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