARVIS” began in the Probate Division of the High Court of Justice, presided over by Sir James HANNEN and a common jury. This case involved the will of Charles JARVIS, a brewer from Bursledon, whose estate was contested after his death on 23 November 1875. The plaintiffs, George ANNETT and John SPARSHOTT were the executors named in JARVIS’ will, and they sought to uphold its validity against challenges posed by the defendant, referred to as Charles JARVIS, heir-at-law (not to be confused with Charles JARVIS, the testator!) In this case, the heir-at-law is the JARVIS from the case title, believed to be a nephew and represented in these articles by his wife, Mary, as his guardian, as he was admitted into an asylum at the time of the trial. The series of articles is rich with names of relatives and neighbours, which will prove helpful to the overarching research.

The proceedings were significant due to the complexities surrounding the mental capacity of Charles JARVIS at the time the will was executed. The defence argued that JARVIS was not of sound mind when he made his will on 21 November 1875, just two days before his death. The case drew attention due to the conflicting testimonies regarding JARVIS’ mental state, as well as the implications for the distribution of his estate, which was valued under £450 after being resworn.

Sir James HANNEN, known for his astute handling of probate cases, guided the proceedings with a focus on the evidence presented by both sides. The common jury played a crucial role in assessing the credibility of the witnesses and the validity of the claims made by the defence. Ultimately, the jury favoured the plaintiffs, confirming the will’s validity and allowing the executors to distribute the estate according to the testator’s wishes. This decision underscored the importance of clear testamentary intentions and the challenges of contesting wills based on mental capacity claims in the 19th century.

There can be a lot of detail in cases like this. Especially with probate cases, the names of close family, friends, or neighbours can emerge. Below is an account of the people and a description of their roles in the trial.

List of People Involved in the Probate Case of Charles Jarvis

  1. Charles Jarvis - The testator (deceased).

  2. Sarah Jarvis - Charles Jarvis’s wife (deceased).

  3. George Annett - Carpenter, executor of the will. Charles instructed George to draft the new will when he came to make Sarah’s coffin; he also testified that the testator was of sound mind when the will was drafted.

  4. John Sparshott - Grocer, co-executor of the will. Corroborated the testimony of George ANNETT and also mentioned that Charles asked him previously to draft a new will. However, Dr PERN, the attending physician, advised him not to do so due to the complexity of the estate, so he declined during the first instance.

  5. Charles Jarvis (heir-at-law) - Nephew to Charles JARVIS, the testator. He was also not present in court as he was described as a ‘lunatic’ and in an asylum. He was represented by his wife, Mary. He claimed he was due half of the estate; inheritance rules would have determined this if the testator had not followed the new will. Although the entire family tree is yet to be mapped completely to understand full inheritance rights, there may be some validity in this, assuming the new will was not upheld, which is why the heir-at-law was fighting for the new will to be overturned.

  6. Mary Jarvis - Wife and guardian of JARVIS (heir-at-law). She testified the testator was not of sound mind when the will was made.

  7. Richard Jarvis - Nephew of the testator. His uncle wished him a house with an orchard and garden with the new will. He testified that his uncle was of sound mind and was present at the will’s signing. He also sat with him the night before his death.

  8. Charles Bevis - Son of the testator’s niece, Ann BEVIS. His uncle wished him to have the pub with the new will. This detail of BEVIS’ relationship will be beneficial when researching the next generation of pub ownership, as it is known that BEVIS was already occupying the pub before his uncle’s death. His uncle was priming him to take over the business.

  9. Dr. Pern - Attending physician of the testator. He confirmed his medical condition and argued that he was not in any condition to make a valid will.

  10. William Boyes - Witness to the will. Confirmed the execution process and believed the testator to be sane when the will was executed, despite the testator not being able to sign with anything but a mark as his hand was “shaky”.

  11. Edward White - Witness to the will. He also confirmed the execution process, though he raised concerns about the order of the signatures. He claimed he was fetched after the will was read over and did not know the contents, being informed that this was an unusual request. He believed the witnesses signed the will before the testator did, believing BOYES to have made a similar statement, but BOYES denied this was the case.

  12. Mrs. Forrest - Niece of the testator’s wife (Sarah JARVIS). Recounted instances of the testator raving and confused after his wife’s death, even claiming that he would have killed her if he had been violent but not remembering the details of the trauma.

  13. George Noulton - Husband of one of the testator’s nieces. He was in the room when the will was signed and testified that he was of sound mind. He also provided testimony on Charles JARVIS, heir-at-law, saying he came to see the testator just before his death. George had told Charles, the testator, that he had come to see him, but he said: “Ah, he’s a bad one; he’s served me cruel.” He stated then that he knew Charles, heir-at-law, had differences with his uncle. He also maintained that the will was signed in the correct order and witnessed appropriately.

  14. Charles Richards - Relationship not specified and supported George NOULTON’s testimony.

  15. Mrs. Noulton - Niece of Charles Jarvis. She also supported George NOULTON’s testimony.

  16. Rev. Mr. Lewis - Vicar of Bursledon, acquaintance of the testator. Testified that he saw Charles shortly before his death and concluded he was of sound mind and never saw anything to suggest otherwise.

  17. Keziah Stephens - Relative to the testator, the specific relationship was not stated, but given Sarah Jarvis’ maiden name, it was likely a relation on her side. She believed him to be not in sound mind to make a will.

  18. Mrs. Luff - Relationship not specified. He also thought the testator was not sound enough to execute a will.

Legal Representatives

  1. Mr. Inderwick, Q.C. - Counsel for the plaintiffs. Believed there was enough supporting evidence to confirm that the testator knew what he was doing when he drafted the new will.

  2. Mr. Dunlop Hill - Counsel for the plaintiffs.

  3. Dr Deane, Q.C. - Counsel for the defendant. The defence tried to provide evidence that the heir-at-law was due half of the estate and that the new will was obtained under duress.

  4. Mr. Bayford - Counsel for the defendant.

Judicial Figure

  1. Sir James Hannen - President of the Probate Court. The jury ruled in favour of the plaintiffs in this case; in his summation, the judge claimed despite the discrepancy in testimony by one witness to how the will was signed, this was only one statement out of many that disagreed with the order of the events. He also restated one statement by the testator before his death, and in the excitement of witnessing the will, the testator told the group, “I have left you all something: don’t quarrel, don’t quarrel.” To Sir HANNEN, this was proof that Charles knew what he was doing when he drafted this new will and was aware of the effect this was having on the family in the room. Finally, the testimony from Reverend LEWIS seemed to be the strongest of all, with the Reverend visiting a day before the new will was signed and recounting that he also believed the testator to be in a sound mind. There would have been no cause for the judge to assume that the community vicar would intend to lie to the court.

    The most complete account of the court record, with witness statements, is from the following transcribed article from the Hampshire Independent, 18 January 1879

PROBATE SUIT FROM BURSLEDON. The probate suit from Bursledon, near Southampton, of Annett v. Jarvis was heard before Sir James Hannen and a common jury in the Court of Probate on Thursday. Mr. Inderwick and Mr. Dunlop Hill appeared in support of the propounded will of the late Mr. Charles Jarvis, brewer and proprietor of the Jolly Sailor Inn, there; and Dr. Deane and Mr. Bayford for those opposing. It appeared that in 1849 testator made a will leaving all his property to his wife, and some years later in conse- quence of the death of his wife the will now in dispute was executed. Its legality was contested by the heir at law of the testator. The will was proved in 1875, and the present suit was instituted for the recall of the probate on the ground of incapacity. Mr. George Annett said he was a carpenter, and lived at Bursledon. He had known testator for forty years. About three days before his death testator had asked him to make his will. He told him his wife had just died and that he should not long survive her. Witness consented and took instructions. Testator said he wished a house with garden and orchard to go to Richard Jarvis; the Jolly Sailor he wished Charles Bevis to have, subject to the mortgage; and the rest of his property to be sold, and the proceeds divided equally amongst his nephews and nieces. Witness made the will to that effect. It was read over to testator, who expressed his approval and executed it in the presence of two witnesses. After the will had been executed witness took charge of it. Testa- tor died shortly afterwards. He believed him to be per- fectly competent when the will was executed. -Cross- examined by Dr. Deane.—He (witness) went to take orders for Mrs. Jarvis’s coffin, when testator asked him to make his will. Sparshott, his co-executor, lived near the Jolly Sailor. Sparshott after testator died told him that testa- tor had asked him to make his will, but Dr. Pern told him to have nothing to do with it as it would be a complicated affair. He had been told testator had a complaint in his head. His mouth was drawn down and one of his eyes gone. He did not know his complaint was softening of the brain until he saw it in the doctor’s certificate. It was about ten o’clock at night when he took the instructions for the will, and testator died on the following Tuesday. Mr. Sparshott said he lived at Bursledon, and carried on the business of a grocer. He was one of the executors of the will in dispute. Testator had previously asked him to make his will. He asked him how he wished the pro- perty divided, and he said he wished a house and the orchard to go to “Dick;” the Jolly Sailor, to Charles Jarvis ; and the other property to be sold and divided between the nephews and nieces. He then asked that Dr. Pern might see testator, and if he approved he would make the will. In consequence of the doctor telling him it would be a troublesome affair he did not draw out the will, and he heard nothing more about it until he found that he was executor to the will in dispute.-Cross- examined.-He had begun to draw up the will, but after he saw Dr. Pern he threw the matter up. He never told Bevis or Jarvis anything about the contents of the will. He had seen a great change in the testator’s health during the last few months of his life. He was deaf and partially paralysed. William Boys, living at Bursledon, and one of the wit- nesses to the will, said when he went into the room to see the will signed, there were two or three persons present. They were asked to withdraw. The will was read over to the testator, and he said all was as he wished. Testator was unable to write his name, as his hand shook very much. Annett steadied his hand, but testator only made his mark. He believed testator was perfectly sane when the will was executed. - Cross-examined : He did not hear testator ask that he might not be bothered with signing. He did not hear White refuse to sign without the will was read over to him. Edward White said he was called in to witness the sign- ing of the will. Richard Jarvis fetched him. He was not present when the will was read over. Witness wanted to hear the will read over in order that he might know the contents, but he was told that was unusual, and he did not insist. He believed the witnesses signed the will before the testator. - Cross-examined : He did not hear the will read over until after the funeral. It was in conse- quence of Annett telling him it was unusual to make the contents of the will known that he signed the will. He had since that expressed an opinion that the witnesses signed the will first. He believed that Boyes had made a similar statement. - Sir James Hannen said that witness had denied that he had said so. Richard Jarvis, one of the nephews of the testator, said testator had told him he should make a new will after his wife died. The conversation took place but two or three days before testator died. After his uncle had expressed his intention he went, by testator’s desire, for Mr. Arnett. When Arnett came testator was perfectly sensible. He was present when the will was signed and was quite certain testator signed, or made his mark, before the witnesses. Cross-examined : His uncle passed a quiet night previously to his death. Witness was one of those who sat up on that occasion. He was quite sure that during that night he had not said to any one that if his poor aunt had had the trouble with uncle that he and others had had that night he was not surprised at her death. George Noulton said he had married one of the nieces of testator. He was in the house when Mr. Annett came, and was spoken to about making a will. Richard Jarvis was also there. Charles Bevis was ordered by testator to leave the room before he gave his instructions to Mr. Annett. He had heard the evidence of Mr. Annett on that point, and it was correct. He recollected Charles Jarvis coming to see testator previous to his death. Witness told testator Charles had some to see him, but he said: “Ah he’s a bad one; he’s served me cruel.” He was aware Charles had had differences with his uncle. He was in the room when the will was signed. He was quite certain testator made his mark on the will before the witnesses signed it. He had seen nothing up to the death of testator to induce him to believe that he was not in his right mind. Charles Richards and Mrs. Noulton gave similar evidence. The Rev. Mr. Lewis, vicar of Bursledon, said he had known testator for many years, and he never saw anything about him to induce the belief that he was a person of unsound mind. He saw him the night, say a few hours, before death, and he was then perfectly sensible. He had on that occasion looked upon him as a dying man. He did not know that he was suffering from softening of the brain. He knew Dr. Pern was attending the testator. Dr. Deane, then, on the part of the opponents of the will said he should call witnesses to prove, that at the time it was executed, testator was not competent to make a valid disposition of his property, and added that in the event of the will being set aside, Charles Jarvis, the heir at law, would take about half of the entire property instead of merely sharing in that left generally to the nieces and nephews. Mrs. Forrest said she was a niece of testator’s wife, and was in the house on the whole of the Saturday night prior to the death of the testator on the Tuesday morning. She said that from two o’clock in the morning until five, testa- tor was raving and calling out so violently that he might have been heard for a quarter of a mile. Jarvis came down about two, and said if testator had been as violent before the death of his wife he was not surprised that she had died. After testator became aware of the death of his wife he said he had killed her. Dr. Pern said he was in attendance on the testator prior to his death, which was occasioned by softening of the brain. The disease had been gradually increasing for eight months. He did not believe when the will was signed the testator was in a condition to make a valid disposition of his property. He had advised Sparshott, on account of the extreme trouble it would occasion him, to have nothing to do with the making of a will for the testator. Keziah Stephens, a relative of the testator’s, said she was in attendance on him a short time before his death. She did not believe him at that time to be in a condition to make a will. Mary Jarvis, wife of Charles Jarvis, the heir at law, said her husband was now in an unsound state of mind. She was at the testator’s house for two days before his death. He was always exceedingly kind to her. She did not believe when the will was made the testator knew what was being done. Mrs. Luff and others who were present and saw testator a few hours before death, expressed their opinion that he was decidedly not in a fit state of mind to execute a will. At this point the further hearing of the case was adjourned till Friday, when Mr. Inderwick, on the part of the plaintiff, contended that he had clearly established the validity of the execution of the will by the testator. Dr. Deane, for the defendants, insisted that the execution had not been in accordance with the statute. His Lordship, in summing up the case, referred to various points spoken to by the witnesses. On coming to that part of the case as to the condition of the testator at the time the will was executed, his lordship said it appeared that he gave the clearest directions to Annett, and whatever might have been his state either before or after that event, at that time he appeared to be perfectly competent. Sparshott, another witness, saw him the same morning, and it was only after receiving the advice of Dr. Pern that the making the will for the testator might involve great trouble, owing to the great number of nephews and nieces interested in the property, that he desisted. The evidence of Boyes, one of the attesting witnesses, showed that testator was clear in his mind at the time, as on being asked he identified Boyes, as William, his old partner. One witness, White, said the testator signed the will after the attesting witnesses, and that was relied on by the other side of proof that the will was not executed in accordance with the statute. But it must be remembered that White was the only witness who spoke to that, and there might have been some misapprehension on his part, as at the time a will was being made there was always a kind of excitement prevailing, and if one person present differed from another also present on certain points it was not a matter of surprise. Another proof of the sane condition of the testator was that after he had made the will he said to the crowd of relatives who flocked around his bed, “I have left you all something: don’t quarrel, don’t quarrel.” The will was executed on Sunday, and it would be re- membered that the Rev. Mr. Lewis, the vicar, saw him on the Monday, and his evidence was most important, as he said “On that occasion I saw nothing whatever that would lead me to suppose that the testator was not in his right mind.” When that gentleman left it was clear the testator apprehended what had been done, as he said “Thank you, Mr. Lewis; good bye.” If the jury gave credit to the evi- dence for the plaintiff the legal execution of the will was fully established. He would make-was that evidence dis- placed by that offered on the part of the defendant. It was not to be expected that there would not be some dis- appointment on the part of some of the numerous relatives, but that must not be taken into consideration. However, the jury would give their best consideration to everything that had been advanced on the part of the defendant. The jury found that the will of the 21st of November, 1875, had been duly executed; that at the time the testator was of sound mind, memory, and understanding ; and, further, that the testator knew and approved its contents. His Lordship pronounced for the will, and condemned the defendant in the costs. Mr. Bayford said the defendant was now a lunatic, and Sir J. Hannen replied that the statute made provision for that.

Order of Inheritance

Cases like this become necessary in genealogical research, as does the order of inheritance. While there is a great deal of genealogical information presented in the facts of this case, there is a lot left out, too. Charles had “some fourteen” nieces and nephews, with Charles BEVIS himself being the nephew of a niece; it was probably essential for him to create this new will if he wanted this particular nephew to keep the pub he had been living and working in, if not then BEVIS would have had to give up the pub with that estate then divided between his mother and his other aunts and uncles. So what would have happened if the will would have been deemed unsuitable in 1875? Well, with his spouse deceased and no children, we know his parents are probably already deceased, and let’s assume his remaining brothers and sisters are also deceased (based on the fact the heir-at-law, in this case, was a nephew and not a brother or sister, which would have been next in line). In this instance if any siblings had predeceased the individual, their children (the deceased’s nieces and nephews) would have inherited their parent’s share.[33]

From this, we can surmise a couple of things about relationships not mentioned, such as how many siblings the testator might have had, which is at least up to two (there could, of course, be more if he had any siblings who, like him, also died with no children). If the nephew was believed to be the heir-at-law and thought he was entitled to half of the estate, that could also assume he was the only living nephew of that relationship who would have been the testator’s brother (his surname was also JARVIS). There is, however, another JARVIS in this case, Richard JARVIS, who is also a nephew. If he had been the brother of Charles JARVIS, heir-at-law, he would have been entitled to half of what Charles JARVIS, heir-at-law, received, but this wasn’t mentioned. What are some assumptions to make here? Richard JARVIS could be a son of the heir-at-law, which could be why he was also explicitly called out in this will. He could also be the son of another male sibling of the testator. In this case, the following steps would be to build the family trees further to work out the puzzle pieces. Of course, many of these names are on census records in Bursledon, too, so over time, the details of this inheritance case may fall together as we get more research on neighbours and relatives from the records we have.

Next Steps for the Research

There are so many different ways to branch out here at this point! Do I continue looking into the residents of the pub, or do I try to determine the relationships of his nieces and nephews? Researching every single name in this court case could send me down a wild goose chase. After transcribing my census records from this time, I do happen to know many of them are on here, so in my case, I have decided to continue down my list for the Jolly Sailor and the households I believe existed on Land’s End, specifically.

  • Sarah STEPHENS - I have started researching her but haven’t gotten far. I haven’t been able to verify her birth location, which means I also don’t know her parents’ names. However, this Keziah STEPHENS from the probate case above shares her maiden surname. She also lives nearby in Bursledon, so I have decided to wait and see if I can connect with her through this family later.

  • Elizabeth JARVIS - I have also started researching Elizabeth. I know her maiden name, but I have some conflicting information. Charles’ father was Richard, and I noticed him in some pre-1841 records searches. It’s also possible that other relatives in Bursledon will reveal more information about Elizabeth and Richard, too. In this case, I would also like to table the research to get to a point where I can move back to another generation to where I am now.

  • William SHEPPARD - I have already started researching William; he, like Charles, also didn’t have any children. He was a master mariner, and I found some interesting news articles about him that I am eager to share. William is an excellent example of the merchant marine story in Bursledon. I have some experience with this, and the types of records available here to discover more about them. I am also excited to share stories of people in history who haven’t had children because I think these people are very often overlooked in genealogy research. As the Charles JARVIS probate case proves, I also believe these people can significantly impact their relatives’ lives, even if we don’t uncover it immediately in our research.

  • Charles BEVIS - I will get to Charles BEVIS as he was the heir to the pub and ran it for many years beyond his uncle’s death. I have been considering working through some of these records generationally, though, and what I mean by that maybe instead of working through one household at a time, working through one household in earlier census years (1851, 1861, 1871) before moving on to later census years (1881, 1891, and 1900). This way, I can better understand how families change over time. It also gives me more time to research the pub itself, as it will be an underlying thread through this journey of discovery.

  • Charles JARVIS (the nephew) - I might consider sidestepping to research the nephew to learn more about him. I don’t think he lived on Land’s End, but he did live in Bursledon. While I can be confident any article mentioning the brewer or the pub is related to this Charles, there’s at least two articles that could relate to the nephew and the only way to be sure is to research him too. I’m also curious if there’s something in the theory that if the nephew was a constable and always ratting out his uncle for keeping his pub open too late, then maybe there was something in this alleged fued that they had.

  • I’m going to the archives! It is currently Heritage Open Days in the United Kingdom, and the archive has some events this weekend. The Open Day would be a great opportunity to pop into the Hampshire Archives and prepare my card. I may not do any record searching then, but with the archives being open and events going on, it’s an excellent opportunity to see how they can help me in my research.

Citations:

[1] Baptisms (PR) England. Bursledon, Hampshire. 04 May 1806. JERVIS, Charles. Anglican Parish Registers; Reference: 83130/1/3. Hampshire Archives and Local Studies, Winchester, England, UK. Collection: Hampshire, England, Church of England Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1536-1812. http://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 30 August 2024.

[2] Marriages (PR) England. Bursledon, Hampshire. 04 September 1832. JARVIS, Charles and STEPHENS, Sarah. Parish Registers. Reference: 83130/1/2. Hampshire Archives and Local Studies, Winchester, England, UK. Collection: Hampshire, England, Church of England Marriages and Banns, 1754-1921. http://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 02 September 2024.

[3] Marriages (PR) England. Bursledon, Hampshire. 04 September 1832. JARVIS, Charles and STEPHENS, Sarah. Bishops’ Transcripts. Reference: 21m65/F8/47/2. Hampshire Archives and Local Studies, Winchester, England, UK. Collection: Hampshire, England, Church of England Marriages and Banns, 1754-1921. http://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 02 September 2024.

[4] Census records. England. Bursledon, Hampshire. 06 June 1841. JARVIS, Charles (head). PN 402. BN 6. FL 9. SN 1113. p. 19. National Archives, Kew, England. http://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 02 September 2024.

[5] Wikipedia Contributors. The Jolly Sailor, Bursledon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jolly_Sailor,_Bursledon : accessed 04 September 2024.

[6] Doric Columns: The History & Heritage of the City of Aberdeen. Sawyers Trade Observations of the 1800s. https://doriccolumns.wordpress.com/industry/sawmills/sawyer-trade/ : accessed 04 September 2024.

[7] Mayhew, Henry. (1850) Letter LIX. Collection: The Morning Chronicle: Labour and the Poor, 1849-50. https://www.victorianlondon.org/mayhew/mayhew59.htm : accessed 04 September 2024.

[8] Hampshire Advertiser. (1843) County Parochial Constable. Hampshire Advertiser. 08 April. p. 2h. Collection: Newspapers. http://www.findmypast.co.uk : accessed 03 September 2024.

[9] Wikipedia Contributors. Parish constable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parish_constable : accessed 05 September 2024.

[10] FamilySearch Wiki. England Occupations Law and Order, Constables, Police. https://www.familysearch.org/en/wiki/England_Occupations_Law_and_Order,_Constables,_Police_-_International_Institute : accessed 05 September 2024.

[11] Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2016) ‘Constable: petty constable’. In: Encyclopedia Britannica. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. https://www.britannica.com/topic/constable : accessed 05 September 2024.

[12] Hampshire Advertiser. (1846) County Bench. Hampshire Advertiser. 14 November. p. 5c. Collection: Newspapers. http://www.findmypast.co.uk : accessed 03 September 2024.

[13] Wikipedia Contributors. Beerhouse Act 1830. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beerhouse_Act_1830 : accessed 05 September 2024.

[14] Brewery History Society. Strategy for the Historic Industrial Environment The Brewing Industry. 2010. https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/brewing-industry/ : accessed 05 September 2024.

[15] Census records. England. Bursledon, Hampshire. 30 March 1851. JARVIS, Charles (head). PN 1670. FL 97. SN 39. ED 4. p. 11. National Archives, Kew, England. http://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 02 September 2024.

[16] Census records. England, Bursledon, Hampshire. 07 April 1861. JARVIS, Charles (head). PN 680. FL 10. SN 71. ED 1. p. 14. National Archives, Kew, England. http://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 22 August 2024.

[17] Poelmans, E. and Swinnen, J.F.M. (2011) A Brief Economic History of Beer. The Economics of Beer. October. pp. 3-28. doi:/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199693801.003.0001 : accessed 09 September 2024.

[18] Hampshire Advertiser. (1868) Southampton County Bench. Hampshire Advertiser. 02 January. p. 5f. Collection: Newspapers. http://www.findmypast.co.uk : accessed 03 September 2024.

[19] Hampshire Advertiser. (1870) Hamble River Regatta: Fishing Boats. Hampshire Advertiser. 24 September. p. 6b. Collection: Newspapers. http://www.findmypast.co.uk : accessed 03 September 2024.

[20] Hamble Local History Society. Maritime Hamble. http://www.hamblehistory.org.uk/community/hamble-local-history-society-12978/maritime-hamble/ : accessed 09 September 2024.

[21] Hamble Valley Regatta. History. http://bursledonregatta.org/history/ : accessed 09 September 2024.

[22] Census records. England, Bursledon, Hampshire. 02 April 1871. JARVIS, Charles  (head). PN 1195. FL 11. SN 89. p. 16. National Archives, Kew, England. http://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 22 August 2024.

[23] Hampshire Advertiser. (1872) County Bench. Hampshire Advertiser. 24 February. p. 6e. Collection: Newspapers. http://www.findmypast.co.uk : accessed 03 September 2024.

[24] Hampshire Independent. (1879) Probate Suit from Bursledon. Hampshire Independent. 18 January. p. 5c-d. Collection: Newspapers. http://www.findmypast.co.uk : accessed 11 September 2024.

[25] Deaths (CR) England. RD South Stoneham, Hampshire. 23 November 1875. JARVIS, Charles. Vol. 2c. p. 30. www.gro.gov.uk : accessed 03 September 2024.

[26] Wikipedia Contributors. Encephalomalacia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalomalacia : accessed 09 September 2024.

[27] Testamentary records. England. 20 December 1875. JARVIS, Charles. Will and Grant of Administration. https://probatesearch.service.gov.uk : accessed 03 September 2024.

[28] Death announcements. (1875) Hampshire Advertiser. 04 December. JARVIS, Charles and JARVIS, Sarah. p. 4c. Collection: Newspapers. http://www.findmypast.co.uk : accessed 03 September 2024.

[29] Burials (PR) England. Bursledon, Hampshire. 28 November 1875. JARVIS, Charles and JARVIS, Sarah. Parish Registers. Year Range: 1813-1891. Hampshire Archives and Local Studies, Winchester, England, UK. Collection: Hampshire, England, Church of England Burials, 1813-1921. http://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 03 September 2024.

[30] Monumental inscriptions. England. St Leonard Churchyard, Bursledon, Hampshire. 23 November 1875. JARVIS, Charles. Collection: Billion Graves Cemetery Index. http://www.findmypast.co.uk : accessed 11 September 2024.

[31] Hampshire Post and Southsea Observer. (1879) Bursledon-A Will Cause. Hampshire Post and Southsea Observer. 24 January. p. 7b. Collection: Newspapers. http://www.findmypast.co.uk : accessed 03 September 2024.

[32] Hampshire Advertiser. (1879) Local Probate Suit. Hampshire Advertiser. 18 January. p. 6b-c. Collection: Newspapers. http://www.findmypast.co.uk : accessed 02 September 2024.

[33] The Gazette. What are the intestacy rules in England and Wales?. https://www.thegazette.co.uk/wills-and-probate/content/103523 : accessed 11 September 2024.

Heidi Blanton
Next

Behind the Scenes: Tools and Techniques for Historical Research