HOLBECK, William

The Holbecks were a merchant family established in the city of York by the end of the fourteenth century. John Holbeck (d.1405), a mercer who served as chamberlain in 1392, had two sons, Thomas and John, although which, if either, of these was the later MP’s father, is not known.4 In 1436 the York Mercers’ Company was in possession of an obligation for £40 made by William and Thomas Holbeck to Robert Yarum and others, but the nature of their relationship is not specified: York Mercers (Surtees Soc. cxxix), 45. William was admitted to the freedom of York by purchase in 1425 when he too was described as a mercer.5 Freemen of York (Surtees Soc. xcvi), 135. He is first known to have exercised this status in June 1428 when he acted as a surety alongside William Stocton II* for another mercer, William Bedale*, who was bound over to keep the peace in a local dispute, while a month later he served on a jury taking an inquisition post mortem.6 CIPM, xxiii. 242; York Memoranda Bk. ii (Surtees Soc. cxxv), 118. By this time Holbeck was already established in overseas trade (although lacunae in the customs records prevent a reconstruction of the full extent and nature of his dealings), and in 1429 he complained to the Hanseatic authorities that his merchandise worth 104 Prussian marks had been wrongfully seized in Danzig, while in 1430-1 he was recorded shipping goods worth £8 6s. 8d. from the port of Kingston-upon-Hull.7 Hansisches Urkundenbuch, ix. 456; E122/61/32. In the 1470s he was recorded among those York merchants paying alnage on cloth: Early Yorks. Woollen Trade (Yorks. Arch. Rec. Ser. lxiv), 105. He had married well, by contracting a match with the only child of the wealthy York stapler, John Aldstaynmore. It is uncertain exactly when the marriage took place, but it may have provided the occasion for his entry to the freedom, and he and his wife were now also admitted to the city’s prestigious guild of Corpus Christi.8 Reg. Guild Corpus Christi, 29.

Despite the connexions with many of York’s leading families that his marriage provided, Holbeck did not join the city’s governing elite until February 1437 when he was elected one of the chamberlains. It is possible that even then he had acquired a reputation for sharp practice. In 1435 his father-in-law had appointed him as one of the executors of his will, although he may have foreseen problems with the settlement of his affairs, since he appointed another merchant, Thomas Warde, to give counsel to the executors and called upon the senior alderman, Nicholas Blackburn*, to oversee them.9 York registry wills, prob. reg. 3, ff. 406-8; J. Kermode, Med. Merchants, 114, 301. Litigation over the execution of the will soon commenced, as Holbeck and a fellow executor, William Stocton, manoeuvered themselves into a position where they were able to control Aldstaynmore’s considerable estate to their own ends. This was made possible by the death of the chief executor, the deceased’s brother, Thomas, and their effective exclusion of a fourth executor, Henry Aldstaynmore, the testator’s kinsman.10 York registry wills, prob. reg. 3, f. 414. Holbeck and Henry Aldstaynmore first clashed over the disposal of the testator’s wool.11 York City Archs., Liber Misc. E39, p. 268. Then, during the course of the next decade, the latter and John Aldstaynmore’s niece, Agnes, attempted to recover what they felt to be their inheritance from the clutches of Holbeck and Stocton. In May 1438 Henry had petitioned the chancellor complaining that the two (along with John Bolton* and William Bedale who had been appointed by the mayor of York to arbitrate in the dispute) had brought vexatious suits before the mayor and aldermen, and that he had been persuaded to enter into a bond for £1,000 to abide by the arbiters’ award and a further £600 to account for 30 sarplers of wool belonging to Aldstaynmore at Calais. Henry further alleged that Bolton and Bedale had conspired with Holbeck and Stocton to gain control of a major part of Aldstaynmore’s considerable fortune and estate (valued at over £1,600), and because of their ‘grett powere and reulle’ and his own ‘insufficience’ he had been committed to the city gaol.12 C1/9/168; 10/296. In 1446-7 Aldstaynmore’s niece and her husband, William Brund, also sued Stocton, then mayor, in the court of Chancery, alleging collusion between him and Holbeck. Holbeck, they claimed, had forcibly entered the property bequeathed to Agnes in her uncle’s will. In a resulting assize of novel disseisin, presided over by the mayor, Holbeck had presented forged title deeds thus disinheriting Agnes. They called for Stocton, who ‘was present with þe forsaid John day & nyght lang afore his diyng and atte his diyng & atte all tymes was moste priue in knawelege in the premysses & all other thynges pertenyng to the said John’, to be summoned into Chancery to declare the truth of the matter. It appears that Agnes and her husband regained possession of the property, but a new assize of novel disseisin was started by Henry Gascoigne, a local lawyer, and others, acting as Holbeck’s feoffees. Faced once more with the presentation of Holbeck’s forged deeds, Agnes and her husband again petitioned the chancellor for redress.13 C1/14/25; 15/87.

Clearly Holbeck, whatever his personal shortcomings, was well connected within the city and his career in government continued to flourish in the 1440s. At Michaelmas 1439 he had been appointed one of the sheriffs and he almost certainly became a member of the council of 24 at the end of his shrieval year. A limited number of his activities during the 1440s are documented in any detail, but by January 1447, when he attested his first parliamentary election, he had joined the ranks of the aldermen,14 C219/15/4. and in July the following year he was among those named to a commission to investigate allegations of treasonable words made against John Marton. In February 1449 he was elected mayor of York, and it was in this capacity that he headed the list of electors for the Parliament of November that year. A year later he was himself elected to Parliament, alongside another prominent merchant and alderman, John Thirsk*.15 C219/15/5, 6. Nothing is known of their activities at Westminster, nor the length of their stay at the Parliament which extended over three sessions until the early summer of 1451. On his return to York Holbeck resumed his aldermanic duties, regularly attending meetings of the council, and occasionally being named to commissions to deliver York gaol. He once again attested the city’s parliamentary elections in February 1453, but did not himself – as far as is known – ever again sit in the Commons. Even so, and very unusually for a citizen of York, he was elected to a second mayoralty in early 1458.16 C219/16/2. In November of that year he received a license, along with William Booth, archbishop of York, and George Neville, the bishop-elect of Exeter, to reform the guild of Corpus Christi, to provide prayers for members of the royal family.17 CPR, 1452-61, p. 465.

Throughout this period Holbeck’s trading activities had occasionally provoked litigation. In Hilary term 1445 he brought a plea against another York merchant, Thomas Hewyk, for a debt of 40s. arising from the sale of 16 ells of linen from Brabant; while in the same term he was himself sued by John Stafford I* over an obligation for ten marks, and condemned to pay the debt and damages of 40s.18 CP40/736, rots. 293, 324. No details of a dispute with the London alderman Simon Eyre from which Holbeck extracted himself by means of a royal pardon of outlawry in January 1454 have come to light.19 CPR, 1452-61, p. 132. It seems that Holbeck continued to resort to sharp practice to get his own way. In 1459 he had been named as executor of Matilda, the widow of the alderman, Thomas Danby*, along with her daughter Margaret, the wife of Henry Salveyn, but the Salveyns subsequently complained to the chancellor that Holbeck had concluded ‘of grete conyne and malice … a generall acquittaunce’ to William Thorp, one of Matilda’s debtors, preventing them from pursuing Thorp at common law ‘in utter lettyng of execucion of the said laste wille’.20 C1/28/390.

Having overseen the construction of a new guildhall in the course of 1468-9,21 York City Chamberlains’ Acct. Rolls, 132. in February 1470 Holbeck was elected to a third term as mayor. The early months of his mayoralty were apparently uneventful, but in the autumn Edward IV was driven into exile and Henry VI restored to the throne. Perhaps as a direct result of this renewed dynastic upheaval local affairs in York were now also thrown into turmoil. In particular, the procedure for the mayoral election was, not for the first time, called into question. The elections had previously been a source of dispute in 1462 and 1464, and had on both occasions led to the King’s intervention in the city’s affairs. The cause of the controversy in early 1471 is unclear, but it resulted in Holbeck’s resignation before the end of his term. In January York’s MPs at the Readeption Parliament petitioned for an act allowing the sheriffs, in the absence of a serving mayor, to preside over a new election and fine any citizen claiming the office in the meantime. On 22 Feb. Henry VI issued letters patent confirming a new ordinance by which the mayor was to be elected on 12 Mar. annually by the assembled councillors, choosing between two aldermen nominated by the searchers of the city’s various craft guilds. Curiously, no new election seems to have been held, and on 22 Mar. Holbeck was reappointed mayor by the King. It is uncertain what force Henry VI’s letters had in the event, for Edward IV returned to England a few days later and passed through the city on his way south, although at least temporarily keeping up the pretense that he only sought to recover his duchy of York.22 CPR, 1467-77, pp. 238-9; RP, v. 455-6 (cf. PROME, xiii. 394; VCH York, 61. Not surprisingly, there was further controversy a year later when, in another disputed election, Holbeck was again elected mayor over his rival, Thomas Beverley*, for an unprecedented fifth term.23 York City Chamberlains’ Acct. Rolls, 211. At the end of his third consecutive year in office another ordinance was passed (and confirmed by the Crown) enabling the commonalty of York to elect whomsoever they pleased as mayor without any interference from the aldermen, providing he had not served within the previous three years.24 CPR, 1467-77, p. 416; A.P.M. Wright, ‘Relations between the King’s Govt. and Bors.’ (Oxf. Univ. D.Phil. thesis, 1965), 70-72. While Holbeck’s extended term of office must been viewed against the backdrop of the wider political turmoil, it is clear that there was some disquiet among the citizens of York about one individual dominating the mayoralty. Both the ordinances of 1471 and 1473 stated that the office was not to be held by one individual in concurrent years, while that of 1471 also added the stipulation that no one was to hold the mayoralty more than twice in his lifetime.

Holbeck’s reputation for double-dealing and high-handed official conduct in pursuit of his private quarrels did little to increase his popularity. A petition presented to the chancellor and dating from the early 1470s complained that while mayor Holbeck had ‘of evyll wyll and olde malice’ imprisoned two merchants, Thomas Helmesley (a member of the council of 24) and his ‘son’, Henry Williamson. They claimed that, notwithstanding the fact that all the aldermen and ‘the moste parte of the men of worshipp’ of the city had offered to stand surety for their release, Holbeck had kept the keys to the city gaol and refused either to release them or to declare the nature of the charges against them.25 C1/46/398. Nor did Holbeck’s standing improve with the end of his mayoralty in February 1473. He continued to attend meetings of the council, his name appearing first on the list of aldermen present, but relations with his fellow councillors deteriorated further. In 1475 eight arbiters were appointed to settle a dispute over the goods of a felon, Thomas Bampton, and a pipe of wine forfeited by Robert Amyas, to which Holbeck was a party. He had been forced to pay money to another alderman, Thomas Nelson*, for the felon’s goods and had restored 66s. 8d. to Amyas for the forfeited wine, and the arbiters, with the eventual agreement of the aldermen and common councillors, ordered that Holbeck be compensated for these payments.26 York City Chamberlains’ Acct. Rolls, 157. In the summer of 1476 fresh disorder broke out in the city with much of the anger apparently directed towards Holbeck. Such was his fear of assault that in August he took sanctuary in the Dominican friars’ franchise of Friars’ Toft, to which he subsequently moved his entire household. Order was only restored by the arrival of Richard, duke of Gloucester, at the head of a contingent of soldiers. On this occasion, however, Holbeck’s fellow aldermen closed ranks against him. On 14 Sept. the council met in the presence of the mayor, the recorder, Guy Fairfax, Richard Pygot, the King’s serjeant-at-law, and all 11 of Holbeck’s fellows. Recalling that he had been summoned to attend their meetings, but had continually absented himself, they resolved to order him to attend the council meeting on 21 Sept. to assist in the election of new sheriffs. If he refused, he was to be discharged of his office. When the council’s messengers gave Holbeck their ultimatum he replied, ‘saying he wold not com thare to [sic] he had seen the kynges hyghnesse for he wistnot if he might saiff com and goo’. Receiving this reply, the mayor and councillors agreed unanimously to discharge him of the office of alderman.27 York House Bks. ed Attreed, i. 4, 36, 44, 46, 60-61; VCH York, 61, 82; Kermode, 45.

Holbeck doubtless resented his treatment by his fellow councillors and when he made his will on 9 May the following year he still styled himself a ‘citizen and alderman of York’. He asked to be buried in the Dominican friary, and made provision for his funeral according to local custom, providing for torches and for seven poor men to attend his corpse, as well as making gifts to each of the friars and novices. He gave a missal and a primer bound in black leather with two silver book clasps to his son, William, as well as robes to him and several other named individuals. Holbeck’s will reveals his extensive property holdings throughout the city. He held land in Mickelgate, North Street and Skeldergate, as well as tenements in Blossom Street, Bishophill, Cargate, Coney Street, ‘Le Bochery’, North Street, and outside Mickelgate and Walmgate Bars. Also in Mickelgate he owned an inn, The Crouned Lyon. Other property, including two tenements outside Mickelgate Bar, he had received from his late father-in-law, John Aldstaynmore, for the performance of his will, and the rents from these he instructed his son to use for obits for Aldstaynmore for a further five years. His widow, Margaret, was to be provided for by a tenement in Mickelgate and a garden in Bishophill, while the remainder of his property was settled on his son once he attainted his majority. Holbeck entrusted the execution of his will to these two, his kinsmen Thomas Henrison of London and Henry Storke, and Alexander Dawtre of York, all gentlemen, and a clerk named Thomas Yoton. Henrison and Storke were also entrusted with the custody of his son, should the latter’s mother die while he was still a minor. The grant of probate made on 29 Oct. 1477 revealed the difficulties that the settlement of Holbeck’s affairs might entail. His widow and Alexander Dawtre accepted their charge, but his son was discovered not yet to be of age, while the other three men named in the will refused to execute it.28 York registry wills, prob. reg. 5, f. 23.

Holbeck’s son prospered. He established himself as a merchant of the company of the Calais staple, and died in 1512 a wealthy ‘esquire’ with extensive property in and around the city of York.29 Ibid. prob. reg. 8, f. 96.