This free content was Born digital and sponsored by AHRC and University of Birmingham. CC-NC-BY.
593 SHERARD V MYNNE
William Sherard, 1st Baron Sherard of Leitrim, Ireland v Sir Henry Mynne of Whissendine, co. Rutland, knt
June 1638 - July 1639
In a widely publicised case picked up by newsletter writers and case reporters, Lord Sherard complained that Mynne had called him 'that trimm Lord'( a pun on Leitrim), a 'base lord and a base informing lord', and, alluding to Sherard's coat of arms, said that 'he would pull off Lord Sherard's Peacock's tayle before he had done'. The incident occurred while the pair were dining with the judges at the Rutland assizes held at Oakham in July 1635. They were addressed to Baron Trevor, but also present were Lord Campden, Sir Francis Bodenham, Sir Thomas Roe, Sir Henry Mackworth, Sir James Harrington and others. Mynne, a Rutland JP of long standing, admitted the words about 'a base lord', but maintained that he had been provoked by Sherard instigating the prosecution of Mynne's wife for recusancy, 'of purpose to disgrace his wife, and well knowing that his wife was noe recusant'. Mynne suggested Sherard had done this because of their ongoing quarrel over the rent of lands and a windmill at Whissendine. Mynne was lord of the manor and had resisted Sherard's efforts to purchase land from him, resulting in a case in the Court of Requests.
In December 1635, Sherard had brought an action against Mynne in Star Chamber, for 'scandalous words' spoken against himself and his wife. This was referred to the earl of Chesterfield for arbitration and, at a meeting in Westminster Hall on 8 February 1635/6, it was agreed that the matter should be settled on terms proposed by Sherard's ;awyers, Thomas Gardiner, esq., the Recorder of London and Joshua Bryan, esq., of Gray's Inn. This required Mynne to apologise for the words in writing to Lord and Lady Sherard, make a submission before the next judges' dinner at Oakham, pay Sherard £500 in costs, convey the windmill at Whissendine to Sherard and release him from all rents due to him as lord of the manor. There were conflicting views about whether this settlement was ever formally agreed to. Mynne claimed that they had shaken on it, but Sherard denied this and described how he had very deliberately drawn back from shaking Mynne's hand in a way which would imply that the matter had been settled.
The Star Chamber case continued, with the Attorney General bringing the prosecution on Sherard's behalf, and came to judgement on 9 February 1637/8 when Mynne was sentenced to pay a fine of £1500 to the king and to be put out of the commission of the peace. However, the judges also gave direction that the case should be heard in the Court of Chivalry where Sherard 'may be repaired' in his honour. Mynne, who began his own Star Chamber action against Sherard in May 1636, tried to plead the statute for limitation of actions passed in 1624; however, this was rejected and the hearing in the Court of Chivalry was under way by June 1638. Between October and December Mynne presented his defence which claimed that the arbitration of February 1635/6 had resolved the whole matter. Sherard produced witness statements from the hearing in Star Chamber, including testimony from the recently deceased vicar at Whissendine, Robert Catlin, that neither Myn nor his family had received communion in the parish church for at least twenty five years.Mynne also performed a submission before the judges of assize at Oakham on 29 July 1639, where he acknowledged that the words he had spoken against Sherard had been 'spoken out of misinformacon and passion', and promising to carry himself towards Sherard 'withall due respects'. However, the wording of his submission was conditional and much less demeaning than most submissions and the relative leniency of his punishments prompted Lady Abigail, Sherard's widow, to complain to the Long Parliament.
Box of Loose Papers, Sherard v Myn [R.R.68D], Libel
1. That William Lord Sherard have been a knight for around 16 years, created by King James and was created Baron of Leitrim in the kingdom of Ireland around 8 years ago, and that his family had been gentryfor up to 300 years or more and that he carried 'a peacock's tayle in a crowne in the crest of my coate armor'.
2. Around the month of July 1635, in the town of Oakham, co. Rutland, at the assises, in the presence of various noble and generous personages, Myn said that 'I, the said William Lord Sherard, was a base lord, and a base informeinge lord, and said he would saye as much to my face', or words to that effect.
3. In July or August 1635 in the parish of Whissendine in the presence of gentlemen Myn said that 'hee would pull my peacock's tayle before he had done and called me that Trym lord and base informinge lord', or words to that effect.
4. The insults in article three referred to his family crest and his title as baron of Leitrim with the intent of provoking him to duel.
5. In December 11 Chas I Attorney General Bankes promoted his case against Myn in Star Chamber and sentence was given against Myn in Hilary term 1637 with a recommendation that the words were sufficiently insulting to be actionable in the Court of Chivalry. Therefore he seeks justice against Myn.
10/12/2, Personal answer
1. Mynne 'prayeth the benefitt of the law of nations also of the Act of Parliament 21o Jacobi 16o entitled an act for limitation of actions.'
2. Mynne did say that 'William Lord Sherard was a base lord and a base informing lord and that he would say as much to his face', but only at the time of the assizes held at Oakham, co. Rutland, because his wife had been presented there as a recusant, and 'conceiving that Lord Sherard there being, at that time and before, many differences between Lord Sherard *and Mynne* concerning a mill and a chiefe rent, which the Lord intended to gain from him, had procured the presentment, of purpose to disgrace his wife, and well knowing that his wife was noe recusant'. Mynne was 'exceedingly moved thereat', and said that 'Lord Sherard's malitious prosecution against Mynne's wife' showed 'a base condition in a lord', 'to revenge himself of a woman especially being at that time in mourning for the death of his daughter then lately deceased'. Between December and February 1635/6 there was a reconciliation between Lord Sherard and Mynne before the earl of Chesterfield and others, 'and all by past malices each to other remitted or agreed and in token and confirmation thereof by order of Lord Chesterfield and others, they shook hands each with the other and were made friends, and that Lord Sherard did then and there tell the sonne of this defendant, that had it not been for his sake the matters then in question should not have been soe ended'.
3. Concerning Sherard's allegation that Mynne had said 'that he would pull off Lord Sherard's Peacock's tayle before he had done, and called him that trimm Lord and base informing lord, he confesseth that he having about the time in the libel a suite against some of the ... [faded] of Whissenden, who carried themselves proudly and insolently towards him, did say that he would pull their Peacock's feather or to the like effect.'
5. 'For his parte he was and still is ready to perform the order and award of the earl concerning the wordes spoken in heat, as in the order is expressed.'
Dated 26 June 1638.
Signed by Henry Mynne.
1. At the summer assizes at Oakham, co. Rutland in July 1635, Lady Mynne, was presented for popish recusancy at the instigation of Lord Sherard.
2. For up to ten months before those assizes Lady Mynne 'was very sick and weak and not able without peril of her life to stirre abroad or go from the house or Chamber and much afflicted with greife and sorowe for the death of her deare and intirely beloved daughter Katherine who deceased some 5, 4, 3 or 2 months or weeks before the somer assises, languishing divers weekes and months before she died.'
3. Lady Mynne, aged about 70, 'was not, nor is, a popish recusant, but very religiously affected and as her health *and strength could permit* has only repaired to her parish church for divine service'. For the least 30 years Sir Henry Mynne had been 'a person of very good life and conversation and of a very faire and quiete disposition towards all men, and noe way given or addicted to strife, debate or quarrel, either in word or deed'. Mynne had been a Rutland JP for 20 years.
4. Sir Henry Mynne 'hath a lordship of mannor and lands lying in Whitesondine [Whissendine] and intermixt with divers of the lands and tenements of William Lord Sherrard'. In or before 1635, especially before the summer assizes at Oakham, Sherard 'was very desirous and would have bought Sir Henry Mynne's land and lordship; and that William Lord Sherrard *then was and* is a tennant to Sir Henry Minn by reason of his lordship and Lord Sherrard's lands in Whisindine'. In the last three years, Lord Sherard had paid Mynne annually a 'certaine cheife rent of 12 pence' for these lands, for which Lord Sherard 'was desirous at least to have bought out the quitt rent of 12d per annum.'
5. 'The price proferred by Lord Sherrard for Sir Henry Minn his manor and lands in Whisindine was very meane and under value, soe as Sir Henry did refuse the same, and such proffer and refusall were or was before the month of July 1635'. Since then Sherard had been very displeased with Sir Henry Mynne for refusing to sell, and had 'much impayered Sir Henry Minn his estate and good repute'. Sherard was generally taken to be 'a great enimie to and of Sir Henry Minn'. In the last four years Sherard had caused his tenants to commence suits against Sir Henry, including a suit in Star Chamber, 'and all those 16 or 18 actions against them are for very poore and triviall occasions.'
6. If Sir Henry Mynne did speak the words in the libel in July 1635 at Oakham 'such word or words fell from him on the sodaine and in much passion, apprehending the injury and disgrace done to his lady by the presentment afore menconed and conceivinge the Lord Sherrard for author or procurer thereof.'
7. From December 1635 to February 1635/6 Lord Sherard and Mynne were fully reconciled and made friends touching the pretended words libelled and did shake hands each with other in a friendly mannor and in the presence of divers credible persons'. Lord Sherard 'hath confessed or acknowledged the matter touchinge the pretended speaking of the words by him questioned was ended and that he and Sir Henry Minn were friends and had shaken hands each with other.'
8. No credit was to be given to the Star Chamber depositions of Robert Catlin and Stephen Watkin, as both were 'capital enemies' to Mynne, and 'personally affected towards the Lord Sherrard and such persons as might easily be drawen to sweare a falsehood'. Robert Catlin 'did counterfeit the proper hand wrighting of Mynne to Mynne's great prejudice and was convicted or convented thereof.'
[Overleaf] Dated 20 October 1638.
[Endorsed on another copy in Loose papers, Sherard v Myn, 'Sir Henry Mynn's defence left with Mr doctor Merricke; desired back and another for it.']
R.19, fo. 20, Summary of defence
Mynne 'sayes that at the summer assizes held at Ockham for the county of Rutland, the Lady Mynn his wife was presented *for a papist* by Lord Sherard, or some for or under him and with his privity. His Lady was sick and languishing for many months before the assizes and not able to goe to church. [He also] sayes that Lord Sherrard has within these 4 yeares commenced in his owne name, his tenants and servants against Sir Henry and his servants 16 or 18 severall suites, and that Lord Sherrard is an enemy to Sir Hen. Mynn, and that if he did speake any the words in the libel, the same were spoke on the suddaine and in passion apprehending the disgrace done to his lady and c. All which he shows jointly and severally.'
First session, Michaelmas term, 1638
Box of Loose Papers, Sherard v Myn [R.R.68D] and Cur Mil I, fo. 64 [damaged version], Plaintiff's answer to the defence
1. 'Imprimis that in or upon the eight day of February 1635 in Westminster Hall I William Lord Sherard and Sir Henry Mynne were not reconciled and made friends touching the word libellate or confessed, not were wee at all or in any part then and there reconciled nor made friends, nor did we then or there shake hands each with the other'
2. 'Item, in or upon the eight day of February anno dm 1635 in Westminster Hall, I William lord Sherard and Sir Henry Mynne were in company or conference together or that there passed anye wordes or accons mutually betweene us at the said tyme and place such conference and such words and accons were in this insuinge manner, or the like ineffect, and in no other manner and in the right presence and hearing of the persons hereafter named (viz. The right honourable the nowe earle of Chesterfield and I, William, Lord Sherard, then and there standing together by the satlls there, somewhat aparte from the other company in the said hall, the earle of Chesterfield sent one to call down one Mr Joseph Bryan, a councellor at lawe from the Chancery barr or the Kings Bench barr, to come to us, the earle of Chesterfield and myself where we then were, whereuppon the said Mr Bryan came down to us in the said place, and then and there passed some talke concerninge the shewinge of evidences for the right of a windmill about which there was then depending a suite between me and Sir Henrie Mynne in the Court of Requests, and then and there the earle of Chesterfield said to Mr Joseph Bryan thus or to this effect, I am (meaninge himself the said Earle) going out of the towne (meaning out of London and Westminster) and there must be an end made of the business (meaninge suites and differences between me and the said Sir Henry Mynne) whereupon I presently said thus, or to this effect, vizt. there was noe end nor should be noe end of any suites between me and Sir Henry Mynne unlesse Sir Henry would refer himself to my owne councell, vizt. Mr Recorder of London and Mr Bryan aforesaid, to which the earle of Chesterfield then and there presently replied this, or the like in effect, vizt. that the said Sir Henry Mynne should soe refer himselfe in the presence and hearing of the said Sir Henry Mynne, assenting thereunto, whereupon after some further discourse about the businesse by the earle himself, Sir Henry Mynne and Mr Bryan, the earle and also Sir Henry Mynne did both agree to referr all to Mr Gardiner, the Recorder aforesaid, and Mr Bryan, and I myself consented thereunto with this caution or the like, that unless Sir Henry Mynne performed what Mr Gardiner and Mr Bryan should order and think fitt for him Sir Henrie Mynne to doe, this that was then and there done should be noe stopp to anye proceedings against the said Sir Henry Mynne in my suite or suites against him in any courte.'
3. 'Item, there was not at the tyme and place in the next pretended article menconed any thinge at all referred to earle of Chesterfield by me William, Lord Sherard and Sir Henry Mynne, at least not by me the said Lord Sherard.'
4. 'Item there were [sic. - 'not' missed out] at the tyme and place in the two next articles menconed any shaking of hands each with other between me and Sir Henry Mynne... such pretended shaking of hands was in this insuinge manner and noe otherwise, vizt The said Sir Henry Mynne, without any invitation or consent of mine, laid his hand upon the back of one of my hands, whereuppon I presently drew away my hand from his hand and refused to take him by the hand, which he then seemed to desire me to have done.'
5. 'Item that not long after the premises in the second article of this my defence set downe Mr Gardner and Mr Bryan did unanimously order, consent and require from Sir Henry Mynne the performance of all and everie the things set downe in the first schedule of this annexed to this my defence... and they also, and either of them did agree, sett down and require that the said acknowledgement under the hande and seale of Sir Henry Mynne menconed and sett downe in the first article of the first schedule should be by Sir Henrie Mynn doen and performed according tot he tenor of the second schedule annexed to this my defence. And that the acknowledgement mentioned in the second article of the said schedule should by Sir Henrie Myn be done and performed according to the tenor of the third schedule annexed to this my defence.'
6. 'Item, since the premises, all and singular the said premises in the next precedent article sett downe, were duly intimated and made knowne to Sir Henry Mynne, and he Sir Henry was required to do and perform the same, and he hath refused the same or neglected and not done the same nor any part thereof.'
Signed by Arthur Duck and Thomas Eden.
[Overleaf] Dated 20 November
Endorsed 'A coppie of your lordship's defence in the Court of Honour'
Box of Loose Papers, Sherard v Myn [R.R.68D], Brief for the Plaintiff
Headed: 'A breife of the proofes on the parte and behalfe of William Lord Sherard against Sir Henrie Myn, knighte.'
Endorsed: 'A breife for the Court of Honour. For Doctor Merricke.'
[with additions from a second version of this in square brackets
[fo. 1] 1 and 2 recites the terms of Sherard's libel
2. Statements supporting the claim that Myn said Sherard was a base lord
'Ad 2 interr fol. 2 Sir Henry Myn in reference to the case in Star Chamber said that about 25 July 1635 in Okeham, co. Rutland, in the tyme of the assizes, hee beinge much grieved with many injuires done to him by the Lord Sherard and the procureinge his Ladie to be presented for recusancie where shee was never anye, hee tould the judge sittinge at dinner opposite, one to the other, that the Lord Sherard's malicious prosecucon argued but a base condicon in a lord, or else that he was a base condiconed lord, or words to that effect. And that a noble friend of the defendant [Viscount Camden] said that he marveyled that hee would speaks the wordes; he said that he would not speake to his lordship's face because hee knewe his lordship not to bee a peere of the realme and therefore it was not scadalum magnatum. '
[fo. 2] 'Idem, Sir Henry Myn in response to the second article of the libel in the Court military said that in the tyme of the assizes holden at Okeham, hee findinge his wife was presented at the assizes for a recusant and conceivinge Lord Sherard had procured the presentment of purpose to disgrace his wife well knowinge shee was noe recusant, hee beeinge exceedingly moved therat sayd that such Lord Sherard's prosecucon against the defendant's wife, etc., argued but a base condicon in a lord, or words to that effect.'
'Sir Francis Bodenham to the 8th interrogatory in Star Chamber deposed 'that the defendant at the last sommer assizes received much discontent that his lordship had caused his wife to bee presented for recusancie, and said it was baselie done of the Lord Sherard to cause the presentment, and used many disgracefull speeches of the Lord Sherard, but the wordes he remembreth not.'
'Sir Henrie Mackworth to the 17th interrogatory fol. ['to the 3 interr fol 22' and 'to the 8th interr fol 25'] deposed that the defendant dined with the judges and others at Oakham and the defendant speaking of the Lord Sherard used the word Base. And he conceived the Lord Sherard's causing his wife to be prosecuted was the cause of his passion. And further deposeth that Mackworth, meeting after by chance with Myn, asked him if hee remembered the wordes etc. to the which Myn replyed, Yes, well, and said hee woulde speake the same words to his lordship's face.'
'Edward lord Viscount Campden to the 43rd interrogatory in Star Chamber deposed that when the judges and others were at dinner Sir Henry Myn used wordes of disgrace against Lord Sherard, and used the word Base, but knoweth not howe it was applied; but they sounded disgracefully against the Lord Sherard, which wordes were publiquelie spoken. And that after dinner Campden heard Myn goe on with such disgracefull speeches against the Lord Sherard, but remembers not the effect of the words more then they tended to his disgrace.
[fo.3] 3. Statements supporting the claim 'that presently after dinner it was generally spoken that Sir Henry Myn had at the judges table called Lord Sherard, Base lord and base informing lord.'
Sir James Harrington in responseto the 2nd article of the libel, fol. 16, deposed that at the Oakham assizes, he coming (presently after the judges being newlie risen from dinner, and for the most part standinge in the said roome, Harington was told by some of the companie, but whome he doth not now remember, that Sir Henrie Myn had given verie ill language at diner and presently after, of and against Lord Sherard, as that he the Lord Sherard was a base lord and a base promotinge, or base informinge, lord, or to that effect. And hee was creadibly informed that Myn had spoken then openly then and there at dinner, or after, not long before Harington came into the roome. And hee sawe Sir Henrie Myn walkeing upp and downe the roome in a greate passion as it seemed, using and uttering divers speeches tending to the undervaluinge of his lordship, and any thing hee could doe against him, or to that effect.'
Sir Richard Piggott in response to the 19th interrogatory in Star Chamber, and also to the 3, 4, 5 and 14th, fols.73, 74, 75 deposed that 'presently after dinner he heard Sir Edward Harrington and Sir Henrie Mackworth saye that Myn at the judges table called the Lord Sherard, Base informing lord, and that he heard Myn bidd the Lord Sherard doe his worst, he cared not a fart what the Lord Sherard could doe against him.'
John Pate to the 11th interrogatory, fol. 94 in Star Chamber deposed that 'the Lord Camden the same day after dinner said that Myn called the Lord Sherard, Base lord and base informinge lord.'
Sir Thomas Roe to the same interrogatory and to the 17th, fol.9, said similarly 'of the Lord Camden, sayeinge that daye that Myn said the Lord Sherard was a base informeinge lord as Roe remembereth.
[fo.4] 4. Statements supporting the claim 'that, after the somer assizes, in the parish of Whissendine' Myn, talking of the Lord Sherard, severall tymes said, that Trim Lord and base informing lord. I will pull the peacock's tayle before I have done; and his lordship was forsworne,. And since that time he used the like words of the Lord Sherard.'
Robert Catlin, late vicar of Whissendine, responded to the 12th interrogatory in Star Chamber, and to the 3rd interrogatory fol.38, who dyed in the month of August being before this suite.
['Robert Catlin, vicar to 1,2,6 interr.
3. Since somer assizes 1635 Myn talkeinge of the Lord Sherard said severall tymes, That trym Lord, that base informeinge lord, but I will pull the peacock's tayle before I have done.
12 Hee hath byne vicar 25 yeares. The defendant, his wife and children dwelling there have not in all that tyme received the sacrament.
13. They have not for that tyme byne usually presented; he hath byne a justice of peace about a dozen yeares.
14, Catlin desireinge the ladie to come to church the defendant said (a justice of peace) What damned rogues, rascalles, base villaynes dare present mee.'
Marginal note 'Dead before the sute begun in the Court of Honner.']
Edward Pinckenie, witness for the defence, deposed that hee did here it reported that Myn did speak some of the words in the interrogatory.
5. 'That upon and for the aforesaid words in the libel, the Lord Sherard, in December 1635 complayned of and began a suit in Star Chamber against Sir Henry Myn; and that after the proofes made by the Lord Sherard and Sir Henrie Myn, as well uppon the complaint as uppon the defence, and uppon full and deliberate hearinge of the said cause in Hilary term 13 Chas 1637, the lords made a finall decree; and, amongst other things, declared first that it appeared to them, partly by the examinacon of Sir Henrie Myn and partlie by the testimonie of wtnesses then read, that Sir Henrie Myn had uttered the foresaid words in the libel; and that there lordships held it most just that Lord Sherard should receive due reparacon for those insolent and scandalous speeches used aginst him by Myn which theire lordships conceived to be fully proved. [The lords] hath therefore recommended the same to the order and judgement of the right honourable the Earle Marshall in the Court of Honour, where the same is most properlie to be determined and where hee may be repaired; and doe withall hould fitt, to the end that Lord Sherard may not be put to further delay, charge and trouble and examinacon of wittnesses in that ocurt concerninge the scandalous words, that the proofe taken in this cause shalbe there used for proofes of the said scandalls.'
[fo.5] 6. 'That the witnesses produced by Sir Henrie Myn conceivinge a reconciliacon pretended to be made by the earle of Chesterfield uppon 8 February 1635/6 in Westminster Hall betweene William Lord Sherard and Sir Henrie Myn, of all suits and differences dependinge betweene them, doe depose onelie that after some discourse and conference aboute the differences, by the mediacon of the earle of Chesterfield, they were reconciled each to other, and thereuppon did shake hands and parted frendly; but doe not depose uppon what tearmes and condicons this pretended reconciliacon was made.'
This is apparent from the depositions of the earl of Chesterfield, Nicholas Mynne and Edward Pinkenie.
['Mr Nicholas Myn, Sir Henrie Myn's sonne, fol.1, art.1
That uppon 8 February 1635/6 the earle of Chesterfield at his humble intreatie, together with his father Sir Henrie Myn, went to Westminster Hall to the intent that he the earle might mediate with Lord Sherard to end some differences and suits then dependinge betweene Lord Sherard and Sir Henrie Myn where they mett Lord Sherard; and the earle did then and there, as Nicholas Myn conceiveth, make an absolute end of all differences touchinge the words in the libel and confessed in this cause betweene Lord Sherard and Sir Henrie Myn; and in token and confirmacon thereof did shake hands each with other in the presenceof the earle, Nicholas Myn and some others which hee doth not now remember. And that Lord Sherard, presently after the reconciliacon, came to Nicholas Myn and tould him it should never have byn done but for his sake, or words to that effect.'
[marginal note 'Compare this with the Earle of Chesterfield deposition.'
'Mr Thomas Myn, fol.4, art.1.
That he heard that on 8 February 1635/6 there was a reconciliacon made between Lord Sherard and Sir Henry Myn by the earl of Chesterfield, and within a daye or two after mett the Lord Sherard in Westminster Hall and tould his lordship that he was pleased to heare thereof; and his lordship replyed, I, tis true, but it should never have byn done but for Nicholas Myn his sake.'
'Edward Pinckenie fol.6, art.1
That uppon 8 february 1635/6 hee as attendant on Sir Henrie Myn went to Westminster Hall with the earle of Chesterfield and as Pickine conceived the intent of theire goinge was to make peace and reconcile the differences betweene Sherard and Myn, where they mett the Lord Sherard; and Pinckenie standinge in Westminster Hall something farr of from them, did not heare the discourse that passed betweene the earl of Chesterfield and Lord Sherard, but hee did observe familiar gestures in the conclusion between Sherard and Myn by which hee did and doth thinke they were then reconciled.']
7. 'That, at the time of the pretended reconciliacon, shakeinge of handes and frendly partinge, Mr Bryan, a councellor at lawe, and John Walker were present with the earl of Chesterfield, the Lord Sherard, Sir Henrie Myn, Nicholas Myn and Edward Pinkenye.'
From the testimony of Edward Pinkenye to the 8th interrogatory.
8. 'The earl of Chesterfield and Nicholas Myn doe depose positively that they were reconciled by his mediacon concerninge the words in the libel. Nicholas Myn and Edward Pinkenye doe depose onely that as they conceived they were reconciled for all differences.'
'Mr Nicholas Myn to the 8th interrogatory deposeth that at the reconciliacon were present the earle of Chesterfield, the Lord Sherard, Sir Henry Myn and Nicholas Myn; but Mr Bryan was not then present, but came in a little while afterwards. The earle of Chesterfield contrary, that at the tyme of the reconciliacon Mr Bryan came unto them, but beleeveth hee departed before they did shake hands.'
9. 'The earle of Chesterfield, being examined in the Star Chamber by Sir Henry Myn upon the said pretended reconciliacon, deposeth that he doth conceive hee did make an awarde or end by word of mouth concerninge all differences betweene the Lord Sherard and Sir Henrie Myn, and conceiveth all parties were well content therwith; and for his better remembrance caused the heads thereof to be written, whereunto he subscribed his hand, which at his examinacon he acknowledged the content thereof to be true as followeth:
First, that Sir Henry Myn should openly at the next [fo.6] assises at Okeham in Rutland, before the judges and other gentlemen before whom hee uttered those conceived wordes of dishonour against Lord Sherard, acknowledge that hee spake those wordes out of passion, and was heartily sorie for them.
Secondlie, hee should referr himselfe to Mr Recorder of London and Mr Bryan, the Lord Sherard's councell, for costs of suits.
Thirdlie, that Lord Sherard and Sir Henrie Myn should shewe forth both theire tytles to a windmill, claymed by them both, to those lawyers, and if they differ then to choose a third person to decide the same.
Fourthlie, Sir Henrie Myn to release to Lord Sherard a cheife rent of 12d, and the Lord Sherard to release to Sir Henrie Myn all rents etc., with generall releases each to other of all accons etc. And thereuppon Lord Sherard tould the sonne of Sir Henry Myn that this had not byn but for his sake; and Sir Henrie Myn desired the Lord Sherard's future respects upon his merrits, and he was sorie he had given him any offence, and desired it might be forgotten, and shook hands and parted frendly.'
This is apparent from the testimony of the earl of Chesterfield.
10. 'That at the tyme and place aforesaid there was noe reconciliacon made by the earle of Chesterfield betweene the Lord Sherard and Sir Henrie Myn, but uppon the earle of Chesterfield saying there must be an end made of the businesse betweene them the Lord Sherard replyed, There was noe end, nor should be anye end of any suits betweene them unlesse Sir Henrie Myn would referr himselfe to Mr Recorder of London and Mr Bryan; and the Lord of Chesterfield said hee should soe referr himselfe and Sir Henry Myn assented thereunto. And thereuppon, both the earl of Chesterfield and Sir Henrie Myn did agree to referr all to Mr Recorder and Mr Bryan. And the Lord Sherard consented thereunto (uppon this caution) that unlesse Sir Henrie Myn performed what Mr Recorder and Mr Bryan should order and think fitt for Sir Henrie Myn to doe, this that was then and there done should be noe stopp to theire proceedings against Sir Henry Myn in his suits in any courte.
Joseph Bryan to the 1st and 2nd interrogatories of Lord Sherard.
['For the disproveinge the reconciliacon made by the Earle of Chesterfield.'
'Mr Joseph Bryan, fol.1, art.1, 2 in the Court of Honour
That on or aboute 8 February 1635/6 Bryan being at the Kings Bench or Chancerie Barr was sent for by the earle of Chesterfield or the Lord Sherard to come downe into Westminster Hall where he presentlie cominge downe found them and Sir Henrie Myn and his sonne standing togetether; and, the earl endeavouring to end the suits and differences betweene Sherard and Myn, Sherard replyed that he would not referr the differences to any but to Mr Gardiner, the Recorder of London and Bryan, which Myn did assent unto, seeminge to be verie glad thereat. The earl then said there was an end of the businesse, but Bryan replyed there is noe end yet unlesse Sir Henrie Myn doe performe what he and Mr Gardiner should set downe. The earl said, Come, hee shall, hee shall, and that he added this causion that if Sir Henry Myn should not perfome what Mr Gardiner and Bryan should propose that then this commenicacon had betweene them, and the reference made to Mr Gardiner and Bryan should bee noe hinderance to the proceedinges of the suite then dependinge in the Star Chamber; and that Sherard and Myn were not then and there reconciled; neither did they in Bryan's sight shake hands.
3. That at the tyme and place aforesaid there was not any thinge at all referred to the earle by Sherard and Myn.
4. That in some earnest discourse the Lord Sherard, puttinge forth his hand to the earle, Sir Henry Myn without any invitacon laid his hand uppon some part of the Lord Sherard's hand, whereuppon the Lord Sherard drewe awaye his hand and did not take Sir Hery Myn by the hand.
5. That Mr Gardiner and Bryan did make proposicons concerninge all the differences then betweene Sherard and Myn in all thinges as is conteined in the said three schedules.
That the said schedules were left with Mr Gardiner to the intent they might be made knowne to Sir Henry Myn and Lord Sherard; and Bryan desired
[fo.7] 'John Walker to the same folio deposeth that he was present on 8 February 1635/6 in Westminster Hall, attendinge on the right honorable Lord Sherard, and that the right honorable the earl of Chesterfield came to the Lord Sherard and had private conference with him. And the earle beckoned to Sir Henry Myn to come to them and the earl of Chesterfield, laying one of his hands uppon Lord Sherard's arme, Sir Henry Myn laid his hand uppon the Lord Sherard's hand, whereat the Lord Sherard being discontented pulled awaye his hande. And presently Walker, by the command of Chesterfield or Sherard, or both of them, went for Mr Bryan to come to them and soe hee did, standinge neere the stalls; and beinge come they had much discourse togeather, but Walker standinge apart did not heare them, but saith that whilst they were in conference Sherard stepped back from them and seemed discontented, and tould Walker that Chesterfield was altogether for Sir Henry Myn. And Walker, being not otherwise absent, hee did not see Sherard and Myn shake hands each with other, nor observed any familiar gesture betweene them; and if they had hee should have seene them. And hee verily beleeveth that Sherard and Myn were not at that time and place reconciled each to the other, for that Sherard, the next Easter Terme, did goe on in the suits in the Star Chamber; and Myn caused Sherard to be served with a subpoena to answer a crosse bill the same month.'
[marginal note 'My lords begunn in December 11 Car. The subpoena dated 26 February 11 Car; the bill put in xiii May 12 Car. A subpeona thereupon ad audiendum judicium 9 November 1638.']
'11. That Sir Henrie Myn, without any invitation of the Lord Sherard, putting out his hand towards the earle of Chesterfield did laye his hand uppon the Lord Sherard's hand, but the Lorde Sherard put back his hand from Sir Henrie Myn his hand, and did not take him by the hand which hee seemed to desire to have done.
[4. That hee heard Lord Sherard saye as hee was going home in his coach that hee had not referred it to any but to Mr Gardiner and Mr Bryan aforesaid.
6.That he hath heard Mr Bryan saye that Sir Henrie Myn refused to performe the same proposicons.']
'Joseph Bryan to the 4th article, John Walker to the same folio, similarly'
'14. That not longe after the premisses Mr Recorder and Mr Bryan did make an order of the contents of the schedules exhibited, and they did require from Sir Henry Myn the performance thereof, and required the ackowledgement under the hand and seale of Sir Henry Myn which should be by him performed' according to the words in the second schedule [fo.8] 'and that the acknowledgement menconed in the second article of the first scehdule should be performed in manner and forme sett downe in the 3rd schedule; but Sir Henry Myn after due intimacon thereof refused the same and hath not performed them accordinge to the order.'
'Joseph Bryan to the 6th article deposed presently after the Lord Sherard, Mr Gardiner and himself had agreed uppon the schedules the same were left with Mr Gardiner to be intimated to Sir Henrie Myn; and Mr Gardiner was desired to require Sir Henrie Myn's answeare whether he would performe them. And Mr Gardiner tould Bryan that he had acquainted Sir Henrie Myn with the schedules and that Sir Henrie Myn refused to performe the contents thereof; and beleeveth that Sir Henrie Myn hath not performed any parte of the contents thereof. And thereupon the Lord Sherard did proceed in his suite then dependinge in the Starchamber.'
Thomas Gardiner, esq, Recorder of the City of London, to the second article deposed that not longe after 8 February 1635/6 Lord Sherard and Mr Bryan did severall tymes informe him that the matters in difference touchinge the scandalous words said to be spoken by Sir Henrie Myn against the Lord Sherard, and some other differences betweene them, were whollie referred to Mr Bryan and himself, to the end that they should sett downe what was fitt to be required by the Lord Sherard of Sir Henrie Myn, and to be done and performed by Sir Henrie Myn for my Lord Sherard's satisfaccon in that behalfe, whereuppon some propositions were made and sett dwone in writeinge to the purpose and effect in the first schedule annexed. And that Sir Henrie Myn, having notice of the preposicons aforesaid, came severall tymes to Gardiner and denyeth that there was any such reference to him and Mr Bryan, in such manner as aforesaid, and did utterly disavowe the same, and tould Gardiner there was nothinge referred to Mr [fo.9] Bryan and himself, save onely the costs and some one particuler matter; but the matter of satisfaccon and reparacon of his lordship's honour was not referred unto Gardiner and Bryan, whereuppon Gardiner did forbeare to meddle any further in that waye and did not signe the proposicons. And hee doth not knowe of any reparacon of honour which his lordship hath had, for or touchinge the scandalous words in the libel from Sir Henry Myn.'
'The earl of Chesterfield to the 8th interrogatory deposeth that he hath not heard to his remembrance that Sir Henrie Myn did within the tyme in the interrogatory acknowledge anie of the words to Lord Sherard in the libel.'
[marginal note 'to set downe the deposicons, 1 of the Lord Sherard sayinge that daye divers tymes after the mettinge that he had not made any end, but refered all to Mr Bryan and Mr Recorder of London', and if Sir Henry Myn would performe that which they set downe ther might be an end.'
Sir Henry Skipwith, bart., to the second article deposed that 'on 8 February 1635/6, hee, walking in Westminster Hall, the earle of Chesterfield and Sir Henrie Myn being ther togeather in the Hall came to Lord Sherard and Skipwith then walking togeather, and the earl makinge some signes as if hee intended some privacie with the Lord Sherard Skipwith walked apart and left them. And Skipwith after askinge the Lord Sherard wheather there were a peace made betweene his lordship and Sir Henrie Myn hee aunswered, None, unless Sir Henry Myn performed what Mr Gardiner and Mr Bryan should sett downe, and that he had referred nothinge to the earle.'
Thomas Mallory to articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 deposed that 'on or aboute 8 February 1635/6 the Lord Sherard beinge retorned from Westminster Hall home to his lodginge in Fleet Street, London, sitting at diner tould his Ladie that that daye the earl of Chesterfield had mett him in Westmoinster Hall and there brought with him Sir Henrie Myn who referred himselfe whollie to the Lord Sherard's owne councell, vizt. Mr Gardiner, Recorder of London, and Mr Bryan, and that, if hee Sir Henrie Myn should performe what they two should propose and order, that then there was like to be an end of the busines, and that he referred it to no other person.'
Gregorie Wadeson to articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 deposedthat 'on 8 February 1635/6 he was present at Westminster Hall and neere the stalls, there sawe the earle of Chesterfield, the Lord Sherard, Sir Henrie Myn and Mr Bryan then and there discoursinge and conferring togeather, and afterwardes the Lord Sherard goinge home in his coach did saye to Wadeson and others that the differences then dependinge betweene his lordship and Sir Henrie Myn were referred unto Mr Gardiner, the Recorder of London, and Mr Bryan, and to noe other person.'
['Defence of Sir Henry Myn.
'That after the time of the pretended speakinge of the wordes in the libel or confessed, and after the month of July 1635, and especially on 8 February 1635/6 in Westminstser Hall the plaintiff and the defendant were fully reconcyled and made frendes touchinge the pretensed wordes in the libel or confessed, and did then and there shake hands each with other in token of such theire reconciliacon in a frendly manner in the presence of divers credible persons; and the plaintiff hath oftentymes, or at least once, since the recociliacon confessed and acknowledged that the matter touchinge the wordes then in question...was ended and that Lord Sherard and Sir Henry Myn were frendes and had shaken handes each with other.']
Cur Mil I, fo. 60, Schedule 1
'Upon consideration had by the right honourable the Lord Sherard with the Recorder of London and Mr Bryan, being of his councell these things following are required by them of Sir Henry Mynne, knight, in case his lordship doe surcease his prosecution of the suite in the Star Chamber:
1. 'First that Sir Henry Mynne shall presently by writing under his hand and seale acknowledge that the scandalous words spoken by him of his lordship at Okeham assizes last, and at other tymes, of his lordship and his lady, were false and without any cause or ground for them, and that they were spoken by him out of passion and spleene; and that he is heartily sorrie for them, and for the offence given by them as well to his lordship as to others of the like rancke and degree of honor, and heartily sorry desires his lordship and his lady to forgive him for the same; and shall further acknowledge that his lordship is discended from auncient and noble families, and in his owne person is worthie of the honour which he beares'.
2. 'Sir Henry Mynne shall at the next assizes at Okeham before the judges of assize and justices there, at the judges' table at dynner where the scandalous words were spoken, repeate the acknowledgement and submission before menconed according to the true sence and meaning of it.'
3. 'Sir Henry Mynn shall forthwith pay unto his lordship the sume of five hundred pounds for the costs and charges and damages occasioned to his lordship by reason of the scandalous words, and the suite thereupon'.
4. 'For the windmill in Whissondyne now in question between his lordship and him in the Courte of Requests, Sir Henry Mynne shall first relinquish and disclayme all pretence of right or tythe to it, and shall likewise forthwith make a release, and conveyance thereof to his lordship and his heires as his lordship's councell shall advise.'
5. Sir Henry Mynn shall forever disclayme and release to his lordship and his heirs all quitte rents and other rents and suite of court pretended by him to be due to him from his lordship for any mannors or landes of his lordships or in feoffees, or his or their tenants in Whissondyne.'
Cur Mil I, fo. 61, Schedule 2
'I, Sir Henry Mynne of Whissondine in the countie of Rutland, knight, doe by this my writinge under my hand and seale confesse and acknowledge that the scandalous words and speeches spoken by me at Okeham assizes now last past at the judges' table there of the right honourable the Lord Sherard and at other tymes of his lordship and his lady were false and without any casue of ground for the same. And that the same words and speeches were spoken by me out of passion and spleene. And I am heartily sorrie for the same, and alsoe for the offence given by the said words and speeches as well to the said Lord Sherard and his Ladie as to others of the like ranke and degree of honour with them. And I doe heartily desire his lordship and his ladie to forgive me for the same. And I the said Sir Henrie Myn doe hereby further acknowledge that the said Lord Sherard is discended from ancient and noble families and in his owne person worthie of the honor which is conferred upon him.'
14/2l, Plaintiff interrogatories [damaged]
1. The witnesses were warned of the penalty for perjury and bearing false witness. Of what age, occupation and condition was the witness? Where did they live and where had they lived?
2. Was Nicholas Mynne the only surviving child of Sir Henry Mynne and did he dwell with his father?
3. Was Thomas Mynne the brother of Sir Henry Mynne? Was one of them indebted to the other? Were some of Sir Henry's lands mortgaged or settled upon Thomas?
4. Did the witness wish greater success to Mynne than Sherard?
5. When and where did he last receive 'Holy Communion according to the orders of the Church of England'?
6. Had Edward Pinkney been examined in Star Chamber on behalf of Mynne in a cause which concerned Sherard? Was Pinkney then a household servant to Mynne? Had Pinkney obtained his post in service to Sir Henry Barkley or his lady by Mynne's 'meanes and commendacon'? Was Lady Barkley a kinswoman of Mynne?
7. Between June and August 1635, at assize time, in Oakham and Whissendine, co. Rutland did Sir Henry Mynne say before all the judges and JPs that Sherard 'was a base conditioned Lord and Sir Henry Mynne would speak as much to his face; and that Lord Sherard was a base informing Lord, and he would pull his Peacocke's tayle before he had done (alluding to the crest of the coat armor of Lord Sherrard); and that he badd Lord Sherrard doe his worst, he cared not a fart what Lord Sherrard could doe against him'.
8. Whether there was reconciliation made 'or of any shaking of hands' between the parties on 8 February 1636 in Westminster Hall, and who was present? Was Mr Joshua Bryan, a counsellor, and John Walker, present?Can the witness set down the words spoken by both parties and in what order?
23 November 1638.
Signed by Thomas Eden.
Box of Loose Papers, Sherard v Myn [R.R.68D], Plaintiff interrogatories 1
1. The witnesses were warned of the penalty for perjury and bearing false witness. Of what age, occupation and condition was the witness? Where did they live and where had they lived?
2. Was Nicholas Mynne the only surviving child of Sir Henry Mynne and did he dwell in his father's house?
3. Was Thomas Mynne the brother of Sir Henry Mynne? Was he not indebted to Sir Henry? Were some of Sir Henry's lands mortgaged or settled upon Thomas?
4. Did the witness wish greater success to Mynne than Sherard?
5. When and where did he last receive 'Holy Communion according to the orders of the Church of England'?
6. Had Edward Pinkney been examined in Star Chamber on behalf of Mynne in a cause which concerned Sherard? Was Pinkney then a household servant to Mynne? Had Pinkney obtained his current post in the service of Sir Henry Barkley or his lady by Mynne's 'meanes and commendacon'? Was Lady Barkley a kinswoman of Mynne?
7. Between June and August 1635, at assize time, in Oakham and Whissendine, co. Rutland did Sir Henry Mynne say 'before and in the presence of the judges of assize and other justices of peace and gentlemen then and there beinge, and after the assises at other severall placestheis or the like wordes in effect, vizt. that William Lord Sherard was a base conditioned Lord and Sir Henry Mynne would speak as much to his face; and that Lord Sherard was a base informing Lord, and he would pull his Peacocke's tayle before he had done (alluding to the crest of the coat armor of Lord Sherrard); and that he badd Lord Sherrard doe his worst, he cared not a fart what Lord Sherrard could doe against him'.
8. Whether there was reconciliation made 'or of any shaking of hands' between the parties on 8 February 1635/6 in Westminster Hall, and who was present? Was Mr Joseph Bryan, a counsellor, and John Walker, present?Can the witness set down the words spoken by both parties and in what order?
23 November 1638.
Signed by Thomas Eden.
Box of Loose Papers, Sherard v Myn [R.R.68D], Plaintiff interrogatories 2
'1. Joseph Bryan esq. Doe you not remember that you were sent for from the King's Bench or Chancery barre downe into Westminster Hall in Hillary tearme 11 Car by William Lord Sherard, or by Philip earle of Chesterfield, and hither at your cominge down into the hall by the stalls did you not finde the earl of Chesterfield and Lord Sherard, and Sir Henry Myn and his son standinge together? And did not the earle of Chesterfield after much talke and discourse of some scandalous wordes formerlie spoken by Sir Henry Mynn against William Lord Sherard, and proposalls of shewinge of the evidences for the right of a windmill, tell you he was goinge out of towne and there must be an end made of the businesse.'
'2. Did not Lord Sherard absolutelie refuse to referre the matter then and nowe in question to the earle of Chesterfielde or to any other man saveinge unto Thomas Gardiner esq, Recorder of London, and yourselfe, and after much agitacon of the businesse was it not agreed betweene Sherard and Mynne, by the mediacon of the earle of Chesterfield, to referr all differences to the arbitrement of Mr Recorder and yourselfe. And did not the earle of Chesterfield seeme to rejoyce and be gladd that he hadd brought Lord Sherard soe farre to yeild.'
Box of Loose Papers, Sherard v Myn [R.R.68D], Plaintiff interrogatories 3
1. 'How many suites of his knowledge have byne commenced by Sir Henry Myn against Lord Sherard and in what courtes the suites have byn commenced; howe often and in what courts had the witness been produced and examined as a witness in all some or one of the suites.'
If it were in the witness's power, to whom would he award the case.
2. By whose means was he produced to be examined in the case and who was paying his expences?
3. Was not Sir Henry Myn or his son Nicholas 'the cause of the meeting at Westminster Hall? At that meeting did you encourage the parties to refer the suits to Sherard's counsel?
4. Notwithstanding the reference to Gardiner and Bryan, did Sherard still continue with his suit in Star Chamber, 'and was not the suite in Star Chamber intended to be comprised within the said reference.'
5. Did Nicholas Myn 'not come to the earl of Chesterfiled and, with teares in his eyes and on his knees, did entreate the earle to make a peace' between Myn and Sherard, and say that Myn 'should referre himselfe wholly to Sherard's councell, and what Sherard's councell should doe Myn should submitt himself thereunto; and whether the earl of Chesterfield did not report so much as is before declared.'
6. Had Myn, since the reference of the suit, commenced a suit in Star Chamber relating to a riot over the digging of a trench around a windmill.'
'Interrogatories drawne by Dr Merricke'.
14/2hh, Defence interrogatories
Questions administered to Thomas Gardiner, esq, Recorder of the City of London:
1. Was he present with Sherard and Mynne in Westminster Hall on 8 February 1635/6 at a reconciliation made between them by the Earl of Chesterfield?
2. Were the differences between Sherard and Mynne referred to him and Mr Joshua Brian by the consent or appointment of Mynne or Chesterfield, 'to be by them determined as is in the second article of Lord Sherard's allegation of replication set forth'?
3. Had Brian met about the agreement with or without Mynne's consent, 'and by whose appointment, entreaty or procurement'? Whether Brian and Gardiner did 'order consent and require from Sir Henry Mynne the performance of all things set downe in the first schedule annexed to the allegacon'? Had Brian and Gardiner agreed Mynne should make an acknowledgement under his hand and seal 'as is in the second schedule to the allegation annexed set downe'? 'And that he should make another acknowledgement according to the third schedule to the allegation annexed'? Whether Gardiner and Brian signed, sealed or subscribed this order and schedules, and whether it was to be delivered to Mynne, whether it was delivered, and 'by whose appointment, intreaty or procurement were the premises soe done'?
4. Whether Sherard had 'vexed, molested and troubled' Mynne 'with this suite and diverse others thereby aiming to weaken his estate and to enforce him to sell unto him his lands at Whitsundine lying intermingled with Lord Sherard's and fit for improvement.'
Introduced 14 December 1638.
Signed by Thomas Exton.
14/2ii, Defence interrogatories
Questions administered to Thomas Mallarper and John Walker:
7. Whether they knew Jane Barkley, daughter of Mary Barkley 'now the wife and lady of Sir Henry Mynne'? How many years ago was Jane's death? Was she a wife, widow or singlewoman, and were they related to her?
8. Had they or other witnesses 'taken out letters of administration of the goods and chattels of Jane Barkley? If yes, for what purpose, and by whose persuasions?
9. What suites they had commenced against Mynne, his friends and tenants 'by virtue or color of the letters of Administration', in which courts and at whose charge?
10. What lands did they hold in Whissendine, of whom and in what contents?
11. How often and in what courts had they or other witnesses deposed for Sherard against Mynne or his friends and tenants?
12. How many suits had Sherard brought against Mynne in the last four years, and in what courts?
Signed by Thomas Exton.
Sentence / Arbitration
Box of Loose Papers, Sherard v Myn [R.R.68D], Sentence
Arundel judges 'Lord Sherard Baron of Letrym for theise sixteene yeares last past and more to bee a knight of good dignitie, and for theis eight yeares last past or thereaboutes to have beene created Baron of Letrym in the kingdome of Ireland by our soveraigne lord King Charles, and that hee and his auncestors to have been and bee gentlemen and soe comonlie taken, and many of his auncestors to have been knights of good dignitie approved, and to have the proper armes of there howse, and for their helmett or crest a peacocke's tayle in a crowne. And Sir Henry Mynn, at the tyme and place in this cause libellated, publiquelie, before many noble persons and gentlemen, did saye that the prosecucon of the Lord Sherard against his wife argued but a base condicon in a lord, or hee was a base condiconed lord, and that hee would speake the said wordes to the Lord Sherard's face, or the like in effect; and the wordes to bee maliciouslie spoken by Sir Henry Mynne contraie to the peace of the soveraigne lord the kinge, and in contempt, scandall and scorne of the right honourable William Lord Sherard, Baron of Letrym. Wee therefore pronounce sentence and determine Sir Henry Myn to submission and satisfaccon as well to us and theis court as to Lord Sherard in manner and forme as by us, or any other judge on this behalf assigned, shalbee required to bee donne and to enter bond of assurance, with such sureties as shalbeee to the good likeinge of us and this courte for his good beahviour duringe our pleasure and of this court. And in fyne or sume [left blank] for the use of our soveraigne lord the kinge, and in damages and expences of Lord Sherard the which damages wee tax and moderate to the summe of 400 markes and expences to the sum of 100 markes, and in safe custodie to be kept untill hee bee bound with sufficient sureties to the approbacon of us and this court for the fulfillinge of this our last sentence and fynall decree, wee pronounce sentence and declare that or which wee shall sett forth and publish in theis writinges.'
21 February 1639
Subscribed by Arundel and Surrey, and Arthur Duck
And copy subscribed by Gilbert Dethick. Register
6/149, Defendant's bond of submission
Sir Henry Mynne, knt was bound to appear before the Earl Marshal in the Court Military in the painted chamber at Westminster between 8 and 10am. There he was bound to 'submit himself to, and be ready to perform the sentence of the Court given against him' on 21 February 1639 on behalf of William Lord Sherard, Baron of Letrim, Ireland, in the manner in which the Earl Marshall dictated.
31 May 1639
Signed by Henry Mynne.
Sealed and delivered in the presence of Humphrey Terrick.
Order of submission for Mynne 'to be by him performed in manner and forme, time and place as followeth'.
On Monday 29 July 1639, at the assizes for Rutland to be held at Oakham, 'before the justices of assize and of the peace there, and in the same place where the wordes underwritten were spoken, in a beseeming manner shall, with an audible voice, say as followeth'
'Whereas I, Sir Henry Myn, knight, stand convicted by sentence diffinitive given against mee in the court military by the right honorable Thomas earle of Arrundell and Surrey, Earl Marshall of England to have spoken diverse wordes of dishonour aginst the right honorable William Lord Sherard , Baron of Leitrim in the kingdom of Ireland and in particular to have said, sitting att dynner with the judge and justices, that the prosecucon of the said Lord Sherard against my wife for a recusant argued but a base condicon in a Lord or that he was a base condiconed Lord, or words to that effect, and that I would speake the same wordes to the Lord Sherard's face; but his Lordshipp denying to the Lord Chesterfield that he was the occasion thereof, I doe therefore acknowledge these wordes of dishonour to be spoken out of misinformacon and passion, and that I am heartily sorry for the same. And I doe hereafter promise to carry myselfe towards him withall due respects. This submission being performed Sir Henry Myn is to certifie to the courte of the same att or before the first daye of Michaelams term 1639 under the hand of the clerk of the asizes there.'
Dated 11 July 1639.
'Let the submission be made in the manner aforesaid'.
Signed by Maltravers.
'This is a true copie of the original submission subscribed by the right honorable the Lord Maltravers'.
Signed by Humphrey Terrick.
17/5c, Certificate of submission
The wording of the submission is the same as in 13/3r, and on 11 July 1639, Maltravers ordered that the submission be made. A short certificate was written below:
'Sir Henry Mynne at the day and place aforesaid made his acknowledgement in every parte according to the directions of the submission'.
Signed by Francis Williamson, clerk of the Assizes.
Box of Loose Papers, Sherard v Myn [R.R.68D], Petition
.'To the right honorable assembly of the knights, citizens and burgesses now assembled in the high court of parliament. The humble petition of Dame Abigail Sherard, relict and executrix of the right honorable William Lord Sherrerd, Baron of Leytrim in the kingdome of Ireland deceased.
'Sheweth, that whereas there was heretofore an informacon preferred on the behalfe of your peticoner's late husband in the Court of Star Chamber against Sir Henry Mynne, a recusant, to have reparacon for certayne scandalous, orpprobrious and provokeinge speeches uttered against his lordship by Sir Henry, and occasioned uppon a presentment against Sir Henry's lady, and certayne others of his household, for theire recusancy.
And that, whereas the scandalous speeches were soe fully proved that the Court of Star Chamber did proceed to sentence and accordinge to the quality and stature of the offence did impose a fyne of £1000 upon Sir Henry to his Majestie's use; and the said court was alsoe inclynable and had proceeded to have awarded good dammages and reparacon to his lordship against Sir Henry. But that the right honorable the Earl Marshall, intendinge to favor Sir Henry (as by the subsequent proceedings your peticoner is induced to conceive), att the tyme of the sentence claymed to have jurisdiccon of the said scandalous speeches as properly belonginge unto his lordship as Earl Marshall, and pleadable in his lordship's Court of Honour.
And alsoe that, whereas at his lordship's instance, the Court of Starchamber did recommend the further determinacon of the cause for the Lord Sherrard's reparacon unto the judgement of the Earl Marshall, and withall ordered to the end the Lord Sherrard might not be further delayed or charged with examinacon of wittnesses, that the proofs concerning the said scandalous wordes taken in that court should be used in the Court of Honour, yet, nevertheless, when Lord Sherrard did, according to the order, repayre unto the Court of Honour hee was ordered by the Earl Marshall to exhibitt a new libell in the court against Sir Henry, and likewise could not bee permitted to make use of the proofe taken in the former cause, notwithstanding the order of the Star Chamber.
And alsoe further sheweth your peticoner that, after a tedious and expensive suite in the Court of Honour, the Earl Marshall did att length give sentence for the Lord Sherrard, the effect whererof was that Sir Henry should make a submission to his lordship and pay 400 marks dammages and 100 marks costs, which submission was ordered to be in soe cautelous and qualified a sort that thereby Lord Sherrard is little or nothinge repayred in his honor. And although the 500 markes given by the said sentence was a very small satisfaccon in respect of the quality and nature of the scandalous wordes and his lordshipp's expence in obtayninge the sentence, admittinge the same should have been presently paid, and although greater reparacon and damages are usually awarded in that court for wordes of lesse quality, yet the Earl Marshal did not only allowe unto Sir Henry two and twenty years time for payment of the 500 marks, longer tyme then was ever given in the said court to any delinquent for payment of farr greater summes, wherein they have beene condemned for lesse offences, but alsoe, through the delayes and partiall proceedings of the Earl Marshall, the Lord Sherrard in his lifetyme could never gett security for payment for the costs and damages, as by the sentence was ordered and the usuall course of that court doth allowe.
And alsoe, since the Lord Sherrard's death, one of the dayes of payment beinge past on which Sir Henry should by the said decree have made his first payment, if Henry refuseth to pay any part of the costs and damages, and your peticoner cannot have any remedye from the Earle Marshall therein.
Nowe, forasmuch as your peticoner's husband was highly injured by Sir Henry's scandalous and disgracefull speeches, and also damnified in his estate neere to the value of £2000 expended in the prosecucon of the suites in the Starre Chamber and Court of Honour, notwithstanding all which injury, damage and expence, he hath received noe reall reparacon or satisfaccon from Sir Henry Mynne, but in such manner as is before declared, which is altogether delusory and fruitlesse by reason of the Earl Marshall's partiality and injustice in the said cause.
Your peticoner humbly presents the premisses unto the consideracon of this honorable assembly, beseechinge such reliefe therein as to your grave wisdomes shall seeme expedient.'
No date [Presumably this was presented in December 1640 - January 1641 when petitions were being invited about the court's proceedings].
Summary of proceedings
Dr Duck, Dr Eden, Dr Talbot and Dr Merrick were counsel for Sherard with Dr Ryves and Dr Lewin for Mynne. On 29 June 1638 Drs Duck, Eden and Merrick accepted Mynne's answer and re-entered witness statements and other documents from the Star Chamber case. On 20 October 1638 Dr Ryves was required to relate the material for Mynne's defence. On 6 November the verdict of Sir Henry Marten was to be heard concerning the allegations on behalf of Sir Henry Mynne. There was mention of the eighth article along with John Payte, esq, and Andrew Burton, esq. There was also mention of an agreement and reconciliation, and Mynne's acceptance before Sir Henry Marten of articles 1-6. A reminder note was appended: 'reconciliation takes away the interest of the party, not of the king'. On 13 November the court heard of the allegations in the seventh article. A reconciliation and agreement were mentioned, while the verdict of Sir Henry Marten concerning the day and place of reconciliation was to be heard. On 20 November the court was to hear the verdict of Sir Henry Marten concerning special material on the behalf of Mynne's defence. Dr Ryves and Dr Lewin were to produce the witnesses, Thomas Mynne, Richard Mynne and Edward Pinkney, but Drs Duck, Eden, Talbot and Merrick dissented and objected to the testimony of Nicholas Mynne, the natural son of Sir Henry Mynne. On 28 November, Lord Sherard produced his witnesses, Sir Henry Skipwith, bart, and John Walker and Thomas Mallory, gents, to testify upon his allegations. Two days later he produced the witness Joseph Bryan, esq, to do likewise. On 5 December Dr Eden produced for Sherard the witness Gregory West who was to submit to examination in the next sitting. On 15 December Thomas Gardiner, esq., Recorder of the City of London was warned to submit to examination at the next sitting. On 24 January 1638/9 Lord Sherard produced the witness James Harrington, who was to submit to examination at the next sitting. On 9 February 1639 Dr Duck and Dr Talbot sought to present an additional witness on behalf of Sherard, Robert Catlin, vicar of Whissendine, who had also been a witness in the Star Chamber suit between the parties. They offered a written copy of Catlin's testimony in Star Chamber taken in August 1637 and witnessed by John Walker and the present vicar of Whissendine, as Catlin had since died. They also cited a paper which appeared to be the text of a reconciliation, beginning 'an agreement made', and ending 'parted very friendly', with testimony by the earl of Chesterfield, another witness in the Star Chamber suit between them, that this was a true copy. Edward Heron and Phineas Marshfield, clerk, commissioners in the Star Chamber suit, also testified to its authenticity. In addition Dr Duck and Dr Talbot exhibited a copy of the bill presented in Star Chamber by Sir Henry Mynne, dated 12 May 1636, beginning 'To the king's most excellent majestie'; and also the response of Sherard beginning 'the severall answers' and ending 'what cause sustained'. On 21 February 1639 sentence was delivered in favour of Lord Sherard, who in response to Duck's petition was awarded 400 marks damages and 100 marks costs. The terms on which Mynne was to pay the money were stipulated.
Box of Loose Papers, Sherard v Myn [R.R.68D], contains a large number of case papers and other loose documents relating to both the Star Chamber and Court of Chivalry cases.
The arms of the Sherards are given in the visitation of 1618/19 and a pedigree in the visitation of 1681-2. William Sherard (1588-1640) of Stapleford, co. Leicester, and Whitsundine, co. Rutland, was the third son of Francis Sherard and Anne, daughter of Gregory Moore of Bourne, co. Lincoln. He was created Baron of Leitrim, Ireland in 1627. He married Abigail, daughter of Cecil Cave of Stanford, co. Northampton.
Sir Henry Mynne of Whitsundyne, co. Rutland, knt, was the son of Nicholas Mynne of Walsingham, co. Norfolk, and Elizabeth, daughter of William Drury of Hawsted, co. Suffolk. Sir Henry married Mary, daughter of John Coote of Lopham, co. Norfolk, widow of John Barkley of Whitsundyne.
G. J. Armytage (ed.), The Visitation of the County of Rutland in the year 1618-19 (Publications of the Harleian Society, 3, 1870), pp. 4, 45; W. H. Rylands and W. Bruce Bannerman (eds.), The Visitation of the County of Rutland, 1681-2 (Publications of the Harleian Society, 73, 1922), pp. 4-5; G. E. Cokayne, Complete Peerage (London, 1949), vol. 11, pp. 673-4.
CSP Dom. 1637-8 , p. 213: 'the Attorney General on the relation of Lord Sherrard v Sir Henry Mynne fro scandalous speeches of Lord Sherrard and his Lady, and provocation to duels', set for hearing on 31 January 1638.
CSP Dom. 1637-8 , p. 241: 'Notes by Sec. Windebank of the case of the Attorney-General for Lord Sherard versus Sir Henry Mynne, heard at the Star Chamber this day. The charge was that Sir William Sherard having been created Baron Leitrim in Ireland, and being allied to the House of Lancaster on the mother's side, Sir Henry, at Oakham assizes, termed him a base lord, a base informing lord, a base fellow, a base informing fellow, and said that he would pluck the feathers off the proud Peacock's tail. These words arose out of Lord Sherard's having procured Sir Henry Mynne's wife to be presented for a recusant. The words were addressed to Baron Trevor, the judge at the assizes, being at dinner, and in the presence of Lord Campden, Sir Francis Bodenham, Sir Thomas Roe, Sir Henry Mackworth and others, Mynne being in a passion. Lord Cottington proposed a fine of 1000l. which was concurred in by Mr Justice Jones, Lord Chief Justice Bramston, Sec. Coke, the Earl Marshal and the Earl of Lindsey. Sec. Windebank proposed to increase the fine to 1500l. and that the defendant should be put out of the commission. The earl of Dorset and Archbishop would have added damages of 1000l. to the relator. Ultimately the sentence passed as proposed by Sec. Windebank.'
Cambridge University Library, Ms Dd.3.64
fos.30-1[Cal. doc. 17], 'Legal opinion on the question of 'Whether the corte helde before the earle Martiall and comonly called the Corte of Honor may hold plea of words tendinge to the dishonor of a gent as calinge him base fellowe, denying him to bee a gentleman, giving him the lye, or suche like words of provocacon to a duell.
And whether upon examinacon and sentencing such a cause the corte may fyne , give damages and imprison.'
'3. The wisdome of lawes hath byn to prevent inconveniences in the beginning least ytt come a verbis ad verbera. A party that threatens another person may bee bounde to the peace and the words of the writt de securitate pacis are that hee did in ... ... and that's butt to prevent further breache of the peace soe in this case.'
'For authorities I conceave that case of 37 H6 which is abridged by Brooke it jurisdicium 103 battayle 16 and Fitz Corne 23 If a man call another traytor an appeale lyes to the corte of constable and marshall and ytt shalbe there determined by battayle if ytt be soe awarded. And though ytt bee butt of late tyme yett because 'tis the judges of a high and honorable corte of starchamber I shalbee bolde to cyte you the case betweene the Lo Sherrard and Sir Henry Mynne, that the bill being in there for wordes spoken by Sir Henry Mynne of the Lo Sherrard tendinge to his disgrace, the cort of starchamber directed ytt to bee hearde and censured in the earle marshall's corte. And soe I conclude the corte hath jurisdicium for words tendinge to the disgrace and dishonor of a gent.' ['Sir Henry Mynne's case' in margin]
National Archives, c.115, 8854, newsletter of Edward Rossingham to an unnamed recipient, 5 March 1639
[Thefirst part of the letter may be missing] 'Lord Martiall hath sate 2 or 3 tymes since the terme in the Court of Honour, but I could not take notice of it in my last letter, I had soe much Scotch newes to write of. Sir Henry Myn was fined in that court 44 [sic] markes dammages and 50 li. costs of suite to my Lord Sherwood for calling his lop a bare lord, informeing lord and base condiconed lord. The first two were not soe fully proved as the last, the base condiconed lord, which last Myn confest in his examinations in a late Starr Chamber suite betweene them where Myn was alsoe fined; and therefore there was noe fine given to the kinge in the Court of Honour. Lord Sherwood's counsell product a bill of charges of 180 li. which Lord Martiall cutt off to 50 li.'
- Initial proceedings
- Libel: Box of Loose Papers, Sherard v Myn [R.R.68D] (no date)
- Personal answer: 10/12/2 (26 Jun 1638)
- Defendant's case
- Defence: 11/32/1 (20 Oct 1638)
- Summary of defence: R.19, fo. 20 (Mic 1638)
- Plaintiff's answer to the defence: Box of Loose Papers, Sherard v Myn [R.R.68D] and Cur Mil I, 64 (20 Nov 1638)
- Brief for the Plaintiff: Box of Loose Papers, Sherard v Myn [R.R.68D] (no date)
- Schedule 1: Cur Mil I, 60 (no date)
- Schedule 2: Cur Mil I, 61 (no date)
- Plaintiff interrogatories: 14/2l (23 Nov 1638)
- Plaintiff interrogatories 1: Box of Loose Papers, Sherard v Myn [R.R.68D] (23 Nov 1638)
- Plaintiff interrogatories 2: Box of Loose Papers, Sherard v Myn [R.R.68D] (no date)
- Plaintiff interrogatories 3: Box of Loose Papers, Sherard v Myn [R.R.68D] (no date)
- Plaintiff's case
- Defence interrogatories: 14/2hh (14 Dec 1638)
- Defence interrogatories: 14/2ii (no date)
- Sentence / Arbitration
- Sentence: Box of Loose Papers, Sherard v Myn [R.R.68D] (21 Feb 1639)
- Bond on submission: 6/149 (31 May 1639)
- Submission: 13/3r (12 Jul 1639)
- Certificate of submission: 17/5c (29 Jul 1639)
- Petition: Box of Loose Papers, Sherard v Myn [R.R.68D] (Dec 1640-Jan 1641)
- Proceedings: Box of Loose Papers, Sherard v Myn [R.R.68D] (29 June 1638)
- Proceedings before Arundel: R.19, fos. 434r-449v (20 Oct 1638)
- Proceedings before Maltravers: R.19, fos. 454r-468v (6 Nov 1638)
- Proceedings before Marten: R.19, fo. 470v (13 Nov 1638)
- Proceedings before Maltravers: R.19, fos. 400v-412v (20 Nov 1638)
- Proceedings before Maltravers: R.19, fos. 422r-428r (28 Nov 1638)
- Proceedings before Marten: R.19, fo. 429v (30 Nov 1638)
- Proceedings before Maltravers:R.19, fos. 474r-484v (5 Dec 1638)
- Proceedings before Marten: R.19, fo. 490v (15 Dec 1638)
- Proceedings before Marten: R.19, fo. 492r (24 Jan 1639)
- Proceedings: 1/7, fos. 36-47 (9 Feb 1639)
- Proceedings: 1/6, fos. 20-33 (20 Feb 1639)
- Proceedings before Arundel: 1/6, fos. 20-33 (21 Feb 1639)
- Proceedings before Arundel: 1/6, fos. 1-9 (23 Feb 1639)
- Proceedings: College of Arms MS. 'Court of Chivalry' (act book 1636-8) [Shelfmark R.R.68C], fos. 124r-v (c.1636-8)
People mentioned in the case
- Barkley, Henry, knight
- Barkley, John
- Barkley, lady
- Barkley, Mary
- Bertie, Robert, earl of Lindsey
- Bodenham, Francis, knight
- Bramston, John, knight and judge
- Bryan, Joshua, esq
- Burton, Andrew, esq
- Catlin, Robert, vicar
- Coke, John, knight
- Coote, John
- Coote, Mary
- Cottington, Francis, baron Cottington
- Drury, Elizabeth
- Drury, William
- Duck, Arthur, lawyer
- Eden, Thomas, lawyer
- Gardiner, Thomas, esq
- Harrington, James
- Heron, Edward
- Howard, Henry, baron Maltravers
- Howard, Thomas, earl of Arundel and Surrey
- Josuah, Mr
- Lewin, William, lawyer
- Mackworth, Henry, knight
- Mallarper, Thomas
- Mallory, Thomas, gent
- Marshfield, Phineas, clerk
- Marten, Henry, knight
- Merrick, William, lawyer
- Moore, Anne
- Moore, Gregory
- Mynne, Elizabeth (also Myn, Minn)
- Mynne, Henry, knight (also Myn, Minn)
- Mynne, Katherine (also Myn, Minn)
- Mynne, Mary (also Myn, Minn)
- Mynne, Nicholas (also Myn, Minn)
- Mynne, Richard (also Myn, Minn)
- Mynne, Thomas (also Myn, Minn)
- Noel, Edward, viscount Campden
- Payte, John, esq
- Pinkney, Edward
- Roe, Thomas, knight
- Rossington, Edward
- Ryves, Thomas, lawyer (also Rives)
- Sackville, Edward, earl of Dorset
- Sherard, Anne
- Sherard, Francis
- Sherard, lady
- Sherard, William, baron of Leitrim
- Skipwith, Henry, baronet
- Stanhope, Philip, earl of Chesterfield
- Stuart, Charles I, king
- Talbot, Clere, lawyer
- Terrick, Humphrey
- Trevor, Thomas, knight and judge
- West, Gregory
- Williamson, Francis, clerk of the assizes
- Windebanke, Francis, knight
Places mentioned in the case
Topics of the case
- coat of arms
- Court of Requests
- denial of gentility
- King's Bench
- justice of the peace
- other courts
- Roman Catholic
- scatological insult
- Star Chamber