Star Chamber Case: Cholmley v. Hoby

TNA: STAC 8/12/11

Item 1, single membrane (23 May) (Answer of Sir Richard Cholmley)

The Aunswere of Sir Richard Cholmeley knight defendant to the Informacion
of Sir Henry Hobbard knight his highnesse Attorney Generall

The said Defendant by protestacion not acknowledginge or confessinge anie thinge in the said Informacion to be trewe in manner and forme as in and by the said Informacion yt is sett forth and Declared Saith the said Informacion is very vntrue incertaine and insufficient in the Lawe to be aunswered vnto by this Defendant as he is informed by his counsaile <........> for diuerse and sundry manifest and apparant faultes and imperfeccions there in contained and contriued and exhibited unto this honourable courte by the mallice and procurement of Sir Thomas Posthumus Hobby knight (as this defendant verily thinketh) to put him this defendant to greate troubles and expences in aunswereinge of the same Yet neverthelesse this Defendant, saveinge to himself nowe and at all tymes hereafter the beneffitt and advantaige of Exception to the manifest incertainties and insufficiences of the said Bill of complaint or Informacion ffor aunswere therevnto saieth That about seaven or eight yeares agoe the said Sir Thomas Posthumus Hobby exhibited a Bill in this honorable courte against this Defendant and others for certaine offences for which he this Defendant was convicted but afterwardes about the yeare of our Lord one Thousand sixe hundreth and ffoure he this Defendant not anie way desireous to revenge anie wronge done to him by the said Sir Thomas Posthumus Hobby but ‸⸢beinge then newly come to the C<...>ssio<.> of peace was very⸣ desireous of the love and kindnesse of the said Sir Thomas the rather in respect that they then were and still are neighboures and that the said Sir Thomas and he must by reason of his Maiesties service haue often occasion to meete togeither, and there fore this defendant about the yeare of our lord one thousand sixe hundreth and foure aforesaid repaired to the said Sir Thomas to his house and then and there signified vnto him that he was very desirous of his love and that all former vnkindnesses might be forgotten which offer of peace and love the said Sir Thomas then seemed very kindlie to accept of and gaue this defendant in shewe very kynd intertainment Sithence which time he and this Defendant haue often mett togeither and vsed each other with very lovinge and kynd respectes as namely one and about the sixteenth day of october last past at Yorke where he this Defendant and the said Sir Thomas conferred togeither touchinge musters then shortlie after to ensue, But nowe of late that is to say about the ninteenth day of November last past the said Sir Thomas writte vnto this Defendant a letre full of mallice and taxacion by reason that this Defendant had accordinge to his duetie as a Iustice of the peace proceeded in ‸⸢a⸣ service against Recusantes otherwiese then the said Sir Thomas thought convenient as by the said letre appeareth And this Defendant confesseth that he hath heretofore but the tyme certaine he remembrethe not) intertained into his service one William Harrison in the said Informacion named vpon the said Harrisons earnest suite to this Defendant in that behalf the said Harrison haueinge bene formerlie the servant of the said Sir Thomas but at that tyme dischardged and putt forth of his service but not for anie breach of trust to this Defendantes knowledge at which tyme for anie thinge this Defendant knowethe to be contrarie the said Sir Thomas and this defendant were good friendes and as touchinge the practize concerninge the said Harrison in the said Informacion supposed this Defendant therevnto saieth that yt is true that he the said Harrison tould this Defendant beinge with him at London that in respect of Mr Sydneyes debtes whose administratour he was as he affirmed he feared to be arrested by one Christopher Porter and others of the Cittie of London and Desired this Defendant that yf he shold be arrested that he this Defendant wold be his baile, which in respect that this Defendant had at that tyme manie suites in London and that the said Harrison was his clerke and Sollicitour whose service at that tyme was soe necessarie as he this Defendant could not well spare him he was contented to be his baile and accordinglie was his baile at such tyme as he was arrested at the suite of the said Porter but this Defendant doth not remember that there were anie speeches conference or communicacion betweene him and the said Harrison & Porter or either of them before the said Harrison was arrested touchinge the said arrest (otherwiese then as he hath before declared, And this Defendant doeth not remember that he demed the said Harrison to be in his chamber at such tyme as the Subpena in the Informacion mencioned shold have bene served vpon him but yf he did deme him to be within yt was not ‸⸢to his remembrance⸣ with anie purpose that he shold not be therwith served as in the said Bill is surmised But this Defendant did not turnethe said Harrison away vpon anie such occasion as in the said Informacion is supposed ‸⸢<...>⸣ And as the to the braueinge speeches and provocations supposed in and by the said Informacion to be used by him this Defendant in or aboutes the moneth of September one thousand sixe hundreth and ffyve and mor aboutes the moneth of october, in the yeare of our lord one thousand sixe hundreth and sixe this Defendant saiet that he is not chardged in the said Informacion with anie speciall wordes of braveinge, or provocation and therefore he cannot make anie speciall aunswere therevnto neither doeth this Defendant Remember anie speeches by him vsed at the tymes aforesaid tendinge to anie such purpose as in the said informacion is supposed the same beinge as yt appeareth by the said informacion manie yeares sithence wherein the said Sir Thomas his mallice doeth manifestlie appeare and yf the same were true yet this Defendant thinketh the same was done before his Maiestes last generall and free pardon and that the same is pardoned and not excepted in and by the said generall and free pardon whereof he hopeth this honorable courte will haue due consideracion, And as to the supposed quarrell betweene this Defendant and Michaell Wharton in the said Informacion named he this Defendant saieth that yt is true that there happened some vnkindnes betweene this Defendant and the said Mr Wharton touchinge some speeches vsed by the said Mr Wharton wherevpon this Defendant findinge himself wronged in his Reputacion intended such a course as in the bill is supposed but afterwardes beinge satisfied by the mediacion of one Sir William Allford and Mr Ralphe Salvyn ‸⸢from⸣ touchinge the said Mr Wharton they were reconciled and sithence haue continued good friendes and there was noe breach of the peace at all betweene them and as to the speeches supposed to be vttered by this Defendant against the said Sir Thomas at a meeteinge of the Iustices of the peace of the North Rydinge for preventinge regratinge and forestallinge of Corne at which tyme the said informacion supposeth some speeches to be vsed by this Defendant tendinge to the disgrace of the said Sir Thomas his warrantes he this Defendant saieth that the service appointed at that tyme beinge grounded vpon certaine orders sett downe by his Maiestie or the Lordes of his highnes priuie counsaile And in this Defendantes vnderstandinge was to be executed by two Iustices of the peace at the least the warrantes whereby the countrie was then summoned beinge vnder the hand of the said Sir Thomas onelie ‸⸢as this defendant was informed he⸣ this Defendant to his Remembrance vsed these or the like speeches to the Rest of the Iustices of the peace then there present (videlicet) that in his opinion the instruccions Did not warrant one Iustice of the peace to proceed alone in that service, and that allthoughe the warrantes whereby the countrey was summoned togeither to that service were vnder the hand of the said Sir Thomas onelie yet was it not fitt sithence the said Iustices were mett togeither but to proceed in the said service, which this Defendant then affirmed he wold doe crauinge the assistaunce of the other Iustices of the peace then there present and therevpon they proceeded to the execucion of that service, and after they had spent two howres or more therein they effected somuch as then could be Done but in respect that the countrey had mistaken the intent and meaneinge of the articles wherevpon they were to inquire this Defendant and the Rest of the said Iustices of the peace in theire Discrecions gaue them further daies to appeare ⸢‸agayne⸣ that is to say one day for the libertie of Whitby strand to appeareinge at filinge Churche, and the next Day ‸⸢folowinge⸣ for the Libertie of Pickeringe Lyeth at Pickeringe at which day this Defendant came to ffylinge Church accordingelie where the countrey appeared saueinge the parishioners of the parishe of Hackneyes wherein the said Sir Thomas doeth dwell who as well then as at the former daye absented themselues by the comandment of the said Sir Thomas as this Defendant hath bene informed and by reason that noe other Iustice of the peace but this Defendant alone was then present at ffilinge Church aforesaid he this Defendant could not then effect that service for Whitbystrand as was formerly appointed by And for Pickeringe lyeth the said Sir Thomas appointed another service vpon the same Day and place of Reviewe of Armes by a pretended Warrant from the Lord Lyvetenant for that purpose whereas in trueth he had noe warrant at all as appeareth by his Lordshippes Letres ‸⸢to this Defendant⸣ soe as that service cold not then be effected, And whereas this Defendant is very slanderouslie taxed with countenancinge popishe Recusantes and Staige players contrary to his Maiestes Lawes This Defendant therevnto aunswereth and saieth <...> that he is noe popishe Recusant nor anie way inclined to poperye and for the better satisfaccion of this honourable courte he saieth that at Lent Assises holden for the countie of yorke in the yeare of our lord one thousand sixe hundreth and seaven he this Defendant served as foreman of ‸⸢a Iury ofa triall for the triall of two seminarie preestes and a woman for receaveinge of them who were all found guiltie by the verdicte of the said Iury and in all service for the kinges Maiestie against popishe Recusantes he this Defendant hath byn ⸢‸verey⸣ froward as beseemed the Duetie of his place and touchinge the bailie of the Libertie of Whytby strand this Defendant saieth that he the said Bailie was placed by graunt from Sir Henry Cholmeley this Defendantes ffather who is lord of the Mannor of Whitby and to whome the placeinge of the bailie doeth properlie belonge as this Defendant verilie thinketh which bailie is noe popishe Recusant but cometh to the Church and is a communicant and soe are all his houshold but his wiefe as this Defendant verilie thinketh which bailie is very fitt and sufficient for thexecucion of that place and doeth verie Duelie and orderlie execute his said office as this Defendant verilie thinkethe and ffor the Lycensinge of Staige players This Defendant saieth that he gaue noe such Lycence as in the said Informacion is mencioned neither doeth he knowe anie of the players of Egton to be popishe Recusantes and that he was soe farre from hindringe the apprehencion of the said players as he hath furthered the same And as to all and euerye the Combinacions practizes quarrells and other the misdemenours and offences wherewith he this Defendant is chardged in and by the said Informacion he this Defendant saieth that he is not of them or of anie of them guiltie in manner and forme as in and by the said Informacion is sett forth and alleadged Without that that anie other matter or thinge in the said Informacion contained matteriall or effectuall to be aunswered vnto by this Defendant and herein and hereby not sufficientlie answered confessed and avoided trauersed or Denied is True All which matters this Defendant is ready to averre and proue as this honorable Courte shall awarde and humblie praieth to be dismissed out of the same with his resonable coste and chardges in this behalf most wrongfullie sustained./

(signed) Thomas Iones

  • Marginalia
    • Iuratus 23 die maij Anno septimo Iacobi Regis
      (signed) Edward Iones

      [Footnote: Iuratus ... Regis: 'Sworn on 23 May in the seventh year (of the reign) of King James']

    • °X°
    • °X°
  • Footnotes
    • Iuratus ... Regis: 'Sworn on 23 May in the seventh year (of the reign) of King James'
    • unto: 3 minims for un
    • C<...>ssio<.>: letters obscured by descenders from letters in the line above; for Commission
    • but … not): opening parenthesis missing
    • (otherwiese … declared,: closing parenthesis missing
    • <...>: interlinear insertion of over 100 characters erased
    • <...>: erasure with line filler; 10 characters
  • Endnote

    The ‘certaine offences’ to which Cholmley refers took place on 26 August 1600, when a group of the younger North Riding gentry, including Sir Richard Cholmley, came to Sir Thomas Hoby’s home at Hackness, claiming to be a hunting party. They demanded food and drink and spent the evening drinking, playing cards, and being generally disruptive, causing some physical damage to the house before leaving the following morning. See Star Chamber Case: Hoby v. Cholmley, 1600.

  • Document Description

    Record title: Star Chamber Case: Cholmley v. Hoby
    Repository: TNA
    Shelfmark: STAC 8/12/11
    Repository location: Kew

    For information on Thomas Hoby and Richard Cholmley see the Introduction.

    1609; English; parchment; 2 single membranes bound together; 440–480mm x 600–610mm.

Back To Top